"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" - a new twist...

instead of talking through a designated representative, Benedict opens his own mouth and shows that he is not christian:

VATICAN CITY, Dec 22 (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".

i would have more hope for Rick Warren than i would for this human, and i hesitate calling him a human.

the stands of this pope and his church over the last several months with its refusal to support the two U.N. resolutions, the one on disability because it says nothing about abortion and one other on decriminalizing LGBTQ in the world, speak to the inhumanity and the belief that all men are not created equal.

the panzerpope refuses to enter the 21st century and is ensuring the eventual death of his own belief system.

i've always found that the louder someone screams against something it is to hide their own fear that they will be found out.

do i think Benedict is queer? you bet. just like Saul of Tarsus...


cross-posted at no matter what... eschew obfuscation...

Rick Warren controversy...

my first comment on this entire thing:

I think that Obama made a mistake and it wasn't calculated. I would bet that he, the transition team and inauguration committee are in surprise. They have been making logical statements about the reaction from the base and Obama has been stammering, if you listen closely, more than usual when he talks about it.

One of the more accurate commentaries I've heard about the controversy is this:

To understand how angry and disappointed many Democrats are that Barack Obama has invited evangelical preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural, imagine if a President-elect John McCain had offered this unique honor to the Rev. Al Sharpton -- or the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. I know, it's hard to picture: John McCain would never do that in a million years. Republicans respect their base even when, as in McCain's case, it doesn't really return the favor.

Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters -- feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community -- by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead.

So... try to guess who, among the punditry, news shows, politicians made this comment.


Mike Huckabee, former Republican presidential candidate, former Governor of Arkansas, & fundamentalist minister speaking with Greta Vas Susteren on Fox![ Greta Von Susteren Asks Huckabee About Rick Warren's Role At Obama Inauguration]

what's is wrong with this picture?

just asking...


a thank you to Crooks and Liars for the heads-up.


cross posted at no matter what... eschew obfuscation...

Milk - a lesson needing to be relearned...

incredible movie!

do not miss it or wait until DVD comes out.

there were people in the audience really reacting to it. i went with my friends at Yorktown AMC theatres in the heart of the western Chicago suburbs. the crowd was mostly straight, though i could tell who wasn't. people were crying during the movie and there were parts where the entire audience was silent.

you know how people rush even before the credits start in order to to get to their cars or get out before the mob? it didn't happen here. everyone just sat in silence for a good 3 minutes before someone got up. they may have actually either been reading the credits or were too stunned by what they had seen. remember i said that this was primarily a straight audience. i think (hope) some people may have had an eye-opening moment.

i was a little teary-eyed at the end, but i completely lost it at another part. i will not tell you what part unless you have seen the movie. i was numb when the scene happened and had a hard time dealing with it. it struck a very sensitive nerve, though it was not related to anything that had personally happened to me in the past.

Sean Penn is not to be believed. i've never been a big fan, but if you've ever seen live film of Harvey Milk, within 30 seconds of seeing him on screen Penn was Harvey Milk. he had his mannerisms and speech patterns. it's amazing what he can do with just his face. my friend, Sharon, goes to a lot of movies and she said that Penn's performance was one of the best she has ever seen.

everyone in the movie is fantastic. Josh Brolin should also be nominated for supporting actor, but i doubt he'll win. Heath Ledger will probably get a sympathy vote. Emile Hirsch was in it. Sean Penn directed him in the movie Wilderness. in an interview Hirsch said it was really weird acting with Penn after having been directed by him. he kept wanting Penn to give him direction, insight, etc. like he did in Wilderness. he had a hard time shifting gears, he said.

i can see why James Franco was incessantly talking about kissing Penn in all those TV interviews. they always have their tongues down each other's throats! i think Franco may have actually enjoyed it.

the movie also is a love story between Milk and his partner Scott (Franco) and is portrayed as one of the most normal relationships i've ever on screen. Sharon told me that her friend, Ann, with whom she sometimes works in Berkeley and visits often, was a close friend of Scott's until he died in the late 90's. Ann didn't know Harvey though. he had already been killed when either she moved out there or met Scott.

a comment: it's too bad that the Prop 8 people hadn't seen the movie before the Nov 4th election. it could have made a big, big difference in the way they handled the fight against Prop 8. it's almost as if, not only did they not listen to what a lot of national LGBTQ leaders were trying to help them, but that they didn't even pay attention to their own history in California with the Briggs' Prop 6 that Milk fought and won. of course, like i said, they really didn't listen to anyone because they thought they knew what they were doing.

when you see the movie, even though we are still in a fight, you can see how far we've come in the battle. the line that Harvey Milk used when he started talking to a crowd - "My name is Harvey Milk and I want to recruit you." is iconic. as he said on the defeat of the 1978 Briggs Inititiative, also known as Proposition 6:

...to the gay community all over this state, my message to you is, so far a lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out, and most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is you must tell your immediate family, you must tell your relatives, you must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends, you must tell your neighbors, you must tell the people you work with, you must tell the people in the stores you shop in (thunderous applause), and once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all. And once you do, you will feel so much better.

when you know one of us, you know us all --- and yourself...

mike/

wow! i went to TWO movies this weekend...

my friends tease me because i hardly ever go to see a movie at the theatre. i usually wait to see in on cable or DVD.

the problem i have is i always end up with the people who jabber on the cellphone during the movie or some other rude thing.

when i went to see the Bourne Ultimatum, there was a couple who had brought there 2-3 year old with them. first it was inappropriate for her to be there because of the type of movie and second they let her crawl around on the floor under the seats! obviously, they had not gone to any parenting classes. BUT giving her a flashlight was the last straw for me, as well as others. before i could get up, someone had already made it to an usher or manager who was right there telling them to either control her or leave. like i said, it was inappropriate for her to be at this film anyway.

so you can see why i don't like going to the theatre. it's just my luck.

i do, however, go to see movies with special effects that would be much better seen on the wide screen than the small. this sent me this Friday to see The Day the Earth Stood Still, that plus a curiosity to compare if with the classic original.

neither the updated story nor the special effects disappointed me. i loved it.

the special effects in the first 10-15 minutes are some of the most spectacular i've ever seen. they were so because they were both subtle and understated. they didn't stop there, but continued through the entire film. in addition, the story updating was believable for today's world, and contrary to others, i think that Keanu Reeves played Klaatu the only way possible, and the robot would scare the s*** out of me.

if you want pure escapist fare, i recommend it. if you're a sci-fi aficionado, don't miss it.



i just came home from the second movie - Milk.

what can i say?

as a piece of history, it is believable; as a reflection of what it is to fight for yourself, it is insightful; as a piece of art, it is incredible; and as a journey of a man and a movement, it is beyond important.

could i identify with all of it? absolutely, positively yes.

did i emotionally loose it at any point? yes, but i won't tell the part unless you've seen the movie. i did get a little teary-eyed at the end, but it was so well done and so dramatically understated to make a point, that it brought the entire project full-circle.

i went with straight friends. they were totally impressed. Sharon said that Sean Penn's performance was one of the most realistic and the best she's ever seen, and she can see 4-5 movies a week, if she can. my other friends said it was one of the best movies they've ever seen also.

i have to tell you that i hesitate referring to them as friends. we have known each other for 40 years and we are more family than friend. we go on vacations together; we celebrate holidays together; and we do lots and lots of things together. the one thing that we are is totally supportive and loving of each other.

since we are friends/family we have a relationship that is such that we talk just about everything. well, sex is probably the one thing we don't talk about, but it's because it's nobody's business. well, i can't really say we never talk about it, but it's not something that is, like, tabletalk during a card game.

my orientation is never discussed either. it is my choice and they understand that. my sexuality is only a part, and a very small part, of who i am. it does not define me; though it adds to my definition.

though the argument in Milk is "let everyone know you're gay because when they know one of us, they know us all" is powerful, but it also tells the story of how we are all alike, and that is the point of demanding and what underscores everyone deserving equal rights. the other thing that is unique about the movie is that it is a love story with a wonderful telling of Harvey and Scott's relationship. a relationship that was just like everyone else's - straight or gay.

if i came away from the movie with anything, it is that everything i've believed, everything for which i have stood, everything that i have done, i have done as a human being. i left the theatre with everything reinforced, everything intact, and everything having more importance.

to use a cliche with which i identify -

The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.
And the ways our differences combine
to create meaning and beauty.

cross posted at no matter what... eschew obfuscation...

Henry II referring to Thomas Becket who was once his closest adviser and became his greatest enemy when he took the side of the church. [that would be the Roman Catholic church.]

We are faced again with meddlesome priests who want to destroy people's rights, control people's lives, and threaten them with eternal damnation if they don't support the things they want them to.

Today, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Fransisco has compared the people who supported Prop 8 in California to abolitionists and civil rights marchers [Queerty: SF Catholic Archbishop Compares Prop. 8 Supporters to Abolitionists & Civil Rights Marchers. So, now they are the victims. They have the sole responsibility of deciding who is worthy of equal rights. This man was the person who brought the Mormans into the fight in California though only 2% of Californians are Morman, along with $20 million. Oh, would it also surprise you that Niederauer was the R.C. bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah before going to S.F. Don't say collusion to me...

Two days ago, December 3, 2008, the Vatican and its man in red decided to enter the fray in another way: The Pope's Christmas Gift: A Tough Line on Church Doctrine Times.com.

s, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, has announced that the Vatican will oppose a proposed U.N. declaration calling for an end to discrimination against homosexuals.

Why? Because some religious are against LGBT and no one should interfere with their beliefs. Huh? That's real christian of them.

Oh, wait. On the same day Benedict, aka God's Rottweiler, the Panzercardinal, as he has been called in the past, also sent this little message to the United Nations: Holy See refused to sign a UN document on the rights of the disabled because it did not condemn abortion.

Following the Vatican's controversial opposition this week to a UN declaration calling for an end to discrimination against homosexuals, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican envoy to the UN, has confirmed that the Holy See also refused to sign a UN document last May on the rights of the disabled because it did not condemn abortion or assert the rights of foetuses with birth defects....

...the Vatican supported the rights of the disabled, but could not accept a clause in the UN declaration affirming a right to "sexual health and reproduction" because "in some countries such rights include the right to abortion".

you read that correctly.

It's all right to discriminate against all kinds of people if they don't agree with your isms. It's all right to allow at-risk people to suffer and hurt because some people do not agree with your dogma.

real christian, don't you think?

just asking...


again, though i in no way advocate violence of any kind, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

rather than priest, i would replace it with the word religion. i think religion has outlived its usefulness and the likes of Benedict, Dobson, Falwell, Bush and all the others know and fear just that. they will lose their power. they will lose their influence, and, most important, they will lose their money.

the vatican's stance on in-vitro fertilization...

seems off their message concerning marriage.

The Vatican issued its most authoritative and sweeping document on bioethical issues in more than 20 years on Friday, taking into account recent developments in biomedical technology and reinforcing the church’s opposition to in vitro fertilization, human cloning, genetic testing on embryos before implantation and embryonic stem cell research.

Vatican Issues Instruction on Bioethics, New York Times, Dec 13, 2008

Given the church's stance on marriage is for procreation and is only allowed in opposite-sex partnerships, doesn't this rule go against a core belief? if a couple marries to have children and discovers that it is impossible in the normal way [normal according to the RC] why is it wrong for them to use any means to bring more members into the church? It is a life in their definition.

The article in the NYT cites the “Dignitas Personae” that has just been released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document is much broader than just in-vitro. It includes stands on abortion, birth control, stem cell research and other bioethical issues, as they define them.

One should understand that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is made up of a bunch of old men, clergy, who are not supposed to have sex and are responsible only to the pope and two-thousand years of mythology. Their stand not only applies to the faithful but to all medical and scientific persons who would administer or research no matter what their faith.

A representative from a U.S. organization of catholic medical members explained in-vitro this way:

Kathleen M. Raviele, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Georgia who is president of the Catholic Medical Association, said she tells her patients: “God creates through an act of love, and that’s not what’s happening in the laboratory. It’s the technician who’s creating. What in vitro does, is it separates the creation of a child from the marital act.”

Why would concieving a child in-vitro not be considered a marital act of love? If a couple wants to have a child and they are incapable themselves, why not use in-vitro and, I'd assume, in some cases, a surrogate mother? A life is a life.

Of course, I'm sure there are other considerations behind this "The Dignity of the Person" document, icluding the timing of its release - same-sex marriage, Obama's defense of stem cell research, birth control use in the U.S., etc.

I long ago left the RC of my own volition first, because I couldn't handle the hypocrisy and second, because I no longer could believe in the mythology. There is an issue with faith and believing but, in its present two-thousand year old formulaic incarnation, it declines the one thing that is the basis of that faith and belief - free will.

A bunch of old men, in their infinite wisdom, set out the rules in the guise of guiding the faithful to act as they should but take away the one right they possess - the right to chose.

ironic or hypocritical? i'm not certain into which it falls. maybe both...

coming out of the bushes?

i'll be explaining this as this site develops. the idea for this blog has been brewing in the back of my head for awhile now. i wasn't quite sure what i wanted to do with the idea or how i wanted to proceed. i searched for a formulation of what it was that i wanted to convey by doing this blog.

there was a false start back in June, but i couldn't take it anywhere. i really wasn't certain how i wanted to proceed. i think maybe i have a working idea now.

originally, what happened to jump-start my idea was viewing a program on WTTW11, the public television station in Chicago, entitled Out and Proud in Chicago.

it left me kind of cold.

there was a lot of factual and historical information in the documentary. for example, the Jane Addams and Mary Rozet Smith story. The tale of Albert D. J. Cashier who fought in the Civil War from Illinois but was actually born Jennie Irene Hodgers, living as a man until she died. Tony Jackson an African-American gay composer and pianist who shaped the world of music by bridging the gap between ragtime and jazz. they are all relevant; they were all benefactors to the world; and they all made lasting contributions.

it took me weeks to figure out what exactly gave me the reaction i had to the program. believe me, i am not trying to belittle the producers, directors, contributors, sponsors, etc. in their endeavor. i would imagine they were working under constraints of time, funding, depth, etc. the program was a start, and probably served a lot of people, lgbtq & straight, a great history of the community. but, as a member of the community, it left me unsatisfied, as i indicated.

what i realized was missing [again, for me] was the spirit of the proud part in the title.

there was no real explanation as to from where that came; when the community became self-aware; how the facts presented translate into the feelings, emotions, and courage that abounds today; and why lgbtq is so vibrant in the city, if not in the country and world because of what was happening.

from where did all of this come? with whom should the onus lie? when did the shift actually happen from hiding in the bushes, to trimming them down, and to coming out of them? there were, of course, the movers and shakers mentioned and interviewed in the program. they set the tone.

however, who did the leg work? did they know they were doing it? how did the community develop? was there a plan? evolutionary or revolutionary?

i'm not an expert, but i lived through the times. i'm not all knowing, but i have stories that represent what was going on during part of the history. i'm a little cog in the gears. i searched for my own way out of the bushes.

how did i do that? i went in to the bushes.


the first thing is to explain coming out of the bushes rather than out of the closet.

a lot of people are familiar with Boystown in Chicago on Halsted Street between Belmont and Addison Avenues. it is/was the gay section in the city starting in the late 1970's early 1980's. the bushes was a bar on the street. actually, it was the second gay bar on the street, but only by a few weeks. unknown to each other, the bushes and Little Jim's opened their doors. Little Jim's is still there, but the bushes isn't. of course, today there are many lgbtq bars on Halsted. there have been others that came and went and some, like Soundtrack and Roscoe's, that have had staying power.

many guys took there first steps coming out on Halsted. i did. in the bushes. hence, why the blog and the explanation of my coming out of the bushes rather than the closet.

what i hope to do is tell some stories of which i was either part or was told; to reflect on some of the things that happened and how they affected me; and to also write about current LGBTQ experiences, news, issues, etc. and maybe try connect them with my observations and thoughts of how they may make a difference and how the past 30 years could have lead up to where we are today.

we'll see what happens. if you stay with me through this excursion, great. of course, first some people need to find this place and their own way out of the bushes...

mike/

"THE" Newsweek article...

i finally read the article in Newsweek - Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy - published Dec 6, 2008. if you've missed it, i recommend that you click on the link to read it.

the article, if you are not familiar, uses the Bible, just as the anti-gay marriage people do, as a means of supporting same-sex marriage. it's interesting and i've been familiar with most references in the article. the main points are 1) that there is no direct reference to homosexuality in the either the New or the Old Testament and 2) the message of Jesus was inclusion of all people in the love and joys of his father.

the more interesting part of the article is the comments following it from readers. [Note: Newsweek has had to suspend people from making additional comments because the server couldn't handle it. interesting!]

the comments have the usual mix of arguments that have been going around for the last number of years. there are people who say that the Good Book cannot be wrong; there are others who say that the book was written for the specific times it makes rules for and a lot is lost in translation; some comments are very well thought out and written and others are, well, ridiculously blind.

i was especially struck by the latter. the people who have their blind faith with no question or thought are especially rancorous. it is almost as if they are threatened that their entire world will end if same-sex marriage becomes widely accepted. of course, the article and the comments also point out this similarity to slavery, but it makes no difference to them.

personally, after reading both the article and its comments, i more firmly believe something that i've thought for a long time:

if Jesus were alive today, there is one thing he would not want to be - a christian!

blasephemy? afraid not. i'm no longer a believer in the mythology. only in its inherent message of brotherly love and equality of all.

cross posted at no matter what... eschew obfuscation...