GOP: Good Ol' Pharisees

Time for the daily post, folks. Sorry it's a bit late. I'd like to take a quick detour this evening to rail against something that irks me to no end: hypocrisy. On a good day, I can't stand the Republican Party. But when I hear about another example of blatant hypocrisy among the GOP ranks, well, let's just say my blood pressure rises to dangerous levels. Take the latest two "falls from grace" in an ongoing litany of Republican SNAFUs: that of Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, and John Ensign, senator from Nevada. Their extramarital affairs are old news by now, but in case you've just come out of a coma, I'll briefly recap:

• Sandford did a disappearing act over Father's Day weekend to go play hanky-panky with his mistress, "Maria," in Argentina, whilst his family and the entire state of South Carolina thought he just "wanted some space." Apparently he wanted more than space.
  
• Late last month, Ensign confessed to an extramarital affair with his campaign treasurer, Cindy Hampton, who was also married. Now we're learning that Ensign's daddy, a Las Vegas casino mogul, made "restitution" to the tune of $96,000 to Mrs. Hampton and her cuckolded husband, Doug. Sounds like a little hush money to me.

But don't worry, Sanford and Ensign have issued "sincere" apologies, which makes everything better. Hell, we even got a tear from Sanford. Good work, boys!

Now, before someone flies off and starts clamoring about the Democrats and their trysts—and God knows they have plenty of them, let me just explain the reason Republican dalliances pack a much bigger punch, ethically speaking: Both Sandford and Ensign are self-proclaimed evangelical Christians, publicly flaunting their moral rectitude. Both staunchly tout the "sanctity of marriage." And both, as you might well have guessed, stand vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage. Democrats don't claim God's favor, folks; your good 'ol GOPers do. And, as Michelangelo Signorile so aptly pointed out in a recent broadcast, Democrats don't run on a platform of "family values"; Republicans do. Most Democrats don't give a rat's *ss what you do in your bedroom; the GOP wants to make certain you're doing nothing but procreating in there—missionary style. (And you better not enjoy it.) So, what difference does all this make between the parties regarding their affaires de coeur? Democrats seem all too miscreant in their sins while Republicans emerge as sanctimonious hypocrites. Big, BIG difference.

The Pink Birds and Bees – Part 1

DISCLAIMER: This post is intended for emotionally mature audiences only. If words like "penis" and "vagina" make you blush or frank, non-scientific discussions of what we do with them make you want to put your hands over your ears/eyes and repeatedly sing "LA LA LA LA," the next few posts aren't for you. If, however, you haven't come down with a nasty case of "family values," read on.

Remaining true to my primary intention of devoting this blog to discussions of same-sex marriage—at least initially, I'm going to examine homosexual pairings from a biological standpoint over the next couple of posts, since that's often where opponents start. For the time being, we'll leave religion and politics out of the bedroom and focus strictly on the biology of making love!¹

Early in life, I arrived at the conclusion that human beings possess four distinct but integrated components. Listed in order from most basic to most advanced, they are as follow: the physical, the emotional, the psychological, and the spiritual. (From an evolutionary perspective, this is also the likely order in which the components evolved in our species.) Since this idea approximates Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Hierarchy), I'm assuming it's not original. In order for a person to be whole, all four components must be nurtured; neglect of one or more inevitably produces disorders in the others. While this connection has been respected in the East for millennia, Western medicine has only recently begun to acknowledge it. Of course, many see our composition in simpler terms, dividing the human into two distinct parts: the body, comprising the physical and the emotional, and the soul/spirit, composed of the psychological and the spiritual. However you choose to think about it, most agree that we have both "lower" and "higher" natures, the lower nature representing our most primal existence as creatures of flesh and blood—biological organisms, if you will—and the higher nature encompassing our consciousness or soul. For the sake of simplicity, we'll use the terms "body" and "mind" going forward. Assuming the preceding to be true then, interactions between human beings necessarily involve body or mind or both; in short, we use our bodies and/or minds to relate to one another.

In the course of our lives, most question the nature of individual existence. Am I simply a body? Or, do I have a soul too? I think ... therefore, I must be!² But, am I just an animal, subject to the whims of my biological instincts—those myriad chemical reactions in my brain? Or, can I use reason, ethics, and beliefs at a higher level of cognition to overrule my more aggressive biological impulses? In the course of this reflection, most conclude that we have a higher nature (i.e., mind), which we may believe to be temporal or eternal, and a lower nature (i.e., body) that all but the most dysfunctional of us realize is mortal. Through the process of socialization and acculturation, many also come to believe that the body is evil or bad or at least suspect, while the mind is transcendent or good or somehow better. And thus begins the dichotomy that has had Western civilization at odds with itself since the dawn of the "Enlightenment." Thank you, Monsieur Descartes.

Massachusetts Sues Federal Government over DOMA

I was elated to discover yesterday that Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Martha Coakley, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, filed an unprecedented federal challenge to the "Defense of Marriage" Act (DOMA) [quotes mine], naming the United States and the Secretaries and Departments of Veterans affairs and Health and Human Services as defendants. YOU GO, GIRL! For those not familiar with DOMA, it was an erroneously named piece of legislation that Congress and our buddy Bill stabbed into the back of the GLBTQI community in 1996. It defined marriage at the federal level as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and afforded states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The bill was anything but a defense of marriage. Prohibiting people from marrying does not defend the institution; it creates a group-centric mentality that serves as the basis for discriminating against anyone not belonging to the group.

As a state, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of our struggle for equality; it was the first state to offer full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2004. GLBTQI people and their allies owe Massachusetts a big, gay round of applause. I encourage you to express your support to AG Coakley. God knows the bigots, homophobes, and hatemongers will be knocking down her door. You can reach AG Coakley as follows:

Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley
1 Ashburton Pl.
Boston, MA 02108-1518
Phone: (617) 727-2200
Email: ago@state.ma.us
Site: http://www.mass.gov/

Stay tuned for my next post entitled “The Pink Birds and Bees.” Toodles.

How Two Boys/Girls Get Married in Iowa 4 Dumb E’s

So, after successfully surviving your escape from the closet, you’ve found your One and Only and wish to tie the knot. How do you do it exactly? I’d like to write a definitive guide on the subject, and perhaps one day I’ll take a stab at it. In the interim though, I'd like to offer a bit of quick-and-dirty information …

At present, there are six states that offer or will soon offer full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. They are as follow:

• Massachusetts (2004)
• Connecticut (2008)
• Iowa (2009)
• Maine (effective Sept. 2009, barring a possible voter referendum in Nov.)
• Vermont (effective Sept. 2009)
• New Hampshire (effective Jan. 2010)
  

Also noteworthy are the four states and one jurisdiction that grant "the equivalent of state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples," although choosing to use a different nomenclature for same-sex unions:

• California (1999: domestic partnerships)
• District of Columbia (D.C.) (2002: domestic partnerships)
• New Jersey (2007: civil unions)
• Oregon (2008: domestic partnerships)
  
• Nevada (effective Oct. 2009: domestic partnerships)
• Washington (2007/2009: domestic partnerships, barring possible ballot measure by opponents)

And finally, both New York (2008) and D.C. (2009) now recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states (Human Rights Campaign, 2010). I remain hopeful that my partner and I will see the day when all 50 states duly recognize married same-sex couples as legal spouses.

With that information provided as a foundation, I'm going to focus now on the state of Iowa, where Charlie and I will soon wed. Having been raised in the Midwest, it only seemed natural to head to the first state in the region to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. This came about as the result of the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Varnum v. Brien, which has generated some rather interesting opinions in cyberspace.

'Til Death Do Us Part

The issue of marriage has been at the forefront of my musings lately. One could say it's almost become an obsession. Perhaps it's because, at the ripe ol' age of 35, I met the man of my dreams and, Anno Domini 2009, I finally have the opportunity to legally wed him in a handful of states. Or, maybe it's because, as the war over same-sex marriage wages full-scale in the Land of the Free for Most, I find myself growing increasingly more outraged by the pathetic excuses used to "preserve the sanctity of marriage"; some are truly laughable. Then there's the ever-nagging question of when exactly marriage became a Christian enterprise, and if, indeed, it is such, what are the full ramifications of surrendering this "God-ordained institution" to those who walk among the Elect. In the end, it's probably all these reasons, among myriad others, that have fomented my resolve to commence this blog. But before I tread this trail, which is certain to be a long and laborious trek, I should probably offer a few details regarding who I am. (Truth in reporting is the order of the day here; this isn't FOX News™!) ...

I am a 37-year-old GWM—that is, "Gay White Male" in personal ad parlance. I have a partner of almost two years, who I intend to legally wed in one of those six blessed states—"Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (effective September 1, 2009), Maine (scheduled to become effective September 2009, pending possible referendum) and New Hampshire (effective January 1, 2010)" (Human Rights Campaign, 2009, ¶ 6)—on August 14, 2009. My partner is Hispanic and 13 years my junior, which makes us both an interracial and an intergenerational couple—a spicy pairing I assure you! I am a Christian; he is not. Having divulged that, I must also posit the following caveat: It is more correct to say that I believe in and endeavor to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ as I understand those teachings. Many modern Christians will contend that I do not belong among them, that I am not worthy of their label, which is fine. Rejection is, unfortunately, an ever-present fact of life for most GLBTQI¹ folks; we're used to it. Moreover, I personally hesitate to claim the label of Christian because I do not wish to be counted among those who manipulate God to justify their personal prejudices, bigotry, and hatred. This seems to me the very antithesis of Christianity, but then, I don't hold a doctoral degree in theology, nor have I been granted apostolic succession by the ecclesiastical authorities. (If that last tidbit leaves you scratching your head, consider yourself lucky.) I should also throw in the fact that I hold a baccalaureate degree, not because I consider it an essential—or even important—aspect of who I am, but because modern American culture considers it a critical distinction. In all actuality, some of the most intelligent people I know have never darkened the door of an institution of post-secondary education. That said, I'm also a statistic for "the other half" because I dropped out of high school at the age of 17. More on that later ... maybe ...