David Benkof shows his ass

I am feeling frunky today (frunky - not funky. Frunkly is three steps below funky). It's probably because I hate Mondays.

Nothing can sway me out of this mood, not even the news that I have exceeded my goal of selling 100 copies of my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.

One hundred copies doesn't seem like a lot, but remember this book was self-published and not promoted (at least not in the usual way). My initial goal as to sell at least 100 copies and I have reached that goal within a year of Holy Bullies's publishing.

Now it's time to work on an updated (and much better) version.

That is if I can get out of this mood.

But enough of that. The more cosmopolitan readers of this site probably already know that we have lost an enemy today in the marriage equality fight.

David Benkof, who markets himself as a gay man who believes in the "sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" has closed the veil:

"I no longer feel comfortable being allied with the people running the Prop. 8 campaign, and the same-sex marriage movement in America in general, with a few exceptions - most notably Maggie Gallagher. I have made a tentative decision not to publicize the disturbing information that caused me to end my promotion of man-woman marriage in the United States. But there is very little that I know about those subjects that a journalist, blogger, or activist cannot find out through diligent googling and asking the right questions of the Prop. 8 campaign."
-- former proprietor of the disturbing blog "Gays Defend Marriage," David Benkof to Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen, July 14

Benkof was slowly getting attention for the paradox of being a gay man who didn't believe in gay marriage. However, there was a possible problem with how he would allegedly distort the words of people he interviewed. Box Turtle Bulletin wrote an excellent report on him.

Maybe it's just the Monday frunkies talking but other than the paradox, I never took Benkof seriously. He is a talented writer but he was clearly exploiting the idea of being a gay man who opposes gay marriage.

And while his concession is good, two things about it bothers me.

The first is the part about him still being allied with Maggie Gallagher. Gallagher is yet another one of those "experts" from the right-wing that seem pop up about lgbts issues. However, her expertise seems to lie in playing Joan of Arc being burned at the stake by so-called radical gay activists.

The argument, "gays and liberals believe that if you support traditional marriage then you are a bigot" seems to almost always turn up in her writings.

Then there is this very interesting deception that she is guilty of:

Gay marriage opponents frequently buttress their arguments with the assertion that children have better outcomes when they grow up with a married mother and father. The most articulate advocate of this point is Maggie Gallagher, founder of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a "pro-marriage" think tank.

She summarized it best in an article in the August 2003 Weekly Standard: "As a Child Trends research brief summed up, 'Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. . . .'" She goes on to argue that because that parenting structure is best for kids, legalizing gay marriage means subjecting children to less-than-optimum outcomes: "[Gay marriage] would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine."

Child Trends, the organization that she cites, is a highly respected, nonpartisan research center. But Gallagher slyly misrepresents the conclusions of their research review, which does not discuss straight versus gay family structure, but various forms of straight family structure. Gallagher leaves out the key sentence that qualifies the statement she cites: "Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families raised by two biological parents." There is no evidence here about how children raised by gay couples fare.

A right-wing expert distorting a legitimate study? It must be a usual day in the United States.

Also there is this comment Benkof left on Pam Spaulding's site:

Since you brought it up, I thought I'd clarify. I no longer feel comfortable being allied with most of the people who run the man-woman marriage movement in the United States (not counting Maggie Gallagher). I still feel, however, that Pam Spaulding is a nasty bitch.

Okay, that pissed me off. I am talking snatching off the earrings, kicking off the shoes, putting vaseline on the face, getting ready to get ghetto on someone type anger.

My first reaction was "Oh no that $&@^ didn't!"

But then I realized that I cannot behave in such a way.

So I will just say this:

Mr. Benkof, Pam Spaulding has more integrity in her fingernail than you have in your pseudo-intellectual body. The very fact that you said what you said only goes to prove how phony you are.

But don't think that Benkof's nonsense is the only thing going on today.

Our friend Peter LaBarbera has gotten into the AFA's boycott of McDonalds. His group Americans for Truth (in name only) will join the AFA at a press conference in front of McDonalds' headquarters in Illinois. They will be joined by women who will say why they won't take their children to McDonalds ever again.

Which is fine with me. I'm sure that there will be a lot of lgbt parents who will take their children to McDonalds.

And I plan to have a supersize meal tomorrow.

And speaking of lgbt parenting, John McCain continues to be on his "please support me James Dobson and company" tour. Today he came out against gay adoption.

I liked what PFLAG had to say about this development:

"In a country where more than 125,000 children are waiting for foster parents, Senator McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). "We are disappointed and saddened that a public leader who is himself an adoptive father would deny the children in America's foster care system the opportunity to thrive as part of a welcoming family. Love makes a family, but short-sighted positions like Senator McCain's can certainly tear families apart, too."

..."Senator McCain's position is out of synch with the research and science and out of step with what is in the best interests of children waiting for a home and a family," Huckaby said. "PFLAG knows the pain inflicted upon families due to misinformation about LGBT issues. We implore Senator McCain to take a serious look at the overwhelming evidence and listen to the stories of the countless children raised by loving lesbian and gay couples. The evidence is clear: children should not be denied access to the loving homes of gay couples."

UPDATE - As you all can see, David Benkof is channeling a little Joan of Arc himself via the comments page.

David, no one is lying on you. You did distort Ms. Kendall's comment just like you distorted a lot of others.

That is why your credibility is low. But I have to admire your shameless plugging of yourself.

South Carolina doesn't want gay tourists, but it will take pigs and "I Believe" license plates

And I thought I wouldn't have to post today.

But my home state is in the news and it involves the lgbt community:

South Carolina’s top tourism agency has canceled an overseas advertising campaign targeting gay tourists.

The campaign, tied to gay pride week celebrations in London, included ads that proclaimed “South Carolina is so gay.” A handful of other U.S. destinations joined the campaign, including Atlanta, Boston and New Orleans.

After learning last week the state had agreed to spend tax money on the campaign — and spurred by a post on The Palmetto Scoop blog — the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism said Thursday it would not pay the tour operator.

Parks, Recreation and Tourism director Chad Prosser said an agency advertising manager signed off on the contract, proposed by the agency’s London advertising contractor.

To me, this is a story of an advertising manager making a possibly unauthorized business deal. However since it talks about the gay community, leave it to our lovely legislators to not miss this sterling opportunity to bloviate about "values:"

Some lawmakers were shocked to learn about the campaign, with state Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, calling for an audit.

Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, said using tax money to support a social or political agenda is inappropriate.

I get it: an ad campaign to generate tourist money is a part of an "agenda," but passing legislation regarding "I Believe" license plates is a-okay.

Geez.

Please bear in mind that this is the same governor who, in 2004, walked into the State House carrying two pigs.

He wanted to get back at the legislators who overrode his budget veto by symbolizing a protest against "pork projects."

The pigs symbolized things much better than Sanford hoped. In fact, they symbolized all over Sanford and the floor of the State House.

From what I hear, the smell was especially symbolic.

So in this talk of values, who do you choose: gay folks or the Governor who was once covered in pig droppings.

I'm choosing my lgbt brothers and sisters. At least I won't have to hold my nose when I hug them.


Box Turtle Bulletin exposes a hot mess

One of my favorite sites, Box Turtle Bulletin, has exposed an unfortunate incident involving an insurance company and anti-gay industry lies. It demonstrates how difficult it is to kill anti-gay junk science:

Insure.com is a publicly traded company with an advisory board ranging from a former US Senator to executives with various companies, including AT&T. The company is a major sponsor of Bill O’Reilly’s radio talk show and Bill gives voice to their commercial.

In addition to selling insurance, they provide information about the insurance industry. Joe White, an employee and company blog contributor, wrote two pieces in which he claimed that “being gay” was a health risk, and not just a minor one.

In an article on the business website entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, White lists the number one way to kill yourself:

1. Being gay. A gay lifestyle is by far the biggest risk to life expectancy that goes unrecognized by insurance companies. The question has been considered by multiple studies, and the gay lifestyle is universally acknowledged to decrease life expectancy. A conservative estimate is that a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.

In other words, living a homosexual lifestyle has health risks at least as severe as smoking (by some estimates even more), but due to the sensitive nature of the issue, life insurance companies don’t charge different rates for gays. So gays save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.

It turns out that Mr. White made this claim based on the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study (which I have talked about ad nauseum on this site) and the "research" of the discredited Paul Cameron.

It's like a horror movie. We just can't kill the monster.

But Box Turtle Bulletin is on the case, including contacting the CEO of Insure.com.

I commend them for their work.

One News Now 'journalist' gets taught a lesson in truth

I am watching (and taking part in) an interesting war of words on a blog site.

But first a little background:

I have talked about Ken Hutcherson many times on this blog, especially that so-called protest he organized against the Day of Silence at Mount Si High School in Washington.

But as it is, the war between Hutcherson and Mount Si goes back farther than the Day of Silence.
It began when Hutcherson was invited to speak at the high school during Martin Luther King Jr. Day. His anti-gay reputation got some teachers and students upset at the invite. One booed him during the assembly (that wasn't good taste and the teacher was reprimanded).

Another teacher questioned Hutcherson's opposition to lgbt rights.

Needless to say, Hutcherson's ego was hurt and he has had it in for the Mount Si High School ever since.

A group of concerned parents began a blog to support students and the teachers at Mount Si High School. It is called Mount Si Parents and is a very informative site.

Hutcherson, meanwhile, has continued to pursue action against the teachers of Mount Si High School. He recently complained to Rosalund Jenkins, the executive director of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs.

Apparently he didn't get what he wanted from her because he has now accused Jenkins of making racist comments.

It boggles the mind, doesn't it.

But I am getting the crux of this post.

One News Now in their familiar biased fashion published an article regarding the situation. I would link the article but One News Now has banned any linkage from me.

The Mount Si Parents blog published a post accusing One News Now of biased reporting. The blog also clarified several issues.

And now comes the rub.

Allegedly, the author of the One News Now article, Jeff Johnson was very, shall we say, offended by what was said. He took it upon himself to say so. You can read his entire post if you pan down to it.

In part, it said:

Anonymous #1 said "One News Now is known for spinning incorrect and biased stories." Really? We report news from a biblical perspective and clearly advertise that fact in the "About" section on our site. If you reject the Bible as the infallible Word of God, you're not going to agree with our perspective on stories involving homosexuality. Similarly, if you are politically conservative, you're not going to agree with the perspective from which The New York Times reports political news. All news outlets report from a perspective. The difference is, we admit ours.

Anonymous #2 wrote: "Just in case there's any doubt about the credibility of One News Now as a legitimate news source, check out this PI Big Blog post about their story which identified sprinter Tyson Gay's name as Tyson Homosexual in stories about his record-setting run at the Olympic Trials."

Yes, we set up an automated filter to catch the politically correct word "gay" in reference to people who choose to have sex with others of the same gender, who are more accurately referred to as "homosexuals." And, yes, we forgot to take into account that there are some people whose first or last names are "Gay." The error has been corrected.

The Associated Press uses the word "gay" instead of the word "homosexual" because that's the word homosexual activists prefer. Those activists prefer the word "gay" because it's a very positive word that takes the focus off the fact that the issue under debate is their choice of sex partners.

By that reasoning, the Associated Press should refer to people who oppose abortion as "pro-life" because it is the term that group prefers and it's a positive term that takes the focus off their advocacy for restriction access to abortion.

But the AP is biased in favor of homosexuality and in opposition to restricting abortion. So they use the positive term "gay" to refer to those they support and the negative term "anti-abortion" to refer to those they oppose.

OneNewsNow tried to automatically write the AP's obvious pro-homosexual bias out of their stories as published on our site and the initial way we chose to do that didn't work out so well. Another News Flash: We're human. We made a mistake. The difference between us and the "mainstream" media is, when we became aware of the mistake, we admitted it and corrected it. Try to get that kind of response from a major newspaper or television news network. . .

But I will challenge anyone who uses the word "lie" to describe my reporting. You may not agree with the biblical perspective from which I report the news. That is your right and I am thankful that we live in a country where we can agree to disagree on that issue. But I ALWAYS endeavor to report the truth as accurately as possible within my human limitations of gathering information and discerning who is and is not being honest with me.

A "lie" is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. There are no lies in my reporting, unless I quote someone who is lying, and I will not knowingly report even that kind of statement.

Needless to say, Jeff got his ass handed to him. Various returned comments said the following:

No one is accusing YOU of lying, you are merely printing Hutchersons LIES!

Any good reporter would actually fact check their sources before making such allegations.

All of the facts are readily available to anyone who wants to be informed.

Tell me Mr. Reporter man, did you contact Dr. Potratz for his side of the story?

Have you read through the archives of the local media covering this story for the past six months?

Of course not! You just take the word of a blow hard bigot like Hutch as the truth!

Do some research and pretend you are a journalist!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't the first time you have printed falsehoods because you failed to research. Here is just one example;

As previously reported, one of the teachers who booed Hutcherson sponsors the school's Gay Straight Alliance -- and also happens to teach his daughter's advanced placement British literature class. According to the pastor, his daughter has continued to suffer emotional stress in that classroom since the school assembly. But his requests to have the teacher removed from the class have been denied, forcing him to enroll his daughter, who is a senior, in an online class with the University of Washington.

This is NOT true.

Dr. Potratz booed the blow hard, NOT Kit McCormick who is the GSA advisor in question.

FACT CHECK, it's not hard

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for you ONN apologetics, you folks are nothing like the New York Times, they make an effort to report the truth, you folks "report" pleasing spin for your fundamentalist audience.

As for your rewriting of AP stories to conform to your version of Political Correctness, just where was your published correction on the Tyson Gay debacle? I must have missed it, from what I saw you merely corrected the story and pretended that the error never happened. Unlike a real news source (e.g. the NYT, which publishes a correction when they make a mistake.)

So maybe you didn't intentionally misrepresent the facts in your story, but for someone, who labels himself a reporter, you showed an appalling disregard for the accuracy of your reporting. Where is your interview with Potratz to get his side of the story? Did you even bother to speak to him? Or did you just accept Hutcherson's version of events because you knew it would be pleasing to your readers (and undoubtably your bosses as well)?

Another thing journalists do is investigate, rather than just regurgitate one sides talking points. Your story reads like a Ken Hutcherson press release from a conservative activist(a fairly common thing on ONN).

Your work may not be intentional lies, but it is dishonest and disingenuous, just like your defense of it here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dear jeff,

A lot of times, One News Now articles are just one-person interviews with someone who takes their point of view.

If you doubt me, take a look at their site now. There are several Barack Obama articles present but none of them have any comments from the Obama campaign.

Being Christian is no excuse for bad journalism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and let's not forget when one news now (when it was agape press) used to freely cite paul cameron as a pro-family expert without filling its readers in on his history of distortion, censures and organizational rebukes (like from the APA for example)

This discussion is still going on. Of course there are some people who are actually trying to defend Johnson. My favorite is the following:

where in the Bible (the guide for a Christian’s life) does it say “Thou shalt not be biased”??? I don’t seem to see that anywhere and since you obviously can’t accept that two people can see the same situation differently (which I alluded to in an earlier post), let me remind you of the MOST biased of all Christians, Jesus Christ Himself, when in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 6 He states: “I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through me.”

But I have noticed that Johnson has not posted anything else as a response.

It must be hard when you have to deal with the real world instead of the world of Dobson and Wildmon.

What happens in Arkansas may happen elsewhere

Something is presently happening in Arkansas that could negatively affect lgbts in the future:

The Little Rock, AR based organization largely responsible for placing a constitutional ban against gay marriage in Arkansas in 2004, is back in 2008 with an anti-gay adoption ban.

On Monday, the Family Council Action Committee (FCAC) met a deadline to submit 61,974 signatures to the Secretary of State to place a proposed law banning unmarried couples from adopting children on the November ballot. While the initiative bans both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the organization's website lists banning gay and lesbian couples from adoption as a goal of the law.

The Arkansas Adoption Act makes it illegal for adoptive and foster care children to be placed in homes with individuals who cohabit with a sexual partner. Single people, living alone, would be free from the restrictions.

Arkansas did initially bar gays from adopting or becoming foster parents before the state court struck down the law. Then the legislature wouldn't pass a law prohibiting lgbts from adopting or becoming foster parents.

So now some folks are taking the "let the people decide through a vote" route. And while they have tried to word the law to make it seem that its not an attack on lgbts, they freely admit that it is:

“[The Arkansas Adoption Act] is about two things. It's about child welfare, first of all. Secondly, it is to blunt a homosexual agenda that's at work in other states and that will be at work in Arkansas unless we are proactive about doing something about it,” FCAC Executive Director Jerry Cox told Fox16 News.

This attempt is nothing new. After their success in banning gay marriage, the anti-gay industry have long had their sights on making it more difficult for lgbts to be foster or adoptive parents. It is obvious that Arkansas is a testing ground. If they are successful there, then they are going to try the same thing in other states.

What gets me is this part:

The FCAC lists three primary reasons for the law: For the safety of children, to increase the number of prospective homes, and to “blunt a homosexual agenda.”

Increase the number of homes? How can you increase the number of homes that will take in children by prohibiting potential foster and adoptive parents?

Sadly, that question is not answered by the FCAC in the article.

And that is the crux of the fallacy involving denying lgbts the right to be foster and adoptive parents.

According to the National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice and Permanency Planning:

510,000 = Number of children in foster care on September 30, 2006

129,000 = Number of children waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2006

51,000 = Number of children adopted from the public foster care system in FY 2006

And according to the Department of Health and Human Services' s Administration for Children & Families, 984 Arkansas children were waiting to be adopted in 2005.

But I bet the FCAC law doesn't address that point.

What we get from them is the same talking point the anti-gay industry shovels about children in foster care:

Children have a right to a mother and father.

But (and here is the rub) the FCAC potential law does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed in this type of home. In fact, it does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed into a home at all.

You see, this talking point is not designed to do anything but create the premise that somehow two-parent heterosexual households are being discriminated against for the sake of same-sex households.

And according to national figures, this notion just isn't true.

Children don't necessarily need a home that appeals to someone's limited view of "family.

Children need homes where they can receive love and support.

And there are no studies that say they cannot receive love and support from a same-sex home.

But thanks to FCAC, Arkansas children in foster care may not get any home at all.

It's Tuesday - oh boy

Well it's Tuesday and I'm all alone.

My mother has gone to Pennsylvania to participate in my uncle's wedding. That leaves me home alone until Monday. This means that I can indulge in two of my favorite guilty pleasures - butter almond ice cream and porn.

Just kidding. Butter almond ice cream is so fattening.

Seriously though, last week I alluded to the fact that I can no longer link from One News Now. Is it just me or does the site see me as a hinderance to their message?

My linkage now takes one to a Rick Astley video on Youtube. But the joke is on One News Now. I happen to like Rick Astley.

Redhaired men are my weakness.

Who am I kidding? Men with a pulse are my weakness.

However I won't be using this time alone to catch up on my quota. And when I say quota, I mean the following - according to the anti-gay industry, gay men have over 500 partners a year . . . or is it 1,000 partners in a lifetime . . . or is it 1,500 partners on Judy Garland's birthday.

Really though, just who is so damned egotistical to count sexual partners? And just what is the criteria for an official sex act. Does heavy petting count?

More importantly, why can't I find any of those slutty gay guys?

Whatever the case may be, I am waaaay behind on the quota. If I don't get some soon, then national headquarters is going to come and get me for re-education.

From what I understand, it involves being locked in a small room somewhere in the Castro and being forced to watch Barbara Streisand movies for 48 hours.

And not the good ones but the ones she made when she was blatant about wanting the Oscar for Best Director.

Something that I haven't talked about is the American Family Association's boycott of McDonalds.

Apparently because McDonalds donated $20,000 to the Gay and Lesbian National Chamber of Commerce and because the company has the audacity to protect its employees against discrimination, Donald Wildmon and that bunch has branded it public enemy number one.

You know the vernacular - "McDonalds has signed on to the radical homosexual agenda." "McDonalds is no longer for families." "Ronald McDonald and Grimace are secret lovers."

Well McDonalds has gained a loyal customer because of the boycott - yours truly.

Lastly, if you all are still here and not thinking that I am insane, I want to let you in on something that I realized last week.

Some members of U.S. Senate are pushing for that dreary marriage amendment. Not only that, but two of the sponsors are Larry "wide stance in the toilet" Craig and David "hey, prostitutes need to pay the bills too" Vitter.

Craig is a hot mess himself but doesn't the fact that Vitter is sponsoring this bill goes to prove that a lot of the things the anti-gay industry says about gay men aren't true?

They like to claim that we have so much anal sex that we end up wearing diapers.

If this was the case, then wouldn't Vitter be our ally, with his love of diapers and all?

Think about it.

And hopefully by tomorrow, I will be in a normal frame of mind.

Jesse Helms - Life, Death, and the Inability to Stop Evolution

One of the most anti-gay individuals in the United States, former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, passed away during the Fourth of July holiday.

Some of us are probably dancing in joy over his passage. The mainstream media is slowly tiptoeing over his controversial history as an anti-gay Senator.

The anti-gay industry is treating his death like the passage of George Washington.

But I want to take another tack.

In the past year and a half, the lgbt community has seen the passing away of three of our most persistent opponents.

There was Jerry Falwell, who will always be defined not by his influence on politics but the bad choices he made.

During the beginning of the AIDS crisis, he could have ministered to the sick. However, he took advantage of the calamity to enhance his own reputation. Through rhetoric and brochures designed to scare and inflame ignorance, he exploited and grew fat off of the suffering of those who stricken with the disease.

Worse than that, his actions served as a blueprint. Like some female monster out of mythology, his efforts sired offspring either equally or more determined to demonize the lgbt community; i.e. Paul Cameron, Peter LaBarbera, the LaHayes, James Dobson, Janet Folger, etc.

Then there was James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, who wrapped himself up in Biblical doctrine and demanded that others repented while he spun untrue stories of ACLU and homosexual boogeyman and secretly worked to convert America into a theocracy.

Then comes the third party in the triumvirate: Jesse Helms.

Helms was a man who claimed that this country needed a "spiritual revival," while freely and openly feeding on fear.

He was a shining example of not only the underside of this country, but of human nature in general. Hateful, homophobic, and racist, Helms was so stewed in the self-righteous juices of his own rhetoric that he was immune to its bad smell.

He was like that dog in the Aesop fable; the one who was so unruly that he was given a bell as a badge of shame. In his ignorance, the dog mistook the bell as a symbol of pride.

Such was Helms when he heard himself being described as a bigot.

I group those men together to emphasize a point. No matter how many lies they spun, how offensive their words were, or how many people they swayed, in the great scheme of things, Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms are pretty much irrelevant.

Why? Because while they hindered lgbts, they did not stop us. We are still here and we are strong. In fact, we continue to get stronger every day.

Lgbt children are coming out at earlier ages, same-sex families are beginning to be acknowledged as they should be, and slowly but surely, the entire community is evolving past being punchlines, past secret encounters in public places, and into the mainstream.

We are rejecting the lies spun by folks like Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms that our sexual orientation somehow disqualifies us from having substantial lives.

And most of all, we are rejecting the lie that God did not create us to be the proud lgbt people that a vast majority of us are.

In the long run, Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms served their purpose. Every successful hero needs a villain to triumph over. Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms were our villains.

And we defeated them.

Not by voting them out of office or exposing them as liars (although those things would have been nice.) We defeated them by simply enduring.

So while some may think what I am saying is in bad taste, just think of Helms (not to mention Falwell and Kennedy for that matter) as footnotes in our struggle for equality.

Let our successes be their epitaphs.

Even I need a rest sometime - Happy Fourth!!

Barring a major incident via the anti-gay industry, I will not be posting for a few days.

Happy Fourth of July everyone and thank you for your support!!!