Favored sports teams might be a suitable topic that inspires playful rivalry (especially if one of you doesn’t really care about sports), but, to some, the religious and political beliefs of your potential mate are defining characteristics in the calculations of your potential for success.

Light installation of Robert Stadler

Lets imagine:
As you share a drink and an appetizer with a person you met on OKCupid, the banter might be light and airy, the preferred age of cheddar matching, the eye-contact solid without being creepy. You might begin to feel something for the person sitting across from you, as they tell stories about the delights of being an accountant, or deliberate on the social scene during their undergraduate tenure at State School University. You both liked Lord of the Rings, but not as much as Harry Potter. You agree that Brad Pitt has become a real actor now, and that Mary-Louise Parker only gets more beautiful as she ages. Kite Runner was good, but Three Cups of Tea really loses its flavor once it came out that Greg Mortenson might be a liar.

It’s going really well.

After a couple drinks, your date informs you that they are having an awesome time, but can’t stay out too much later.

“My church is way up North, and I have to be there by 9.”

Or perhaps:

“I’d love to hang out a little longer, but I got tickets to a Glen Beck rally down-state, and my sister and I are leaving at 6 AM.”

Did this charming watcher of Weeds just mention a Churchal obligation? How can a person who enjoyed the magic of Harry Potter indulge in the pure evil of Glenn Beck?

Perhaps these comments don’t bother you at all. Maybe you are the kind of person who thinks that an individual’s political or religious views are just one tiny aspect of their whole being. You think, nothing they said was judgmental of my beliefs, just statements of theirs. Or are you the kind of person who sees differences in religion or politics defining factors in your relationships?

If you run in a liberal or conservative circle, perhaps you often meet people who have similar views to you, but what about online dating? I tend to think, on a lot of levels, that opposites attract , but are there certain ideological things that could keep you away from someone who otherwise you are really attracted to?

Would you date someone who was a passionate believer or supporter of a religious or political group that conflicted strongly with your own beliefs? Is this the type of information that should be divulged on the embryonic stages of a relationship?

Submission by TNG contributor Joe Varisco

Over the past two months there has been a rise in organized, often violent, resistance and riotous activity. The true cause is not something we can immediately identify and therefore should hesitate in pointing any fingers or instituting reactionary policy. The worst result of this displaced anger and frustration among the youth is perhaps an increased gap in any form of productive dialogue. In both the reactions abroad and at home the press releases and public statements sound more like chiding parents berating their children for misbehavior and punishing them by taking away their privileges, a grand “grounding” of a generation. Instead it might be more productive to explore the roots of this misbehavior or at the very least acknowledge that there is a growing chasm of disparity.

For myself and for other members of my generation there is a loss of direction. Having followed the routes to adulthood, employment and career success as mapped out by older generations many of us are in a state of compounding confusion. Now as adults we are made responsible to manage our situation without much experience or resources to rely upon or guide us. In previous generations, when faced with similar uncertainty and desolate times unrest was also had and some individuals took to organizing a call to address the need for social and cultural changes. Only this time a demoralized generation’s skepticism expresses a fear that perhaps it is not possible for any actual change to occur. We are missing that voice to tell us:

“Listen, we’ve got some serious change coming our way. So please stop rolling around in your own apathy and get off your fuckin’ ass! What was that? Sorry? You’d rather stay home and watch the whole thing burn from the comfort of your couch and computer screen? If you want to see something different, make it happen!”

A symbol of this apathy is perhaps best quantified as a disenfranchised generation of graduates and unemployed sitting at home and developing an ironic relationship to the humor and idiocy of entertainment in the form of reality television. This allows us to sit in a place of satisfying criticism, meditating on these repetitious roles within the current system all the while laughing at the casual demise of integrity, both of the television show’s subjects, the systems that created them and ourselves. Yet, now the irony has turned, has become perverted.

Others of the same generation on the other side of the world charge ahead with impassioned, vigorous and principled uprisings for similar reasons to my generation’s own discontent: broken social promises, paralyzing student loan debt, debilitating unemployment and a distinct sense that we have lost a voice in policy and government to facilitate change. However, my generation instead chooses to become the very agent for the continuation of the status quo. We use subversive language to indict these dilapidated systems, but can only fit in action between rounds of happy hour. Our fundamental behavior is based on idling, distraction and entertainment. We secure a bubbled life, which replicates the irony we so satisfyingly guffawed at from our now worn in cushioned seats in front of the screen.

Now the streets of neighboring London are burning. To not have heeded the importance of that first wave of messages from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain to Syria to Yemen, even in China, Saudi Arabia and Iran, although instantaneously snuffed out, to all the nations and people’s who are fighting back and organizing, who are repairing wounds in the streets and whose hearts are encased with steely conviction, is a deplorable surrender to passivity. Or as Chris R. a NYC editor for The New Gay put it recently, “It’s difficult, when reading and seeing coverage of the riots in England, to not see a negative of our own pacification Stateside.” The failure of holding our media, government and other social institutions accountable is nothing less than holding ourselves accountable.

In London, for the second time this year after anti-cuts rallies and pulsating resentment with government austerity measures, something has snapped. The Tottenham Riots are waged by the greater middle class and minority communities and it’s response however chaotic, was relentless. The UK Office of National Statistics most recent report shows that youth groups ages 16-24 now make up 20.4% unemployment throughout the country. An atmosphere that breeds perceived random reactionary behavior is a signal of how ripe society is for change and in this case, regardless of a lack of clear ideological framework, should cause intellectual pause.

Waiting for a satisfactory political response to the U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics and the nauseating outcome of the debt-ceiling compromise cuts has now become the fertile grounds for aggressive anti-social behavior. There may be something more to this than a festering infection of economic and social malaise spreading into the streets. There may be something more to this than meaningless acts of violence that have been quietly birthed and nurtured by a frustrated, resistant, and increasing turmoil mirroring the effects of greed and violence seen at levels of policy and policing of our governing bodies. There may be reason to consider what this means. Continuing this progenitor state of disciplining disobedience will only ensure an absent consideration of progressive solutions with my generation resorting to a dismissal of culpability and instead remaining inside their own bubbles. Change? Never mind, did you see that funny video on YouTube? Never mind, pass the bowl. Never mind, lets look at some porn. Never mind: update, blog, tweet, text all the menial details of our everyday lives into the void.

The recent flash mob riots popping up across Philadelphia have garnered reactionary language similar to the UK’s from its political leadership in a crackdown on all youth. As of Friday 12 August 2011 Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter instituted tight curfews and exalted, “I don’t care what your economic status is in life, you do not have a right to beat somebody’s ass on the street.” Mayor Nutter continues, indicting parents and deferring to stereotypical rhetoric as the cause to African-American youth unemployment, which in his opinion is the cause of, “…walk[ing] into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ‘cause you look like you’re crazy.”

Instead of opening a forum to discuss how the current cultural atmosphere provides the grounds for violent activity to take place and how we all, government, parents, youth, etc. play an active role in being responsible for the current state of discord, Mayor Nutter downplays the events. Nutter employs similar measures as Prime Minister David Cameron who recommends, “Working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via [social media] websites and services.” Though it would seem that a larger big brother hand drawing an invisible cage around social media, limiting people’s ability to organize, might only insight further resentment. It might be valid to remember the words of President Kennedy, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.”

But, for those others, those that refuse to believe the pronunciation: “Change is dead, long live Dysphoria!” For those who disagree with the tactics of looters and violent rioters, but who are troubled by something greater than the acts themselves. The “If there comes a time for change” is much closer to “When the time comes for change” and this serious change creeps inevitably forward regardless of our participation, but the outcome will likely be even less favorable.

It is time now to get up, get informed, get involved, and start teaching our limbs to move again. Do not allow ourselves to be completely crushed or demoralized. Remember we, here, together and now have all the tools and resources needed in one another to have our voices heard and make any kind of change possible. Let us begin discussing what those changes can be, what they mean, why we want them and then how can we go about implementing them. Do not be a whimper, be a fucking roar! But please, at the very least, be present.

The birddoggers are back.

Facing the most daunting political and economic climate in years, AIDS activists have relaunched efforts to follow presidential candidates on the campaign trail, challenging them to commit to funding the fight against global AIDS.

The tactic, called birddogging, has been used for years by activists to get politicians to go on record saying they’ll ramp up AIDS funding. Sometimes, activists merely attend a town hall, step up to the mic, and ask a candidate for a pledge. Other times, participants get more aggressive, interrupting speeches, waving signs and participating in acts of civil disobedience.

For AIDS birddoggers, though, this presidential campaign could be the most difficult yet.

First, activists are up against drastic U.S. austerity measures. If the congressional committee charged with trimming $1.5 trillion from the deficit decides to cut the tiny portion of the budget dedicated to foreign aid, that will mean funding decreases for PEPFAR and the Global Fund.

Second, birddoggers are targeting some of the most socially conservative candidates to vie for a spot in the White House–individuals who, in the past, have proven averse to funding both domestic and global AIDSprograms. The top two winners of Saturday’s straw poll in Iowa–Congresswoman Michele Bachmann andCongressman Ron Paul–both voted against the 2008 bill that authorized $48 billion to be sent abroad to fightAIDS, tuberculosis and malaria via the Global Fund. Gov. Rick Perry’s Texas, meanwhile is projecting a nearly$20 million shortfall to its AIDS Drug Assistance Program.

“We’re dealing with people who are qualitatively different than anyone we’ve ever had to deal with,” said Gregg Gonsalves, a veteran birddogger and fellow at the Open Society Institute. “If Obama loses, just imagine what Rick Perry is going to do with AIDS policy, or Michele Bachmann, or even Mitt Romney.”

Still, these challenges have not stymied birddoggers, many of whom are college students and members of Health GAP or the Student Global AIDS Campaign, two U.S.-based activist groups committed to fighting AIDSabroad.

Emily Li, 19, a sophomore at Dartmouth, began following potential Republican presidential candidates in the spring. “Now, since a lot of the candidates are making appearances, we’re making efforts to increase our birddogging. There should be someone talking about AIDS at every one of these events.”

Activist efforts this fall, she said, will concentrate on events in South Carolina and New Hampshire, the sites of the upcoming Republican primaries. Dartmouth will host a debate for Republican candidates in October, and the school’s chapter of the Student Global AIDS Campaign plans to pepper the audience with students ready to ask candidates for a global AIDS funding pledge.

Just this week, Kaiser and UNAIDs released a study that found a 10 percent drop in disbursement of funds for the global AIDS response–a drop primarily attributed to a reduction in disbursement by the U.S., according to a joint press release.

“That study just shows the importance of birddogging, of focusing on global AIDS, because it’s obviously going on the political back burner,” said Li. “But the U.S. is still a leader . . . And if we’re decreasing our funding for such an important issue, it gives other countries a guideline that says, ‘Ok, it’s not important to fix this.’”

Follow the Update blog on Twitter @housingworks.

Reality-based assumptions are hard to come by on Capitol Hill, a place where perceived momentum becomes real momentum with the stroke of a pen or a full throated approval from a national figure.

It’s hard to discern actual political dangers from perceived ones, the tools available are fundraising goals, exit polls, cable news coverage, and history.

By all accounts, the Democrats are poised for gains come November 2012. The House of Representatives is going to be shaken up, and Dems only need to carry 24 seats to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker once again, thus halting the ridiculous discussions going on between Bachmann, Boehner, and Cantor. There are some toss-up Senate races, but enthusiasm for the Presidential election will likely put Democrats in a safe spot. What’s left to contend with is President Obama’s re-election.

I’ve had dozens of silly conversations surrounding the President’s handling of the debt ceiling debacle and hundreds of talks since his inauguration of how big of a “let-down” Obama has been. None of these discussions produced any doubt in my mind with regard to his winning a second term. Romney’s raised too much money among his co-hort to not nab the nomination, but he doesn’t inspire his party in a big way, at least not a big enough way to unseat Obama.

Our culturally and institutionally patriarchal society makes it easy to blame the ‘guy at the top’ (“Dad”) for any and all troubles we face. Obama’s not been perfect, but he has made gains legislatively in almost every area of policy he promised to change.

Okay, it’s not the crazy/beautiful change the chanters and political neophytes hoped for in 2008; rather it’s the lasting change that he’ll be credited for when our great-grandkids learn about how lasting health care reform in 2010.

In any political venture, there’s a lot of work to do. Lobbying, yes. Fundraising, of course. Grassroots organizing, a must. Thousands of politicos will work long hours and sacrifice personal relationships fighting to keep Obama in office and build majorities in Washington, D.C. and among states. The work is hard, and mostly unrecognized -BUT it’s been done before, and Democrats are up to the challenge. The anxieties associated with campaigns are founded, but not challenge fraught enough to warrant a real fear.

So, why should the Democrats be afraid of the 2012 cycle?

For some reason pundits and policymakers haven’t grasped the reality that debt ceiling debates and promises of job creation won’t spur young people (generations Y, Z, etc.) to political action.

My generation was born in the era of Bush, Clinton and Bush – more importantly in the time of the rapid growth of televised news, a method of ‘learning about the world’ that is so clearly and laughably dogmatic to anyone under the age of 40. Our political environment is not real to us, we have not experienced in a direct way how changes in Washington affect our lives.

One element to this is a rote learning process that has affected every generation: Why should 21 year olds give up late night binge drinking to organize to ‘Save Medicare’?

Another element is that the things that do matter to our personal lives as young people are “fringe interests”. The fact that our friends cannot marry one another, and that people we know and love end up serving jail time because of our nation’s criminalization of marijuana are not concerns of timid liberal politicians.

To be fair – they are concerns among some Democrats, but they rarely get more than an indirect mention in stump speeches.

The Democrats can win in 2012 and begin to make more serious the reforms that began in the last few years. Taxing the wealthy, expanding stimulus for infrastructure, broadening the social security network and beginning to address ‘greening’ our economy will all mark substantial progress – but not the type of progress that ensures party loyalty in the long term.

There is no greater civil rights battle in 2012 than equality for LGBTQ Americans, and there’s no more glaring inefficiency in our culture than our policing of marijuana.

Advocating ‘safer’ issues, the ones our parents and cable news hosts harp on, does not inspire my generation to practice politics in this cycle. If Democrats shy away from our ‘fringe’ interests, they do have something to fear: their dismissal of the opportunity to engage us with OUR causes will not instill in us the efficacy they need to harden our allegiance to the party.

To create a lasting majority among my generation – one that would provide an experiential means of knowing our efficacy, the Democrats need to celebrate progressive causes and fight for them at the National level.

If Democrats fail to deliver on the issues that matter to young people, all the celebrating November 6^th, 2012 will be short lived.

For Democrats to be fearless in the campaign for 2012, they need to bend progressive.

Did you watch the GOP debate the other night? I didn’t either.

However, I did catch some interesting tweets in my news feed suggesting well-known homophobe Rick Santorum was for the rights of gays, at least those gays in Iran.

Hey, that’s great if Santorum really cares about people he will never be able to hurt through legislation or venomous rhetoric, but don’t let the man behind the curtain fool you. If you do it could get pretty messy.

Here is the video of what Santorum actually said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA_aOn586rg&feature=player_embedded

Santorum said that Iran was a mullahcracy that tramples on the rights of women, and tramples on the rights of gays. True, Iran when it comes to human rights has a very sketchy history at best, but I doubt Santorum has had a coming to Jesus moment with the gays.

Just in the past week he justified why queer people shouldn’t get married by illustrating queers and marriage to that of a napkin, which got an amazing response from Lawrence O’Donnell.

Also, in the past, Santorum has used the old queers are incestual and adulterers line. He even went as a far as to say that gay sex would “undermine the fabric of our society.”

Is Santorum trying to steal the gay vote from Fred Karger, who would have likely put Santorum in his place had Fox let him debate, or is he playing into the typical conservative rhetoric  - a type of rhetoric that is used every day on talk radio to justify why “Islamic extremist” are taking over America and a way to vilify people that live in the Middle East?

It never fails for the talk radio station in my area of Nashville, TN, to blab on about why those people “over there” are bad. These shock jocks typically point to human rights issues, and emphasis the plight queer individuals in countries where being gay is punishable by death (a nice scare tactic to get their listeners riled up).

It may seem for a brief moment these conservatives support the rights of queer people, but when put in full context these radio hosts are simply being sick and cynical.

These conservatives are once again not acknowledging the cultural differences of the Middle East (like same-sex people can dance together, hold hands and it not be considered “gay”), and using ignorance to widen the already yawning gap between the queer community and those of the Islamic faith.

Santorum just so happens to be the mainstream version of what you can hear every day on the radio. He is not for queer rights, Santorum an opportunist that will surely throw the queer community under the bus once again, in the near future.

In the interim, don’t forget to Google “Santorum”.

President Theodore Roosevelt

I want nothing more than for President Obama to succeed. I voted for him, was there in Chicago’s Grant Park  the night he won. It was an exhilarating moment for all of us there, and the millions across the country who were riding the wave of Obama’s brand of “Hope”. I would have put my money on seeing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney get gay-married over seeing my home state of Indiana go blue and vote for a Democrat for president, but it happened.

First and foremost, I’m a Democrat. I can only say that I am simply not able to vote Republican, even for the ones that I might even sort-of like. I will never be able to be supportive of a party that has collectively and so disgustingly been involved with the opposition of the rights and dignity of millions of gay Americans. I get that not every Republican is anti-gay, nor are they all small-minded or selfish fat cats who only care about getting richer and richer.

I wish that I had the ability to allow myself to look at all the issues and make a choice between the two parties, but I can’t. Republicans have continuously been elected on the back of bigotry, and I will have nothing to do with even the good ones. My conscience won’t allow it. I would love to look at both parties without having to think this way, but it is not possible for me and that’s the plain truth of the matter.

But here is one thing I will tell you about Republicans: they had Teddy Roosevelt, and if I could raise his ghost from the dead to lead this country through its economic and social struggles with bombast and bravery, I would do it in a second – and throw Obama out of office faster than he could pussyfoot around another difficult issue.

Mr. President, your position on gay marriage is still “evolving”? Oh grow up already and stand up for something. You want to drop DOMA, you pushed to get rid of DADT, and you speak to gay groups. Give me a break: stop using the community and actually fully stand up for them.

Mr. President, what have you changed in Washington? And look, I get it; I don’t expect miracles. Since Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson turned the government during George Washington’s presidency into one of the most biting, backstabbing and bickering political moments in our history — thereby setting the stage for our two-party system — those that have served in government have acted like children in their arguments and thieves who seek to only gain power, money and notoriety for themselves.

And every once in a while, someone comes along whom speaks truth to power, as the saying goes. Someone who cares more about what is right and getting it done above all else. You were going to be that President, that’s why we all voted for you for God’s sake.

Teddy Roosevelt was a thorn in the side of politicians and businessmen who throughout his life and career fought for what was right, no matter that it might have made him a political casualty. I don’t think that Roosevelt was a perfect person, nor a perfect president, but there is certainly a reason he hovers at the top of the list of most historians’ greatest U.S. presidents and was able to stand as someone associated more for the character of his politics than the affiliation of his party.

I don’t know what Roosevelt would do today, but one thing I do know is that he wouldn’t quietly compromise our future. The man was shot during a speech and refused medical attention until he was done with his speech – something tells me he wouldn’t roll over. He may have walked softly, but he sure as hell beat the shit out of the corrupt bastards in this country with his big stick.

So be the president I voted for, Mr. Obama. Remind me why I so passionately supported you in 2008. Don’t just try to do what is right. Do it. Stop pretending like everyone is willing to come up with a compromise and stop pretending like compromise is always the best option. Stand up for something already. Be brave. Be loud. Raise your voice for what is right. Show some real passion.

I know men with tits who have bigger balls than you.

In the past few months, Cornel West and Tavis Smiley have teamed up together to create something called the Poverty Tour. This tour’s effort is to highlight the plight of poor people in America.

Throughout this tour there has been steady criticism, from West and Smiley, of President Barack Obama and the lack of attention he has placed on poor and working class families.

Most recently on their tour, West and Smiley took to the streets of Washington, D.C., and spent the night with the local homeless and unemployed people.

This effort drew some shocking criticism and problematic questions from people that, one could assume, are supporters of their past efforts and train of thought. The main question that many people asked: Why criticize the president? Criticizing him only gives more ammunition for the right-wing to attack him (as if they need help from progressives).

This got me thinking about the queer liberation movement. Certain people in the LGBT community have made it clear that deviation from the gay norm or criticizing certain ideals that are held shouldn’t be done in the light of day, or anytime for that matter. We should criticize when problematic issues arise.

Take Dan Savage, sure he has done some amazing work for LGBT people. From creating the “It Gets Better” campaign to instructing everyone to Google “Santorum” in an effort to fight the homophobic remarks Rick Santorum has spewed in the past.

However, Savage isn’t above criticism. In the past, he has insinuated that Black people were the reason for the passage of Proposition 8 (implicitly stating that homophobia in Black and Brown communities is somehow greater than in white communities, despite data that suggests otherwise). Savage also has perpetuated transphobic sentiments towards Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna and has in the past been unapologetic by spewing negative ableist comments.

We should criticize Savage when he marginalizes a group of people, despite his noble efforts for the queer community. Even though Savage is a part of a community that is oppressed, he also in certain contexts is highly privileged (unchecked privilege can be very problematic). Savage fits the very definition of kyriarchy. That is to say, a person who is oppressed in one context might be privileged in another.

Some would suggest that we shouldn’t criticize Savage or other people “on our side” for fear it makes the queer community look like it’s not united.

Just like how West and Smiley criticizes the president’s actions or lack thereof, we must also do the same to Savage. We must criticize, not demonize.

Along with criticizing our leaders when appropriate, we must also look at ourselves as a community.

A while ago, I debated with a friend about of racism, lookism, ableism, privilege, biphobia and transphobia, issues that plague the queer community. My friend told me we can’t talk about these issues because straight people will look at us and think “they can’t even be equal within their own community, why should we give them rights?” Or something to that effect.

We should debate these issues, because it makes us stronger as a community.

Without debating, analyzing, and criticizing we may allow the continued perpetuation of social injustices within our community or even accept what the hegemonic society has told us is “normal.”

In the end, criticism must come out of love and respect, because if this isn’t the case we will cease to be a movement.

Maybe some of our leaders in the queer community should take note of the Poverty Tour and highlight the plight of queer individuals in America: “The Queer Liberation Tour,” anyone?

The first decade of the 2000s in America gave us many reasons for pacifism. Violence, as we saw it, was a means of terror, a tool of catastrophic political malfeasance, an ever-present threat. Any advocation of violence, it seemed, fell in with this abhorrent crowd.

But what we see now in England is that violence can be utilized not only as a strategy of the terrible and powerful (and terribly powerful), but also as a force for the disenfranchised. Physical action by a group of citizens in response to government oppression captures the spirit of the voiceless in a rhetoric stronger than words alone. And, when executed strategically, it is hard to suppress. Of course, thoughtless destruction of the equally disenfranchised’s property is hardly just, but it’s an unfortunate accessory to a movement that, at least, strives for justice.

Violence, by any definition, does not need to be directed at a person’s personal harm to exert its force. There are many things that deserve injury–destruction, even–in today’s America. Perhaps the progressive discontents in America today can learn something from our brethren in England. We certainly have the historical context, from the more violent branches of the civil rights movement to the Haymarket Affair to the very origin of our nation.

Indeed, the most successful campaigns of organized political action in recent American history were spearheaded by queers and queer-allies, who organized the ACT-UP actions across the country against the government’s ignorance of AIDS in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In some small chamber of queer American consciousness, you can still hear their echo: “Act up. Fight back.”

On Tuesday, 2 August 2011, our representatives — flying under a 61% poor performance rating (Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters June 24-25, 2011 Rasmussen Reports) — put citizens’ futures on the firing line with their tweaking fingers at the trigger. The impacts of the final compromise on the ‘debt-ceiling crisis’ will be run through the usual mill of analysis for the next several months: insiders, political talking heads, and elected officials will point fingers to polarize their bases, but the actual path of their hubris may never be known. The decision is nothing less than acrid. For those individuals already feeling malnourished by our country’s economic state, it offers a daftly inspired mirage which upon approach reveals nothing more than a dysphoric desert reality. It is increasingly evident that the bargains to maintain the promises of American social institutions have ended in a stalemate between those that have and those that have more. Thus, as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University and New York Times columnist Dr. Paul Krugman forebodes in his article The President Surrenders, “…how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.”

We are more then halfway into 2011. Status update: there are two military conflicts/confrontations/combat operations/squabbles or whatever politically convenient term now defines Iraq and Afghanistan and the most recent short-lived military expedition throwing bombs around Libya aiding the resistance. The country’s unemployment rates hover at 9.1% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics. Despite the dancing of digits and statistics it is evident that more than one system is failing and we’re still staring in the face of collapsed industry when levels of the long-term unemployed and under-employed near 18.1% (Gallup, 5 August 2011).

Yet the anxiety and concern of the people amidst compounding issues were met with our “Representatives” on Capitol Hill engaging in a staring contest over the past month. The literally last-minute bill ought to cause some consistent feelings of indigestion across the country. It is in the settling of the desert dust that we discover how very few are pleased with the outcome, except for the sterling upper echelons of society, corporate titans, energy giants, Wall Street moguls and the silver-spooned houses of the elected officials themselves – in short, those that set the standards. These standards now include: cuts in emergency unemployment, federal loan availability to students, veteran affairs, environmental protection services, transportation/public works projects and Medicaid. Partisan conflicts t in Washington have become a charade of negotiations between these upper-crusters under the guise of performing what their constituents need. A snapshot of arguments reveals this charade via the exclusion from the bill of closing corporate loopholes and denying an increase of taxes on the wealthiest income earners, just one of the many policy failures reported by Standard & Poor’s as a reason for their lowering of the U.S. credit rating for the first time in 70 years.

While the rest of the Hill pat themselves on the back with boisterous claims about how “the engine still works” even if it is no longer under warranty and has not been serviced for 20 years, the middle class dips further into a double-dip recession. The international communities including the G20 and G7, representing the world’s leading economies amid a European economic breakdown, are showing signs of panic as they rush to discuss emergency response strategies. China, the largest stakeholder in U.S. federal debt and typically resisting commentary, has released public statements criticizing the United State’s recent economic policy, saying America needs to “(c)ure its addiction to debts.”

President Obama addressed the nation the evening of Monday, August 1st prior to the final approval of the Senate on the debt compromise, taking to his familiar one-of-the-people speaking platforms to state, “Is this the deal I would have preferred? No.” Obama continued by saying of the decision that “(i)t ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months and it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.” Perhaps that desert mirage looks better riding high above in a sterling jet while the intrusive truth of time rapidly approaches those left in the sands below. However, it is a virtual guarantee that this topic will be a central campaign issue during the approaching presidential elections, where President Obama may be held accountable to angry citizens with a less hopeful future, not his typical voter base. The President’s words offer little consolation according to the 5 August 2011 U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics report for what the middle class civilian labor force can expect to be an ever tighter squeeze on unemployment and job markets, which leave minorities (approx. 12.6% unemployment), veterans (13.3% unemployment) and an entire generation of college graduates (approx. 6.3% unemployment) locked in a stagnated state of how to manage the daily impacts of debt crises, carrying only an I.O.U. on an expired social promise.

Who’s the jackass? Or better yet: who’s the dumbass?

Keep reading. Before you think this is some commentary written by one of those self-loathing Family Research Council members or some other wing-nut—and God knows there are a ton of them—this is how I’ve chosen to describe whoever was responsible for dis-inviting Republican Congressman Allen West from attending a meeting which was scheduled to be held tonight, August 8.

The meeting was to be between Rep. West and the members of the Wilton Manors Business Association (WMBA). The by-laws of WMBA states: “The purpose of the association is to promote the development and growth of the Wilton Manors business community.”

Seems like a worthwhile goal for a group concerned about promoting their small businesses here in Wilton Manors (Fort Lauderdale, FL). All the more reason to ask their duly-elected Member of Congress to attend a meeting of the Association and speak, especially when you have a locally-elected Congressman who serves on the House Small Business Committee.

Before telling West to pound sand, the Congressman sent the WMBA president a letter stating he was looking forward to meeting with business owners to discuss issues such as access to capital, the national debt and the economy, as well as hearing directly from them on their concerns operating a business in South Florida.

Enter the Florida Gay, Lesbian Transgender Democratic Caucus and its president who upon hearing of the invitation demanded it be rescinded. And if not, he huffed, the caucus would demand the GLBT businesses within the WMBA quit and further threatened a boycott against those businesses which didn’t.

Why?

Well the idiot president said those businesses should be boycotted because they “put profits ahead of human rights.” Yep, that’s right. Afterall, the only reason I would want to start-up a new business that if successful (and dare say create a new job for some unemployed worker) is because human rights pays more than profits. (I wasn’t a business major in college, but I do think the goal of many businesses around the globe is to make a profit.)

Well needless to say there have been all kinds of groups and individuals weighing in on this topic pointing fingers. The Christian Family Coalition squealed with delight upon hearing this, issuing a statement supporting West and faulting the caucus president for intolerance.

Even the recent edition of the South Florida Gay News, Fort Lauderdale’s gay rag, went to press with its front page ablaze with a photo of a donkey and the Congressman. The headline which appeared with the photos read: A Tale of 2 Donkeys. I guess the inference is a tale of two jackasses, for after reading the accompanying news story AND an editorial by the paper’s publisher, it didn’t make alot of sense to me.

(But interestingly enough, this “publisher” not once mentioned the words “free speech.” But who knows what’s being taught in journalism classes at universities and colleges nowaday. I learned long ago while working on my journalism degree that “free speech” and “free press” were often intermingled by those Constitution writers long ago.)

But to be fair, (and I guess this is fair), the publisher’s editorial was headlined: “Allen West Needs to Be Censured, Not Censored.” All that editorializing aside, the paper was happy to offer a third story quoting what I guess were eight offensive statements in which they disagreed, and headlined it: “Allen West: In His Own Words.”

The comments focused on three topics: On Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, Gay Marriage and Congresswoman Debbie Schultz (who by the way is the Democrat Member of Congress in the adjoining Congressional district to West).

West you might recall, called her vile, unprofessional and despicable.

But what amazes me, (though I’m not surprised at all) is that not one column inch of news or editorials in this Fort Lauderdale gay rag contained one word about West’s assignment to the House Small Business Commitee. (Excuse me but did someone say “SMALL BUSINESS?)

If I were a Wilton Manors small business owner and learned that West wanted to reduce the minimum wage 50 percent or demand that all employers make their employees work 80 hours a week , that would be good to know. But somehow the point of the whole exercise got tossed overboard.

Afterall, I’m sure this brilliant caucus president reasoned, we have much bigger fish to fry.

But the local daily newspaper here in Fort Lauderdale (The Sun Sentinel) got it right when they editorialized the Democratic caucus group president got it all wrong…writing: “intolerance is intolerable, and that’s why pressure on a Wilton Manors business group to disinvite a member of Congress is misguided.”

There are alot of reasons–be they valid or not–for disliking Congressman West. Most will say he’s homophobic, was against the repeal of DADT, too militant.

But when did it ever hurt to listen? Just sit down and shut the (****)-up.

Had these “tolerant” South Florida business owners and caucus president taken the time to listen they might have learned that Congressman West has a close relative who is gay and married to his partner.

“We love and adore them both,” wrote Congressman West’s wife, Angela, in a statement she wrote over the cancellation of the speaking event. She also referenced a fellow soldier and her partner who served with the Congressman in the Middle East. She even wondered aloud in her written statement that gee, “following the business portion of the meeting, maybe they could have discussed her husband’s views on DADT.”

“What a novel idea,” Angela West wrote, “having a personal discussion with a Congressman. But no it is far more important to vilify, de-personalize and really bar him from speaking.”

Amazing the things one can learn when you simply take the time to listen.

And if you have to open your mouth, just take a deep breath and remember how we are all supposed to spell the word: T O L E R A N C E.

That’s my two cents.

A new bill could put an end to HIV criminalization laws that impose cruel and unfair penalties on people with HIV.

U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) plans to introduce the legislation in September. A draft shows it would require a review of all federal and state laws, policies, regulations and judicial precedents regarding criminal cases involving people living with HIV/AIDS.

The bill, called the Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, would then charge the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services with developing guidelines for state and federal governments. The guidelines would assist governments in altering discriminatory policies.

Laws would change that 1) place an additional burden on HIV-positive individuals because of their HIV status or 2) are not consistent with evidence-based, medically accurate public health initiatives.

“The criminalization of exposure to and/or transmission of HIV without the requirement of malicious intent violates the civil and human rights of individuals who are HIV-positive,” reads the draft.

Thirty-four states and two U.S. territories have statutes that penalize HIV exposure. While their supporters claim these policies protect the public health, evidence shows they do more harm than good.

A few examples:

• A man with HIV in Texas is serving 35 years for spitting at a police officer.
• A man with HIV in Iowa had an undetectable viral load and had a sexual encounter during which he used a condom and HIV was not transmitted. He received a 25-year sentence. The sentence was eventually suspended, but he was required to register as a sex offender. This barred him from unsupervised contact with his nieces, nephews, and other young children.
• A woman with HIV in Georgia received an 8-year sentence for nondisclosure of her HIV status to a sexual partner, despite the testimony of two witnesses that the partner knew of her HIV status.
• A man with HIV in Michigan was charged under the state’s anti-terrorism statute with possession of a ”biological weapon” after he allegedly bit his neighbor.

The legislation’s expected introduction is part of a growing effort to limit or end laws that punish individuals for HIV exposure or transmission. In February, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors became the most recent group to speak out, calling for an end to laws that impose disproportionately harsh penalties for HIV nondisclosure, exposure or transmission.

“The passage of this bill will make it safer for people with HIV to disclose their status and it will remove an important barrier to those at risk from getting tested,” said Sean Strub, co-founder of the Positive Justice Project, which works to combat HIV-related discrimination in the justice system. “The result will be less transmission of HIV.”

America has a rich history. American history depicts many different people fighting for a better America, battling for civil rights. And yes, some of these “pioneers” were and are LGBT persons.

It wasn’t until 1999 that the first Gay Pride Proclamation was issued by President Bill Clinton. Then, Clinton urged Americans to “celebrate our diversity and to remember throughout the year the gay and lesbian Americans whose many and varied contributions have enriched our national life.” On July 14^th, California became the first state to mandate that contributions by the LGBT community to American history be recognized and included in the education of its public school students.

The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act (FAIR) introduced by the California Senate, eventually passed by the assembly, and signed by Governor Jerry Brown requires the inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender history into curricula in California public schools. Without the inclusion of LGBT components, we fail to properly educate students. I feel we also fail to honor those who fought – not only for LGBT rights, but also those who fought for sweeping civil rights who happen to be queer.

Unfortunately, a few groups in California would prefer Californian students be deprived of a more principled American history, one taught with integrity. The California State Republican Party, The Traditional Values Coalition, and the state diocese of the Roman Catholic Church have all voiced opposition to the inclusive education act. In familiar fashion, The Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative group, has been given the OK to gather signatures to get a referendum put on the 2012 ballot to repeal the FAIR Education Act.

Stephen Colbert comically expressed what I believe reflects the fears of those who oppose the FAIR Education Act: “Bringing gay history in our classrooms teaches our children a dangerous lesson – that gay people exist.” If not that gay people exist, possibly that LGBT persons have fought the same battles many other Americans have fought for civil equality, contributing to America’s complex and deep history.

Perhaps they fear students will analyze Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. Perhaps they fear educators will share the truth behind the role of Gays and Lesbians in the 1963 Great March on Washington. Perhaps they are afraid that when discussing the Civil Rights Movement, educators will teach about Bayard Rustin. Students will learn that Rustin, architect of the modern Civil Rights Movement and advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was in fact an African American Mary who was a leader in gay and lesbian rights, civil disobedience and civil rights in America. I think the real fear is recognition of the absurdity that civil rights is exclusive of LGBT persons – that civil rights cannot be hijacked as history cannot be appropriated or rewritten. Queer history is American history. It’s our history.

Poor, unstably housed New Yorkers living with HIV/AIDS are having a significantly harder time finding apartments as a result of two policies adopted by the city’s Human Resources Administration.

That is the key conclusion drawn from a survey of case managers released this week by Shubert Botein Policy Associates, an analysis and advocacy group based in New York City.

In March, the Human Resources Administration changed two long-standing policies regarding the payment of fees on behalf of low-income people who receive rental assistance through HRA. First, HRA halved the amount it will pay to a broker who is working on behalf of an HRA client. Second, HRA will no longer provide cash security deposits to landlords who work with clients. Instead, landlords are given vouchers, which they can use to request compensation for damages caused by a tenant.

Concerned about the effects of the HRA rules, Housing Works commissioned Shubert Botein Policy Associates to carry out a survey that would measure their impact. In May, Shubert Botein surveyed 238 case managers who work with clients who receive housing subsidies through HRA’s HIV/AIDS Services Administration.

According to the report, 95 percent of HASA clients involved in a housing search identified the policy changes as a barrier to securing a home.

Other important findings:

• 94 percent of respondents said that the brokers’ fee change is a significant barrier to finding housing, with 50 percent of respondents reporting that the policy has prevented placement for one or more clients.
• 61 percent of case managers who responded report that, compared to this time last year, it takes significantly longer to find and secure an apartment using the HASA rental assistance program.

The survey results indicate that many brokers and landlords have stopped working with HASA clients, lengthening their stays in expensive and often dangerous emergency housing. According to survey respondents, some brokers are asking clients on fixed incomes to pay half of the brokers’ fees themselves, and some landlords are asking clients to pay the security deposit themselves. Case managers report that clients are taking risks to find fast money to secure an apartment, resorting to loan sharks or engaging in risky and illegal behavior.

“My clients, because brokers are refusing to show them apartments or help them with housing, they’re going back to sex work,” said Howard Haughton, program supervisor for case management at Village Care.

HASA clients are the lowest income New Yorkers living with HIV/AIDS. Approximately 26,000 of them receive cash assistance and are therefore subject to these policy changes. Stable housing is critical not only to their positive health outcomes but also saves the city money by removing them from emergency housing and allowing them to be productive members of a community.

Housing Works plans to work with a coalition of housing providers and City Council members to reverse the damaging HRA policies.

“The evidence is astounding,” said Kristin Goodwin, Housing Works’ director of New York City policy and organizing. “These policies are completely at odds with HASA’s goal of getting people to move toward more independent living. So let’s start moving forward.”

Interested in joining the campaign? Contact Kristin Goodwin at k.goodwin@housingworks.org.

Are you a HASA client affected by these policies? Contact Derrick Chandler at d.chandler@housingworks.org.

Follow the Update blog on twitter @housingworks.

Michelle Bachmann, (frighteningly) as a front-runner in the rat race for republican nomination for president, is drawing attention for her outrageous political view. But, as is true for most women in politics, she’s also getting noticed for so much more, including aspects not quite relevant to the job description. This includes popular punch line, hubby Marcus and his questionable sexuality.

At this point you probably know that Marcus Bachmann is a “therapist” who “cures” individuals of their homosexuality, but, you know, only if they choose that path for themselves. Despicable? I’d say so. Appallingly unscientific? You betcha! Clinically I assume he must have learned everything he knows from NARTH or maybe just from Leo Spaceman. This controversial (putting it lightly) methodology of his is enough to call bluff on any claim to scientific legitimacy for him. It also further reinforces his wife’s political stance on the “issue” of homosexuality. End it there and all would be well, another bigot to add to the list of contenders for the republican crown. Except, well, there’s more.

Limp-wristed, lisp-spewing, sashay-hips-swinging jokes galore for Bachmann. Femininity in his speech and his allegedly good taste in women’s clothing has provided sufficient fodder for the “mainstream” “liberal” media to slap their knees and shoot around their speculative snark. The Bachmann’s marriage has turned into a notorious joke with everyone in on it (even Cher!). The first suggested search on Google after “Marcus Bachmann” is “Marcus Bachmann gay.” I can see millions of Americans now, staring at their glowing screens salivating over potential scandal.

Several sources have posed this question already, but to reiterate, what are we saying by mocking Marcus Bachmann for his “gay voice,” what does that say about acceptable performances of masculinity for individuals who assert themselves as heterosexual men, and what does it say about our attitudes towards the institution of the closet?

The focus on speculating about Bachmann’s sexuality is distraction from a bigger problem, the fact that Michelle Bachmann is a manifestation of a counter-progressive force gaining momentum in reaction to the increased visibility and gaining of rights of the LGBTQ community. Make no mistake in underestimating her appeal for people whose attitudes are shaped by systems of heteronormativity that posit homosexuality and all queerness as a pinnacle threat and a moral abomination. His psychological practice is also in line with this dangerous social force, not to mention at odds with his wife’s alleged economic ideology, but THIS is the thing people should be drawing attention to and attacking: the Bachmanns’ inherent hypocrisy and large scale conning of the American public, not “he talks so gay!” Otherwise we’re just promoting the same narrow-minded and one-dimensional interpretation of what constitutes a homosexual and what constitutes a man, not to mention furthering the line of thinking that gay men are put on this earth to amuse everyone and serve as cultural clowns.

Now that I’ve gotten the mandatory slap on the wrist out of the way, let me step back and minute to consider how I reacted to the jokes, and how I feel about all this now, as a gay man and as a conscious consumer of media messaging. Immediately, I was all about this Bachmann-bashing, this shameless mockery of him as a pathetically closeted Mary, his pretty maids secretly all in a row. I was delighted by the public evisceration of his masculinity with witticism (particularly over twitter! Bryan Safi is kind of a genius). After all, he is married to this conservative demagogue who’d probably be much happier if I was to be burned at the stake (and even then I wouldn’t be as flaming as her husband…bad um TSKS!) (That’s not even close to being true, come on, I wholly unnecessarily referenced Cher in this). Does he not deserve all that he gets even if it compromises my ideas of gender oppression and promotes attitudes that I feel promote it?

Or is it something else? Do I feel okay about this because I think that it’s true? Does all of this criticism of the criticism not even matter because, in this case, it’s on point?

I feel like I’ve been centering my thoughts around the idea that it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not because it’s irrelevant and that there are other elements of the Bachmann situation to be more concerned about that rest less on ambiguity and more on fact. But maybe I need to, at least in part, distance myself from this idea because it is entirely relevant whether or not Marcus Bachmann is a closeted homosexual or has undergone reparative therapy himself. Their very public and very extreme position on my sexuality and my identity would not allow for me to exist safely, productively and happily if they had their way. Why should they make these wildly unscientific and prejudiced judgment calls without having attention drawn to the fact that they potentially could serve as the embodiment of what America would look like if they did have their way with gay people. And, if that is true and they are the example, then isn’t it one that it doesn’t take a body language expert to know that is devoid of chemistry and seemingly devoid of the possibility of sexual energy and exchange?

There, I said it.

To put it in this perspective, placing Bachmann into our ga(y)ze, the joke that the media is making becomes not about the fact that he is gay, but more about the fact that he thinks he’s effectively hiding it from the public. And I don’t know. I feel maybe inappropriately comfortable with this joke. Maybe I’m perpetuating ideas about gaydar or gay face that are subject to error, but as a gay guy in America, I’ve learned that a lot of reading other people’s sexualities is about making judgment calls. You can discuss with them if they’re open and honest with themselves and other people, but someone so closely involved in an institution that drives bigotry and pseudoscience in the name of G-O-D is not going to do that. So we judge. Maybe not the Christian thing to do, but frankly I’m not too concerned about severing ties with the church.

Jay  Borchert is a PhD Student in Sociology and Social Demography at the University of Michigan.  7 of his last 15 years were spent incarcerated in Illinois jails and prisons.  Upon release, he earned his BA, Summa cum Laude at DePaul University in 2010, while living on the south side.  He studies race and criminology in Ann Arbor, but Chi-town remains in his heart

This piece was written in response to Randall Jenson’s “Reading Boystown,” an exploration of the divisions at the heart of Chicago gay life published last Wednesday on TheNewGay.

Randall makes a good-faith effort at sorting through one of Boystown’s  social problems; problems which,  in essence,  are really about Chicago as a whole.    Historically Chicago has been the most heavily segregated city in the country.  The black-white divide between the south side and north side, despite diversity in some neighborhoods, remains salient in 2011.  Unfortunately this divide too often represents not only a racial and cultural divide but a stark divide in community resources, employment, schools, infrastructure, transportation options, police protection and police surveillance. Gay kids have it tough all over.  However, the structural inequalities on the south side and other less advantaged areas of the city make it even tougher for gay kids in these areas to have a decent upbringing.  Historical, structural disadvantage and racism which play out in the social geography are easy to see. Kids see and feel these inequalities on a daily basis.  It is the responsibility of thinking adults to recognize the problems created by these glaring inequalities and to realize that work needs to be done to alleviate them.  Acting out and criminal behaviors which these kids display are derived from social strains wherein some people simply don’t have access to the opportunities that the majority does.  Therefore they make do in life through other less normative methods.  Defiance theory also suggests that people are pissed about these inequalities and act upon this historical frustration of opportunity and defy the normative social order, sometimes with violence.

Our gay kids see this lack of opportunity and see very few people working to diminish it.  They see too many mainstream gay men and women, of all races, as too concerned with consumer culture and not concerned with the social disadvantages which prevail citywide.  They are angry at home and they are angry when they come up north.  At times venturing to the north side is for fun, a place where they can be their gay selves.  At other times, they may come north out of frustration on the south side and vent on those who they believe are not helping the situation; those who they believe could be of assistance if they would choose to recognize all community members and not just those with six figure incomes.

To be sure, acting out is unhealthy and oftentimes illegal.   However, it is understandable in this context.  It is the responsibility of those with resources, not only money but common sense and decency, to make all areas welcoming to our gay kids.  It is also our responsibility to let all community members know that illegal acts, particularly violence, can result in jail, prison, and sometimes even disability or death.    People who violate these shared social norms against violence have to face the penalty, whether the violence occurs on the south side or the north side and this must be made clear in a healthy way.  A healthy way in this instance would be an avenue that lets these kids know that if they think it is bad here, it is even worse in jail and that the inequality they experience now will be much worse with a criminal record.  These are the facts.  We need to take an honest inventory of our city and our gay community and confront the social problems we see head on with common sense and inclusivity.  We are all a part of that sometimes silly rainbow, made up of a diversity of colors, cultures and voices.  Let’s take care of our own wherever they live in order to make our entire community a safer, healthier environment and make racism and homophobia relics of the past.

In 1961, when Barack Hussein Obama II was born in the brand new State of Hawaii, laws on the books in 22 of the other 49 United States forbade the marriage of his White American mother to his Black Kenyan father. Arizona’s anti-miscegenation law prohibiting marriage between whites and any persons of color was repealed in 1962. Similar laws in Utah and Nebraska were overturned the following year. Indiana’s law prohibiting interracial marriage held out until 1965, Maryland’s until 1967, the same year that such laws were finally overturned in Alabama*, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia that ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

By the time race was removed as a barrier to marital choice in America, Barack Obama was in the first grade. By the time inter-racial marriage was fully accepted in America . . . well that hasn’t really happened yet. While it’s more and more common for men and women of different heritage to tie the knot, there remain – and you know this as well as I do – a mostly closeted but occasionally verbose cadre of bigots in this country who, had they their way, would continue to see our country divide itself along lines not yet fully erased by centuries of blood and toil.

Yes, we all know about America’s racially conflicted past, so what’s the point?

The point is that it’s incomprehensible to me that Barack Obama, a man whose legitimacy as an American has been publicly questioned by hate-rousing provocateurs, a man whose early life confounds the prevailing norms of his generation, a man whose ascendency in the 21^st Century was made possible only by the bravery of justice-seekers in the 20^th, that he, of all people, would be behind the times on marriage equality. How is it possible that his stance on gay marriage is still evolving?

In 1969, Barack Obama was just finishing the second grade when, on June 28, almost precisely 42 years ago, thousands of gay men and more than a few women rose up for the first time against the systematic, institutional, sanctioned mistreatment and exclusion under which they suffered in this country. At the time of the Stonewall Uprising, homosexual behavior was a crime in 49 states. The last of the states’ sodomy laws weren’t officially laid to rest until the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, 36 years after Loving, and what interracial couples got in 1967, same-sex couples are still waiting for today.

I struggled with whether to even write on this topic since I don’t really have a dog in the fight. I’m a man married to a woman. Maybe this particular issue is one I should leave alone. Maybe it’s just something I should let time work out in its inexorable way. Maybe, but then when it comes to fairness, time is too sluggish a vessel. Rather than wonder, “Who am I to speak?” I wonder, “Who am I to withhold an opinion where one is clearly called for?” About something as fundamental as the question of whether all American adults have the right to flourish in the loving marriage of their choice, not taking a position is taking a position – the wrong one.

Being fair to the president, no president ever has done more or could have done more to advance the rights of gays and lesbians in this country. The repeal of the military’s policy of feigned ignorance and self-abnegation was, in itself, a triumph. The withdrawal of his administration’s support for the Defense of Marriage Act was another blow for progress. Maybe on this one issue, an issue that perhaps has the president torn over the significance of a mere word, perhaps as a straight man with no ax to grind, he just doesn’t think it’s his place to weigh in. That would be understandable. It would also be unforgivable.

It was a White president from Missouri who integrated the Armed Forces. It was a White president from Texas who signed the Civil Rights Act. Maybe it just has to be a straight president from Hawaii via Illinois who removes that lingering, ugly, codified divide that stands Americans apart from one another, mounting the hate and rot that still enlace our public discourse. Words matter. The words “marriage” and “union” are separate and therefore unequal and even if no one else can see why, surely Barack Obama can.

Taking the president at his word, or at the word of his staff, perhaps he honestly believes that deciding who can marry whom is a matter best left to state electorates. The public will, after all, is the fuel that runs the engine of our democracy and there’s no purer fuel than the public’s expression of that will through voting its opinion. I would accept that, but for the fact that any government’s most vital function is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Were it left to public opinion, our country would be a very different place. When the National Guard met George Wallace at the University of Alabama in 1963, most public opinion in Alabama was on Wallace’s side. When 110,000 Japanese Americans were herded into internment camps in 1942, public opinion largely supported it as good common sense. A fair share of American public opinion once opposed women’s suffrage and supported removal of American Indians from their land.

Some things are too important to be pushed at from behind; they must be led, kicking and screaming if necessary, from the front. The president’s failure to identify marriage equality as a civil right, not something for the states to muddle stopping one step short of an unqualified embrace of all Americans’ rights to enter into the sanctioned marriage of their choice – that, in a word, is cruel. It’s small, it’s weak and it’s cruel.

Four years ago I was fortunate enough to ask then candidate Obama a question and even more fortunate to get a response. It was at the California Democratic Convention and Obama was not yet encircled by Secret Service agents at all times. In a recess of the San Diego Convention Center I saw him on the move and thought, what should I ask this man whose passion is so evident, whose love of life and country so vividly expressed? So I asked, “Senator Obama, what do you hate?”

In an instant of pure candor he replied, “I hate cruelty. I don’t know why people are cruel.”

Neither do I, Mister President. Neither do I.

The views expressed on this and other LGBT websites regarding race relations often characterize blacks as behind the times regarding homophobia while ignoring the racial prejudices that have become so normalized in the LGBT community (among gaywhite men in particular) that they are not even thought of as worthy of discussion. The recent backlash turned media phenomenon that followed Tracy Morgan’s idiotic tirade during a standup routine in Tennessee brought up much of the old racist innuendo that was so prevalent following the passing of Proposition 8. I am often fascinated by those who say the racial element is irrelevant. They vehemently maintain that the LGBT movement is just identifying a collective enemy of its causes.

Right.

So last week, when Marcus Bachmann referred to gay people as barbarians where were all of these heroic white gays to offer their astute commentary on homophobia in the white community? This incident was certainly reported on, but it just seemed to lack some of the pizazz that Tracy Morgan brought out. This man would be the “First Man” of the United States if Bachmann is successful in her campaign, and Morgan is a mere comedian.

With the latter, The New Gay even posted a moronic article called “An Open Letter to Tracy Morgan“ in which Craig Gidney (whose post scarcely even addressed Morgan’s remarks) launched into a rather incoherent tirade about his experiences being bashed and denigrated by those that “share[s] a hue and culture that matches [his]own.” Unsurprisingly, the article was hailed by some as heroic, and one commenter even boldly stated “May we all call out homophobia and bigotry no matter its source,” insinuating that blacks are spared criticism from gay rights activists due to political correctness. This juvenile assessment is reiterated loudly and often. The problem with this “analysis” is that races are not typically given ownership of homophobia. After all, under more careful scrutiny it was revealed that Hispanics actually won the “homophobia as measured by percentage of their race’s approval of Proposition 8″ award. I recall no collective effort on behalf of the courageous white gays to offer their cold, hard truths to the Hispanic community.
A commenter on an article on TNG called “Why am I Not Attracted to Black Men“ even gave blacks credit for the high instance of gay hate crimes in Washington, DC. He maintained that it’s all because Marion Barry and Bishop Harry Jackson efforts to incite the 50% of the city’s population that is black to target gay white men through some nebulous mind control process that was never clearly defined. Never mind that blacks are victims of hate crimes far more disproportionately than they commit them. Never mind that there are a litany of African-American leaders who are supportive of LGBT rights like Julian Bond and . . . oh yeah . . . . Barack Obama that black people could turn to for leadership, but white gays are always so certain that it’s these anti-gay black preachers who are running the show among the darkies and that black people eagerly listen to them. Interestingly, these same well-intentioned white gays feel no need to give blacks credit for getting gay marriage passed in DC. That must have been entirely the work of the LGBT movement’s efforts to mobilize support in the city.

Before the Tracy Morgan incident, one of the most famous examples cited as evidence of “black homophobia” was that white people (as a demographic) voted against Proposition 8 in California, which the majority of black voters supported.

Uh-huh.

So what about Oregon? Oregon Measure 36 was approved by 57% of voters and the population is only 1.8% black. 53% of whites voted for the measure. What about Montana Initiative 96? Black people make up approximately .4% of the population in the Treasure State, yet the measure passed by 67%. 66% of white voters there passed the measure. Utah Amendment 3? Again,66% of white voters were for that one. In Kentucky, 76% of white voters supported Kentucky Amendment 1 which banned same sex marriage, while 70% of blacks did. What about Arkansas Amendment 3? In my home state 77% of whites voted for it while only 66% of blacks did. Why weren’t any of those stats paraded all over every gay media outlet? Where were the brave calls to speak truth to the white populace in those states? But many would have you believe that the selective outrage and blatant racism brought about by the passing of Proposition 8 stems from a desire to speak out to intolerance “no matter what its source.”

The real issue (surprise, surprise) is actually the religious demographics of each race. African-Americans are the most religious racial group according to Pew studies. Further, Historically Black Churches (which not all black people attend) aren’t the most intolerant toward homosexuality. They come in second to White Evangelical Churches. To be certain, religion has played a strong role in the African-American community due to so many of its prominent leaders in the middle of the 20th century (MLK, Malcolm X, etc.) having strong religious ties. To some blacks homosexuality is still seen as the pinnacle of debauchery and excess, and this homophobia must be addressed. But the homophobia of black people is not attached to their blackness any more than the homophobia of white people is attached to their whiteness. Black people are much more likely to be hard up than white people. And people who are hard up tend to be very serious about Jesus. And people who are very serious about Jesus tend to be very serious about homosexuality being a great societal evil. So if you want to put an end black homophobia, perhaps instead of ostracizing gays of color and condescending to African-Americans you should put away your iPhone and attempt to alleviate some of the poverty and desperation in the black community that has made them (past and present) rely so heavily on religion for the answers to their problems.

Unfortunately, most of the white people screaming loudest on this topic have no interest in unraveling the causation of these disparities. They just want to extrapolate the statistical data that demonstrates a correlation between a person’s race (so long as they are not white) to their negative traits. They attack white intolerance through their religion and black intolerance through their race, and facts be damned. Instead of using every instance of “black homophobia” as evidence that the Negros are coming to get the white homos, the white homos could avail themselves of the realities of minority experiences in the LGBT community.

White gays are only concerned with the races of homophobes if they’re black because the gay community is extremely racist.  Most of the social outlets in the LGBT community are aimed at upper-middle class, white gay men, and as a result minorities, people who are transgendered, and lesbians are relegated to second class citizenship. Patrons at every gay club I have ever been to are almost exclusively white males (occasionally lesbians will be in a separate room upstairs) and the people of color are typically ignored and even sneered at. Magazines purporting to represent all gay people feature almost exclusively white male models and statements like “no blacks please” and “not into rice” on dating and “hook-up” sites are so commonplace that many do not even see these statements as offensive. And transgendered people? Do they even exist?

But this segregation and stratification rarely factors into the equation when white gay men seek to lecture blacks (gay & otherwise) on “black homophobia.” They would love to have a dialogue about race as long as it’s understood from the beginning of the discussion that (a) they are in no way responsible for the racial stratification that exists in society at large and within the LGBT community, (b)they have NEVER (GASP!) done ANYTHING as a result of racial prejudices, (c) they have never benefited from their elevated status, and (d) minorities must entertain the propagation of their ridiculous narrative regarding the racial oppression of white people.

“It’s like you think Brown v. Board of Ed ought to apply to boners too lol.”

“You can’t legislate friendship and/or who I wanna fuck! Am I sexist for only sleeping with women?”

“I’m not going to apologize for being white!”

Narcissistic absurdities such as these are screamed indignantly as if the underlying message of the rhetoric directed at their privileges is a direct attack upon their whiteness. The proclivity of white gays to look to the brown skinned people around them as the source of their plight while simultaneously ignoring their white privilege is alarmingly common. Apparently race only matters when certain anti-gay legislative measures pass in certain states where certain ethnic groups voted for it, or when certain comedians make disturbing comments in their stand-up routines. That’s why every time I read a self-serving article about “black homophobia“ touted about on a completely Euro-centric gay blog or an embarrassing essay about the victimization of the gay white man within a community that is expressly tailored to the interests of his specific identity, I find myself shaking my head. We have along way to go to reach equality within the gay community before we can fully tackle the oppression coming from the lunatics who seek to eradicate it. The racist scapegoating that is masqueraded as political pragmatism needs to stop. If it does not, expect to retain no credibility when criticizing minority opposition/indifference to the causes of the LGBT movement.

Crossposted with permission from former TNG Contributor Chris Stedman. Check out the original posting at muslimahmerican.com.

Chris an Interfaith and Community Service Fellow, Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and Managing Director, State of Formation at Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue. He is also a columnist for Huffington Post Religion and blogs at NonProphet Status. He tweets from @ChrisDStedman.

***

This year, two notable controversies have been brewing in Tennessee: a proposed bill that would forbid educators from using the word “gay” in the classroom, and a court battle to determine whether or not Islam is a religion. (The verdict? Islam is in fact a religion—for now, anyway.)

These two issues may seem unrelated, but I believe they’re actually symptoms of the same problem—our nation’s historical difficulty with those who are seen as disrupting the status quo. Intolerance against Muslims and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) individuals isn’t exclusive to Tennessee; with a fever-pitched debate overPark51 (or the “Ground Zero Mosque”) and headline-grabbing concerns about anti-LGBTQ bullying, these issues are a national concern.

Last month, I went to Tennessee for the first time. I spoke at Vanderbilt about the need for the religious and the nonreligious to find better ways of engaging with one another and identifying action-oriented shared values, sharing some of the experiences I write about in my forthcoming memoir, (F)a(i)theist: How One Atheist Learned to Challenge the Religious-Secular Divide, and Why Atheists and the Religious Must Work Together (working title, Beacon Press 2012).

While there, I talked with a number of people about the ongoing struggles for Tennessee’s Muslim community. We discussed their Lieutenant Governor’s remarks that he is “not sure” if the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to Muslims and his characterization of Islam a “cult;” proposed legislation that would make the practice of Sharia punishable by 15 years in prison; and how the site of a future mosque had been the subject of arson.

This wasn’t my first exposure to the challenges many American Muslims face. When I lived in Chicago, I worked extensively with the Muslim community. At first blush, it seemed we had little in common. I once walked into a meeting in a too-small t-shirt and neon green skinny jeans, my tattoo sleeve exposed and hollow gauges in my stretched earlobes, when a woman with a bright smile framed by a beautiful purple headscarf approached me and asked why I was there. I told her that I was a contract employee of the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC), and was interested in learning more about what they were doing.

“Oh!” she exclaimed. “And what faith tradition are you a part of?”

“None,” I said, returning her smile. “I’m an atheist.”

Her eyes flicked to my right, as if to check with someone if it was alright for me to be there. But her hesitation didn’t last long; within minutes, we were gushing over our mutual love for a new Brother Ali song, “Tightrope.” In it, Brother Ali, a Muslim rapper from my home state of Minnesota, tells the stories of a young Muslim woman who faces discrimination for wearing a headscarf and a closeted gay teenager who is the son of an anti-gay Christian minister. We bonded over how we both felt that the song had represented struggles we ourselves had experienced, and the parallels between them. By the end of the conversation, we had uncovered a lot of common ground between our seemingly disparate identities.

After that conversation, I reflected on how different it was than the ones I had when working with the Somali community in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I volunteered weekly at the Brian Coyle Community Center (BCCC). Just blocks from my college, BCCC served the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood—one of the most densely populated areas in Minnesota, with nearly 2,000 apartment units in a two-block area. The makeup of the neighborhood was primarily Somali immigrants, the majority of whom were Muslim.

I volunteered at BCCC and started to become an active member of the community. As a result, I began to understand better the joys and challenges the Somali immigrant community in Minneapolis faced. When a young girl with round brown eyes and a striking red head scarf vividly described her first encounter with snow, I felt like I was experiencing Minnesota winter for the first time. When a mother with one child in her left arm and two running around her feet thanked me for helping her son with his math homework, I informed her that he actually knew more about the subject than I did. When I missed a week due to a bad cold, everyone grinned at my return and told me how much they had missed and worried about me. We became invested in one another’s lives, and we taught one another how to be together. They even tried to coach me on some rudimentary Somali, but always playfully chided me for not sounding forceful enough: “You sound too Minnesotan!” they’d say with a chuckle (and they were right: I did).

But when it came to matters of religious life, I disengaged. As a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I believed that religion was something best left undiscussed. They were free to their religious beliefs, I thought, but it didn’t mean I had to listen to them talk about it.

One day I stayed late, caught up in conversation with a group of regulars. Gradually all but one trickled away, leaving me and a young woman I had spoken with a handful of times. She was petite, but her presence filled the room—she spoke rapidly and precisely. A couple plates of food scraps sat on the table in front of us as we quizzed one another on the details of our lives.

After some talk of how terrible the Minnesota NBA team had been playing that year and which local politicians we were voting for, she paused and looked down at the nearly empty plate in front of her and took a deep breath.

“You know, some days I’m really afraid to go out in public because of how I dress. I just get tired of dealing with the stares and jeers my hijab elicits,” she said, barely audible. We were both silent. I heard a shout from down the hall that the gymnasium was closing and all basketballs should be returned to the equipment closet.

“It’s not exactly the same thing, but I think I can empathize,” I said before I could stop myself. She looked up. Her face showed that she was curious about how I, a white male who looked like every other young hipster, might relate.

“Sometimes I get really nervous about the looks I get when I’m holding another man’s hand in public.” I wasn’t sure how she would respond to this new information. I wasn’t really out as queer to anyone at BCCC—I assumed that, because many of them were religious, it would be an issue. She smiled, and I realized I hadn’t taken a breath in the last minute.

“When I’m afraid of how others might receive me,” she said, leaning in, her elbows sliding across the table in perfect unison like a pair of synchronized swimmers, “it is my belief in Allah that gives me strength.” She wasn’t proselytizing; she was sharing her beliefs. She hadn’t asked for clarification about what I had said, hadn’t condemned me; she hadn’t even blinked.

“May I ask you: what gives you strength when you get such looks, or when someone says something disparaging about you because of who you are?” She looked me in the face, her eyes warm and brown and invitational.

I froze. I looked down at her elbows and noticed that they were fixed in place, their choreography finished. The show was over, and I too was done.

“Um, do you know when this place shuts down for the night?” I asked, shifting my head to the left, unable to look her in the eye.

Her religious beliefs were integral to her identity, and she opened a door for us to discuss the things that mattered to us both with candor and honesty. But I was afraid to open up to her—the gulf I imagined between the experiences of a gay atheist and Muslim woman seemed too vast. Rising abruptly, I picked up the plates from the table and grabbed my bike helmet with a fumble, inventing some story about a big paper that was due the next day.

Working with the Muslim community in Chicago, I realized how problematic my “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to working with the Muslim community in Minneapolis had been; how my refusal to engage the religious identities of those I worked with at BCCC closed me off from countless opportunities to build bridges of understanding and respect with a community I honestly knew very little about, aside from my academic study of Islam. And how, by refusing to open up to them about my own beliefs and experiences, I denied them the opportunity to learn about me—to really know me and understand the challenges that I faced.

Religious and LGBTQ identities are important, and when we try to tuck them away in some dark and dusty corner we lose something integral. When open discussion about essential aspects of our identity becomes taboo—when we are forced to silence the stories of who we are and what matters to us—intolerance goes unchallenged and we are its accomplices, complicit in allowing others to be cast aside. When we see the other as so different that we think we can find no common ground, we allow others to see them as not-quite-human, too.

It is fear of the unknown that keeps us apart. Telling people that they can’t use the word “gay” in the classroom, or suggesting that Islam isn’t a religion—that it shouldn’t been seen as in the same realm as Christianity and other religions—and that Muslims shouldn’t be able to build a Mosque, prevents us from learning about one another. Religious literacy is abysmal in the United States while religious diversity thrives, breeding ignorance and fear of the other. The time that a friend of mine had her hijab ripped off, and the time I was physically assaulted by a group of men who shouted “fag” at me, share a common root.

Last year, a Gallup poll demonstrated something the LGBTQ community has known for some time: people are significantly more inclined to oppose gay marriage if they do not know anyone who is gay. Similarly, a Time Magazine cover story featured revealing numbers that speak volumes about the correlation between positive relationships and civic support; per their survey, 46 percent of Americans think Islam is more violent than other faiths and 61 percent oppose Park51, but only 37 percent even know a Muslim American. Another survey, by Pew, reported that 55 percent of Americans know “not very much” or “nothing at all” about Islam. The disconnect is clear—when only 37 percent of Americans know a Muslim American, and 55 percent claim to know very little or nothing about Islam, the negative stereotypes about the Muslim community go unchallenged.

The Muslim and LGBTQ communities face common challenges that stem from the same problem—that diverse communities don’t have robust and durable civic ties. This is why the Muslim and LGBTQ communities ought to be strong allies.

This shouldn’t suggest that there won’t be some profound disagreements, and that engagement won’t be fraught and difficult—perhaps especially so for those whose identities are located at the intersection of LGBTQ and Muslim—but if we avoid this engagement simply because it may be hard, or messy, or complex, then we have ceded victory to the forces of intolerance and allowed our voices to be subsumed by those whose bombastic volume is designed to drown us out.

As Robert Wright wrote in the New York Times last year, the LGBTQ community has learned that engaged relationships change people’s hearts and minds, and this is a model that can be applied to the issue of anti-Muslim bias as well. All the more, I believe that the LGBTQ and Muslim communities would do well to join together and decry the voices that wish to marginalize either—and, often, the voices that marginalize both.

Until Tennessee, and all of the United States, is a safe place for both LGBTQ individuals and Muslims, it will not be a safe place for anyone. But together, Muslims, LGBTQ individuals, and all of those committed to equality can ensure that this is so.

Submission by Anthony Moll, first-time contributor.

Anthony Moll is a pansexual atheist veteran living and working in the mid-Atlantic region. He is a writer, artist and all-around storyteller. He can be found ranting about current events, the arts and life at www.crowdedwayoflife.com

Disclosure: The author has worked in the communication department for the Human Rights Campaign as recently as March of 2011. I have since left HRC on good terms, and the views expressed here are his own.

You may have heard that earlier this week, in coordination with the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, a group of vandals that the LGBT media has labeled ‘rowdy queers’ attacked the HRC Store and Action Center by throwing light bulbs filled with paint  at the building and by spray painting the sidewalk outside of the store with the word “Stonewall.”

The group released a press release after the attack, accepting responsibility for the event, and explaining their actions in the most theatrical of rhetoric. An excerpt follows:

…

We’ve got good reason. This week marks the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.

On the night of June 28, 1969, New York City’s Public Morals Squad did a routine raid of an East Village gay bar called the Stonewall Inn. Everything was going fine until, in the midst of the standard genital check that police forced on draq queens, a lesbian beaned a cop straight in the head with a ripped-up parking meter. And so queer liberation was born.

…

Why, you’re asking, did we specifically target the HRC, a massive national gay rights non-profit as opposed to vomiting urine on Rick Santorum or something equally fun?

Put simply, they suck. What do they suck? Cash. Lots of it.

The HRC rakes in something approaching 50 million dollars a year in revenue–their executive director, Joe Salmonellamayonaisemanese pulls in a salary of several hundred grand. What have we gotten out of this bloated carcass? Not a thing worth mentioning and every now and then, they eagerly sell trans people up the river. Seriously, this is an organization that hordes money and does nothing useful. It’s a sad, sick dinosaur

…

I understand that there is some animosity toward the larger LGBT groups in Washington. HRC in particular has quite a negative reputation, largely stemming from the salary of their senior leadership and their work on a 2007 version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that did not include protections for Transgender folk, among other things.

HRC isn’t perfect; I myself am concerned with the way the organization chooses to spend its money. But is this the way our community should express its tactical disagreements? With opponents fighting hard against legal protections for LGBTQ people, can we afford to waste our energy and resources on throwing paint at each other? With both legal and cultural oppression still rampant, do we want to be caught posing as radicals rather than actually joining the fight?

I’m saying that these queers are exactly that: posers.  The opinions expressed in the release are not only out-dated, they are largely inaccurate. Perhaps they haven’t heard of the HRC Foundation, which offers scholarships to LGBT youth, and is working across the country to resolve issues of adoption, workplace and religious inclusion, and more through community outreach and education. Or perhaps they don’t know that HRC donates time and money to outreach organizations and state-level activists.

Or perhaps they haven’t heard that the LGBTQ community has had some big victories in the last couple years, and whether we want to admit it or not, the money and access that these organizations are criticized for holding has played a big part in these victories. It is easy to say that because you aren’t interested in these particular victories, that they aren’t substantial, but to families like those of Lisa Pond, who was kept from her spouse during their final moments together, the changes to health care facilities that were won last year matter. To the people across the state of New York, who have waiting years for marriage, the victory there is a big deal. And to the service members who want so badly to not have to balance their patriotism against their integrity and the people they love, fights like the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” matter.

What progress has this act of vandalism achieved, other than the ‘lulz’ of those involved? To these vandals I say this: how dare you criticize outreach efforts like those of It Gets Better, who along with Trevor Project and other orgs, is literally saving lives. If it is impact of direct action that they crave, perhaps their energy might be better spent by allying with groups like GetEQUAL, who are actually making a difference by using the act of protest. This vandalism, and more importantly, claiming to be the arbiters of the spirit of the Stonewall riots is far more ignorant than selling branded merchandise.

Did these vandals consider the amount of money that the store brings to the fight? Argue against the branding of the LGBTQ movement all you want, but I don’t mind any organization pushing tees and hoodies if my money is being used to address issues of workplace diversity, or to help schools adopt inclusive curriculum. Perhaps this group should consider the budget of organizations like the National Organization for Marriage, whose budget to fight against LGBTQ equality dwarfs the money of HRC.

The symbol of the rainbow, which has fallen out of style by so many that rally themselves behind the ‘Queer’ label, means something.  It represents the plethora of queer people throughout the world; people of different color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, political philosophies and faith. There are those of us who wish to carry the banners of ACT-UP and chain ourselves to government buildings. These actions are great, and they are a viable form of resistance, but it is downright ignorant to insist that the only tactic for change is one’s own.

The voice of these vandals is certainly an important part of that spectrum, but if hundreds of thousands want to throw their voices and their money behind legislative action, or behind the call to LGBTQ youth to tell them that adults are fighting for them, then why offer a dissenting cry against forward movement? If it is because it you disagree with the methods being deployed in the struggle, then perhaps it is time to form your own organization.

Photo Credit: Katy Vertigan

In the blinding rainbow of our excitement about marriage equality in New York, let’s not forgot that there are more frightening opponents to face,  just waiting in the shadows.

Although several candidates have officially declared, and some have officially declined bids – there are still several individuals speculated to announce their run for President representing the Righ. You pretty much just need to have written a book with the word “America” in the title to be considered for a GOP candidate these days. We may have settled into easiness of a life with a democratic president, but there is an army approaching, hoping to “take back America” in 2012.

We have to know the enemy.

Here are just a few of the candidates who will specifically aim to fight against LGBT rights.

Michele Bachman – Defending marriage is on Bachmann’s list of priorities.  She also believes schools should teach intelligent design because “there is reasonable doubt on both sides” of the evolution argument. Is there?

Herman Cain is against legalizing same sex marriage, supports DOMA and believes homosexuality is sinful and a choice.

Tim Pawlenty believes marriage to be between a man and a woman and supports DOMA.

Mitt Romney has famously gone sort of back and forth on gay issues, and currently doesn’t state any specific opinions on his campaign website, but it’s easy to imagine that he would stand behind DOMA and other laws in order to keep a conservative base happy.  Kathy Belge at About.com has a summary of his record on gay marriage.

Newt Gingrich might not be as hard line on gay issues anymore, but in 2010 he donated 1/3 of the $850,000 raised by antigay groups to boot the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled for gay marriage out of office.

And these folks are just the tip of the iceberg.

For those of you who are uncertain about the effectiveness of Barack Obama’s presidency, I hate to tell you that supporting his reelection is your only option. Moderate is not even a word can be used appropriately about LGBTQ issues in politics these days. “Not extremely conservative” is about as good as it gets.

The campaign is not that far away. The Ames Straw poll will take place on August 13, 2011. The poll will help build momentum for the winning candidate and begin the organization of supporters nationwide.  It’s coming up.

We need to come together the same way that we did in 2008. We need to show Barack Obama support. We need to keep him in office. If we have any interest in legalizing equal marriage for all (or even keeping it in the states that have it now),  passing an all-inclusive ENDA bill (yes, you can still be fired in the United States for being LGBT or gender non-conforming) or to improve hate crime legislation nationwide, we need to start gearing up for Obama’s 2012 campaign.

We need to get back on the campaign trail and show our support for Obama.

We can’t afford for him to lose.

“We’ve got good reason. This week marks the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.

The modern LGBT movement owes its success to three days of smashing, burning, punching, and kicking–all of it happily indiscriminate–and the confrontational tactics of groups like ACT-UP that followed in the decades since. Yet, somehow we’ve forgotten our riotous roots.”

As of 11:00AM this morning, pink paint and graffiti were still visible to the intrepid TNG reporters who dared to set down their iced Americanos, fire up their Iphone cameras, and try desperately to remember what their j-school training taught them about breaking Real News:

*UPDATE I 1:04PM EST:

Michael Cole-Schwartz, HRC’s Director of Communications, responds:
“HRC’s DC Action Center and Store was vandalized last night with paint on the front windows and an LGBT group has claimed responsibility for the crime. It’s unfortunate that after a marriage win in New York that represented an unprecedented coming together of LGBT groups, some are more interested in fostering division in the community.”

*UPDATE II 2:35PM EST:

Trusted source Some Guy Who Overheard Us in a Coffeeshop reminded us that just last weekend riotous queer anarchists broke windows at a Seattle American Apparel. TNG can confirm at this time that the phrase “Deep-V for Vendetta” has somehow yet to be used as a blog post title by anyone.

c. TNG

c. TNG

c. TNG

c. TNG

c. TNG

Marriage equality supporters were up until the early morning hours this morning in Albany,putting pressure on New York Republican Senators to put the state’s gay marriage bill through a vote. Many thought the push from the protestors would get the GOP to vote sometime last night or this morning, but the Republican-run Senate has not decided when a vote will occur.

“We’re not going to work under time restraints,” Dean G. Skelos, Republican Senate leader, toldthe New York Times. “We’ll do it when the conference is ready.”

Exactly half of the Senate (31 of 62) has said they would support the bill.

GOP Senators have been giving the bill extra attention lately, focusing on the language surrounding religious exemptions.

“I am proud that I have secured some strong protection for religious institutions and basic  protections for religious organizations,” Putnam County Senator George R. Ball told the New York Times. “Yet, the bill obviously seems to lack many of the basic religious protections I thought vital, and for this reason… I will probably be voting ‘no.’”

The fight for marriage equality reached another milestone yesterday with an endorsement from the man himself: President Barack Obama. He attended a NY fundraiser last night to support thestate’s gay marriage bill, conjuring up an estimated $4 million.

“We’re going to keep on fighting until the law no longer treats committed partners who have been together for decades like they’re strangers,” Obama said at the fundraiser after being introduced by Neil Patrick Harris.

The bill will definitely continue to be on the minds and tongues of many LGBT supporters in NY as PrideFest 2011 will be held on Sunday in NYC. Even though the festival isn’t specificallyabout gay marriage, the solidarity of the community will hopefully bring the impending vote on the bill more positive attention.

c. Scott Flaherty, Wikimedia Commons

“I’ll hide behind a smile and understanding eyes
And I’ll tell you things that you already know so you can say:
I really identify with you, so much
And all the time that you’re needing me is just the time
That I’m bleeding you, don’t you get it yet?
I’ll come to you like an affliction then I’ll leave you like an addiction
You’ll never forget me… you wanna know why? “

–“Liar” by the Rollins Band

Those who hurt us the most are almost always the ones who manage to worm themselves most deeply into our lives and struggles.

As someone who is quite new (and young in terms of age) to the queer and trans communities, one of the main pieces of advice I get from friends is that I really need to watch my back.  But when they say that, they aren’t just talking about the homophobes, transphobes, and hometown bigots, those threats are well-known.  No, what they are really trying to warn me about are the people WITHIN the community who prey upon others.

It is unfortunate, but it is a common thing in every community, especially in communities that are maligned by the “mainstream.” I have heard multiple cases of people in the queer community being taken advantage of by other queers.  These have been things such as finances being taken by a partner, being pressured into drugs or unsafe sexual practices, and physical and emotional abuse. I can think of a few people who are getting decked if they ever cross my path for such crimes against my friends. Since our identities and relationships tend not to be recognized by the legal authorities, so there usually is no legal intervention or solution taken.  Most often, the predators get away and continue with their misdeeds.

One of the most complex and well-known cases of this is the controversy surrounding trans photographer Kael T. Block.   He is very notorious in the trans community both for his stunning photographs of trans men and for the multiple accusations of rape against him.  Since no court case or the like has happened yet, the queer/trans community has been using online social media (blogspot, Facebook, and especially tumblr) to discuss the case.  Since opinions are sharply divided, there have been writings defending Kael or separating the art from the artist and those warning others/calling for boycotts of his work.  (I shall refrain from putting in my personal opinion on this matter, because I don’t feel it is my place to comment).

Essentially, the community to which the party(s) belongs to has to decide how to handle these situations.  However, there is a fine line between tribal justice and vigilantism.  How do we make sure to distinguish between the two but still protect others?  Is it our place to ensure justice?  The most common action is to just warn the newcomers (such as myself), but we all know that warnings often go unheard or the danger proves too charming.  Plus, if you’re an inexperienced, insecure, lonely person (such as myself), then there’s a chance that you’ll submit to anyone who will show you attention and a compliment.  To be honest, it is something that I worry about a lot.

Every community has a few bad apples.  There are always wolves that hide in sheep’s clothing, there are always predators.  We expect better and like to think that our members aren’t capable of harming others who share our outsider status…But the sad thing is that you never have to go very far to hear that is not true.  Be careful, friends.

The annual Netroots Nation conference, which brings together progressive voices to swap ideas about how to most effectively use media to communicate their message, is rapidly approaching. This year’s conference will be hosted in Minneapolis, MN, the weekend of June 16. On Saturday, June 18, The New Gay’s own founder, Zack Rosen, will be co-leading a session called “Queer Media and the Alternative Revolution” to discuss TNG’s role as a forum for alternative queer voices. He’s joining three other cultural warriors – Katrina Casino of Auto Straddle, David Castillo of The Bilerico Project, and Heidi Barton Stink, a trans rapper.

We caught up with three of the alternative voices to probe them about topics that will undoubtedly come up during their Netroots Nation session.

Adam Polaski: Your Netroots Nation will explore the definition of “alternative” media. What, to you, is alternative queer media?

Zack Rosen: Alternative is a word that unfortunately has taken up a lot of “indier-than-thou” significance in the time since I’ve been working under it, but for me “alternative” adheres pretty closely to its dictionary definition. It is something different, an option.

Heidi Barton Stink: Alternative queer media to me means that the content produced doesn’t carry the same set of assumptions that mainstream media might have about their audience. For instance – the assumption that the reader/listener/viewer is either a man or a woman. Thankfully, many of us have access to a wealth of media that we can personally identify with, and it has clearly given a lot of people more visibility.

Katrina Casino: To me, alternative, queer media is very much similar to alternative media in general. It’s a media space that exists with as little influence from advertising and advertisers as possible. It focuses on the experiences of the writers, who hopefully reflect the experiences of the readers. It’s honest; it’s not trying to sell anything. It exists not as a benefit to itself, but rather as a benefit to the community it speaks to.

AP: So much of the present news and debate about queers and their place in society is steeped in political issues. How does your work rally queer people who are otherwise apathetic around these political issues?

HBS: I think by making your ideas as accessible as possible and as appealing as possible. If you can write an inspirational song or blog that anybody can understand, it’s bound to invoke people into action.

KC: I think a lot of the dialogue at Autostraddle results from our layout. The front page is set up like a dashboard or a newsfeed that categorizes our posts into politics, culture, arts, community, etc., while also alotting them the same amount of space on the page. In doing this, we hope to recognize that different facets of gay culture are more relevant to different people, but that doesn’t mean that one should take precedence over the other. We’ve noticed that we tend to get a lot more comments on posts that discuss culture than we do on posts that discuss news. But we don’t see that as a general apathy toward politics, we regard it as a recognition, on the part of our readers, of the impact that pop culture has on our community. Politics, culture, entertainment, activism: all of these things are a part of our lives – they are all happening to us, reflecting on us, speaking to us, even if we don’t want to be spoken to.

ZR: I think that people who realize they “aren’t straight” – whatever that may be – inherently care about the issues that shape their world. They might not have a nuanced political understanding about the various vague influences on the Hill that conspire to strip them of their rights (I sure don’t), but most people want to live in a better world. However, there are barriers to entry for those wishing to be active. For one, you will not want to fight for a culture that doesn’t include you. I believe that many people take a look at what “being gay” is – all men; all vapid; all steeped in money, disposable pop, exclusionary social scenes – and decide it’s not for them. And if you can’t find a culture or community that feels right to you, you will not feel a desire to fight. We’ve always tried to expand the definition of what “gay” or “queer” is, and the more people it includes, the more they may realize they are not alone and that they have something worth fighting for.

AP: What response have you gotten from readers about how your work has satisfied their desire for an alternative forum for discussion about queer issues?

KC: Our readers have been, and consistently continue to be, unbelievably, mind-blowingly supportive. Of course there are always criticisms about how we could be more inclusive, how we could have covered such-and-such a topic more thoroughly, etc. But that’s because there is always room to be more inclusive, you know? There’s always room to cover a topic more in-depth and to discuss it further, not just amongst [our own] staff, but also with the readers. I think something that has been very important to the growth of Autostraddle has been what is pretty much a constant insistence on communicating with our audience. Because they’re not just our audience or our readers – they’re our peers, our community.

ZR: Oh, so much. So very, very much. We got a postcard from someone – we believe in the U.K. – saying something along the lines of ” I am queer, fat and about to turn 25. I can read most gay publications and no they are not for me. I know that TNG is.” For an identity composed of literally everyone – as there is no sub-spectrum of identity that doesn’t have a few queer members – media can fail to represent great swaths of people. TNG is far from perfect, as everything is, but we know we have given people a voice who they otherwise might not have in the mainstream media.

HBS: I think many people would like to hear songs that they identify with more often. Like, what if I turned on the radio and there was a love song about a queer relationship? And it wasn’t a gimmick – [it was] just a genuine song. I think that’s what people like about my music. Like, finally some songs that we can jam out to with lyrics we can relate to.

AP: How do you define the traditional, mainstream gay scene?

KC: I mean, I think that “traditional, mainstream” is kind of a contradiction when it comes to the gay scene or queer history. Traditional queer culture is decidedly non-traditional. It’s living outside the confines of what society expects to be right or true or safe. It’s a commitment to difference that refuses to regard difference as anything inherently negative. Rather, it’s something to be proud of. The mainstream gay scene, I think, is very much defined by consumerism – by making ‘gay’ a product, and even worse, by regarding ourselves as products. People complain a lot about labels – “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” etc. – and I think that’s a very valid discussion. But in the queer community, the labels we should be worried about aren’t the labels we choose or the ones we give to ourselves, but rather the brand labels that try to use our community as a target market. We’re very much a community divided right now, and if we continue to accept the labels that are forced upon us, then we’ll only continue to separate, to feel ashamed of our difference. The mainstream gay scene now is about consumerism, when it should be about solidarity.

HBS: I think a lot of media that thinks of itself as ‘alternative media’ runs into many of the same pitfalls mainstream media falls into. For example, if I pick up a copy of my local LGBT weekly mag, it’s unlikely that it will contain anything of interest for most of the LGBTQ people I know and may even have content that they find alienating or offensive. Its writing contains a lot of assumptions about the readers’ bodies, sexuality, financial status, and politics. When I say “mainstream gay” in general, I mean LGBT ideologies that don’t take this sort of intersectional stuff into account.

ZR: I began working at The Washington Blade just out of school because it was so important to me to give something back to gay culture. I started TNG to cover some queer areas of interest that I didn’t see represented in The Blade. I spent a year of my life taking myself through the gay literature canon to understand best I could what life was like before I was born and what makes quality “gay fiction.” I have done countless other things as a gay man because they were natural, or right, or important for me. However, all of that can be taken away from me in the space of four cruel seconds when I lean over to a friend of mine at a gay bar and say, “Hey, what’s this song? I know it sounds familiar.” And he says to me, “That’s Elton John’s ‘I Guess That’s Why They Call it the Blues.’ You better give me your gay card.” That, to me, is the mainstream gay scene.