GLBT

Michael Rogers has become turned his blog into the bane of every closeted gay Republican's existence.

People who think Michael outs closeted gay Republicans for sport, should think again. He does it because he truly believes that anybody who votes for anti-gay legislation and takes money from the extreme right all the while having sex with men is a menace, nay, a pox on not just the gay community but all of society as well.

I love him for every single "I'm not gay" utterance coming from the extreme right. They deserve to have a Michael Rogers on their asses.

Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia US Supreme Court decision to strike down the bans against interracial marriage that in 1967 where still in the books of 16 states.

Just to put matters into perspective, I am biracial (even though both my parents are from Puerto Rico). They married in New York City, so the issue of their interracial marriage was moot. Had they been in Maryland or Florida, they technically could have ended up in jail --but maybe not if they could prove even if they were US citizens by birth (all Puerto Ricans are), the 'being Puerto Rican' may have then exempted them from the law.

Anyhow, it is amazing to see over at Loving Day's legal map that Florida had even codified the 1/8 drop rule into the marriage ban --exactly because the ban was about protecting the supremacy of a group of people who, if you look real close, have always been the minority (with the most wealth and political power) in this country. All the white-looking octaroons (at least at that time) need not apply for enjoying the perks of their physical (yet not genetic) whiteness.

So it's 40 years later and the same-sex marriage movement is using Loving vs. Virginia as the standard for all people who want to marry, be fruitful and multiply.

Here's the money quote from Justice Warren's decision :

It is amazing that in this day and age anybody would think that you could create a neuro-toxic bomb that would turn soldiers gay and render them incompetent for war, but that's exactly what the Pentagon considered when they took a look at a proposed $7.5 million chemical weapon project.

CBS5.com reports :

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsequently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistibly attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents.

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soldiers would become gay," explained Hammond.

Michael Rogers is one of the best things to ever happen to me on these internets. He's one of my best friends who happens to be also one of my heroes, as the founder and Chief Gay Outing Executor of BlogActive. So it's with great pride I lead you to Brokeback Hill, the awesome Yahoo! People Of The Web feature by Kevin Sites:

He's outed so many closeted gay politicos, he's starting to make Capitol Hill look like Brokeback Mountain. All of them, he says, use their positions to actively oppose the equal rights of gay citizens while at the same time, secretly live a gay life.

If you are a gay politico with something to hide, the left hand column of Roger's Web site is exactly where you don't want to see your name. He calls it "the list."

Kevin, honey, please tell Yahoo! to get a clue from Google and put a frigging embed on your work. They still can make money of the work if they embed ads on the thing ... ya know what I mean?

From the department of "Things that make you go hmmmm" comes this doozie :

Gay Aussie hotel wins right to ban heterosexuals, lesbians
The Peel Hotel in Melbourne won an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act to prevent insults and abuse directed toward gays in its bars and nightclubs, owner Tom McFeely told AFP.

"The hotel predominantly markets itself towards homosexual males, towards gay men and we want to protect the integrity of the venue as well as continue to make the men feel comfortable," McFeely said.

"When large numbers of heterosexuals or even lesbians are in the hotel that changes the atmosphere and many gay men can feel uncomfortable."

I would love it if this where a joke given the owner's last name is one McFeely and all I think of him being the insensitive evil twin of Grey Anatomy's McDreamy, but no ... 'tis true.

Goes to show women end up being second class citizens even within marginalized communities.

The judges of New Jersey's Supreme Court should have a ticker-tape parade:

TRENTON, New Jersey (Reuters) - Saying that times have changed, New Jersey's highest court on Wednesday guaranteed gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples but left it to state lawmakers to define how the state wants to define marriage.

"Times and attitudes have changed," the New Jersey State Supreme Court said in a nuanced 90-page ruling that was neither a clear victory nor a defeat for gay marriage, which is currently legal in the United States only in Massachusetts.

"Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution," the ruling continued.

But saying that gay couples must have the same rights as other couples, the court said gay advocates must now "appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives."

I love, Love, LOVE the wording of this decision.

Let me go on the record as saying that I don't believe marriage is all that. I don't understand why the fuck gay people want to call themselves married. Seriously: why! Why! WHY!

The only way I can understand this craziness is that they're fighting for the right to get a divorce.

Published by Kortney Ryan Ziegler, M.A. : My reasons for blogging are many, but most important, I blog to improve my writing, to connect with other bloggers of color, and to provide a space where my research has an audience outside of academia.