Recently, I wrote an article in which I asked whether or not gay people should up and leave the South. There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding that article, from Facebook comments, tweets, as well as even a YouTube video, on how the LGBT community should deal with the persecution that we face daily within this particular region of the country.

Though, as many commentators have pointed out, homophobia and transphobia exist in all areas of the country, there is something particular about the level of disgust for our community in the South, and it is because of this discrimination that we face on a day-to-day basis that many have called for an exodus of LGBT people from these states.

As I said in that article, the belief that we must leave our homes, families, and lives so that we can be accepted, is not only counterproductive to our very movement, but makes us cowards and not deserving of the rights that we are entitled to have.

That article argued against the voices of 'reason', in favor of staying and fighting. It argued against willfully giving up, and knowingly backing down.

But my focus upon these voices of cowardice has seemed to muffle the other voice that cries out at our community, a voice that is just as, if not more dangerous than the former. The voice of apathy.

I wrote a piece in October that touched upon the voice of apathy, and how it impacts our fight for equality. When I observed the level of excitement and involvement by our community when it came to participating in Mid-South pride, I was struck with profound sadness.

I wrote that,

In some estimates given, there were thousands of LGBT people and straight allies at this event; yet does this "pride" in our community spill over into the ballot box? We can have floats and marchers galore, but how many of these people who put time and energy into building a float, put the same time and energy in advocating for our legal and social equality?

Why does our community come out in droves for events such as Pride, but yet when we have the option to elect pro-equality members of our city government, no one shows up?

LGBT southerners might bristle at the notion that we must leave our homes so that we might be more equal, yet where are we when our religious institutions speak out against equality? Where are we when our state governments consider legislation that would have devastating effects upon our community?

Why is it that more gay men are at the bar on a Saturday night than at a rally trying to defeat amendments that enshrine discrimination in our constitutions?

To be blunt, our community is selfish; we expect others to do the hard work for us. I know this from personal experience, because there have been many times where I have unwittingly bought into this selfishness.

I have told myself, "why should I write a letter to my representative or editor, I am sure that someone else will do it, it probably won't get published anyway".

We might not intentionally listen to the voice of apathy, but our lives show that we do.

We spend hours insulated within our little communities, without venturing into the 'real world', where homophobia and discrimination exist. We try to hide ourselves, not wanting to recognize that we exist in a fundamentally unequal society. We tell ourselves, "I'm not planning on getting married anytime soon" or "My boss is OK with gay people, so I don't need any employment protections" as rationals for doing nothing.

Because we do not see these inequalities as being pertinent to our lives, we don't feel the need to address them. Instead, we focus on the instant gratification of our Pride parades, our bars, and the cute guy who winked at us at the grocery store. Are these bad in an of themselves? Not at all!! But when our focus becomes these instant pleasures versus the long-term health of our community, we must ask ourselves whether our priorities are out of whack.

Many will find issue with my analysis of selfishness and its relationship to apathy.

To some, there are legitimate reasons to not getting involved, such as ones emotional health and well-being. To these people, the negativity and the constant barrage of hatred that surrounds our fight is too painful. It may be too much for them to constantly hear from society that they are "inferior", "deviant", or "going to hell".

Though such feelings are understandable, I would challenge these individuals to consider how such pain is actually perpetuated by not doing anything. We do not exist in a vacuum, for cultural attitudes have both direct and indirect impact upon our emotional well being.

If we exist in a society that 'hates' us and where it is ok to openly compare LGBT people with pedophiles and murderers, we will still feel and have to deal with such pain. Instead of working to end such pain, silence reinforces it, and lengthens its approval within society.

Additionally, it could be said that when we engage in advocacy, we establish for ourselves a safety net of emotional support. No longer are we gong through this fight on our own, but instead can be encouraged by others who are working through similar problems.

Our community has some amazing people that put enormous time and energy into fighting for our rights.

In Tennessee, I know many individuals who have made it their priority to make this state a welcoming haven for all Americans, no matter what sexual orientation or gender identity they have. Yet these individuals can only do so much. They need our help to make our society safe for our community.

Instead of listening to the voice of apathy and wallowing in the selfishness of complacency and instant pleasure, we must stand and fight.

About the Author:

To even begin to find an answer to the question of why many get so involved in the sex lives of others, we have to admit, for the sake of this discussion, that sex is a primary instinct of all living things that require the female to be fertilized by a donation from the male. See how easy sex education is?

The problem is, that the moment religious and conservative people hear the word "donation," they think they must give some money to someone. They have been conditioned to respond in this way from the moment they could walk and talk, but it's really a result of their ancestors passing along their confusion about donations for sex with the fertilizing donation itself, from generation to generation.

Even a prostitute is not expecting or wanting to be fertilized. Indeed, they generally take measures to keep the deposit from activating, unless of course they are being paid to carry luggage, like a rent boy sometimes is.

To get back to the subject in hand, which is usually enjoyable, no matter whose hand it is, it is important to realize that the demarcation between sex for reproduction, and sex for pleasure is arbitrarily being decided by differing cultures.

Some societies are very restrictive in trying to keep sex as an indulgence reserved only for people of opposite gender, after they have taken vows of servitude to each other in front of their community, during a ceremonial service conducted by that community's collector of religious financial donations. Those donations have no relationship to the fertility donations that occur between the blessed couple, or in one of them, when they manage to get that far, sometime after the service.

All the preceding donations are very different to the ones made to a prostitute, who is usually happy with a lesser amount, but then their overheads are smaller, unless the donor has been saving up for awhile. In addition, it must be said that the results of the prostitute's services are much more tangible, down to earth, and the organ playing is often superb.

It is, however, in these types of cultures, something of a paradox that those who attend the services of a prostitute then feel the necessity to go back to the house of the religious money collectors to confess that they enjoyed the service supplied by the prostitute.

It's a continuous conundrum to consider that the only way a celibate celebrant cleric could conceivably commiserate with such confession is to consult the collection of constricting conceptions in a current copy of an ancient book completely out of context with the rights of human freedom to make donations.

The collectives of accusatory Christian Cults, with curious Biblical quotes, constantly engender the homosexual gender issue as being an agenda which curses the course and cause of not only Christian culture, but the future of Western civilization.

Where do they get this idea? Is it because their sects deny sex as the expression of our secular love for each other that they are frightened of gender freedom and marriage equality? Or is it that they never realize, are never willing to admit, that we humans are always becoming who we can be?

The sects seem unable to heed our need to love beyond that one kind of love in which we donate only a small physical part of ourselves so that life may be conceived. They obsess only over the physical act of sex, missing the fact that when we humans are motivated by love we can create much more than just the physical.

Love is a creative force that can be viewed from a Socratic path by which we bring our potential into being, and help others with their own efforts. From the love of the good that we find, we learn to love the same in others, and we learn to love others even when they are different. We find we can love the many, same or different; the love of goodness in all life, and then beholding with one whom, so it seems in our minds, we create love, and share it, forever.

Love is not a god wanting us to praise it, fear it or be ashamed of it, as the apocalyptic cults would have us believe. For those cults, the nativity of love is a negativity of life. Babies are born to live, but their burgeoning awareness of how to create love can be repressed. They can be taught to hate life; to try stop others from creating love. Teaching a child, from birth, to fear and hate love is truly evil.

Despite life in all its beauty surrounding them, those cults crucify love, in some bizarre belief that denying beauty in this life brings happiness after death.

This is their madness, their insanity, their inanity which drives their fear and hatred of life; their fixation with death. In their confused madness they deny that love is a goodness to be found in life. Love is beyond their feeble notion of sex being nothing more than animal lust.

Confusing sex and love, they absurdly condemn sex as a necessary sinful release, to be tolerated only for procreation in wedlock. They have no conception that love creates more than children; love can create goodness, because its beauty is what we can be aware of, in this reality we call life.

Love is the only sane and satisfying reason for life, but the repressive religious cults would have us believe we cannot become, or be, the goodness which is the beauty of life itself.

Goodness is available to us all, not because of whom we love, but because love is something we can make. It is our birthright to be free to make that love with each other regardless of gender. Our awareness, and appreciation of the beauty, the goodness in life, is the motivation to create families and express ourselves in art, and solve the problems of our lives, and to just laugh and play with the cosmos.

It is our living human right to be able to do them joyously, amidst all of life's pain and sorrows and tribulations, or subject to the mad beliefs of those cultists.

And despite the cultists' inane rantings, we celebrate the discovery of life's beauty and goodness, by donating, by dedicating ourselves to finding happiness; by consenting to create love with each other.

If, like some, you think this is too lofty a thought, too romantic an attitude, to believe in the beauty of the human experience of life, then ask yourself if the alternative is preferable; misery under the slavery and threats of the repressive religious cults and their primitive beliefs.

Sex, sanity, life, love, beauty, truth and goodness, or the madness of those repressive cults. It really isn't a difficult decision, is it?

About the Author:

Patrick Wooden

In talking about the interview, Signorile was quick to point out that Wooden contradicted himself several times:

Speaking with me on my radio program on Sirius XM OutQ, Wooden, who's been described by some LGBT critics as having an "obsession" with anal sex, went into great detail about gay sexual activity, discussing "glory holes" and "fisting all way up to the armpit."

Contradicting himself, he actually defended oral sex and anal sex for heterosexuals -- even though he'd previously said, in speaking about gays, that God "made the human sperm, the God of the Bible designed it, and it was not designed to be emptied into an area that is filled with feces."

The exchange in question is as follows:

Do you believe men and women should have oral sex?

Of course. I believe the Bible says that marriage is honorable in all and the bed is undefiled.

So oral sex is okay? If a woman performs oral sex on a man?

Any sexual activity as long as the two persons as far as I'm concerned are in agreement, are married and they are born of the oppose sex.

But sir, you said said sperm is not meant to go in the anus. It's not meant to go in the mouth -- You said sperm, when it goes in the anus, it's wasted, that is God's seed wasted. When a woman is drinking your sperm, isn't she wasting it?

No, the difference is, they are of the opposite sex.

According to the Bible you're only supposed to be having missionary sex with your wife...Oral sex is considered sodomy.

This pastor is telling you without apology that the Bible allows a husband and a wife to enjoy each other --

Including anal sex? including anal sex?

I guess so, if that's something that they agree to.

But you said that that place is the place for feces.

Well, do you disagree with that?

I don't understand why you're saying that's okay for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.

Yes, you do. I don’t believe two homosexuals should kiss on the mouth.

But you said that anal sex will lead to death. So why can heterosexuals do it?

No, no. If everyone practiced anal sex it would lead to that. Have you ever heard of any man getting pregnant through anal sex.I believe sexual activity is for persons of the opposite sex.

So even if they're putting objects in, that's fine?

Most men -- I guess my way of thinking is that the object my wife wants in her is me. I can't expound on the sexual proclivities of everyone. But what I am saying and i want to be perfectly clear, and I don't apologize for it, it doesn't make me a bigot. I don't have an unreasonable fear of homosexuals -- I believe marriage is between a man and woman.

Believe it or not, that's probably the tamest part of the interview. If you can stand it, go here to read more of the transcript or hear the audio.

It's almost funny until you remember that the National Organization is using Wooden to garner support for the anti-marriage equality it is trying to pass in May.

If he says these things to Signorile, I can just imagine what he is saying in the pulpit.

About the Author:

Her statement was clumsy, irresponsible, inaccurate, and lent itself to exploitation by anti-gay activists. While Nixon’s coy semantic games and flippant proclamations may play well in certain circles, they will surely be used as a brutal club against LGBT youth in Red State America.

In the coming years, Nixon’s “choice” statement will be spewed from pulpits, scrawled in homophobic fundraising letters, and regurgitated on talk radio as proof that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people can “pray away the gay.” As a result, there will well-meaning parents who place their LGBT teenagers in “ex-gay” programs believing that since Nixon chose to be gay their child’s homosexuality might just be a phase.

The American Psychiatric Association says that attempts to change sexual orientation can sometimes lead to “anxiety, depression, and self-destructive behavior” which includes suicide. As the founder of Truth Wins Out, an organization that monitors such programs and assists its victims, it will be us, not Nixon, who picks up the pieces of lives shattered by the myth that sexual orientation is a casual choice.

Given the potential for dire consequences, Nixon was reckless, indulgent, and smacked of someone too privileged to understand the real world ramifications of her careless words.

Anti-gay organizations, such as the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, already try to portray homosexuality as a transitory condition by telling potential clients that their discredited therapy will help people explore their “heterosexual potential.”

Some people have foolishly said that no one will pay attention to her statement because she is just an actress. However, they conveniently forget that we elected an actor, Ronald Reagan, to serve as president, Arnold Schwarzenegger was chosen as California’s governor, and Minnesota elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as that state’s governor. For better or worse, what celebrities say in America matters – and even politicians must become photogenic media stars – such as Sarah Palin or Barack Obama — before anybody cares about their policies.

Most importantly, Nixon never chose to be gay, but is clearly bisexual. In an interview with The Daily Beast she said, “I don’t pull out the ‘bisexual’ word because nobody likes the bisexuals….everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals… But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met Christine and I fell in love and lust with her.”

No one would have a problem if Nixon had simply said that she is a bisexual who is not enamored with that particular label. Few would care if Nixon said that sexuality exists on a continuum with some people having a more fluid sexuality. No smart person would argue that civil rights for LGBT people should rest strictly on a biological argument – even though there is a growing body of evidence pointing out that biology plays a major role in determining sexual orientation.

But the fact remains that one does not choose whom they are attracted to and fall in love with – it chooses you. Sure, people then have a choice on whether they act on these natural feelings – just as one who is ambidextrous can elect to operate with either hand. The underlying desires, however, are not something that can be changed like the latest fashion in Paris.

If you don’t want to take my word for it, consider what the leaders of “ex-gay” organizations say about the topic. Earlier this month, Exodus International President Alan Chambers told a crowd of LGBT Christians: "The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”

John Smid, the former longtime director of the “ex-gay” ministry Love in Action said last year: “Actually I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.”

One must remember that people like Chambers and Smid are the most motivated in the world to find evidence of sexual conversion. Both made their livings from this idea, (Chambers continues to) and feared going to Hell. Chambers once said that, “One of the many evils this world has to offer is the sin of homosexuality. Satan, the enemy is using people to further his agenda to destroy the Kingdom of God and as many souls as he can.”

When the public hears Nixon say that her homosexuality is a capricious choice, they think that she once found sleeping with women repulsive, but then woke up one day and decided she would do it anyway for social or political reasons. It makes it sound as if she quit men like one quits smoking cigarettes – which plays into the right wing’s false addiction analogy.

No one is questioning Nixon’s right to say whatever she wants. However, with celebrity comes great responsibility and it might be wise if Nixon articulated her feelings in a more thoughtful way that would not lead to LGBT youth stuck in Bible Belt communities ending up in “ex-gay” boot camps.

About the Author:

Newt and Callista Gingrich

Will someone in the Republican Party please tell me how this scheming, cheating couple that made a mockery of family values is remotely conservative? They had a secretive, sleazy affair that they hid for years until they could no longer conceal it. The hanky-panky was occurring even as Gingrich boisterously and brazenly skewered President Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewisnsky.

Thanks to Gingrich’s effective dressing down of CNN’s John King and his general bludgeoning of the mainstream media, reporters have been somewhat cowed and a tad reluctant to say the obvious: Callista is a shameless home wrecker and Newt is a philandering hypocrite who talks like a preacher and lives like a porn star. Here are a few inconvenient facts:

• Newt fell in love with his high school geometry teacher, Jackie, and married her. (If it had been a gay relationship or a Democrat, no doubt Gingrich would have called the relationship pedophilia)
• Jackie, Gingrich’s first wife, claims that while she was recovering from cancer surgery in 1980, Newt came to the hospital to discuss divorcing her so he could marry his mistress, Marianne.
• In 2011, Gingrich justified his affairs by claiming they were “partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country.” (Just imagine how passionate about America he will feel if elected president!)
• In 2012, his second wife, Marianne, who suffered from Multiple Sclerosis, claimed that when she found out about the affair with Callista, Newt gave her an ultimatum that she must share him in an “open marriage.” When she declined, he divorced her.

The truth is, Newt Gingrich treats women like used cars, trading them in for newer models when something goes wrong under the hood or the new car smell dissipates. He is a totally despicable person who has poor character, is ethically challenged, and displays essentially no integrity or personal responsibility – yet hoards of born-again Christians seem to love him.

"I came at it completely believing that evangelical women would not even consider him," Penn Nance of Concerned Women for America told The New Yorker. "I’ve been surprised by their willingness to listen and forgive."

It is time to drop all pretenses by pretending there is a pro-family movement in America. These two-faced scoundrels are not “pro-family” they are simply anti-gay.

The only time these holier-than-thou charlatans give a damn about family values is when they slam democrats like John Edwards or to bash homosexuals. When Edwards cheated on his sick wife and lied about it he was ruined and reduced to a pariah. Gingrich engaged in the exact same behavior, and instead of becoming a pariah he might become president.

To cover their putrid past, the couple is trying to hide behind religion with Callista claiming that “When Newt became a Catholic, it was one of the happiest moments of my life.” However, there are many of us who have been around long enough to remember Gingrich preaching and preening about his Christian values back when he was Speaker of the House. His sense of piety was so grandiose that he once declared himself the “definer of civilization.”

Which civilization, the orgies of ancient Greece?

Generally, I tend to not give a damn about the personal lives of politicians, as long as they do their jobs. But it is galling and appalling that Gingrich would wife swap and bed hop while denying me the right to marry. In a recent New Hampshire presidential debate Gingrich said he opposed marriage equality for LGBT couples and justified his discriminatory position by invoking the “sacrament” of marriage.

This self-righteous hypocrite wouldn’t know a sacrament from Sacramento.

Even more disturbing, in The New Yorker we learn that Callista’s longtime friend, Karen Olson, is a lesbian. Newt’s sister, Candace, is also a lesbian. With normal people, learning that friends and family members are gay changes their hearts and inevitably leads them to support equal rights. However, Newt and Callista seem more than willing to throw their “loved ones” under the bus to help his political aspirations.

If social conservatives do not stand up and smack down Gingrich’s candidacy, it is fair to say that there is no such thing as the Religious Right — just a bunch of self-righteous scolds who don’t know the difference between right and wrong.

About the Author:

I'm not talking about the caricatured, stereotyped and ridiculous portrayals by movies, television and popular culture (Dead Man Walking and a few others excepted). You've probably seen pictures of nuns marching for civil rights in the sixties. You may heard of the selfless sacrifices made by sisters in the missionary field.

Neil Roger, via FLICKR

And you may know a sister (or two) who have changed your life for the better.

I do. Several, in fact.

Sisters have been on the cutting edge of social issues (it can be argued) for over a thousand years -- much of the hierarchy cannot claim even a fraction of the social justice work these women have accomplished. They have been working (often very quietly) to keep the fundamental message of Jesus alive -- the message that compassion, dignity and respect is the only response to every human person.

What you may not know is this: they are also some of the fiercest advocates of social justice for LGBT persons.

New Ways Ministry, a Catholic organization dedicated to promoting understanding and dignity for LGBT persons, has an excellent blog post about the work of religious sisters for LGBT equality.

Following is an excerpt:

It’s no secret–though it’s not well-known, either–that high on the list of Catholic supporters of LGBT equality are nuns. Communities of women religious have consistently been supportive of education, dialogue, and justice activities for LGBT people since the late 1970s.

After Vatican II, when nuns’ communities re-evaluated their charisms and ministries, they quickly realized that the church had long neglected lesbian/gay rights and that this was an issue that cried for justice. They responded positively and actively.

Johnson’s article highlights the reason that nuns can be so steadfast:

“American nuns don’t want to fight the official church, but neither are they likely to sacrifice the integrity of their consciences for the sake of peace.”

At New Ways Ministry, we are indebted to our Sisters for financial, spiritual, and practical support over our 35 year history. More New Ways Ministry programs have been held in convents and motherhouses than in any other type of Catholic facility by far.

Read the full post here -- and follow their blog on Twitter -- it's a heartening voice in a religious climate that is often far from charitable.

So if you have a negative view about nuns, consider changing your mind. And if you know a sister who's braving the forefront of equality -- thank them. Send them this post, in fact.

We may owe them more than we think.

About the Author:

Chris Christie

“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie moved to diversify the state’s all-white Supreme Court on Monday by proposing two firsts: the nominations of an openly gay black man [Bruce Harris] and a Korean-born law enforcer to fill two vacancies.

“‘I am proud to be standing here today to announce two historic nominations to the New Jersey State Supreme Court,’ Christie said, expressing ‘extreme confidence in their records and respect for their intellect.’”

At the governor’s news conference, Harris thanked the governor, then said, “I also want to thank my partner Mark for his nearly 32 years of love and support.”

Christie is not considered a moderate. He’s a national rising star of right-wing Republicans but he’s smart and ahead of his fellow party members in understanding that LGBT issues no longer matter to the general population — including Republicans.

In other words, you can’t scare the public with the gay issue anymore since they no longer are afraid to have us as neighbors. In fact, most Americans want us as their neighbors and pollsters have discovered that 47 percent of strong conservative Republicans would vote for an LGBT person running for office.

With a generation that has grown up with openly gay friends about to enter the voting system, the handwriting is on the wall.

Rick Santorum

Now Christie is not for full equality. He’s doing exactly what this column predicted just a few weeks ago: drawing a line in the sand on
equality. Domestic partners and civil unions are all OK — but marriage is for one man and one woman only.

All one has to do is watch the Republican primaries and see this working itself into the Republican fabric. As I stated before, enjoy this Republican race and watch Rick Santorum.

In this race, Santorum is like George Wallace,
the last proud racist to run for president. For Santorum, he’ll be the last proud homophobe to run for president.

And like Wallace, he’ll become an outcast in his own party. Wallace eventually apologized, but Santorum is too arrogant to apologize for the hate he has spun.

Back to the Garden State. Here’s the fun part: If Christie vetoes New Jersey’s marriage-equality bill, it’s likely that a pending marriage-equality case will make it’s way to the New Jersey Supreme Court, where Christie’s appointee will cast a vote on equality.

We are living in exciting and historic times.

Their post said, “a lot of comments on these stories place blame on gay Southerners for choosing to live in such an intolerant place. How do you respond to people who believe its “your fault” for being discriminated against in a region we consider our home?”

Such comments regarding LGBT people in the South are not an anomaly, for I have also noticed, on both LGBT and non-LGBT blogs and news articles, comments that have the same tone.

To these commentators, many of whom live in more progressive states like New York and California, it is incomprehensible that LGBT people would willingly subject themselves to the overt discrimination that exists in the states of the South.

They can’t understand why we won’t pick up and move to places where we won’t be fired because of our sexual orientation or gender identity; and they can’t understand why we stay in states where religious leaders and politicians are able to spew vitriol, lies, and hatred openly about our community.

Though I am not from the South originally (I hail from Illinois), I consider Tennessee more of my home state than where I grew up, and thus, it is quite discouraging for me to read many of these anti-Southern comments.

Yes, it is known that the South has a long way to go when it comes to equality for its LGBT citizens, but is “retreat” the answer to the hatred that we face?

Should we allow the people and the states of the South to continue in their persecution of LGBT children and adults, yet offer no rebuttal or fight? Does that not make us cowards and undeserving of equality, when we won’t even fight against our oppressors and instead capitulate to their hatred by leaving for greener pastures?

The attitude that LGBT people should just leave states that are not welcoming, whether they are in the South or not, also fails to recognize that LGBT adults are not the only ones who live in these states.

Many times, LGBT children are not given the option, or even have the resources, to pick up and leave these oppressive environments. Are we to sacrifice their well-being so that we adults might feel more equal? If all the LGBT adults are gone, who will be there to fight for anti-bullying legislation? Who will be there to offer support and guidance to these children when they experience discrimination and persecution in their lives?

Yes, there will be straight allies, and God knows I love them, but these children need role models who have experienced the same persecution, yet have overcome it.

Those who say to us, “come to the welcoming states, why would you want to live in the South” want us to take the easy way out.

Though they might not realize it, by asking why any LGBT person would want to live in a bigoted society, what they are truly saying is that such societies are too far gone to be of any use to our community.

I reject this notion, for I see the South as having the potential to be a haven for LGBT people, and I am thankful that are people in my life who have stuck it out, fought the good fight against the constant barrage of hatred and discrimination, and who strive to make an impact for our community each and every day.

About the Author:

Just this past Friday, Phillip Parker -- a 14-year-old boy from Tennessee -- took his own life because of the constant harassment and degradation that allegedly went unaddressed by school officials.

Phillip Parker

Countless others have taken their lives over the past few years, because of the torment that their fellow students inflict upon them because of their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.

In response too many of these tragic deaths, religious individuals across the nation have decided that instead of addressing the topic of LGBT bullying directly (a.k.a. punishing the bully), it is the fault of those students who are LGBT that they are being bullied. These people assert that if those students would be “normal” (straight), they would not be bullied. But because these children have "chosen" to be gay, it comes along with the territory that they would be bullied for that "choice."

To these individuals, the increased rates of suicide, depression, and substance abuse of LGBT teens is a direct consequence of their choice in sexual orientation.

Because they believe that there is something inherently disordered about a homosexual sexual orientation or a differing gender identity, they "logically conclude" that such a disorder has other consequences -- a gay kid commits suicide, not because he is bullied because of his sexual orientation, but because he knows that there is something intrinsically wrong with him. That the tormenting words of the bullies are true, that he is a “fag” and that he somehow made the choice to be one.

Eric James Borges

The psychological torment associated with such a belief drives many LGBT children to depression and even suicide.

When you are told that you have chosen something inherently disordered, yet do not even recall making that choice, you start to believe that there is something wrong with you; that you are “damaged goods”. To these children, there seems to be no hope, because no matter how hard they try, they cannot change the feelings and attractions that they have.

I know what the kids feel, because I have been there.

From my first recollection of having a “crush” (I was six, so I don’t know if crush is the best word) on the tour guide at Disney world, I knew that I was different. Though I was home schooled, and thus escaped much of the daily harassment that LGBT children go through, I was exposed to some through sports leagues.

I was told I was a sissy, a girl, and made fun of for sitting with my legs crossed (and this was in a religious league). I have known the hopelessness of being told that something was "wrong" with me, and that I was living in rebellion. I have tried to change my sexual orientation (8 months’ worth of trying), and could not make myself "normal."

I barely escaped with my life, some days just wanting to end it all because I could not live with myself, knowing that I was gay, yet trying to come to grips with the messages that were being flung at me by my religious community, my family, and my friends.

In my last post, I discussed the notion of power when it comes to rights, responsibilities, and protections of vulnerable minorities. The new tactic by religious leaders, state legislators, and religious individuals of blaming the victim for anti-gay bullying ties well into this power framework.

Jeffrey Fehr

If these individuals recognize that such bullying exists and that it must be addressed, their very conception of homosexuality and gender identity as "disordered" and "sinful" must also be addressed.

No longer will it be appropriate to tell these children that they made the choice to be gay and that they must live with the consequences of such a disordered choice, for instead such children will need to be protected and validated. Such validation goes against the entire pyramid of Judeo-Christian superiority, where ‘traditional morals’ must be enforced even if such morals destroy the lives of countless children, families, and churches.

Thankfully, the American public is waking up to the fact that bullying, no matter if it is because of ones’ sexual orientation, weight, race, or creed, is wrong. They know that the fault for bullying lies not with the victim, but instead with the oppressor.

And it is because of this that I know that the virulent rhetoric of fundamentalism, which blames the oppressed instead of the oppressor, is increasingly falling on deaf ears.

But till such voices are finally regulated to the fringe, I must ask -- how many children must we lose before the American people fully recognize that being bullied because of one’s sexual orientation is wrong?

Editor's Note: If you or someone you know needs support, please don’t hesitate to call the Trevor Project's Lifeline at 866-488-7386.

About the Author:

From NOM president Brian Brown, courtesy of the organization's blog:

It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said.

"We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama."

NOM is dancing in the streets because Gingrich was one of the candidates to sign it's silly "Marriage Pledge."

However, NOM seems to omit the simple fact that Newt Gingrich is a man with sordid history of marriage rivaling that of Henry VIII of England.

In all honesty, it is not known whether or not NOM has commented on Gingrich's three marriages or the interesting stories coming from those three marriages such as:

• He cheated on his first wife with his then second wife.
• He cheated on his second wife with his now third wife. And this was going on while he was pursuing the impeachment of Bill Clinton chiefly because of indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky?
• He also allegedly wanted an open marriage with his second wife because he felt that there was " more than enough Newt" to go around.
• And I won't even mention the ugliness about the divorce proceedings during the cancer of his first wife.

The fact that NOM wraps its homophobic talons around Gingrich regardless of his controversial marital history speaks to the further lack of integrity of the organization's message. And makes one wonder does NOM really want to preserve marriage or keep it away from those allegedly "dirty homosexuals" regardless of assurances by former NOM head Maggie Gallagher that NOM is not interested in being anti-gay?

I mean come on. Are gays and lesbians really putting marriage in danger or does the danger truly lie with the fact that some folks -- one who shall remain nameless -- can't keep it in their pants.

It's obvious that if Gingrich is interested in, as NOM claims, preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman, he seems to think that he is exempt from the rule.

And it's even more obvious that NOM's silence regarding his, shall we say, indiscretions is signalling that the organization is turning a blind eye to his past behavior.

I knew NOM was fake, highly hypocritical, and full of empty platitudes but DAMN!

About the Author:

From the beginning, the South held the North hostage in the proceedings, refusing to budge unless the southern slaves were fully counted as part of a states population. This became an issue, because the South felt as though the populous North (which had dispensed of slavery by this time), would use their vast population (and the representation that such population would bring) to eliminate one of the key institutions of the Southern economy.

In the end, the delegates decided upon the 3/5ths compromise, which counted every slave as 3/5ths of a person.

Throughout the debate over the 3/5ths clause, we saw a debate over power. The South did not want its power diluted, and its society made equal. Instead, it wanted the status quo to reinforce its power pyramid of racial superiority.

Such a historical example plays quite well into our discussion of rights for LGBT people; for in American today, we see a similar struggle over who controls society. It is Christian conservatives, who wish to project their religious beliefs onto an unbelieving populous, or is it the LGBT community, who wishes to be equal to those Christians in rights and privileges.

Before I go any further, I would like to make a disclaimer. I am in no way painting all of Christianity with this brush of oppression. I know many great Christian people who agree that ones religious beliefs should remain private and not be imposed upon a religiously different populous.

Instead, this post is describing those Christians who take the scriptural commands of "dominion" far too literally, and who, instead of promoting a more perfect society, regress that society into a pseudo-theocracy.

Power is what makes the world go round. Who has it, who utilizes it, who we have power over -- all of these dictate the inherent class structure of society.

Throughout American history, it can be noted that those at the top have been those who hold to a Judeo-Christian religious worldview. But, beginning in the 1960's, with the emergence of the sexual revolution and the throwing off of traditional morality, those who were at the top of the power pyramid realized that their influence was shrinking.

Thus, in the 1970's we saw the push-back of the Moral Majority, and the birth of the Religious Right. To these religious fundamentalists, it was important that the old systems of morality and legal legitimacy (aka. the law is from God), be upheld in the popular culture and government.

During this time, we saw Phyllis Schlafly advocate against the Equal Rights Amendment, and other influential figures like Anita Bryant advocate against the evils of homosexuality and legalized abortion (or infanticide as they deem it).

Such religious based advocacy has continued even to this day, from the establishment of marriage amendments around the United States, invasive abortion regulations, as well as the back to back Iowa wins of noted social conservatives -- Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012.

Now what does this power struggle that has emerged in American society have to do with LGBT rights?

I feel that in order to understand why the culture war is a "war," we must understand what those who fight against us feel that they are losing. To them, it is about Power. With LGBT people placed upon an equal playing field as them, they have lost their status as the movers of society.

Instead of society being viewed as a pyramid when it comes to LGBT rights, where heterosexuals are "better" than homosexuals, every victory for LGBT people (whether that be marriage equality, workplace protections, anti-bullying policies) alters the playing field and makes it slowly more equal.

Instead of being able to arrogantly look down upon us as "sexual deviants", they are required to look upon us as social and legal equals.

Such equality is why our opponents fight so much against us.

That is why you have a bill being introduced in Tennessee that would allow exemptions for Christians to bully gay kids.

That is why you have a bill being passed in Michigan that strips same-sex domestic partners of benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

And that is why you have the people of countless states voting to enshrine discrimination into their Constitutions with marriage amendments. Such manifestations of blatant hatred are the dying breaths of a movement that is afraid of losing its grip upon American culture, society, and government.

Now, as much as our community likes to say that extending our rights will not impact others, that is only half true.

Yes, my marriage to my husband does not affect the married couple next door, but at the same time, it does affect our society. Instead of the blatant homophobia that we hear from Presidential Candidates like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, with the elevation of our rights to equal status, such homophobia no longer becomes acceptable.

In that day, the supposed "morality" of claims like "gay people are deviants" or "gay people can change, thus deserve no protections" will no longer be the norm, and instead be viewed as eerily similar to the moral justifications for treating women and African-Americans as property.

And it is that day, the day that we are social and legal equals to our heterosexual brethren, that I hope I will live to see.

About the Author:

On the slick side is Newt Gingrich, the career politician who got rich off lobbying and switched wives and religions three times, yet is running as a “family values” Washington outsider.

From left: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney also personifies slick with his perfectly coifed hairdo and a propensity to take more positions than a triple-jointed hooker. He keeps talking about personal responsibility and demanding that Americans take a spoonful of castor oil, even as the silver spoon dangles from his mouth.

Earlier this week, Romney admitted that he pays an effective tax-rate of only 15%, much lower than middle class Americans, and significantly less than President Barack Obama who paid just over 26% on his 2012 tax returns.

Romney, the pampered patrician, keeps pretending he’s slumming but we all know he’ll be “summering” if he doesn’t get the nomination. During one debate in Iowa, he foolishly challenged Gov. Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet as if it were pocket change. He has solidified his “out of touch” image by saying,

“I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away… I get speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much.” The New York Times reports, however, that Romney earned $374,327.62 in speakers’ fees from February of 2010 to February of 2011, at an average of $41,592 per speech.

Romney’s gaffe is reminiscent of George H.W. Bush who looked disconnected from real Americans in 1992 when he came across a grocery store scanner for the first time. The New York Times wrote about the incident in a story headlined, “Bush Encounters the Supermarket, Amazed”:

As President Bush travels the country in search of re-election, he seems unable to escape a central problem: This career politician, who has lived the cloistered life of a top Washington bureaucrat for decades, is having trouble presenting himself to the electorate as a man in touch with middle-class life.

Today, for instance, he emerged from 11 years in Washington’s choicest executive mansions to confront the modern supermarket…he grabbed a quart of milk, a light bulb and a bag of candy and ran them over an electronic scanner. The look of wonder flickered across his face again as he saw the item and price registered on the cash register screen.

Obviously, Bush lost his race and I suspect that President Barack Obama will be able to defeat a man who believes that $374,327 is little more than Monopoly Money.

When it comes to “The Sickest,” obviously we are talking about Rick Santorum, since Michele Bachmann has dropped out of the race. If he actually mattered, we could also be talking about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who invokes Jesus’ name so often that he makes Tim Tebow look like Dr. Richard Dawkins.

In his infinite wisdom, Perry wants a part-time Congress so House and Senate members can go back to their home states and get “real jobs.” Which will work out fine until we have to hold off on declaring war against an enemy state because the night manager at Waffle House won’t let Congressman X leave the late shift to return to Capitol Hill. Indeed, we already had a part-time president in the endlessly vacationing George W. Bush and look how well that turned out.

Back to the Opus Dei loving Santorum — he’s just plain nuts. Consider the infamous fetus in a jar situation:

In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son’s death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen’s parents’ home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

This story is remarkable considering Santorum’s wife had previously dated a well-known abortion doctor forty years her senior! With her incredible flip-flopping on abortion, maybe she should have married Mitt Romney?

Most of the media is afraid to admit the obvious: The GOP contenders are loopy clowns selling a field of schemes. The Religious Right ensures that one can only get the nomination through insanity (Santorum) or by faking insanity (Romney). Until this radical special interest group is permanently expelled from the Republican Party, the fringe binge will continue and Ron Paul will often look like the sanest one on-stage.

About the Author:

Yesterday, a new Presbyterian denomination was born: the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians -- or, for short, ECO (as opposed to echo, which is a hollow, after-the-fact, ever-diminishing noise).

ECO was formed by pastors and laypeople in response to PCUSA's decision to join the 21st century. They're against gay people being ordained as ministers, and so started their own sub-denomination wherein such a thing would be prohibited.

Fair enough! This is America, where you're more than allowed to do stuff like that.

What is certainly most notable, however, is ECO's refusal to anywhere, in any way whatsoever, just come out and say that they formed in response to PCUSA's sanctioning the ordination of gay people. Everyone knows that's why ECO formed. It's hardly a mystery or secret.

Yesterday's Reuters story on the matter is titled Presbyterian group breaks away over gay clergy. Back in August, Rev. John Crosby, now the president of ECO, said, "We [the Presbyterians] have tried to create such a big tent trying to make everybody happy theologically. I fear the tent has collapsed without a center."

Wow. So, for Rev. Crosby the go-to metaphor on this matter is tent poles. Boy, for a guy who likes to sidestep the big, hot, hard, penetrating issues ...

And what deft sidestepping Rev. Crosby and his fellow ECO leaders do. A reader can search high and low throughout ECO's online site, and nowhere will they find a single, solitary word about gay people or homosexuality. They'll read how ECO wants to "connect leaders through accountable biblical relationships," to "reclaim a sense of covenanted biblical community," and to "develop gospel-centered leaders." They'll discover ECO's passion for "the right kind of diversity" (which is then carefully stipulated to mean "women, men, young leaders, and every ethnicity"). They'll readily learn of ECO's desire to "unite around a shared theological core."

But beyond that kind of dissembling, Secret Code Fundy Talk, nary a mention will they find of the true and actual reason ECO exists.

ECO honchos! Just say you've formed because you believe that gays shouldn't be ordained! If your convictions are so great they've compelled you to found a "breakaway movement," why aren't they great enough for you to be explicit about what it is you're breaking away from?

That said, though, I'm heartened by the leaders of ECO being so afraid of proclaiming their true nature and purpose. It means they're as uncomfortable as, God knows, they should be, about excluding gay people from full participation in the life that Jesus so passionately offered to all.

It's always encouraging when someone can't force their mouth to say what their heart knows is wrong. It means there's hope for them yet.

In the meantime our would-be friends at ECO are stuck, as it were, inartfully singing along with the Cowardly Lion:

I'm sure I could show my prowess / Be a lion, not a mouse / If I only had the nerve.

About the Author:

Everywhere I travel, I’m in search of how our community is depicted. Unfortunately, I notice we are not always included. That is discrimination by censorship. And unfortunately, many of our national organizations get a failing grade on this subject. They don’t understand the seriousness of this censorship.

Even GLAAD doesn’t know the history of the battle to end censorship in mainstream media. They must learn that our collective history is the building blocks for our future, and the justification of why our struggle for equality deserves to become a reality.

About two months ago, my nephew and I visited the new National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. The museum opened a little over a year ago with much fanfare. It was a spectacular debut with the likes of Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Steven Spielberg and Jerry Seinfeld.

The museum not only covered the plight of the Jews in coming to the States, it showcased their religious and political views. It also highlights 12 people from the Jewish community who represent who Jews are and their contributions to American society.

It’s a shock and a failure on the part of the museum that we gay Jews do not exist. A total failure, and they should bow their heads in shame. That’s a tough statement, but as I went through the museum and saw how Jews dealt with the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the fight for civil rights and women’s rights, it was obvious that something was missing. LGBT. In fact, I didn’t find those four letters anywhere in the museum.

Here’s the rub. Many of the most prominent pioneers of the LGBT community were Jewish; perhaps the most well known, Harvey Milk, does not even get a mention. In fact, in what might look like a backhanded insult to the LGBT community, there are two gay men in the museum’s Hall of Fame gallery — Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein — who are both closeted thanks to the museum, as neither of their displayed bios mentions it.

Not only is this discrimination by censorship, it reminds me of a time when, in the Jewish tradition, if you discovered something about a member of the family that was shameful, you didn’t talk about it.

Does the museum find LGBT shameful?

This becomes somewhat personal for me since, in my family, one of my cousins was one of “those individuals.” At the tender age of 16, my cousin Norman was asked to leave his home.

As a child on the streets in the 1950s, he was homeless and had a life of drugs and alcohol. And growing up, we children occasionally heard his name and asked about him. We were told we don’t talk about cousin Norman.

Imagine growing up, knowing you’re gay, and discovering the real story of cousin Norman. How do you tell your parents? Do you worry about what the rest of the family will think? Does it sound like the 1950s? That is what the NMAJH has done.

On behalf of my cousin Norman, shame on you!

The video is 17 minutes long but I promise you it’s worth your time. Equality is a cause America has been pursuing for years. It is our heritage and our greatest height to achieve.