The repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding sexuality has recently been repealed by President Obama in a move long-awaited by many of our servicemen and women.  Long awaited, in fact, by many people not even in the military, like myself.

I have long held fast to the belief that enlisting in the armed forces while DADT was in effect was giving tacit approval to said policy.  It would have been more beneficial, I used to argue, to the “cause,” if the members of the LGBT community who were out and wanted to serve forewent enlistment, in favor of writing to the elected official of their choice and explaining that they would enlist, but refuse to lie about themselves to do it.  I always thought that the gaping holes left in the various branches of our military would speak louder than their silence.  That’s no longer an issue now, of course, because it’s in the past.  Or is it?

At a debate on Thursday night, an openly gay soldier currently serving in Iraq posed a question to the assembled hopefuls for the Republican ticket for the Presidency.  Stephen Hill is the soldier’s name, and he wanted to know if, in the event that one of the candidates ascended to the Presidency, would he or she attempt to “circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military.”

The most disturbing part of the question was that it was met with boos from what one can assume was the largely Republican audience.  I think that the booing of anyone in Iraq, actively serving in our Army, is reprehensible, no matter with whom they choose to sleep when they are on leave.  Anyone who sat safely and smugly in their seat in a climate controlled auditorium in the US and booed a soldier in the middle of the desert who is fighting in a war, ostensibly to make the world safe for democracy, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The lucky candidate who was selected to answer the question was Rick Santorum, the latest in a seemingly endless cavalcade of Republicans to offend my sense of ethics and also good taste.  His response was “I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don’t ask don’t tell, I think, tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military’s job is to do one thing: to defend our country…”

Santorum fails to realize the point of Hill’s question, indeed seems not to have heard it at all.  To assume that most soldiers, gay or straight, are not sexually active while enlisted is ridiculous at any rate, but to believe that getting rid of a blatantly prejudiced and antediluvian policy can be termed a “special privilege,” “social experimentation,” and is in some way a free pass for gay and lesbian soldiers to run around having sex whenever they like is worse; it’s out-of-touch with reality.  The LGBT community isn’t fighting for the right to have sex; we are fighting for the right to be open about our identities without fear of losing our jobs, our homes, our friends… our lives.

Santorum goes on to relate his intention, if elected, to reinstate DADT, to “move forward in conformity with what has happened in the past.”  Is this viewpoint restricted to DADT?  Why stop there, Santorum?  Why not take the vote away from women?  Segregate our schools?  Give those pesky thirteen colonies back to Britain?  There may be something to be said about a return to traditional American values, but it is important to identify just what they are.  Discrimination is not among them.

(Written some time ago but never posted)

Having pretensions to class isn’t the same thing as actually having any. If you don’t know how to spell Vuitton you have no business buying one. If you don’t understand why Chanel jackets have chains embroidered into the hems, then you don’t deserve to wear one.

I live in Southern California, where the only thing brighter than our sun-drenched beaches are the spray-tanner drenched sluts who frequent them. California girls, they’re unforgettable… Daisy Dukes, and rarely anything at all on top.

I’d like to lay down a few ground rules for women of today’s generation; hopefully it will reach the eyes of the women planning to attend my high school reunion so that I can avoid having to say it in person. Let’s begin.

Hair extentions are not hair. Do not grab, flip, toss, run your fingers through them. You bought that stuff, you didn’t grow it. And guess what! Every time you sigh dramatically and pull your long, delicious hank of shiny hair out of your face and pout your Stila-glossed lips, we can all see where the fake shit is attached to the real shit. All of us. Even the ones who don’t know what they’re looking for. Even CHILDREN. They just assume you have those little plastic bits they have on the end of their shoelaces in youe hair. Trust me. I am an uncle of five and a Godfather of one. That’s right. A Godfather. So don’t fuck with me.

High heels are only sexy if you can walk in them without looking like you have Polio.

Sunglasses may only be worn indoors if it’s extremely bright… like say, at Barney’s, or Gucci. Or Lacoste; there’s entirely too much white in Lacoste as well. No one looks good with that much white reflected against them. Why not a nice ecru, or eggshell? I digress: sunglasses are for when it’s bright, indoors or outdoors. Just never…. never… EVER… at night.

Dog purses are out. O.U.T. out. Stop it. No one thinks it’s cute. We all hate you. All of us. Stop people on the street. Really, do it. “Excuse me, I have a dog purse that cost as much as your used Toyota. How does that make you feel about me?” “Well,” she will reply, “it makes me think you’re a horrible, unrealistic bitch with separation anxiety, and I hate you.” Give it a shot.

When you wear a skirt to work, and the hem is above the knee (or, God forbid, grazing the thigh, you slut) one must WEAR HOSE. Hosiery isn’t just for muggers. I prefer the kind with the seam down the back. Very 40’s, very sexy, but, above all, very CLASSY.

The trout pout. The duck lips. Whatever it is that THING you all keep doing in your photos. Just stop. There’s websites dedicated to the ridiculousness of it all and still, there’s orange bitches with hot pink lips and white-blonde hair looking for all the world like they’re auditioning for the latest remake of “Donald’s Better Self.”

If you’re going to hold your phone in your hand while you talk on it, you don’t need a bluetooth, or an earpiece, or even speakerphone. Put. The. Phone. To. Your. Ear. I am sick and tired of listening to your insipid conversations, and frankly I don’t CARE if you get foundation or self-tanner all over your Swarovski encrusted iPhone. I just. Don’t. Care.

And you should all try caring a little less, too. Fitting into some stereotype designed by the very people who produce the items you think you need to make yourself happy is NOT being an individual.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

I take issue with people saying things like “I don’t want that lesbian in the Domino’s commercials making my pizza.”

If you say that and mean it, you’re a closed-minded moron.

If you say that as a joke, you’re a moron.

If you say that and you’re gay, whether you mean it or not, there is something seriously wrong with you.  Has it been so long since you had a negative experience based on someone’s negative reaction to your sexuality that you feel comfortable perpetrating the same against someone else?  Making fun of this woman is no better than schoolyard bulling, and I for one expect better of you.

For the record, I do have a sense of humor… but I only laugh when things are funny.

Today, on campus, I picked up a copy of The Arkansas Times, what seems the local equivalent to The LA Weekly.  It featured, on the cover, a large photo of Kirk Dixon, a retired banker and member of the ASF (Arkansas Society of Free-Thinkers).  Mr. Dixon was holding up a twenty dollar bill with the word “God” in the motto crossed out, underneath which he had written “Separation of Church and State.”  That was enough to get me to read what I found to be a very interesting article on the growing presence of atheism in Arkansas (who knew?  This is the Bible belt!). 

What interested me more, though, was a statement made by Jerry Cox (please, no Dixon/Cox jokes, this is a serious article!), President of the Arkansas Family Council.  It read: “the danger here is that free thought ultimately censors religious thought… seeks to convert… to atheism… This is organized, well-financed work that has been gaining ground… only recently becom[ing] apparent to Arkansans.”

To begin with, I take issue that so many religious groups try to trademark the word “family.”  There are all sorts of families, all families do not necessarily embrace theology in general, or any in specific.  But, to go on: what’s the problem here?  Does Mr. Cox take issue with the tactics, or just the message of the ASF?  It boggles the mind that he can pompously decry the methods with which the ASF seeks to spread its message, when the Church has been using the very same methods, and to much greater effect, for the best part of the last two thousand years.

One is only meant to “preach” and collect money to finance said preaching, Mr. Cox would have us believe, if one is a Christian.  That doesn’t seem very… Christian to me.  Mr. Cox goes on to say that atheism has become a religion unto itself, replacing God with “worship of science and the human mind.”  Also, he says, atheists “elevate reason and knowledge to a virtually god-like level.”  All of these individual assertions (and his entire statement in general) seem to imply not only that he finds these practices inferior to the worship of his God, but moreover to be negative in general.

This smacks of nothing holy or enlightened to me; rather it bears the rank odor of hypocrisy.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, Mr. Cox, and until you find it unacceptable to be constantly preaching your own ideals, agenda, and dogma, you are in no position to criticize others for doing the same.  That’s what this country was founded on, and is in my opinion one of the most important and wonderful things about being an American. 

The practice in general of attempting to gain acceptance of and agreement with one’s views is something older than modern Christianity; older even than Christ himself.  To suggest that engaging in philosophical discourse is only acceptable if one is espousing the beliefs of Christianity is not only blatantly wrong, it is also rather silly and boring.  What makes these discussions desirable and interesting to begin with, indeed, what makes any conversation at all palatable, is the presence of differing opinions; something about which I have never heard a single atheist complain.  If the leaders of proselytizing churches have a problem with us “heretics” eventually becoming as loud as they have always been, it seems to me that they have only themselves to blame.  What is required by some religions (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and Born-Again Christians, to name a few), namely “spreading the word,”is seen as offensive behavior if the word being spread differs from their own. (See the YouTube video of two men going door to door in Salt Lake City to preach about atheism, and the reactions they encountered.)  The interesting bit there is that engaging in the very same behavior, but with a different set of values, is part of their duty as a good [insert religious noun of your choice here].

This country was founded by people seeking to escape religious persecution.  They braved the unknown: danger, illness, even death, so they could live as they saw fit.  Behavior such as this, the legacy we are all, as Americans, heirs to, should be remembered and celebrated — not forgotten and disgraced.

I don’t much care for Lady Gaga.  I find her music extremely danceable, but that’s about the best I can say for her.  I find her fashion to be atrocious, her makeup to be (while extremely well-executed) disastrous, and her tone of voice to be unbearable.

“But she supports gay people,” some of my friends will say to me.  Well… is that enough?  Lack of support doesn’t blind me to any positive attributes a person might otherwise possess… should the presence of support be enough to eradicate anything bad a person might do?  I say no.

Furthermore I believe that anything political that Lady Gaga might or might not do is nothing short of total self-aggrandizement, and anyone who believes differently is in for a rude awakening when she turns thirty.

Also, it’s time for people to realize that the self-elected Gay Spokesperson of Perez Hilton is exactly that.  Most of my friends can’t stand him.  He’s not the taste-maker, he’s not the bar-setter, and he’s not anything close to the voice of the gay community.  I’m meant to believe his new “book” does much in the way of exonerating him from his past misdeeds… but I refuse to read it on the basis that his past misdeeds are so grievous that I’m no longer interested in what he has to say to defend himself.  As I’ve mentioned before, once we hit a certain age, “I’m sorry” doesn’t cut it anymore.

A week or so ago, I was in West Hollywood, spending an afternoon writing and chatting with people.  I was dressed rather well, and carrying the bag I usually do: a large canvas tote with an Andy Warhol print of a dollar sign on one side, in yellows and reds mostly.

I like my bag. 

As I walked past Fiesta Cantina, I thought I overheard someone say something about my bag.  But I kept walking and didn’t consider it, because I assumed that there, in West Hollywood, it would be impossible for another gay man to be so stupid.

Now it’s 5:30, and I decide to have a margarita at Fiesta, and the same two guys are at the front table, and sure enough, as I walk by, I distinctly hear “Oh, look, the guy with the purse is back!”

Here’s my concern.  How can we expect the world at large to to accept our differences if we, we gay men in West Hollywood, are going to be so cruel to each other?  In the middle of West Hollywood, surely my canvas tote isn’t even approaching the most ridiculous of the man-bags to be found; hardly worth comment.  So why bother?

And you know?  Maybe my bag is ridiculous, but I love it, and I wear it well; and frankly it’s just none of that guy’s business.  Especially as he has been sitting having drinks for the last three hours (previous to 5:30, mind you) with a fellow young enough (though the wrong ethnicity) to be his son.  If anyone had the right to do some judging, then I say it was me.  I, however, made no remarks to or about them (until now, obviously) and didn’t feel the inappropriate desire to attempt to embarrass and insult a total stranger for no good reason.

Maybe we should all just stop being such jerks to each other.  Let’s take it upon ourselves, rather than leaving it up to people like Lady Gaga and Perez Hilton (shudder) to stand up for the gay community.  Because the thing is, it doesn’t matter how many celebrities stand up and say how wonderful we are if we don’t work hard to make sure it’s the truth.

Upon reflection (and lots of Glee watching) it occurs to me that I would love to be as comfortable in my skin as someone like Kurt.  I would love to be able to say “get me to a day spa, stat!” without thinking “gosh, what are people going to think of me if they hear me say that?”

That’s real courage, to just be who you are, rather than trying to mold yourself into a person that you think other people will appreciate more than the person you are.  If these people accept your artifice, they’re not accepting you.  Behaviors are learned, surely… it’s a question of nature vs. nurture…

Speaking of questions, though… mine is, why am I so much more willing to accept that the deficiency is in me and seek to change, rather than to assume that the people who don’t like me for who I am and how I act are just fucked in the head?

I’m not seriously heterophobic. If such a thing even exists. Let me start with that.

There are a lot of men in the gay community that espouse disdain for straight people and the lifestyles they live. I think this is farcical for the most part. Obviously there are some things about what is commonly referred to in societal vernacular as the “straight lifestyle” (remember, before “politically correct” became an issue, when we could just talk?) that are a little silly… football, for instance. The men I am referring to, though, are the ones who use words like “breeder” and refuse to go to weddings. That’s just stupid. Everyone knows we need straight people; if there were no straight people, I’d run out of eighteen year old boys in eighteen years.

Interesting side note: that comment will be extremely off-putting to people who would find it amusing if I were straight and referring to eighteen year old girls. That’s HOMOphobia — which is not the topic of this entry.

I was on FaceBook today, and good ol’ FB invited me to see Darren Criss, Blaine on Glee, which, as we all know, is my favorite show at the moment, perform at The Roxy, I think it was. I didn’t have to think about it for thirty seconds before deciding not to go.

Why? He’s good-looking, talented, on my FAVORITE show, and performing at a venue close to me! Oh, right. Because he’s straight.

I mean it. I don’t want to go because he’s straight. If he was gay, I’d totally want to. Not because I think I’d have a shot (I’m not THAT vain… well, maybe I am, but I’m not that stupid) and not because I think the crowd won’t be full of queers and girls(I mean, who ELSE would go?). I’m just not interested in going to see this straight performer, and the only reason I can think of is because he’s straight.

I just can’t imagine that his show will be remarkable enough on its own to interest me… but if he were a young gay performer, I would want to go. This is very confusing to me, because it points out a prejudice that I wasn’t aware I possessed.

I expect more from heterosexual men than I do of gay men — except, of course, for the ones I date and befriend personally. I think I’m more willing to give something new a shot if I know it’s gay, or gay produced, or gay owned, or gay sponsored. I’m not so sure that’s right.

 But then, I think, that’s hardly unique to the gay community. How many Christians intentionally shop at Christian-owned establishments? African Americans? Jews? Russians? Latinos? I guess it happens everywhere.

It seems to me that we, as people, are a lot more willing to give someone a chance if they have something really important in common with us. — Hang on a minute. Race, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin… these aren’t IMPORTANT! Of course they’re not! How did I, a self-professed liberal, get into the mindset that any of those factors contribute to what sort of person… a person… really is?

Because we all do it. Liberals, Conservatives, Satanists… whatever our political affiliation is, whatever our dogma, we all, deep down, are willing to cut a guy a break if we see just a little bit of us in them.

I suppose the key is to look closer at everyone until we can finally see it. 

This fellow who I had asked out, and who had accepted, and said he thought I was cute and stuff, apparently met someone else he likes better, and is currently trying to figure out how to tell me this.  I found that out from one of my other friends at the bar last night.  I just get so in my head when those kinds of things happen that I can’t enjoy myself at all; I had to leave. 

I just wonder, if he didn’t want to go out with me (in a romantic manner) to begin with, as is the case, i suspect, why couldn’t he just say that?  The worst way for someone to find out that you’re not interested in them is for them to discover that you’ve been telling other people and are looking for advice as to the best way to tell them. 

I am just constantly confounded and thwarted by the dating scene, and I don’t know if there’s anything to be done about it.