Tag Archives: Homo-hatred

New pope, same as the last pope (take two)

The new pope still will have none of this, but at least he would let them keep their heads. Yay!

Yes, it could be much worse, I suppose.

At least the new pope isn’t calling for the beheading of gay men, like the 89-year-old dictator of Zimbabwe is. (Robert Mugabe might believe in equal opportunity and believe that lesbians should be beheaded, too, but his rhetoric apparently is aimed primarily or solely at gay men. [“If you take men and lock them in a house for five years and tell them to come up with two children and they fail to do that, then we will chop off their heads,” Mugabe bizarrely proclaimed recently.])

But despite the news today — I guess that it was a slow news day — that the pope has done some 180 on the matter of homosexuality, know that Pope Francis apparently still upholds the Catholick Church’s doctrine that “under no circumstances can [any homosexual acts] be approved. … Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”

“Asked for his position on gay marriage,” Time reports, “[Francis] answered: ‘You know perfectly the position of the Church.’”

This is supposed to be a kinder, gentler pope, yet there has been no policy change on homosexuality. None. Nada, zip, zilch, zero.

“It’s Not What the Pope Said About Gays, It’s How He Said It,” the headline for the Time news article is.

Really?

We must be nice to gays, Francis said. Yes, he did say that, more or less.

But how, exactly, can you uphold an oppressive set of policies* yet still be considered to be such a swell fucking guy?

What if heterosexuals were told that they weren’t to be mistreated for their unfortunate affliction of opposite-sex attraction, but that should they ever act on that opposite-sex attraction, even within the context of a marriage, that would be a sin?

What if heterosexuals were told that marriage only is the union of two men or two women?

What if Catholicks were told that sure, they can be Catholicks in their heads, but that for them to actually practice their belief system — go to confession, kneel, eat that wafer, whatever it is that they do at Mass, for instance — would be wrong, forbidden?

I don’t know… At least Robert Mugabe is pretty fucking direct about his feelings about homosexuality. Sure, he’s a pathetic, addled old dictator who just wants to steal another election on Wednesday, and is throwing some red meat to his fellow backasswards homo-haters, but at least in Zimbabwe, you, as a gay man (maybe you, too, as a lesbian) would know exactly where you stand.

But here is the Catholick Church saying, “Oh, you can be a fag or dyke — just never, ever do what fags and dykes feel compelled to do!”

That’s just backdoor hatred and bigotry and discrimination. The message from the Catholick Church is the same: If you aren’t heterosexual, you are defective. If you aren’t heterosexual, God doesn’t accept you. If you aren’t heterosexual, you can’t ever have sex, even within the context of marriage, because you can’t get married!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Fuck the Catholick Church. And fuck the pope, who is no nice guy (and who, for all we know, is a gay man himself…).

P.S. My first take on Pope Francis is here.

*Pope Francis also firmly opposes women being able to enter the priesthood or, apparently, the Catholick Church’s all-male hierarchy.

How can this woefully outdated patriarchal policy not give women and girls the clear idea that they are inferior to men and boys?

This is sick shit, not love.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Memo to Miss Fake Tits: Your ‘truth’ oppresses me and millions of others

Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, smiles during a news conference ...

Reuters photo

The devil has breast implants: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean, pictured in May, believes that God chose her to be a poster bitch for homophobia. She probably believes that God wanted her to get her breast implants, too.

Carrie Prejean won’t shut the fuck up.

And why should she? Stupid people never do, while intelligent people keep silent.

Prejean now claims that God chose her to deliver her anti-same-sex-marriage answer during the 2009 Miss USA pageant. Didn’t the election-stealing, mass-murdering “President” George W. Bush also claim that God told him what to do?

We live in dangerous times when wingnuts like Bush and Prejean claim that God wants them to oppress others. All kinds of crimes, including mass murder, have been done in the names of God and Jesus by so-called “Christians” throughout history.

“I was a woman who stood up for the truth and people don’t want to admit that,” Prejean boasted yesterday at the Values Voters Summit in Washington (yes, the very same Values Voters Summit that sold “Obama Waffles” last year in which Barack Obama was portrayed like Aunt Jemima on boxes of waffle mix). “I had the courage and the bravery that a lot of people don’t have.”

Oh, yeah, it takes a whole shitload of courage and bravery to hate and to beat up upon a minority group that historically has been oppressed, even by the Nazis during the Holocaust. And it’s exactly what Jesus would do, too.

Memo to Carrie Fake Tits Prejean: I don’t give a fuck what insanity you believe. Believe that man came from dirt and that woman came from man’s rib. Believe in virgin births and believe in the coming apocalypse in which you’ll be saved because you’ve hated all the people you’ve been told to hate.

But your right to believe your insanity ends where my equal human and civil rights begin.

If you oppose same-sex marriage, then don’t marry another woman. But don’t tell me what I may and may not do based upon your dipshit, backasswards, oppressive beliefs that are much more satanic than they are Christian — that is, based upon the actual teachings of Jesus Christ as contained in black and white in the New Testament. (You know, love thy brother as thyself, do unto others only as you would have others do unto you, judge not lest ye be judged, etc., etc.)

If any entity actually is acting and talking through you, Miss Fake Tits, it sure the fuck ain’t God.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Brüno’ is (mostly) good for gays

Gay fashionista Brüno (a.k.a. Sacha Baron Cohen), of Vienna, poses with adopted son O.J., whom he obtained in exchange for a limited-edition iPod.

So the Internet buzz is that the movie “Brüno” is bad for gays.

Oh, puhfucklinglease.

The only camps of people who truly could believe that are self-homo-hating gays and the members of the heterosexual politically correct crowd who want to be offended on behalf of us queers in order to burnish their PC credentials.

Any actual damage that comic genius Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Brüno” might cause the gay community (if there is such a thing [and there isn’t]) most likely is offset considerably by the pervasive homo-hatred that Cohen brings to light in “Brüno.”

Only fucktards could believe in all of the gay stereotypes that Cohen uses liberally in “Brüno,” but even dullards should come away from “Brüno” with a better sense of what hatred — and consequent danger — there is for gays throughout the United States of America, land of the free (well, free for stupid, white, presumably straight, “Christian” males, anyway). 

In at least one scene it appears that Cohen-as-Brüno nearly was hit by a large object thrown at him by a homo-hater that could have caused him serious injury had it made contact with him (I won’t give it away by giving the details), and in another scene, what appears to be an angry mob of Orthodox Jews seriously chasing him in what appears to be Israel gives us a hint as to how “civilized” our partner in war crimes and crimes against humanity, Israel, is (which is about as “civilized” as the United States is). 

Not only was Cohen’s physical safety apparently jeopardized by homo-hatred and anti-homo violence in his quest to get footage for “Brüno,” but even when his physical safety was not jeopardized, with his antics as the gay Austrian fashionista Brüno he still reveals homo-hatred aplenty. (Salon.com’s often-lame reviewer and even the New York Times’ lame reviewer both seem to think that this isn’t such a big deal — homo-hatred is pretty much expected of the red states, which pretty much makes it OK, right? — which strikes me as rather homo-hateful itself.)    

Perhaps most revealing is the segment in which Cohen-as-Brüno appears before an all- or mostly black television talk-show audience in Dallas; the segment showcases how homo-hating many, if not most, black Americans are. Don’t you dare to discriminate against them based upon race, but they feel perfectly fine discriminating against non-heterosexuals. Gay indeed is the new black, with even the historically oppressed blacks shitting and pissing upon gays.

One stupid white man (at a gun show, I believe it is) tells Cohen-as-Brüno apparently quite seriously that if Brüno refers to him as gay one more time, he will inflict upon Brüno serious bodily injury. (I mean, think of that: This man believes that being gay is so awful, is such a stigma, that he is justified in even doing serious bodily injury to someone who calls him gay.) And I was surprised to see that Cohen-as-Brüno apparently did not get a gunned pulled on him when he went out with a group of redneck hunters and proceeded to get rather Brokeback on them after nightfall.

“Brüno” also exposes Ron Paul (whom Bruno claims [hilariously, I thought] he had thought was RuPaul) as quite a homo-hater; Cohen-as-Brüno has Ron Paul using, on camera, the epithet “queer” quite seriously and quite liberally — even though the effete Paul strikes me as quite possibly non-heterosexual himself.

(A long time ago I passed a Ron Paul table near the California State Capitol. Knowing that Paul is a right-winger masquerading as a moderate and/or as an “independent,” I kept walking past the Paul propaganda table when one of the Paul zombies stopped me. I told him that I cannot support a homophobe.

The young male zombie informed me that he is gay yet he was following Paul. Whether he was telling the truth or was lying in order to try to gain a convert to his little cult I’m not sure, but when I saw Paul using the word “queer” in “Brüno” today, I felt pretty fucking vindicated. [Yes, Cohen-as-Brüno certainly eggs Paul on, but Paul’s reaction is quite homo-hateful and there is no excuse for that hatred. It’s OK to fault a person for his or her wrong actions, but not for whom he or she is.])

“Brüno” is crude, of course, and as with “Borat,” sometimes this works as comedy and sometimes it doesn’t. Cohen-as-Brüno employs about every gay sexual stereotype imaginable. There are dildos aplenty and Brüno’s pygmy boyfriend (yes, pygmy boyfriend) proves to be quite, um, capacious as well as portable. Cohen employed a lot of homo-related gags in “Borat,” and the character of Borat is heterosexual, so you can imagine what “Brüno” is like. 

If you hated “Borat,” you probably will hate “Brüno,” too, and if you loved “Borat,” as I did, you probably will find “Brüno” funny but a little less funny than “Borat,” as I did.

On its own, “Brüno” holds up to “Borat,” but we saw “Borat” before we saw “Brüno,” so Cohen’s shtick of filming the spontaneous reactions of bigoted dupes to his antics in character isn’t brand-new to us anymore.

And “Brüno” mimicks “Borat” in some plot aspects, such as in that both Borat and Brüno find themselves leaving their native nations and making pilgrimages in the United States. And Borat has his sidekick in the blubbery Azamat, while Brüno’s sidekick is Lutz, his fawning “assistant’s assistant” (although Lutz plays a smaller role in “Bruno” than Azamat does in “Borat”). And in both “Borat” and “Brüno,” the title character has a spat with his sidekick that forces a separation, only to have the sidekick return later at a critical junction in the title character’s unfolding story.

Hopefully, Sacha Baron Cohen will use a different formula for his next film, but “Brüno” had me laughing hysterically throughout, so much so that in the theater my boyfriend asked me several times to keep it down, so Cohen succeeded in his main goal for “Brüno,” which was to be funny.

As a gay man, the only scene of “Brüno” that made me uncomfortable is the scene in which Cohen-as-Brüno shows apparently faked photographs of him and his adopted toddler O.J. partying in a hot tub with his naked gay friends. The myth of gay men as pedophiles doesn’t need to be reinforced.

But probably Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants have more reason to be offended by “Brüno” than do gay men. How Cohen-as-Brüno actually got Paula Abdul to sit atop a Mexican(-American) guy serving as a piece of furniture in order to do a serious interview about the importance of humanitarianism I don’t know. But even with that, Cohen’s intent, it seems, was to show us how Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants are treated in the United States; of course Cohen doesn’t believe that such treatment is acceptable.

“Brüno” also contains plenty of Nazi jokes, such as how Brüno quite seriously reflects that he is the second great man from Austria.

But Cohen can get away with his jokes about Nazis and Jews because we know where he stands; he’s Jewish, so he’s hardly an anti-Semite.

And it was in an interview with NPR after the release of “Borat” that Cohen stated that of the characters he has played, duping people, he has most been concerned for his physical safety while playing the gay character of Brüno — a testament, he stated, as to the severity of the problem of homo-hatred and anti-homo violence.

Sacha Baron Cohen is on our gay men’s side. Those gay men who claim otherwise because they find “Brüno” to be offensive should examine their own deepest beliefs about homosexuality and being gay, and those straight self-appointed members of the PC Police who want to be offended on my behalf should find another group on whose behalf to be offended.

My grade: A-

P.S. I’m really not getting the “argument” that I’m seeing everywhere that it was just too easy for Cohen to evoke homo-hateful words and deeds from homo-haters.

“Ridiculing American rubes is like shooting dead, motionless fish in a barrel filled with Jell-O,” notes one pretentious writer who tells us, rather explicitly, that he’s above and beyond it all (as do the rest of his ilk).

OK, so then you see news stories like this one from The Associated Press from today:

Salt Lake City – A gay couple say they were detained by security guards on a plaza owned by the Mormon church and later cited by police, claiming it stemmed from a kiss on the cheek.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that the men became argumentative and refused to leave after being asked to stop their “inappropriate behavior.” The men say they were targeted because they are gay.

Matt Aune said he and his partner, Derek Jones, were walking home from a concert nearby on Thursday night, cutting through the plaza near the Salt Lake City Mormon temple.

Aune, 28, said he gave Jones, 25, a hug and kiss and that the two were then approached by a security guard, who asked them to leave, telling them they were being inappropriate and that public displays of affection aren’t allowed on the property. He said other guards arrived and the men were handcuffed.

“We asked what we were doing wrong,” Aune told The Associated Press.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement Friday that the men were “politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior — just as any other couple would have been.”

“They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property,” she said. The church did not immediately respond to a request for more comment.

Police later arrived and both men were cited with misdemeanor trespassing, Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin Snyder said.

“It doesn’t matter what they were asked to leave for,” Snyder said. “If they are asked to leave and don’t they are … trespassing.”

The church has been the target of protests over its support of a ban on gay marriage in California.

I find it hard to believe that a heterosexual couple would have been handcuffed for a kiss on the cheek, and I find the “trespassing” “issue” to be a smokescreen for the Mormon cult’s homo-hatred.

To those who claim, explicitly or implicitly, that homo-hatred isn’t a problem or that it’s such old hat that Cohen shouldn’t have even bothered to make a film about it, I say to you heartily and wholeheartedly: FUCK YOU!

No one would claim in an article posted on a supposedly reputable website that racist hate speech and racist acts of violence are acceptable or even tolerable.

Why the fuck, then, is it still wide open season on gays? Even by pretentious, supposedly enlightened, above-and-beyond-it-all writers?

P.P.S. Just thought I’d note that my favorite film critic, Roger Ebert, loved “Brüno” too.

“The needle on my internal laugh meter went haywire, bouncing among hilarity, appreciation, shock, admiration, disgust, disbelief and appalled incredulity,” Ebert wrote in his review of “Brüno,” adding, “Here is a film that is 82 minutes long and doesn’t contain 30 boring seconds.”

I should have noted that “Brüno” was directed by Larry Charles, who also directed “Borat” and “Religulous” with Bill Maher. I love Charles’ direction — I’ve reviewed both “Borat” (here) and “Religulous” (here) — and I look forward to his next film.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The (semi-)new(d) faces of the remnants of the Repugnican Party

FILE -  In this Oct. 30, 2008 file photo, Samuel 'Joe The Plumber' ...

Associated Press photo

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher of Ohio — a.k.a. “Joe the Plumber” — speaks at a rally for Repugnican presidential candidate John McCainosaurus in Ohio in late October. “Joe the Plumber” says that it’s perfectly OK to refer to non-heterosexuals as “queer,” which sure makes you wonder what his words for black people and other assorted people are. “Joe the Plumber,” who just might be named the next pope, also recently pontificated, “God is recognized as, if you will, America’s religion.” So not only is God not a deity, but is a religion, but the United States of America has a national religion, and that religion is called “God.” I have learned so much from “Joe the Plumber”!

So who do the Repugnicans and the wingnuts have now to inspire a new generation of young people?

Well, not counting Sarah “Fahrenheit 451” Palin-Quayle, they have Carrie “No Offense!” Prejean and “Joe ‘Some of My Best Friends Are Queer but I Wouldn’t Let Them Anywhere Near My Children’ the Plumber.”

Miss California Carrie Prejean, the 21-year-old breast-enhanced bimbo who decided to become a poster girl for the homo-hating National Organization for Marriage after stating during the Miss USA pageant that she opposes same-sex marriage (adding: “No offense!”), probably is going to be stripped of her crown, thank Goddess.

It’s not for the right reasons, really, but I like the probable result anyway.

Reports The Associated Press today:

The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to same-sex marriage and by posing semi-nude when she was a teenage model.

Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said [yesterday] it appears Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that all prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the November state contest.

The detailed document prohibits the titular [titular — that’s great…] Miss California from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials.

In the last 10 days, Prejean has made televised appearances at her San Diego church and on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage.

The contract also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves “in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards.” As an example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.

“As you can see from the contract, she violated multiple items,” Neal said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

A photo of Prejean wearing only pink panties with her back turned to the camera appeared Monday on the gossip blog theDirty.com.

[Here it is:

 ] 

[Prejean] issued a statement early [yesterday] saying she posed for the shot when she was a 17-year-old model [oh, she was a minor — that makes it better!] and objected to its release as an attempt to belittle her religious faith: “I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.”

Prejean spokeswoman Melany Ethridge said she could not comment on the contract because she was unfamiliar with its contents. Ethridge said she had not heard the pageant directors were reviewing it.

Prejean, a San Diego native who attends San Diego Christian College, was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19. Her response to a question during the pageant that she opposed same-sex marriage made her a media sensation, darling of religious conservatives and the target of embarrassing disclosures.

Her post-pageant activities also have estranged her from the two directors of the state pageant, who under the terms of the contract have almost unlimited control over Miss California’s activities, including the right to revoke her crown for breaching its provisions.

On the day last week that Prejean was in Washington with National Organization for Marriage leaders to announce her support for a new advertisement the group created based on her pageant experience, Keith Lewis, co-director of the California contest, expressed concern.

“There is a contract that all participants sign that is very involved and very intricate and limits a lot of their activities,” said Lewis, a Los Angeles talent agent.

Meanwhile, the Miss Universe Organization, which also owns the Miss USA pageant, confirmed [yesterday] that it had sent a letter demanding the National Organization for Marriage to remove the Prejean spot from the air and the group’s website. It includes footage from the April 19 pageant.

The Miss Universe Organization “neither sanctions nor disapproves of the viewpoints expressed in the advertisement but cannot allow its copyrighted material to be used without permission to support the National Organization for Marriage’s political agenda and fundraising efforts,” organization President Paula Shugart said.

NOM executive director Brian Brown said the group did not plan to comply with the pageant’s request. [Good; I hope that the Miss Universe Organization sues NOM and wins.]

“It is clearly fair use, and all they are attempting to do is silence us by using false legal claims,” Brown said. “But they have another thing coming if they think these ads are coming down. None of us are relenting, least of all Carrie.”

NOM President Maggie Gallagher also issued a statement [yesterday] sympathizing with Prejean over the release of her modeling picture and saying it did not disqualify her as a traditional marriage advocate.

“Of course Carrie is not perfect,” Gallagher said. “On a personal note, as a former unwed mother, I want to say to Americans: You don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage.”

Gallagher, with whom I exchanged hostile e-mails years ago over an ignorant, bigoted, homo-hateful column that she wrote, sorely needs to go fuck herself. Of course she states that “You don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage.” Because being a homo-hating wingnut is all about being a fucking hypocrite.

Thankfully, Prejean, being the genius that she is, very apparently blatantly has violated the terms of her contract with the Miss California organization, which allows the organization to strip Prejean — who gives California, the Miss California organization, the Miss USA organization and the Miss Universe Organization all a bad name — of the title of Miss California without having to use her homo-hatred as the reason, whether it’s the reason or not.

Of course, there is no doubt that Prejean and her new fascist buddies at NOM nonetheless will cry that she’s a martyr for the “cause” of stripping non-heterosexuals of their equal human and civil rights.

Speaking of homo-haters, “Joe the Plumber,” the darling of the McCainosaurus-Palin-Quayle campaign and the remants of the Repugnican Party, if you haven’t heard by now, told Christianity Today that “queer” is a perfectly appropriate, acceptable term for non-heterosexuals. And that he loves his “queer” friends but that they know that he wouldn’t allow them anywhere near his children.

From the interview with “Joe the Plumber” in Christianity Today:

Christianity Today: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

“Joe the Plumber”: At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong.

People don’t understand the dictionary — it’s called “queer.” “Queer” means “strange and unusual.” It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a “honky” or something like that.

You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do — what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins.

I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. [Actual homosexuals in Ohio!] And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

Nice!

You know what? I wouldn’t want a “Christo”fascist like “Joe the Plumber” anywhere near my children (if I had any, I mean, of course) or any child, lest his “Christian,” “family” “values” rub off on them and they grow up to be skinheads or the like.

The “states’ rights” “argument” that “Joe the Plumber” employs was used by the white supremacists in the South; they figured that it was better to have at least some states in which it was still OK to shit and piss upon blacks. No, you don’t leave the matter of equal human and civil rights up to each state. Equal human and civil rights for all Americans must be federally protected. 

And memo to Joe: The term “queer” is hate speech when used by a homo-hater, most fucking certainly is a slur as much as are such words as “faggot” or “dyke” or “nigger” or “coon” or “chink” or “Jap” or “spic” or “wetback” or  “raghead” or “Hajji” or “Macaca” or “kike” or “cracker” or yes, “honky.”*

That the wingnuts are using dumbfucks like “Joe the Plumber” and Miss California to appeal to our youth is a great thing, since the majority of our youth oppose the hatred, bigotry and ignorance that Prejean and the plumber stand for.

I think that Human Rights Campaign President Joe Salmonese probably had it right when he remarked of “Joe the Plumber’s” remarks about non-heterosexuals: “It would matter if ‘Joe the Plumber’ mattered. One thing among many things we learned in the 2008 campaign is that he doesn’t.”

True, but we can’t assume that the “Christo”fascist beast is dead.

In the same interview with Christianity Today, “Joe the Plumber” named Sarah “She-Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” Palin as an idol of his:

Christianity Today: Who do you see as the emerging leaders for the Republican Party?

“Joe the Plumber”: There isn’t one.

You got the RNC [Repugnican National Committee] talking about repackaging principles and values to make them hip and cool to the younger generation. You can’t repackage them. They are what they are. You can’t make what they are.

I like Sarah Palin a lot, actually. I just don’t know if that’s where God’s leading her. I just know the Republican Party’s done its best to blackball her. I don’t know what her agenda is. If she ran, would I vote for her? Absolutely. John McCain was the lesser of two evils.

Would Americans ever be dumb enough to allow Sarah Palin-Quayle or someone like her into the White House? They did, after all, allow George W. Bush into the White House…

*Even though, as an Anglo, it seems to me that terms for white people like “cracker” or “honky” aren’t as severe (and certainly aren’t as numerous) as are the slurs for black people; “whitey,” I think, is worse than “cracker” or “honky,” but even “whitey” pales in comparison (bad pun fully intended) to such terms as “spade” and “sambo” and “jigaboo” and “jungle bunny.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Take the bimbo hater’s crown away

Miss California Carrie Prejean waves to the crowd as she takes ...

Associated Press photo

Miss California Carrie “Silicon Tits” Prejean — the Anita Bryant for 2009 — waves to the crowd at the “Christo”fascist Dove Awards (for “Christian” and gospel music) in Nashville, Tenn., on April 23. (“Dove Awards.” Funny — they’re much more like wolves than they are like doves…)

OK, up until now I have held my tongue regarding homophobic Miss California Carrie Prejean, who is said to have lost the Miss USA pageant last month to Miss North Carolina at least in large part because when she was asked her position on same-sex marriage, Prejean stated that she opposes it. (“No offense,” she added, because, you see, “Christo”fascists are nice and they do not wish to offend anyone!)

In her defense, Prejean never should have been asked the question (which gay blogger Perez Hilton rather impishly asked her). What does a 21-year-old blonde bimbo from one of California’s red counties know about politics? It was like asking a second-grader to solve a calculus problem.

I don’t use the word “bimbo” lightly.

Fact is, Prejean got breast implants weeks before she competed for Miss USA. We’re not talking about a person of substance here — unless that substance is silicon.

So a bimbo was asked a politically charged question and she responded truthfully — truthfully because she’s a dumbfuck. For her whole life she has been surrounded by “Christo”fascist homophobes — in her “Today Show” interview with Matt Lauer, Prejean won’t shut up about her backasswards religious beliefs, including her belief that God obviously didn’t want her to be Miss USA (because, apparently, God actively concerns Himself with such things) — and so she is a “Christo”fascist homphobe, too. We can’t expect more of a bimbo than to go along with the crowd that she runs with.

For the most part I gave Prejean a pass because I actually felt at least a little sorry for the bimbo who was asked about same-sex marriage. I mean, aren’t pageant bimbos supposed to be asked about incredibly abstract, ridiculously safe things like world peace and buying the world a Coke and singing in perfect harmony?

But now I will unleash on the fake-titted Prejean because she has joined the “Christo”fascist group National Organization for Marriage, which must have been named by someone from the unelected Bush regime, because the National Organization for Marriage is not actually for marriage, but is about hating gay men and lesbians and others who don’t conform to the heterosexual norm and keeping them down.

But “National Organization for Marriage” sure sounds a lot better than does “Fag- and Dyke-Haters of America.”

The National Organization for Marriage’s next ad campaign stars Prejean.

“What happens when a young California beauty pageant contestant is asked, ‘Do you support same-sex marriage?'” NOM says of its anti-gay-and-lesbian ad starring Prejean. “She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values. But Carrie’s courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values.”

Oh, yes, how brave Prejean was to “speak up for her truth and her [deepest moral] values.” How brave it is to attack a historically oppressed minority group! Which makes Prejean a role model for “a whole generation of young people”! Yes, our youth can all go out and get their breast implants and then spew forth irrational hatrednicely, of course! (“No offense!”) — on national television!

What if Miss California had stated on national TV that she felt that mixed-race marriages are wrong? Would that have been OK? Why is it that blatant racism is unacceptable but that it’s still wide open fucking season on gay men and lesbians and others who don’t conform to hetero norms? Why is gay the new black? (Because we always have to have some relatively powerless minority group to kick around in order to feel better about our miserable fucking selves, that’s why — but my questions were mostly rhetorical…)

Prejean says that marriage — heterosexual marriage only — is “something that is very dear to my heart.” Yes, it’s near all of that silicon, too.

It was OK when Prejean simply voiced her misguided, homophobic opinion; it’s her right to be stupid. The right to be stupid is a right that millions upon millions of Americans exercise every day of their lives. But now that Prejean intends to actively campaign against my equal human and civil rights, in my eyes, she has declared war upon me.

The gloves are off now, even though she’s fairly well-protected with all of that silicon.

There has been buzz that because she is aiding and abetting the homo-haters, Prejean might lose her crown as Miss California.

As she should. What if Miss California decided to join the KKK? Yeah, I think she would lose her crown if she joined a white supremacist group. So why should Miss California be able to be an active part of another group of haters (let me remind you that the U.S. House of Representatives just passed the Matthew Shepard Act, a hate-crimes bill that says, correctly, that homo-hatred is hatred) yet still keep her crown?

Take the bimbo hater’s crown away.

Carrie Prejean is a stain on beauty pageants (although I long have thought that beauty pageants, which only encourage things like breast implants, should be scrapped because they cause far more damage than good) and she is a stain on the great state of California.

Carrie “No Offense!” Prejean does not represent me and she does not represent my great state.

She represents only ignorance and hatred, and she now has become an official representative of ignorance and hatred.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why the ‘Christians’ hate us

Salon.com has an interview with gay Catholic and Mexican-American writer Richard Rodriguez (shown at left) on Proposition 8 and religion that’s worth reading. In the interview Rodriguez attempts to explain the passage of Proposition 8 and he suggests how gay men and lesbians can fare better among the religious.

Rodriguez correctly identifies that discrimination against gay men is more along the lines of misogyny than racism, since what it is that really seems to make gay men feared and hated is that many if not most of them represent the feminine, which is feared and hated. (And gay men have always seemed to me to be more reviled than are lesbians.)

But what it all really boils down to, I think, is that gay men and lesbians are dangerous to the blind obedience that the Mormon cult, the Catholic church and other organized “Christian” religions expect of their members.

Gay men and lesbians throw a monkey wrench into the patriarchal order that the “Christo”fascists want to impose upon everyone.

Yes, everyone. A huge goal of both the Mormon cult and the Catholic church is to overrun not just the United States, but the entire world, with their members. Thus their emphasis on irresponsible over-reproduction, including opposition to birth control and to abortion rights.

We gay men and lesbians — well, most of us — don’t reproduce like good little breeders “should,” so the Mormon cult and the Catholic church attack us.

And gay men especially tend to display liveliness and love and creativity and spark that the “Christian” organizations feel the need to snuff out. We gay men are, or at least often are, anathema to the doom and gloom and guilt and self-hatred and walking deadness that the “Christian” institutions espouse. Therefore, we should be eliminated; if we can’t be physically eliminated (as AIDS was just allowed to decimate gay men), then our rights should be restricted as much as is possible. Minimally, we should be minimized at all costs.

And, of course, as Rodriguez points out, as organized “Christianity” continues to crumble in the United States — because organized “Christianity” refuses to change and grow with the times — the “Christians” have to blame someone. Racism is out of fashion, but good ol’-fashioned homo-hatred is still acceptable among at least half of Americans, I estimate. As they say: gay is the new black.

I do have some disagreement with Rodriguez. In his interview with Salon.com he states: “I think gay activists … should not present ourselves as enemies of religion. I am not prepared to leave the Roman Catholic Church over this issue. The Catholic Church is my church.”

Hmmm…

I am not fully decided as to whether gay men and lesbians should remain in their churches and try to reform them — or leave their churches and let their churches die the natural death that they need to die. (I lean toward the latter, however.)

After Prop 8 passed, a Latina friend of mine who opposed Prop 8 (and who went to two anti-Prop 8 protest rallies with me here in Sacramento) announced, to my shock and awe, that she was considering joining the Catholic church.

She and I then had a strained conversation about this.

Her position was that people like she should try to reform the Catholic church. I don’t know, I told her; when I think of one institution on the planet that is the most resistant to change, it’s the Catholic church. (The Mormon cult would be No. 2 on my list, mainly because it’s much younger than is the Catholic church.)

Among the many things the Catholic church and the Mormon cult have in common, besides gay-bashing and involving themselves in right-wing politics, is that both excommunicate dissenters who oppose a serious threat to the established order. What better way to resist change and to preserve the status quo than to expel anyone who represents real change?

I told my Latina friend that should she make any real headway in helping to significantly change the Catholic church, they’d boot her out.

I understand her desire for community and service, but the Catholic church?

Not all Catholics are bad, she said.

True, but, I asked her, how can you support an institution that creates harm without contributing to that harm yourself? I mean, even if someone was just a daycare worker for the Nazis, didn’t that person help the overall Nazi cause, even though she or he never harmed a single hair on the head of a single Jew? How can one so neatly separate himself or herself from the evils that others within his or her institution commit? How can you support the Catholic church, even peripherally, without helping the church to oppress gay men and lesbians, since a big chunk of the church’s agenda is to continue to oppress gay men and lesbians? 

Anyway, while I generally oppose violence, as does Rodriguez, I disagree with Rodriguez’ assertion that we gay men and lesbians must not offend the religious. Oh, fuck the religious. They routinely offend me with their ignorance, fear and hatred that they cloak with the name of Jesus Christ — I mean, what worse blasphemy than to commit evil in the name of Jesus Christ? — so fuck them if I offend them. They don’t worry about offending me, so I won’t worry about offening them. They need to be offended.

There is this belief that no matter what ignorance and hatred the “Christians” spew forth, we are still to “respect” their beliefs. You know what? I “respect” their homo-hating beliefs like I “respect” the Nazis’ anti-Semitic and white supremacist beliefs.

No, trying to change monolithic “Christian” institutions from within is too much like banging your forehead against a wall ad nauseam.

Better to create something new, different and wonderful outside of these institutional dinosaurs and let these institutional dinosaurs go extinct by starving them of our time, energy and money, which is better spent creating something new, different and wonderful.

Boy, did I digress.

But read Rodriguez’ interview.

But if you don’t, these are the excerpts that I found the most poignant:

  • “…Latinos and blacks [took] part in this terribly tragedy [the passage of Prop 8]. We persecute each other. The very communities that get discriminated against discriminate against other Americans.”
  • “I know a lot of black churches take offense when gay activists say that the gay movement is somehow analogous to the black civil rights movement. And while there is some relationship between the persecution of gays and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, I think the true analogy is to the women’s movement. What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society”
  • “Then there is the Roman Catholic Church, my own church, which has just come off this extraordinary season of sexual scandal and misbehavior in the rectory against children. The church is barely out of the court and it’s trying to assume the role of governor of sexual behavior, having just proved to America its inability to govern its own sexual behavior.”
  • “…[I]t’s one thing for the churches to insist on their right to define the sacrament of marriage for their own members. But it’s quite another for them to insist that they have a right to define the relationships of people outside their communities. That’s really what’s most troubling about Proposition 8. It was a deliberate civic intrusion by the churches.”
  • “To my knowledge, the churches have not accepted responsibility for the Bush catastrophe. Having claimed, in some cases, that Bush was divinely inspired and his election was the will of God, they have failed to explain why the last eight years have been so catastrophic for America.”
  • “The divorce rate suggests that women are not happy with the relationship they have with men. And whatever that unhappiness is, I would like people to know that, as a gay man, I’m not responsible for what’s wrong with heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, whatever is wrong with the heterosexual marriage does have some implication for the world I live in. Women are redefining sexuality in a way that’s going to make it easier for me to be a gay man.”

Rodriguez’ next book, which I’ll probably buy, is on what he calls the “desert religions,” Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which, he asserts, need to be “feminized” — not taken over by women or the feminine, but balanced out by the feminine, I believe he means.

“If the male is allowed to hold onto the power of God, then I think we are in terrible shape,” he says.

Yup. And it’s the male power that wants to continue to hold on to its power that finds us gay men and lesbians, especially us gay men, so threatening.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Homosexual’ as a dirty word

You know what, homo-haters?

Just go ahead and call us gay men and lesbians “faggot” or “queer” or “butt fucker” or “carpet muncher” or the like.

You know why?

Because at least that’s more honest about your feelings.

The homo-hating wingnuts have taken to using the word “homosexual” as a pejorative. They think the venomous ideas that they espouse sound less venomous if they use the word “homosexual” instead of one of the many homo-hating epithets that are available to them. Because, you know, these people are such great fucking “Christians,” and all that it takes to be a good “Christian” is to dress nice and to refrain from using vulgar language (and, of course, to breed like a good little het should!). 

There is the Mormon assbite (I know, redundant…) who in a comment on my blog today dorkily called me “Mr. Homosexual Man.” (Really — how gay is that?)

And in a news story on how the California Supreme Court has agreed to listen to arguments on whether or not the unconstitutional Proposition 8 is constitutional, homo-bashing wingnut Randy Thomasson (whose pictures, interestingly, sure set off my gaydar) is quoted as having said:

“It’s unfortunate that the judges are giving time to the mushy, subjective arguments of homosexual activists who reject the clear reading of the constitution and the clear reading of Proposition 8. If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop 8, it will ignite a voter revolt. It will also threaten the validity of all future constitutional amendments.”

Gee, there was no such “voter revolt” in California after the unconstitutional, immigrant-bashing Prop 187, which California voters passed in 1994, was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court, and California state government continues along just fine although Prop 187 was shot down, as it should have been. I’m sure that the pro-Prop 187 fascists were forecasting cataclysm then, just as the pro-Prop 8 fascists are now.

But anyway, note Thomasson’s use of the term “homosexual activists.”

See, we “homosexuals” don’t call ourselves “homosexuals.” We call ourselves “gay” or “lesbian” or even “queer” or the like.

So the use of the coldly clinical term “homosexual” by those who hate us is meant as a pejorative.

So, homo-hating wingnuts, just get some fucking balls and say what you mean: call us queers or fags or pole smokers or AIDS fuckers or whatever.

Because, you see, having been oppressed by you our entire lives, we can take it, and always having been the comfortable oppressors, you cannot, you anti-American “Christo”fascist motherfuckers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized