Monthly Archives: May 2009

>Sunday Funnies




Filed under Cartoons, Funny, Sunday Funnies



Welcome Damien NZ, from down at 2 cents worth Down Under.

He blogs about “food, wine, men, me, porn, the sex industry, my jewish journey, and my ongoing battle of the bulge. Knowing my own inability to keep my mouth shut I will probably post about current events as well. Please enjoy… and don’t forget to tip your waitress.”

Check it out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Newbies

>Tiny State. Tiny Poll. But Still……….


Now, I don’t put much stock in polls, but a recent survey has found that more than half of Rhode Island voters favor a law allowing gay marriage.

Huh? What? Huh? The most Catholic state is leaning toward equality?

A recently released Brown University poll shows 60 percent of registered voters in the state said they would support a law allowing gay couples to marry. Thirty-one percent said they were opposed.

Right now, bills to legalize gay marriage…marriage equality, people…in the state are before legislative committees in both the House and Senate.

Now, here’s why I don’t put much stock in polls. This poll was conducted over two days in May with just 593 registered voters statewide. Now, I know Rhode Island is tiny, but I could have gotten more answers standing on the corner of Broad and DeKalb in downtown Smallville.

But, I’ll take it with a grain of salt. It’s a hint of a twinge of a nudge of an idea of a promise of equality.


Filed under LGBT

>Make A Change


This news is huge for LGBT advocates working on the issue of immigration; for anyone concerned with the issues of immigration.

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) was introduced in Congress by Representative Jerrold Nadler and Senator Patrick Leahy. UAFA will eliminate discrimination in U.S. immigration laws by permitting same-sex partners of U.S. citizens to obtain permanent resident status. It’s kind of like how straight people who marry someone from outside the country can obtain legal resident status for their partner.

According to the Washington Blade, Congress will start hearings on the UAFA next week, in which LGBT advocates will surely see as a chance to revise U.S. immigration policy with an eye toward equality.

Equality. Such a lovely word.

So, I ask you to urge Congress to help pass the Uniting American Families Act by signing the petition here on Let’s make U.S. immigration laws a little more just for LGBT couples.

More equal.


Filed under, Equality, Immigration, Jerrold Nadler, LGBT, LGBT Rights, Patrick Leahy, UAFA


> … aka…shirleyheezgay!
And don’t forget to visit him at The Lisp.
You’ll be gald you did!

1 Comment

Filed under Newbies

>Asshat Of The Week


U.S. Representative Nathan Deal, a Repugnant candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on United States soil.

Naturally, this move is opposed by immigrant rights advocates who say it won’t solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against America’s history of welcoming immigrants.

However, those fools who support Deal’s proposal say “birthright citizenship” encourages illegal immigration and makes enforcement of immigration laws more difficult.

Birthright citizenship is one of the ways this country was built; but not for those filthy Mexicans–because let’s face it, if the influx of illegal immigration was from Canada, Deal wouldn’t have an issue with this. It’s outright bigotry.

Though drafted in 1868 with freed slaves in mind, birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.

“This is a sensible, overdue measure that closes a clause that was never meant to be a loophole,” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks tighter immigration restrictions.

I’m all for tighter immigration reforms, but when you still have Wet Foot, Dry Foot in Florida, how is that any different from birthright citizenship. For those who don’t know, Wet Foot, Dry Foot refers to those who enter this country illegally via boat or pontoon or life raft. If they can get one foot on US soil, they are allowed to stay. They make a deliberate run to enter this country illegally and are allowed to stay, but a baby born here is treated far worse?

Azadeh Shahshahani, director of the Immigrants Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, said “We would stand in strong opposition to this bill as it’s in fundamental contradiction to our nation’s long history of welcoming immigrants and bestowing inalienable rights” on all people born here, regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

Lisa Navarrete, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, said the proposed law wouldn’t stem illegal immigration and would make the problem worse because not only would illegal immigrants be undocumented, their American-born children would be too. “The worst part of it is you end up with potentially millions of children who are stateless, who were born here and have no ties to any other country, yet they’re not considered citizens or part of the United States.”

Deal, who has submitted his bill to the House Judiciary Committee, said he’s not optimistic about it becoming law this year unless it is tacked onto another bill.
“I think the current makeup of the Congress is such that this will never get a hearing and will never be an issue that we get a chance to vote on….[b]ut I think it’s important to keep the issues that are part of the immigration problem alive.”

What you think important, Deal, is to keep your name in the news as free advertising for your campaign. Why not focus on what you can change, not what you can’t.



Filed under ACLU, Georgia, Idiotic, Immigration, Nathan Deal, Republican

>The Big Gay Chip On My Shoulder by Rob Thomas


I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.

A while back on my

Twitter page (yes, I know how ridiculous it sounds), I mentioned that, if I believed in the devil, Pat Robertson might be him.

Being a fairly liberal-leaning guy with either liberal friends or Republican and Christian friends who don’t believe that being one has anything to do with the other, I was surprised at how many people took offense to what I had to say.
These people weren’t friends of Mr. Robertson but friends, apparently, of God. They had “spoken” with him and he had assured them that he was no friend of the gays. He also told them that he loved America more than any other country and was a huge fan of Dancing With the Stars.

The small controversy or “Twitter-versy” (patent on phrase pending) all started when I had made the mistake of asking why two people of the same sex shouldn’t be able to make the same life-long commitment and (more importantly) under the same god, as straight people. Why can’t my gay friends be as happily married as my wife and I? It seemed simple to me, but let me start off by telling you a series of things that I believe to be true:

I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don’t think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you’re attracted. That’s why it’s called an attraction and not a choice.

I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a “Christian nation” has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn’t realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says “one nation under god” in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It’s not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)
I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn’t believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn’t live their life according to the King James Bible isn’t protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I’ve seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.

I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, “this god is not your god and he doesn’t love you.” There isn’t one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn’t be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I’m amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn’t it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone’s basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

But this isn’t a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I’m writing about basic civil rights. We’ve been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.

I’ve heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can’t they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what’s in a name?

A civil union has to do with death. It’s essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It’s about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn’t make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of “separate but equal” and we know how that works out.

The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people’s ideals shape the way we live our lives. Each of us has a short ride on this earth and as long as we stay in our lane, and don’t affect someone else’s ride, we should be allowed to drive as we see fit.

By Rob Thomas, for the Huffington Post.


Filed under Equality, Huffington Post, LGBT, LGBT Rights, Marriage Equality, Quotes, Rob Thomas