Wednesday, November 12, 2014

'I'm not gay no more - the remixes' & why we laughed

By now you all have heard about the video of the young man at the Church of God in Christ’s 107th Holy Convocation in St. Louis and his proclamation about "not being gay no more." The video has caught fire and gone viral, with so many folks ridiculing it that the whoever filmed it - no doubt church officials - has placed it on private view.

However, that only makes the situation worse because there are so many copies on youtube:

And then there are the remixes seen below.

But first, let me address something. A twitter friend of mine made a good point about hypocrisy. He said that it's a shame that so many folks laughed at this video but would weep at hearing about gay men forced in reparative, or 'ex-gay' therapy.

Like I said before, it's a good point. However there is something different with this video. It's just so damn surreal. It's a basic farce. I don't care how loud folks in the video, including the young man, shouted and danced about his "deliverance." Nor do I care that the pastor handed him $100 as sort of a symbolic gesture of God's grace (seen in the original video).

'South Carolina gets marriage equality, but . . .' & other Wednesday midday news briefs

Judge rules that gays have constitutional right to marry – first federal ruling on an S.C. same-sex marriage case - WHOOPEE! HURRAY!! Okay celebration is over. Two things we must remember. The ruling has been stayed until Nov. 20 and Governor Haley and Attorney General Wilson can appeal it, which they probably will. And here I thought tea party legislators were all about NOT wasting money. But even more important than that, as the next news brief shows, if marriage equality DOES become the unadulterated law in SC, we will be seeing the opposition twist the fight to that of  'religious freedom.' In the words of actress Pam Grier from Coffy, "you'd better believe it's coming."

GOP Texas Lawmaker Wants To Enshrine 'License To Discriminate' Against Gays In State Constitution - THIS is the next fight and it's time to gear up for it. It will be coming to SC sooner or later.

Religious liberty = discrimination: A complex issue explained in simple terms - THIS is how we gear up for the post marriage-equality war. By explaining the "religious liberty" lies in simple terms. Discrimination is discrimination and if visuals help, USE THEM. This post was published by me this morning but it bears repeating.

 'The War on Christmas' mirrors anti-LGBT movement's current playbook - In the world of the religious right, businesses should be able to discriminate against gays but GOD HELP THEM if they don't say "Merry Christmas."

Pope Demotes Outspoken Conservative Cardinal - "Bye, Felicia." 

Religious Right Group: Net Neutrality Threatens Free Speech - Proof that the religious right sells out to the highest bidder. Net Neutrality is for YOU TOO, dumb asses!

Religious liberty = discrimination: A complex issue explained in simple terms

Almost on a daily basis, anti-gay groups and their allies in the conservative media bombard the airwaves  and internet with anecdotes and horror stories of Christians who own secular businesses, such as cake decorating or non-religious wedding chapels,  supposedly having their livelihoods threatened because they refuse to serve gay customers like the law says they should.

Noted conservative author and media figure (and that's not said to give compliments but to note how low conservatives have sunk in terms of who is given status in their community) Erick Erickson has coined a phrase "you will be made to care" which illustrates how allegedly marriage equality is an issue which will drop us all into a dark abyss of intolerance and coercion.

And we hear the phrase "religious freedom" and "religious liberty" so many times that the press, as they often do, repeat the phrases without giving any shred of nuance, much like the dogs of Pavlov have been trained to salivate.

But let's break it down.

In Texas, legislators may push a bill which would allow businesses and government contractors - in the spirit of religious freedom of course - to refuse to serve gays and fire their employees who happen to be gay. And the lawmaker behind the bill, State Sen. Donna Campbell, wants to enshrine this so-called right in the state constitution.

She makes this outrageous claim:

“Our Judeo-Christian values are under assault and I’m not going to let that stand. We have the right and religious freedom to express ourselves. When the government moves outside the proper bounds of the primary role, especially in order to legislate societal norms, they’re on shaky ground. Really it’s a few, just a few advocates, of tolerance. They are trying to criminalize faith and traditional values of the majority of Texans. Tolerance is going too far in this instance.”

Campbell is spewing nonsense. What attack is she talking about? She seems to feel threatened by the American principle that customer should be treated the same in a place of business.

Apparently some evangelicals, like Campbell, want special rules which don't necessarily have a thing to do with how they worship or where they worship. You see, the 'religious liberty' argument doesn't have a thing to do with them. When you eliminate the spin, you discover that the "religious liberty" argument  has everything to do with the gay community. It's just an ornate way of handing us a laminated card of inferiority, a way of searing a scarlet letter into our consciousness.

The 'religious liberty' argument is a farce designed to send a constant reminder to gays from folks like Campbell saying "We don't care what the law says or what the court says. You don't deserve to be on our level and in our minds you never will be. You don't deserve equal treatment under the law and we will never let you forget that."

It's not that complex to gauge or figure out because we have been through this sort of thing before in history. Allow me to put it another way:

If you have a problem with the following:

Then you SHOULD have a problem with this:

After all, how is the 'religious liberty' argument, which would allow discrimination against gays, any different than one which would allow discrimination against Jewish people, African-Americans, the Chinese, etc?

 In the end, it doesn't matter how one sugarcoats it. Discrimination is discrimination.

Cake decorators and non-religious wedding chapels may seem like a minor facet in the argument about discrimination but they are a crucial facet.  If we allowed them to discriminate against gays, at what point does said discrimination stop?

One day, we are discussing cake decorators and non-religious wedding chapels. How long will it be before we start talking about apartment complexes, restaurants, stores, and other places of business?

Is it even right for the 'religious liberty' argument to be used in those cases and what assurances do we have that in the future, it won't be?