Media Flop

More on the media's failure to adequately question the president during the propoganda blitz to approve the war in Iraq.

Katie Couric and a former MSNBC reporter both report pressure from within their network's corporations to match the country's then-fervor of patriotism following 9/11.

The Huffington Post (David Fiderer) is reporting that NBC and MSNBC News anchors Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams failed to report in their news shows about the March 7, 2003 findings by Muhamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency that there was no evidence to support the administration's claim that Iraq had even tried to create atomic weapons. This was eleven days before the invasion. The administration's own team later validated the ElBaradei findings.

To this day, NBC and MSNBC have failed to report on the story accurately, according to Fiderer. David Williams and David Gregory, of NBC, both state that their news channel had insufficient access to the inspectors or that the right questions were asked or that their job is not to debate the president, just to ask questions. Fiderer feels that NBC and its anchor and reporter are dissembling, since they knew and know that the weapons of mass destruction argument had serious flaws after the ElBaradei report to the UN (Andrea Mitchell, of NBC News was there as the report was given to the UN by ElBaradei on March 7, 2003).

Likewise, Dan Bartlett, formerly part of the Bush Administration, has said that the administration relied on faulty intelligence. But Fiderer believes that the media and the administration are "liars or or manipulators or propagandists" to use Bartlett's words. Fiderer calls Bartlett an out-and-out liar since the administration knew its WMD claim was bogus after the ElBaradei report.

I guess that I have to cross NBC news off my list as an accurate news source now, along with ABC. That leaves CBS, whose beleaguered anchor, Katie Couric, remains alone in her condemnation of media coverage, including her own.

I'd rather have someone be honest about their past failings than suffer the indignity of someone who tries to obfuscate their own complicity in the administration's unfettered propoganda campaign.

She Says Tomato, He Says, "What?"

What do you know? There are biological reasons why men act the way they do and why women do the things they do. It's kind of God's little joke on all of the straight people out there.

CNN has an interesting article on research about the biological actions behind what each sex does that drives the opposite sex crazy.

It's interesting, but I think they need to study same-sex couples and see how their theories play out.

For example, if testosterone cancels out the oxytocin that is released during sex that makes women want to cuddle, why do many gay men like to cuddle after sex? Our testosterone levels are the same as straight men. Granted, most like to cuddle as they fall asleep after sex, but cuddling is there, all the same.

My theory has more to do with body temperature. Personally, spooning is fun, but it is too hot to have someone that close to you for very long. I begin to feel like I"m burning up with all the body heat being reflected back.

I've also known a few lesbians who like action flicks more than romantic films, too. There is something more afoot than this article explains.

Now if they can explain male pattern blindness (not seeing the ketchup right in front of them in the refrigerator), then they may have something.

Vex, Lies and Videotape

President Bush and his administration played loose with the truth, according to Scott McClellan, in his new book. This comes as no surprise to most of us, but I know people who still have willingly blinded themselves to the truth.

McClellan goes on to say that he uniknowingly passed on lies about the Valerie Plame scandel. He didn't discover that they were lies until two years later when the press dug up the truth.

On the Today Show this morning, there was a discussion from the three anchors of the three major networks about whether McClellan's assertion that the press failed to ask the tough questions was true. Katie Couric acknowledged that there was a lot of pressure put on the press by McClellan and the administration to report things their way. She said that the Today Show didn't give in, but speculated that the pressure had to have affected coverage.

Brian Williams agreed that coverage could have been better. Charlie Gibson was alone in thinking that the right questions were asked and he wouldn't change anything (which immediately made me check off ABC as an unreliable news source).

Interestingly, I watch NBC and CBS, but never watch ABC. I still respect Dan Rather for trying to stand up to the administration's propaganda machine, albeit with the wrong information. At least he tried, while ABC politely shirked its duty and still fails to acknowledge its failure.

Sadly, none of this will convince those who willingly blind themselves to the truth. I have relatives in Texas who will die supporting Bush, against all the evidence that will continue to come out after he leaves office.

I am happy that McClellan has a conscious and came clean, though. Perhaps the evil empire isn't all evil after all.

Sharon's Stone

Sharon Stone is making news in Asia over her reported comment that the earthquake in China was karma coming home to roost for the Chinese who were mistreating the Tibetans. At first I feared that she had crossed over to the Pat Robertson School of Mystical Retribution.

Actually, she said something slightly different. She said that she's upset with China's treatment of Tibetans. She wondered what to do about the Olympics and the way the Chinese treat the Dalai Lama. Then the earthquake occurred and she thought to herself, "Is that karma [for the way they treat the Tibetans]?"

But she went on to say that a Tibetan organization contacted her to help with publicity to help them go to China to help with relief efforts. That humbled her and she realized that she was wrong. She said she needed to be more like them to be able to be a servant to those who do you wrong.

Her comment was about her personal moral lesson, not about her original comment about karma and earthquakes.

But as usual, that was not as interesting to the reporters as her internal question about whether the earthquake was karma or not and what she had learned from her uncharitable thought.

Here is the piece. I found the Asian portion very uninformative with the Chinese subtitles and presumably Japanese language, but the reporter goes on to speak English with other reporters from other parts of the world.

Cupcake Camp

I'm intrigued. Wired Magazine's website has a note about a cupcake camp in San Francisco.

Anyone who knows me knows of my tragic weakness; baked goods are to me as crack cocaine is to a crack ho. It is an addiction that I only barely keep under control.

Cupcake camp is based on the barcamp paradigm, which is a deceiving name. The name is derived from foobar, not from the dispensaries of alcoholic beverages. Foobar is a placeholder name or variable used in software coding. Barcamps are basically open source software coding meetings that are set up via the internet.

It turns out that in this case, the cupcake camp is legit. People are getting together to eat cupcakes, organized entirely on the internet, thus combining two of my addictions in one neatly frosted package.

The meeting is held on Sunday June 1 in San Francisco. Detes are here.

Leap of Faith

A photographer risked it all to get a picture of the perfect Grand Canyon sunset. He leaped eight feet across the chasm to get to a rocky pinnacle to take the picture and then leaped back, resulting in a heart stopping moment when he only had one hand gripping on the rockface.

Story and pics here.

Larry Craig Bobblefeet

The St. Paul Saints, a Twin Cities minor baseball league team, is offering a Minneapolis Airport Bathroom Stall Bobblefeet figure for fundraising.

No word from Senator Larry Craig on if the figure's feet accurately reflect a wide enough stance or not.

MUNI Nazi

I tell my friends and family visiting the city to never ask a bus driver or other MUNI operator for directions, help or any assistance. They are downright grouchy, grumpy and rude.

Instead, I tell them, ask anyone else from San Francisco. Unlike any other city where I've traveled, San Franciscans transit riders are polite to a fault. They will give you directions, help you find the right bus and even give restaurant suggestions.

But we all know that the MUNI Nazis are downright mean. Now we have proof.

It took Channel 7 (ABC) two years and a lawsuit to get MUNI to release its complaint records. We now know the name of the grouchiest, rudest, and PMSiest operator of all.

Cynthia Thompson has had 139 complaints in three years. That doesn't count the ones that MUNI didn't think deserved any action. She has more complaints against her than any other operator.

Some Quotes:

May 18, 2004: “The operator was on her cell phone from the time she boarded … until she got off.”

January 26, 2005: “She reminds me of the ‘Soup Nazi’ on Seinfeld.”

September 13, 2004: “Extremely rude and unnecessarily rude toward passengers.”

January 2, 2006: “Operator was clipping her nails while driving the bus.”

March 23, 2005: “Close doors on patron’s wrist. Patron had to pull his wrist out to avoid being dragged by the bus.”

October 3, 2005: “The rudest, most disrespectful operator this patron has ever seen.”

Channel 7 had to go ride her bus to get to talk to her. Within minutes, she trapped a little girl's foot in the door. (Click link to see undercover video.)

Soon afterward she committed the unpardonable sin in San Francisco - she used her horn on a car parked in the bus lane. A passenger objected to her use of the horn and she cusses him out and calls the transit police on him. (Click link to see undercover video.)

Both of these were on the same bus ride on the same day! Unfortunately, she is not alone.

I've had my ability to read called into question by train operators. It was my first ride on the train outside the subway. The doors don't open automatically in the Avenues like they do in the subway, even if you step down like you do on buses. The signs telling you to push the almost indistinguishable bar are helpfully placed at shin height.

My 70 year-old mother was treated rudely for asking if she was going the right direction when traveling home by bus while I was in the hospital. But the riders gallantly came to her rescue and verified that she was going the right direction and made sure she knew where to get off the bus.

But for every rude driver, there seems to be one or two that really shine. My nephew and I were on a bus earlier this month. The driver was one of the most friendly and helpful drivers I've ever encountered anywhere.

I wish I'd gotten his name or number so I could have written and praised him to his supervisors. If Ms. Thompson is the MUNI Nazi, he is surely the MUNI Saint.

Sunset (Pennsylvania) Avenue

This is pretty funny if you are straight, but if you are a gay man with knowledge of classic films, this is hysterical. Sunset Boulevard is one of my favorite films.

First: The final scene from the original Sunset Boulevard. Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) descends into madness after murdering her lover.




Second: The remake for Hillary Clinton. Anderson Cooper is her Cecil B. DeMille.

30 Day Gay Wedding Planner

23/6, a satirical news site has provided it's 30 Day Gay Wedding Planner to assist all those rushing to the alter on June 14 in California.

Abuse of California Indians in the Missions

Most non-Indian Americans are ignorant of the full scope of maltreatment received by American Indians by the Spanish, British (then Americans after them), or French.

Indian Country Today has a great article by Stephen Newcomb on how Indians were mistreated in the Spanish Missions in California. The goal of the missions were clear from the beginning, based on papal bulls that considered non-Catholics to be barely human.

The purpose of the missions were the ''spiritual and temporal conquest'' of California, as well as the "spiritual conquest and conversion of the infidels.'' The infidels were the Indians. Exacerbating the problem was that even after conversion to Catholicism, the Indians were treated just as badly as before.

Conquest is one aspect of the paradigm of domination that underlies the colonizing mission of the Vatican and the Catholic Church in the Americas, in keeping with papal decrees that called for the ''subjugation'' of ''barbarous nations.'' As part of this charge, one task of the church was to break the free spirit of and ''reduce'' those who were ''not of the faith.'' Spiritual conquest involved the use of spirit-breaking techniques that served as part of the arsenal that was employed against the originally free and independent Indian nations and peoples of California. They were more slaves than anything else. They were given so few rations and worked so hard that the life expectancy from resulting disease and starvation was only six years after entering a mission.

Nine out of ten births were stillborn. When a woman gave birth to a stillborn baby, she was punished.

Hugo Reid told of what happened to an Indian woman who had a stillborn child: ''When a woman had the misfortune to bring forth a stillborn child, she was punished. The penalty was shaving the head, flogging for 15 subsequent days, iron on the feet for three months, and having to appear every Sunday in church, on the steps of the alter, with a hideous painted [effigy] child in her arms.''

The Indians were routinely beat and abused by the mission priests. So inhumane was it that Hugo Reid's report of conditions at the Missions couldn't even describe the inhumanity fully.

Reid wrote of Mission San Gabriel: ''So as not to make a revolting picture, I will bury acts of barbarity known to me through good authority, by merely saying that Father Zalvidea must have considered whipping [to be] meat and drink to them, for they [the Indians] had it morning, noon, and night.''

Americans were sometimes less barbaric than the Spanish, but only by degrees. The Trail of Tears showed that Americans were only too willing to engage in barbarity against Indians, even those who had converted to Christianity and became "civilized" by American definitions. They put us in concentration camps with insufficient rations and clean water, disease running rampant. They forced us on a death march in Winter where 25% of our nation died. Countless other tribes have stories of similar barbarity on the part of a supposedly "Christian" nation.

Neither the American government, Spanish government, nor the Vatican have acknowledged or apologized for the abuse and human rights violations against American Indians.

A New Addition to the Gay Lexicon

A new word was born this week. I don't know who started it, but Chris Jenson at the SF Examiner newspaper used it in his blog, the Gay Examiner.

He informs us that at least for the short term, he's developed a crush on Mayor Gavin Newsom. In fact, he'd gay-marry Gavin Newsom if Newsom would agree to a haircut and to use less product in his hair.

As a point of fact, Newsom does seem to be stuck in the late 90s, but somehow the look suits him. I'm not as worried as some of my other gay brethren if he sticks with the look.

Newsom relatively recently divorced his first wife and took a model as his second wife, so it is fairly certain that the mayor is a confirmed player on the other team. But I'm sure a lot of gay men have mini-crushes on Newsom this week, and probably a few lesbians, too.

Something happened at the Mayor's press conference Thursday that impressed me. One of the men making a short speech mentioned how good looking Newsom is. Newsom laughed, reached out and squeezed the man's shoulder by way of thanks for the compliment.

It's pretty refreshing to see a straight man who is so obviously comfortable around gays and lesbians. What a contrast to the national politicians. It brought to mind Barack Obama's hyperfear at being photographed with Newsom again.

I think that is going to be Obama's legacy with a lot of us in the gay community. He had a chance to be part of the latest civil rights movement, but he ducked his head and ran the other way. You can't shout about change and then disappear when the reality of change is inconvenient.

The Triumph of Liberty for All

Greg Berlanti, along with other LGBT celebrities, was asked by The Advocate, the LGBT news magazine, what his reaction was to Thursday's gay marriage ruling. He is an openly gay executive producer and writer behind ABC's Brother and Sisters and many other television shows.

Berlanti commented on how sad it is that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton could celebrate this victory with us, given their political stance on gay marriage. Both prefer civil unions to gay marriage.

In contrast, he offers the speech by Spain's Prime Minister, Jose Zapatero, upon the passage of Spain's historic gay rights legislation, which was equally demonized by the Religious Right in Spain.

We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, and our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members.

In the poem 'The Family,' our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda was sorry because, 'How does man live in denial in vain by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?'

Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty.

It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honorable members, there is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.

Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in a profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil, that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better society.

With the approval of this bill, our country takes another step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by the democratic change of government. Our children will look at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them that people had to stay married against their will even though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can offer them a beautiful lesson: Every right gained, each access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and praise.

What a pity our politicians are found to be so lacking in comparison to Mr. Zapatero. He understands that Liberty is best judged by how a nation treats its minority, not the majority.

Could we substitute Mr. Zapatero by write-in vote?

Bay to Breakers 2008

Runners are getting into stride in the annual Bay to Breakers 12K race today. The race route starts at the Bay side of the city, runs through SOMA, through City Center, Hayes Valley, skirts the Haight and NOPA, into Golden Gate Park, and ends at Ocean Beach.

What makes this race a San Francisco treat is that some runners don costumes. Some run without benefit of clothing. It is a free-for-all fun time in the best of San Francisco tradition. There are serious runners, of course, in normal race attire, too.

The race began in 1912 as a testament to San Franscisco's survival of the 1906 earthquake. It was intended to be a precursor to the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition, when San Franciscans were to show that the city was rebuilt.

The Cross City Race, as it was first called, had around 200 runners. The race now draws more than 65,000 participants and over 100,000 spectators. In 1986, the race won the title of World's Biggest Footrace in the Guinness Book of World Records when it had over 110,000 participants (with 78,769 registered as runners).

Photos from this year's race can be found here.

Slow Dancing Out Loud

"This day is about people who can begin to live their lives out loud." Mayor Gavin Newsom was celebrating the California Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Mayor Newsom's words resonate with me. I've not been able to forget this concept of living one's life out loud. It is amazing how much power a word or phrase has.

I'm gay, but I'm single and don't plan to get married. Still the court decision impacted me in a personal and substantive way.

The reason that I moved from Kansas City, Missouri to San Francisco, California was so that I could live my life out loud, although I didn't have the concept to match the feelings last year.

I was weary of having to decide if I should remain silent about my sexual orientation in employment. I was weary to the bone of the Bible Belt. I no longer intended to endure that silent oppression that loudly voiced itself in political life there.

The Kansas City metro area was once a free and liberal place. At least it was as compared to the small Kansas town in which I grew up. I once was enamored with its flowered boulevards and many statues and fountains. In the end, the city's facial beauty could no longer distract me from the increasingly intolerant social and political realities there.

As the Religious Right took control of the GOP, the social cancer that it brought took hold and prospered in the Plains along with the wheat.

Being in the heart of the Bible Belt, many people became more judgmental against gays and lesbians and saw no problem enforcing their religious beliefs on us in the government and increasingly, in social settings. It was an often silent, but invidious oppression.

In sharp contrast, I felt much more accepted and able to live freely in conservative Arizona than I ever did in Missouri or Kansas. When I returned to Missouri after grad school in Arizona, I never really felt at home again.

I felt as though I were holding my breath, waiting for something; waiting for I knew not what. I could never fully relax.

Finally, when the opportunity arose, I took a chance and moved from a Red State to a Blue State. I moved to what is considered the most liberal city in the U.S. if not the world.

And after Thursday's court decision establishing sexual orientation as a protected class, along with race, religion and sex, at long last, I could relax. I let go of my long-bated breath. Even with all the protections in place in California, for the first time in my adult life, I began to breath easily and deeply.

I participated in the celebratory party in the Castro Thursday night, where the entire LGBT community collectively exhaled. I couldn't help but compare it to Kansas City, where this spontaneous celebration and family feeling could never have happened. I have many gay friends there who still cannot live their lives fully out loud.

I read reactions from around the country, including one from a man in Texas who dared not to hope. But he was joyous that somewhere there was finally justice. That gave him permission to hope just a little that he would see a change someday in his home state. It was clear that he still could not live out loud.

The state argued that the only difference between domestic partnership and marriage was just a word. It implied that the word had no legal substance, no legal value, no power. Even the dissenters in Thursday's opinion didn't buy that the word had no value. Certainly those who oppose gay marriage don't think that the word has no substantive value.

If it is just a word, what a word it is to carry so much meaning, hope and acceptance for those of us who heard it applied to us for the first time in this state. The value, the power of that word, marriage, represented decades of fighting for this moment by the couples who brought the lawsuit. It had the power to make a crowd shout so loudly that the gleeful din could be heard for blocks around the Castro. It had legal substance in that for the first time known in this nation, we became a protected class where the state could not deny us our rights unless it could meet the strictest level of review by the courts.

That word means so much more than just a marriage license to us. For gays and lesbians everywhere, marriage is a homograph. For us, it means we are a huge step closer to being equal - equal in treatment by our government and equal in society for our love. Maybe a huge step closer to one day being fully accepted and respected in this country. And it means we now have a substantial set of state rights under the same name as everyone else in the state.

This one word has the power to reach across the nation and around the world. Now, other gays and lesbians can come to California and get legally married without residency requirements.

There will be a veritable stampede of gays and lesbians rushing to the alter in the event that victory is snatched from us in November. There is still a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution, which means that the struggle continues.

Yesterday I was given reason to hope even where the ballot initiative was concerned. I have a surrogate family in the Bay Area; it is my late step-father's sister and her husband. They consider me family and I, them.

I never felt that they were narrow-minded nor that my being gay was a problem for them. But I wondered how they felt about the gay marriage decision.

My step-aunt is liberal, so I really didn't figure it phased her at all. But my step-uncle is conservative and they are both Catholic. There was room for a little doubt.

My blood-relation uncle and aunt also live in this area and I don't really interact with them due to their Southern Baptist religion. In fact, my uncle is a retired Southern Baptist minister. They love me and I love them, but I don't care to have their religious prejudice in my life.

I figured my mother could do without the barrage. My uncle's constant braying about my lost soul got on her last nerve. My uncle promised my mother that he would never bring up the subject with me, but my uncle feels compelled to raise the subject when talking with her. She holds her own, but doesn't care to debate the subject when she knows they won't change their fractured view of homosexuals.

My aunt once called me when I was on a business trip to San Francisco to warn me. She was deeply concerned that I'd contract MRSA, which had just started coming to public consciousness.

She had good intentions, but I couldn't help but laugh. Her prejudice was showing like a slip peeking out from under her conservative dress.

Despite living in the Bay Area for over 40 years, she had no better idea of what constituted a gay man or his habits than someone in the Arctic Circle.

Of course, being gay and being saved are mutually exclusive in her religion. From the conversation, I quickly grasped her stereotype. She believed that all gay men danced together shirtless (undoubtedly ass-less leather chaps were her worst fear).

Since I am gay, she reasoned that I could not help myself in my unfettered depravity and go dancing shirtless with other gay men in some dark, crowded gay bar. Since MRSA was contracted by skin-to-skin contact, she feared that one shirtless slow dance might just kill me before I got saved.

I knew that her call was out of love for me. I assured her that I wasn't even visiting a gay bar while in town. In fact, I was quite a few miles from San Francisco in Burlingame, preparing for my meeting the next day. I had neither the time nor the inclination to go dancing.

I mentioned that because of my expanding waistline, I was not inclined to expose my torso, depraved dancing or not. I even reminded her that my mother and I are the only two American Indians without rhythm.

She wasn't at all convinced. "Keep your shirt on," she instructed.

Because of my Southern Baptist relatives, I couldn't help but wonder about my step-uncle's feelings or fears about gay marriage.

I needn't have worried. In talking with my step-uncle, he said, "I don't see where it affects me or my marriage. I don't have a problem with it."

My eyes welled up as I let loose of a different level of bated breath. Unlike my Southern Baptist aunt and uncle, he gets it.

Like the gay man in Texas, I have hope. I can finally live my life out loud, even as a single gay man, all because of one word.

I think that I'll go have a depraved, shirtless slow dance at a gay wedding to celebrate. Surely my auntie would agree that you can't live life out loud more than that.

Can a Constitutional Amendment Against Gay Marriage Survive?

After yesterday's momentous California Supreme Court decision, everyone now begins looking at the constitutional amendment initiative as the next fight. Even if it passes, I think that yesterday's decision fundamentally changed the analysis and very character of the initiative under federal equal protection law.

The question now becomes: If the constitutional amendment passes, can it survive federal equal protection claims?

The California ruling of the court was far reaching and well thought out. The court put the chips exactly where they wanted them for a reason.

The court held:

1) As a matter of California constitutional law, sexual orientation is a suspect class.

2) As a matter of California constitutional law, judicial review of sexual orientation equal protection claims will use strict scrutiny.

3) As a matter of California constitutional law, the state may not deny gays and lesbians the fundamental right of marriage.

Under federal law (and the California constitution), only the California Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the state's constitutional law. Federal law must respect and rely on it in deciding matters that require use of state law. In other words, federal courts cannot change or overrule state constitutional law unless it violates the U.S. Constitution.

On May 14, the court decision becomes final and is incorporated into the law of California. As of that date, gays and lesbians will be given the ability to exercise the fundamental right to marry anyone of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation.

The California Supreme Court wisely framed the entire initiative in context of Romer v. Evans. In that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state constitutional amendment could not remove substantive rights from a minority group based on mere animus against a class of citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court used rational basis, the lowest scrutiny level and still came up with an equal protection violation by the Colorado voters.

Thanks to the California Supreme Court, as a matter of California constitutional law, the right to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a protected (suspect) class.

The court' decision becomes final on April 14, 2008. After that, gays and lesbians can and will exercise their fundamental right to marry, which they will enjoy at least until the initiative passes, if it does.

The initiative will not change the protected class status of sexual orientation. It doesn't change the strict scrutiny standard to be used within California constitutional cases. Those holdings will still be California law even if the initative passes.

If the initiative passes, the the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge that the voters of California did not only exactly what the Colorado voters did in 1992 - the California voters did something worse. California voters will have removed an established substantive right from gays and lesbians, a minority group, based on sexual orientation, a protected class under California constitutional law. Sexual orientation is the only distinctive factor in the choice to discriminate. The right to marriage is no longer theoretical as applied to gays and lesbians.

Here's why:

The U.S. Supreme Court majority waffled in its Lawrence v. Texas decision on the issue of whether their due process analysis applied to gay marriage specifically. They declined to say if it did or did not. They also declined to find gays and lesbians a suspect class. The decision turned on the point that the majority cannot penalize a class of persons of substantive legal rights under the federal constitution, specifically, using due process with a rational basis level of scrutiny.

The majority opinion in Lawrence declines to provide an equal protection analysis. Instead, it is in Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion that equal protection is applied and she finds the same result.

The question of whether gays had the right to marry had yet to be decided by any state courts at the time of the Romer v. Evans decision in 1996. Vermont's civil union case wouldn't be decided by the Vermont Supreme Court until 1999.

By the time of the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003, Vermont has decided that civil unions are required. Massachusetts is in the process of deciding its case for gay marriage, ultimately decided in 2004, after Lawrence.

Under federal law, at the time of Lawrence, it wasn't clear if gay marriage would be a substantive or fundamental right or not, yet (the distinction being that straight marriage was a fundamental right, but that gay marriage had not been decided yet as a right by the federal courts). The court declined to address that issue as it wasn't at stake in the case. But it was on everyone's mind at the timel

Justice O'Connor explicitly states in her concurring opinion that, "Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage." To her way of thinking in 2003, preserving traditional marriage is sufficient to pass muster under rational basis review in federal equal protection law.

In Lawrence, the Court found that a liberty interest was at stake and that the state statute as applied only to homosexuals was unconstitutional under due process. It declined to decide the issue under equal protection as it found sufficient reason with due process. Again, it declined to hold that sexual orientation was a protected class.

The California Supreme Court heard the U.S. Supreme Court in particular to its Romer and Lawrence decisions and handled the messy details. The court declined to find that gays and lesbians have the right to gay marriage. Instead, they held that the fundamental right of marriage cannot be denied to gays and lesbians on the basis of sexual orientation, a suspect, or protected, class.

There is no nebulous liberty interest at stake here. The California court clearly finds that the right to marry is still a fundamental right, concurrent with its prior decisions in marriage cases.

The California court churns through each of the state's stated interests in denying gays the right to marry and dismisses each one by one. In short, where O'Connor felt there were numerous reasons to protect marriage from gays and lesbians, all the stated arguments were insufficient to the California court under the state's constitution and law.

The court went out of its way to note that it declined to create a new right. Instead, it found that denying of the existing fundamental right of marriage based on sexual orientation was unconstitutional under state equal protection. As a matter of state law, it is an existing fundamental right to marry that is being taken away.

Further, as a matter of California constitutional law, sexual orientation is a suspect class. It is so suspect that it received the strict scrutiny standard. These two holdings survive the initiative. This ties up the Lawrence rationale in that it is equal protection, not due process that is at stake (although an argument could be made under due process, as well).

Therefore, if the initiative passes, the majority will be seeking not only to deny a fundamental right to a minority, it is seeking to deny that right to a suspect class under California law. It is the worst type of equal protection violation just based on the face of it.

It hearkens to the Court majorities' shock in Romer at the electorate's animus against gays and lesbians that could be the only deciding factor. Here, the voters will have decided to take away a fundamental right due to the animus the public feels toward homosexuals.

Of course, one might posit that it is the sanctity of marriage or some other fuzzy argument that has no substantive logic or weight. It wouldn't be enough to sustain the amendment based on Romer and Lawrence.

Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has to acknowledge that California voters removed an existing right from a protected class, as defined by California constitutional law. The court doesn't even have to define sexual orientation as a suspect class - it has been done for them using state law.

The distinctions from the Romer case cannot be ignored, either. The breadth of the constitutional amendment in Romer was staggering to the majority. It denied the LGBT community due process almost entirely where protection of their civil rights were concerned. Here, the state has provided domestic partnership laws that mirror civil marriage laws. The scope of the discrimination is different. The denial of due process in Romer isn't claimed here, either.

One might argue, as the state did in this case, that the difference is semantic and there are social reasons to separate gays and lesbians from heterosexual marriages. But logically, there is a difference no matter how prettily you wrap the package. If there were no difference between domestic partnership and marriage, why would we have people so vehemently wish to deny gays and lesbians this right? Obviously, the opponents see value in keeping marriage for heterosexuals by their very action to deny it.

The California court goes to great length to analyze the argument and is persuaded that separate but equal still denies gays and lesbians full equality under the law due to the difference in value of the name.

I don't think that the distinctions from Romer are enough to overcome the similarities, especially in how the California Supreme Court kept its decision based on state law and not federal, and in how it set up the initiative issue for appeal.

How can the state even mount a facially reasonable defense for itself that would be successful against the rational basis test? None of the state's or other parties' arguments against the court's holdings were sufficient. How can they be sufficient under the federal rational basis standard if the state's supreme court has found that they were insufficient as a matter of state law already, regardless of the difference in standards? It makes the federal court look bad from the get go if it doesn't side with the state court.

That doesn't mean that the U.S. Supreme Court can't overrule its Romer v. Evans decision. The justices on the court have changed substantively since the 1996 Romer court decided that case.

It could weasel some rational basis out of thin air. But if it does, it will be denying more established civil rights law than just Romer.

In fact, it would destabilize federal equal protection law in general to twist it that much. If a majority can take away substantive rights against a protected class by simple majority initiative based on some contrived excuse, then what protection does anyone have under the federal constitution?

I think what is more likely is that a constitutional amendment to deny gays and lesbians the right to marriage would be overturned by the federal district court or 9th Circuit federal appellate court using Romer v. Evans.

The U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to be anxious to open the can of worms presented to it by the California Supreme Court. Most likely, it would deny certiorari based on Romer v. Evans being adequately applied by the lower courts. Additionally, there wouldn't be enough diversity of opinion among the circuits to justify Supreme Court intervention.

Never say never, but it is unreasonable to believe that the initiative to amend the California Constitution would survive federal scrutiny based on existing equal protection law.

Reaction to Gay Marriage Decision

If you don't get the impact that yesterday's California Supreme Court decision has on gays and lesbians, watch this video. Push it to 3:30 to see one of the litigant's reaction. I was a little verklempt after watching it.

Beach Blanket Babylon Updated

Beach Blanket Babylon, the San Francisco institution, a campy musical theatre gala known for its big hats and wigs, wasted no time in updating its show to include the same-sex marriage decision.

Last night, the wonderfully flamboyant gay character in pink 18th Century French costume with enormous pink hair sang, "I got married in the morning! ... I'm still a two-some, thanks to Mayor Newsom, the Supreme Court saw things my way!"

The theatre troupe often includes recent events in its shows.

Note that clicking the above link to the BBB site will automatically start a loud rendition of "San Francisco (Open Your Golden Gate)". Other pictures and show information are available on the website.

Is There No Beauty in Honest Mediocrity?

Let shallow, flat-butted men everywhere rejoice. Andrew Christian heard your pleas and has granted you underwear that is to your butt cheeks the equivalent of what a push-up bra is to a woman's bosom.

For a mere $29 you too can get even with women and impress men by letting them think your cajoled butt cheeks are firmer and rounder than they, in actuality, are.

Is there a moral issue here? If so, women can't complain given the amouont of make-up and push-up bras that they consume in order to fool men into thinking they look better than they do. Gay men might have a legitimate beef with the deception, unless they have padded their pants, too.

Are men who wear boxers more honest than those who wear briefs? Should automatic suspicion be our first impulse when we see a man in briefs? How do boxer briefs fit into the question?

How does this affect that tragic affliction in the gay community - Gay Glutes*?

The gay man's mind boggles at this, the underwear moral conundrum.

Is there no beauty in honest mediocrity? Let he without padded briefs cast the first stone.


*Gay Glutes are butt muscles that are overworked as compared to the rest of the person's body. Think bubble butt with sticks for legs and arms. Overworked pecs are naturally mandatory and are exempted in the Gay Glutes equation.

Love Transcends All

It was fairly certain that with something as big as legalized same-sex marriage rights recognized today by the California Supreme Court, that the Castro would erupt into an impromptu party. That's how we roll.

The block on Castro between Market and 18th Street were cordoned off and a stage set up.

Speeches were given that received cheers that reverberated into the surrounding neighborhood.



When the speeches were finished, a d.j. started some techno spinning and the crowd danced and milled around until late into the evening.



The only downside are all the media helicopters still flying around noisily at 11:30 p.m. It sounds like a war zone.

Despite the noise, it's hard to imagine this happening anywhere else tonight in quite this intimate or peaceable a manner.

We're one large family. Tonight, we celebrate the right to have that fact recognized by our state.

It is the sort of thing that the Castro can do that the Village in NYC and WeHo in LA can't quite duplicate.

To think: The fight for equality in California started with Harvey Milk in San Francisco, was prodded by Mayor Gavin Newsom in San Francisco in 2004 and was decided by the California Supreme Court in San Francisco. It is very much a San Francisco story.

The Mayor of Castro Street would be so proud of all that has been accomplished since he won his election in 1977 and died for the cause in 1978. We completed the fight in California 31 years after his historic win as the first openly gay elected official in the world.

This one is for you, Harvey Milk. Thanks for the showing us that we could live openly and be accepted. Were it not for your faith in people, we wouldn't have this historic day.

What a Day for Love

"What a day, San Francisco. What a day, California. What a day for America. What a day for equality!" Mayor Gavin Newsom celebrated the San Francisco's win in the In re Marriages case.

Mayor Newsom acknowledged his Catholic faith and said that "God's delays are not God's denials."

It was refreshing to be reminded that some Christians are able to see beyond the Religious Right doctrinal rhetoric and support gay rights without qualms. One wouldn't know that they exist from most media channels. Watch Mayor Newsom's speech here.

California's Supreme Court today decided that any statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional under the state constitution's equal protection clause.

The court reiterated that the right to marry is a fundamental right. The court held that sexual orientation is a protected class. The state has to meet the same strict scrutiny standard as it did in California's landmark 1948 miscegenation case. It must show that the state had a constitutional and compelling reason to impinge on the right in furtherance of a rational and constitutionally legitimate state interest.

There are three levels of scrutiny in federal law, but only two in California law. Federal law uses rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny standards in reviewing constitutional rights cases. In California law, there is only rational basis and strict scrutiny. The court here declined to add intermediate scrutiny to California law as suggested by the California Attorney General in his arguments.

The court declined to find a constitutional right for same-sex marriage specifically, instead rolling it into the rest of the marriage rights cases under a general right to marry. The lower appellate court held that plaintiffs in the original case were looking for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, contravening the plaintiffs' actual filings that sought equal protection for the right to marry, not for a specific new constitutional right that only applied to gays and lesbians.

The court specifically struck down two statutes. One was a 1977 legislative statute specifically passed to prevent same-sex marriage. Another was a voter initiative, Proposition 22, passed in March 2000 that was controversial as to whether it applied only to recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages or even to in-state marriages.

The court held that the Prop. 22 initiative did apply to both in-state and out-of-state marriages and that to overturn it, the legislature had to submit the question to voters. The latter question was the reason that the governor used to veto same-sex marriage bills twice before.

However, in finding both statutes unconstitutional, the voters would now have to pass a constitutional amendment to purposely discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the right to marriage. Given the recognized right prior to the election, it places the amendment initiative in the new context of removing an established right, rather than denying a theoretical one.

That probably wouldn't pass muster under the U.S. equal protection clause given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rover v. Evans in 1996. The court held against Colorado voters who passed an anti-gay constitutional amendment based on equal protection, using the lower rational basis standard. Colorado voters amended their constitution to deny the state and local governments the power to establish any gay rights legislation in the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that gays and lesbians were not being given special rights. Instead, the Court found that gay rights laws simply declared and provided notice that the same rights that everyone else enjoyed also applied to the LGBT minority group. Given that the California Supreme Court found that the general right to marry also applied to the LGBT minority group, the law seems analogous should the state constitutional amendment initiative pass in November.

CNN is reporting that this decision will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The California court decided the matter exclusively using the state constitutional law, so it seems implausible that a tenable federal question could be sustained in a federal cause of action.

A state supreme court is always the final arbiter of state constitutional questions. The U.S. Supreme Court can only intervene when there is a federal question. The only possible argument that I can conjur for an appeal is if straight opponents feel that their right to equal protection or some federal right was trampled unconstitutionally by the state supreme court decision. I can't fathom such an argument having enough substance to sustain any level of scrutiny, much less making it past a motion to dismiss.

Another interesting note is that six of the seven California Supreme Court justices who were nominated by Republican governors. Only one was appointed by a Democratic governor. It is only a 4-3 decision, but it means that 3 of the 4 in the majority are Republican appointees and are presumably Republicans themselves. That's momentous.

Finally, what many have missed is that the Court holds that sexual orientation is a suspect class and that strict scrutiny applies under the California constitution. The court disassembles the contorted argument used in other cases around the country that discrimination against gays and lesbians is sex (gender) discrimination.

In its place, gays and lesbians now are a protected class specifically, along with gender and race, in California. This makes it a much more important and far-reaching opinion than just one on same-sex marriage.

The decision becomes final in 30 days, after which the first marriages can take place. The full opinion can be downloaded here.

Remember the Alamo Square

The San Francisco Water Balloon Battle of the Alamo Square will be held in Alamo Square on June 11 at 6:00 p.m.

Those supporting the Mexicans in the conflict will wear blue. Those supporting the Texans will wear brown.



Costumes are encouraged. It is BYOWB (Bring Your Own Water Baloons or Water Blaster).

The event is organized by the BYOBW race organizers (Big Wheel Race).

Player for Life, But Not a Playa

A generation of male electronic gamers will be wiped out by their inability to reproduce. What will happen to the human race?

Playstation 3's new ad is truly a horrifying thing for anyone to behold.

There is a reason that I don't play video games and my inability to coordinate my thumbs is not the only one. I always suspected something like this would happen.

Story is here.

Tanka Treats

An old Sioux food, wasna, has stampeded to the energy bar table. South Dakota company, Tanka Bar, launched its product in October and now has begun distributing it nationally to Walgreens and other retailers.

The bar is all natural bison meat and cranberry. Bison meat is high in protein and low in cholesterol. The cranberries add a sweet flavor and antioxidents.

The company's original focus was to market it as a healthy snack to the American Indian community, but interest from non-Indians was so great that the company attended the Natural Products Expo West in Anaheim, California in March and gave away over 10,000 samples.

This sounds a lot better than maple syrup and bacon lollipops.

JetBlue Overflow Seating

It's hard not to be bowled over by this story, but JetBlue is in hot water over its toilet seat.

Gokhan Mutlu is suing the airline for making him sit in the toilet on his flight from San Diego to New York City.

Mr. Mutlu was traveling on a standby pass and got the last seat on the flight. He was told earlier that an off-duty airline attendant had the last seat, but she gave up the seat to sit in a jump seat for the flight instead.

About 1 1/2 hours into the flight, the pilot came to him and told him that he'd have to give up his seat to the off-duty airline attendant as she found her jump seat too uncomfortable. He was told to go hang out in the toilet. Mr. Mutlu asked if he could take the jump seat but was told that only airline employees could sit in jump seats.

Mr. Mutlu was reluctant to sit on the toilet for the remainder of the flight. The pilot told him he should feel lucky to have been allowed on the flight.

Mr. Mutlu was forced to sit in the toilet for over three hours. When turbulence hit and passengers were instructed to return to their seats, Mr. Mutlu had to remain in the toilet without a seatbelt or other safety devices in violation of federal law.

A male flight attendant eventually knocked on the door and told Mr. Mutlu that he could return to his original seat.

Perhaps Clorox is missing a marketing opportunity here in sponsoring overflow seating on JetBlue's flights.

Trash Disco Nights

One of my fonder memories from grad school was Trash Disco Night on Wednesday nights at Anderson's Fifth Estate in Scottsdale. My friends would don 70s clothing and we'd go drink and dance at the bar in Old Town Scottsdale.

The bar was only open three nights a week. We only went there on Trash Disco Night, though. There are legends about my authentic disco dances and sliding across the floor on my knees like John Travolta.

Sadly, the bar ejected a transgender woman after women complained about the transgender women using the women's toilets. This was followed by an attack on two gay men outside a Scottsdale restaurant and a female mayor who refused to honor GLBT Pride month in June. Scottsdale was looking pretty straight and narrow and got a deserved black eye in the press.

But good came of it as the straight bar owners met with LGBT leaders and became comfortable with the community. When they heard that the gay communtiy was underserved in Scottsdale, they saw an opportunity to forge a new business path to match their new respect for the LGBT community. They reopened their bar as a gay bar, Forbidden, as reported in Towleroad.

The change has been well received by the gay community and even lauded over the weekend by the conservative Arizona Republic newspaper. I don't recall the paper covering gay issues at all when I lived there in the 90s. The Times, they are a-changin'.

The club is now the hot bar in town for the gay community and is open five nights a week instead of three.

As for the transgender woman whose ejection started the controversy, the bar owners now consider her a good friend.

This exemplifies some of what I liked best about Arizona. People were conservative, but not as narrow=minded as those in the Bible Belt. More often than not, Arizonans were able to listen and learn and rise above base instinct.

The next time I'm in Arizona, I may have to visit Forbidden to recall old memories and make new ones. That and I'm wondering what is in the Swedish Lick and Naked Poolside martinis.

Flight from Fundamentalism

A fan letter to Andrew Sullivan about his book, The Conservative Soul, reminds me of what it felt like going to a fundamentalist college and my journey out of what felt like a prison to me, too.

I, a 55 year old raised Catholic, turned Christian woman had my world rocked by your book. I had been wondering for some time about my political whereabouts. I thought I was a Republican and was comfortable with it. I thought I was a Christian and felt somewhat comfortable with it. Then George Bush came along with his faith, which I thought was a good thing at first, until I began to see the party as hypocritical, or as I call them Pharasitical. After experiencing a Bible Study that I increasingly felt uncomfortable with I decided to stop attending.

Unknowingly then, I had put myself in a fundamentalist prison. Subject by subject you helped shake me out of that box. But now what to do with what I had lived and what I have just learned. I savored each page and slowly unpeeled myself from the fundamentalist box I was in.

A thought came to my mind about the administration's fundamentalists’ thoughts on homosexuality. If Jesus were to come upon a homosexual in the streets I believe from the scriptures that He would embrace him as He did us all. If the scriptures reflect Jesus’ loving attitude, then how can the fundamentalists judge and treat them they way they do? Don’t they realize they are grieving the Father?

The beautiful message I got from your book was align myself with the work Jesus did for us and continues to do through us if we let Him. And we can’t let Him if we are judging others.

I like your chapters on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So much that I am now reading the essays from Thomas Jefferson. You opened my eyes to several philosophers that I would like to read more on. The message I got there was: enjoy God in your life and don’t push God on others - just live it.

Bears for Obama

Conservative bears in Marin County are showing support for Obama. No word from the Lone Star Saloon in San Francisco as to whom the SF bears will endorse.

Fundamental Mistakes

Andrew Sullivan quoted Peter Berger from a Pew Forum discussion on Fundamentalism and Relativism. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is a branch of the Pew Charitable Trusts in his blog. The text of the full discussion is here.

Relativism is a concept reviled by the Religious Right. They don't want to look at other cultures or religions as having anything of worth or value. Mr. Berger argues that Relativism and Fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin.

It is a stretch in my opinion, as neither shares a common methodology. One sees all points of view as equally valid. The other sees all opposing points of view as equally invalid. Neither values consensus unless it corresponds to their own rigid view of how things ought to be. There the similarities end.

What is interesting is that Mr. Berger has an interesting insight into religious and political fundamentalism.

Under modern conditions, where almost everyone lives in communities in which diversity has taken the place of consensus, certainty is much more difficult to come by.

Relativism can be described as a world view that not only acknowledges but celebrates the absence of consensus. So-called post-modernist theorists like to speak of narratives and, in principle, every narrative is as valued as any other. The moral end result of this world view can be captured by imagining a television interview with a cannibal. “You believe that people should be cooked and eaten. I certainly don’t want to be judgmental, but the audience will be interested. Tell us more.” (Laughter.) This is not all that fictitious.

Fundamentalists respond to the same situation of certainty-scarcity by seeking to regain absolute certainty about every aspect of their world view. No doubt is permitted. Whoever disagrees is an enemy to be converted, shunned or, in the extreme case, removed.

(Emphasis added.)

Is the desire to have certainty in an uncertain world what drives religious fundamentalists in their world view? Be they Christian, Muslim or Atheist, fundamentalism seems to breed fanaticism. There is only one correct view and it is theirs, as they see it.

They resort to the religion, throwing out the deity for the safety of absolute rules and punishment. In throwing out the deity along with the meaning of the religion, they fall victim to tyranny.

Although they purport to have faith, they don't know the meaning of the concept in practice. Faith requires accepting the inevitable uncertainty of life, which is a premise that fundamentalists are not willing to take. To practice faith, one has to give up trying to be God and accept that we can't fathom everything. Reason only takes us so far then we must trust God.

In the quest for certainty in life the fundamentalists' theology becomes general. They adopt a perverted form of relativism to form coalitions. Groups with whom they disagree theologically become friends in a common cause. It is no longer a god that they worship, but "moral certainty" or "Judeo-Christian principles".

In the vein of the Religious Right, they seek to return the nation to their brand of moral certainty. All others are damned anyway, so why should they enjoy the benefits of human compassion?

It becomes easy to stereotype a group who don't fit the pattern. Those with moral certainty suddenly find it quite easy to scapegoat the other group for all the uncertainty in life that their moral compasses cannot guide them through.

It is that fanaticism of rules and punishment that drives them to their own inevitable conclusion - they sacrifice the very morals that they purport to be supreme in order to quell those who disagree.

I recall reading at the start of the Information Age that at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution people who were displaced by the economic changes fled toward the safety of religion. It was believed that Christ would come any day and they sought refuge in religious certainty. Perhaps that is what happened at the end of the 20th Century as economic changes in the developed nations changed for the worse for most people.

When Islamic fundamentalists committed terrorist acts, it drove people further toward religious and political certainty. They craved certainty in an uncertain world. Unfortunately, religious certainty without a god or politics without compassion leads to the same unsatisfactory end. We end up with the same problems that we sought to flee.

Perhaps that is why death is such an unknown. No matter how much we fool ourselves into believing something is absolute, in the end, we face the unknown, even within the context of our religious beliefs.

If there is no atheist in a foxhole, there is a fathomless pit of uncertainty at the end of life. That is when faith becomes important. Not blind faith, but faith that you don't know what comes next and that such uncertainty is acceptable. Faith in practice is an acceptance that we are not God. Once we stop trying to be God, we become content.

It is sad that the fundamentalists of this world can't see the uncertainty in the world around them and come to terms with the fact that we can't know everything. Unfortunately, rules are guidelines that can't anticipate every circumstance. We have to find a way to live with one another as imperfect beings.

Moral certainty is as dead a god as one can get. Surely it should be called moral cowardice instead.

Robotic Exotic

Roboexotica is going on this weekend in San Francisco. It is the perfect place for it - Silicon Valley meets cocktail alley.

Just a little show of robots mixing cocktails. Something James Bond would enjoy, were it to remember to shake and not stir his martinis.

The next one is in December in Vienna. James will probably be there, too.

Levi's Viral Video

The latest viral video is from Levi Strauss showing coordinated jean jumpers.

Obama in North Carolina

Obama has been getting back to basics on his campaign. This is why we like him. He has great understanding and appreciation for both the lower and middle class and how important they are to the nation.



The final part of his speech is very stirring. It is almost as good as Kennedy's "Don't ask," speech.

"I would not be here were it not for the fact that somebody, somewhere stood up for me. Because one person stood up, a few more stood up. Then a thousand stood up, and then a million stood up.

"That's why Hillary Clinton can run for President. That's why I can run for President. Because somebody stood up. And the question now is: Will the Democratic Party stand up for the next generation?

"That's my Patriotism. That's what we're fighting for in this election. Those are my values. Those are your values."

He has even met with the local gay press in both North Carolina and Indiana (as did Clinton). It is the first time he has met with the local gay press in any of the states, where Clinton routinely has set down for interviews with the local gay press.

Perhaps the concerns of gay people and his lack of media exposure within the gay community finally had traction in his campaign.

I hope he is the real thing. I definitely like this Obama better than the one bogged down the last month or so in personal attacks from the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

Moyers on Wright

Bill Moyers has an interesting video editorial on Rev. Wright. He makes some good points.

We are judging Wright using a different standard than we do white fundamentalist ministers who say just as inflammatory and offensive things. Isn't that applied racism in and of itself? If we judge both equally, they are equally offensive.



That said, I'm not able to defend Rev. Wright any longer. His recent rampage through the media seemed more vanity than earnest religious belief. His anger more political zeal than cultural and historical anger.

He has a right to believe what he wishes. He has the right to express those beliefs. But we all have the right to choose to support him or not in his beliefs. My choice is to not. But I understand where his anger comes from.