Spider-Gay

In the previous post I published a lengthy diatribe about Marvel's leaked licensing agreement with Sony Pictures, and my feelings of bleh.

In keeping with my tradition of being productive when I'm feeling bleh,  I've decided to create a comic based on the situation. So I present Spider-Gay. A obvious, total parody of Peter Parker as Spider-Man. Notice the pink tights and the dildo emblem. Totally different from Spider-Man but close enough for parody.

I just want to reiterate that I don't think Marvel is homophobic (the last issue of Amazing Spider-Man had a same-sex wedding for Christ-sake) it's more about my realization that I can't be Spider-Man, that I'm not Peter Parker, because I ride dick like its the last roller coaster at the amusement park.

But enough blather.

On a high school field trip to the Mall of America 3M Labs, Parker Peterson was bitten by a radioactive spider who happened to be gay. Really the gay characteristic of the spider is superfluous and an attempt to avoid a lawsuit by Marvel, as Parker already had a healthy appetite for the sweat man meat, and as we all know you being gay is not a choice and people cannot be turned gay or straight. However he did gain new strengths, the ability to leap higher than buildings, the ability to detect trouble before it arises and has an encyclopedic knowledge broadway show-tunes.

Now a grad student at the University of Minnesota, go Gophers, Parker Peterson is living with his current boyfriend, beat journalist Eddy Hudson, get it... like Eddie Brock and Rock Hudson... Eddy Hudson. Parker also lives with a secret... he is the Fabulous Spider-Gay!

Between his job as a Paralegal at Nelson & Burdick LLP, school, and life as a crime fighter, Parker's spread thin.

Parker has been working on the case of Manuel Peralta, an immigrant from Guatemala, who has been wrongly accused of a crime. He faces 5 years in prison for felony drug possession charges with attempt to distribute followed by mandatory deportation. Without the testimony from a low-life witness who can clear Manuel of the charges, he stands to lose his 3 children.

I may have gone a little overboard. In the next scene, Parker cracks open a jar of crisco and wears Eddy like a human puppet. It's objectively pretty sick.

And the scene where Parker uses his webbing to tie Eddy's hands to the head board of the bed... So hot.

If I were fully committed to making a full episode I would have Spider-Gay tackle a low-level criminal. After successfully tackling the criminal, a police office would call Spider-Gay a "fucking faggot." The insult would stick with Parker creating his symbiotic black suit.

When Parker Peterson sheds the bile of his black suit will it attack Eddy Hudson? Will Eddy then become a self-loathing gay villain who will then one day turn into an anti-hero? Have you read a comic book ever?

I think I done with this now.

Now for the legal crap:

If anyone would like to continue this parody, I am licensing Spider-Gay out under Creative Commons licensing agreement Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC 4.0. The Agreement can be found here with further details here.

Just remember to keep it a parody by mocking Marvel and their decision to not allow a gay Peter Parker. If does not qualify as a parody and is therefore a derivative work your up shit creek.

On the left is the leaked Marvel/Sony agreement and on the right is the parody agreement anyone who decides to further Spider-Gay technically agrees to...(or should probably agree to in order to comply with fair use law in regards to parody.

a. Mandatory Spider-Man Character Traits.  Spider-Man (whether Peter Parker or an alternative Spider-Man character) must always strictly conform to the following “Mandatory Character Traits”: • Male • Does not torture* • Does not kill unless in defense of self or others* • Does not use foul language beyond PG-13 • Does not smoke tobacco* • Does not sell/distribute illegal drugs* • Does not abuse alcohol* • Does not have sex before the age of 16, does not have sex with anyone below the age of 16 • Not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as homosexual)

a. Mandatory Spider-Gay Character Traits. Spider-Gay (whether Parker Peterson or an alternative Spider-Gay character) must always strictly conform to the following “Mandatory Character Traits”: • Male Identifying • Into Light Bondage • Does not kill unless the villain makes fun of his boots • Does not use racial/gender disparaging language • Does not bareback • Does not sell meth • If alcoholic, only closeted due to traumatic upbringing • He’s not a pedophile. I’m fucking tired of gays being called pedos.. so none of that shit. • Not a heterosexual (unless alternate-verse alter ego is into vag and is a gay-ally)

b. Peter Parker Character Traits. Depiction of Peter Parker or his Spider-Man alter ego must conform to the following character traits: • His full name is Peter Benjamin Parker. • He is Caucasian and heterosexual. • His parents become absent from his life during his childhood. • From the time his parents become absent he is raised by his Aunt May and Uncle Ben in New York City • He gains his powers while attending either middle school or college. • He gains his powers from being bitten by a spider • He designs his first red and blue costume. • The black costume is a symbiote and is not designed by him • He is raised in a middle class household in Queens, New York • He attends or attended high school in Queens, New York, and he attends or attended college in New York City, New York.

b. Parker Peterson Character Traits. Depiction of Parker Peterson or his Spider-Gay alter ego must conform to the following character traits: • His full name is Parker J. Peterson. • He is gay and his race may vary, as artist prefers. • His parents abandon him after he comes out of the closet during adolescence. • From the time he is abandoned he is taken in off the streets by Ben, a drag queen who performs as Desdemona • He gains his powers from a radioactive gay-spider • He comes out while attending High School or after confessing to his college girlfriend. • He already owed his spandex tights before being Spider-Gay • The black costume is an allegory of internalized homophobia he’s infected by the outside world • He is raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota • He attends or attended Cretin-Derham Hall High School with Josh Hartnett, or he attends college at the University of Minnesota, go Gophers.

Liam '15

Oh Marvel, Why

Peter Parker can be nearly anyone. That's a part of his charm. He's been remade a number of times. His personality is malleable. And Spider-Man is not always Peter Parker. In essence anyone can be behind the mask. But Spider-Man nearly always tries to be the good guy (or girl in the case of Mattie Franklin that one time she posed as Spider-Man.)

Peter Parker is not gay. He has never been depicted as being queer. He's had long-term girlfriends and a wife (sometimes a daughter.) I recently stumbled on an article by the Huffington Post, which lays out a leaked legal agreement between Marvel and Sony Pictures. In the document it is reveled that Peter Parker cannot be a homosexual.

While I have never expected Peter Parker to be gay or necessarily want him to be gay. But he represents a queer perspective for me.  In the clip below from Modern Family, Mitchel lays out his feelings on Spider-Man at the 2:52 mark:

http://abc.go.com/shows/modern-family/video/pl5520993/VDKA0_gtckp8k1

“Spider-Man, he… he spoke to me. I… I think it's because it's about this nerdy kid who has this special secret side of himself that he can't share with anybody, and… and that's how I always felt. Spider-Man made me feel like it was okay to be different. And... It made me fee tough enough to… to get through the rough times."

As a straight character, he could have indefinitely continued to represent a queer perspective; however with the leaked agreement, it is clear that Peter Parker cannot be gay. So to reiterate I'm not troubled by the fact that Peter is straight; I am troubled by the declared fact that he cannot be gay.

After 20 years of reading the Amazing Spider-Man, I finally found out who Spider-Man cannot be: Me.

I found out that there is no Santa Clause around age 3, so I don't remember what it was like finding out (my guess is that I didn't care because I still got presents from mom and dad)... perhaps this is the closest to it that I'll feel. Or maybe it's more like checking a jug of milk and finding it's gone bad, you're going to drink milk again once you get a new jug, but... ugh.

I'm disappointed in learning this. In the back of my brain I always knew these were the rules to Peter Parker, it's just frustrating that it was leaked. I love Marvel comics. The only DC character that I really like is Ollie Queen. Marvel has a social conscious. They have always championed human rights and have been along time ally for the gay community.

It's also not like they intended for this to get out. And any controversial statements from Marvel that I have noticed seem to have been in response to this leak.

I guess the moral of the story is be careful of what you say even behind closed doors, and perhaps Roland Barthes was right: don't listen to the artist.

Below is a list of what Spider-Man and Peter Parker can and cannot be. Please note that under murderer and directly below pedophile, Spider-Man cannot be a homosexual:

a. Mandatory Spider-Man Character Traits. 
Spider-Man (whether Peter Parker or an alternative Spider-Man character) must always strictly conform to the following “Mandatory Character Traits”:
• Male
• Does not torture*
• Does not kill unless in defense of self or others*
• Does not use foul language beyond PG-13
• Does not smoke tobacco*
• Does not sell/distribute illegal drugs*
• Does not abuse alcohol*
• Does not have sex before the age of 16, does not have sex with anyone below the age of 16
• Not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as homosexual)

b. Peter Parker Character Traits. Depiction of Peter Parker or his Spider-Man alter ego must conform to the following character traits: • His full name is Peter Benjamin Parker. • He is Caucasian and heterosexual. • His parents become absent from his life during his childhood. • From the time his parents become absent he is raised by his Aunt May and Uncle Ben in New York City • He gains his powers while attending either middle school or college. • He gains his powers from being bitten by a spider • He designs his first red and blue costume. • The black costume is a symbiote and is not designed by him • He is raised in a middle class household in Queens, New York • He attends or attended high school in Queens, New York, and he attends or attended college in New York City, New York.

Alright done for now.


Liam '15

This is Really Just a Promo for Archer

Last night I was watching the tail end of Archer on Comedy Central. The episode in reference is The Papal Chase, which comes from Season 4. When I first saw the below clip (if it hasn't been taken down for copyright infringement) I missed the joked. So I decided to look it up.

Archer: How did you know what he said?

Pam: It was an 8 hour flight.

Archer: Wow, did you learn Romansh? 

Pam: Who am I, Cypher? The gayest X-Man? 

Archer: I don't know, Gambit looks like he knows his way around a pair of—

To my dismay, when I googled the term "gayest xmen," all of the returns replace the word "gayest" with "worst." And as it happens that is entirely the word play the Archer joke relies on.

Embiggen to Read

While I understand that Google isn't the language police, and they use complex algorithms to map out how language is actually used, it is still frustrating to see systematic homophobia laid out so neatly.

Based off of this search, Google list the following words as synonymous with gay:

Worst

Pointless

Lamest

Awful

Obnoxious

And let's not forget what lives at the bottom of the page:

Searches related to gayest x-men

best x men

worst x men movie

worst x men characters

worst x men powers

worst x men villains

worst x men ever

worst x men stories

What really annoys me about the google search is that there are scores of gay X-Men, who should have been displayed instead of the 10 most hated X-Men. In the main timeline Northstar is gay and Mystic is often depicted as bisexual. In alternate universes prominent X-Men such as Bobby Drake, Wolverine, and Colossus are gay. Not to mention from the film series Ellen Page, who plays Kitty Pride, has come out, and director Bryan Singer inspired a character in the American version of Queer as Folk (the director of the blockbuster film V-Men.)

Once again my frustration is neither with Google nor Archer. Archer is a offensive show that not only backs it up with humor, but frequently subverts the negative stereotypes. For example in the clip Pam (an open bisexual) uses the term "gayest" to mean "worst," while Arch corrects Pam, be it in an offensive manner, by using the main denotation of the word. By doing so, Archer points out the disparaging tone Pam uses in reference to gay people.  

My frustration lies in that it's the combination of society's bigoted use of language and matching that up with the X-Men, the champions of tolerance and diversity. This was just a reminder, that even though we have made tremendous gains in the last few years, we have so much further to go.

Liam '15 

***

It looks like the folks at BuzzFeed have discovered this years ago (2013): http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/google-search-equates-gayest-with-worst#.ktdqqPwQ4

Google responded with:

Google’s results, including when a search term is synonymized [sic] with another, are a reflection of content on the web and how people search. These results are determined by algorithms and we don’t manually correct this process, but we are always looking at how we can improve our algorithms.

So to paraphrase, 'we're not going to do anything, but we totally could.' How 'bout next time you leave off the bolded part, it's insulting if you don't mean it.

Sunday Morning Slander

.... I just don't know what to write as this story is flat out infuriating. It somehow manage to push out a story about an AG who is "gratified" that a gay couple cannot get divorced, because a court ruled they weren't married by that state's definition of marriage. It also pushed out a story about a former CEO who was booted  from his corporation essentially for not going along with a scheme to drain the company of all of its resources while cutting labor costs and raising prices on consumers.

So yes, this one is special. And from Florida, of course.

Mary Elizabeth Williams of Slate did a fantastic job putting all the information together (in order spare the family any possible further grief I have removed their names):

[...] was only 42 years old when he died last month, after grappling for four years with the rare disease amyloidosis. His family, including his mother [...] wanted him to be remembered at the family church in Florida where she was baptized. But the day before the service, [the mother] was standing at her son’s casket during his wake when she got word from New Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Tampa. She says they told her that would be “blasphemous” to proceed with the funeral and that they were canceling it – because [the deceased] was gay.

Just to clarify and not that it really matters; however amyloidosis, which regularly appeared as a possible solution to nearly every disease on the show House, is a autoimmune disorder (or more specifically a group of disorders) that causes an excess build up of certain type of protein in the bone marrow. It can lead to attacks on the heart, kidneys, liver, spleen, nervous system and digestive tract, possibly leading to organ failure and death. Carry on:

New Hope’s pastor, T.W. Jenkins, says he only learned that [the deceased] was gay when congregation members saw a mention of the man’s surviving husband in his obituary — and called Jenkins to complain. [The deceased] and his husband [...] were together for 17 years before they married in Maryland last year.

I struggle to think of anything less classy. I know the tale of Antigone is not Christian in origin, but denying funeral rites is the kind of bullshit that led previous cultures to fear divine wrath. As a man who is not religious, even I understand the thought process which would lead one to believe in divine judgement against someone denying funeral rites. It takes a particularly heartless and terrible human being to refuse a basic level of compassion to the grieving and a utter lack of empathy bordering on psychopathic. From my experience funerals are about the living, not the dead. Respect the feelings of the living. 

And once again, way to go T.W. Jenkins, you stupid, ignorant fuckhead. You have managed to reduce a man's life down to a sexual act, which apparently is his only defining feature. Let's ignore the fact he had been with the love of his life for over 17 years. Let's ignore the obvious grieving of family torn by tragedy. Let's ignore every quality that made him a human being, because he had sex with a man. T.W. Jenkins you are loathsome piece of shit.

I'm tired of this shit. It makes me feel awful writing this. I wish the family well and offer any condolence that I can, which may is no where near enough. 

Liam '14

Sunday Morning Slander

This week was short and I haven't noticed much in the way of news. So I punching down, so to speak, by focusing on this story that appeared on Rawstory.com written by Eric W. Dolan:

Students in a freshman biology class in Atlanta’s Grady High School were shown a PowerPoint presentation that linked evolution to Satan, abortion, divorce, racism, and homosexuality.

The Grady High student newspaper, the Southerner, reported that Anquinette Jones used the PowerPoint presentation to teach the theory of evolution to her students during a freshman biology class last spring.

One slide in the 52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by creationism and Christianity.

My bullshit detector is wobbling a bit right now. I don't think anyone could be this fucking dumb and the primary source is a high school newspaper... so yeah... not to denigrate high school students...

Ok, I found another source, which actually shows and links to the primary sources. Uggh.. The article written by the high school students is actually well written and appears to be factual... uggh.. my faith in humanity is both downgraded by the stupidity of a biology teacher and yet bolstered by great journalism that gives me hope for the future.

So let's march on.

One slide in the 52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by creationism and Christianity.

So... uggh deep breath... find my happy place... slide... Ok, you are trying to get people to accept creationism in the middle of showing why and how evolution works. And to a bunch of 15 year old boys, you say pornography drives evolution. You don't understand 15 year old boys, do you? 15 year old boys are porn-freaks.

In fact in the middle of your presentation one of the students was either watching a porno on their iPhone or drawing naked ladies in their notebook.

But after looking through the slideshow it appears the rest of the material was fairly solid. So unless the teacher undercuts the rest of the slideshow with a stupid verbal rant everything's fine:

Jones told the Southerner that the PowerPoint presentation originated with the Atlanta Public Schools system. But students told the paper that Jones had brought up creationism and criticized evolution in her biology class before.

“She always had random comments about [creationism],” student {Name Redacted} told the Southerner. “If someone would ask if we were going to learn evolution, she was like, ‘No, I don’t teach that.’”

“[I] have gay parents, and [the cartoon] said that evolution caused homosexuality and it implied that to be negative, so I was pretty offended by it,” another student, {Name Redacted}, said.

Happy place... happy place... happy place... Ok think of the positives on the story. Students are demanding accountability from educators.

Students are taking the initiative and become active and engaged in democracy and their future. 

And it seems that the students understand why this circumstance is wrong, or at least some of the students seem to understand why this is wrong.  

Liam '14

Heterophobia Gaysplained

All Michael Sam and No Play Makes Liam a Dull Boy. Blah blah blah, Michael Sam, blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah vibrator blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah Christianist douchebag, blah blah blah blah blah IB Times article written by Greg Price
on May 14 2014:

A Christian lobbyist has launched a boycott against the St. Louis Rams, openly gay defensive end Michael Sam, and credit card giant Visa.

In February, Jack Burkman, who head’s his Washington-based firm JM Burkman & Assoc., vowed to boycott any team or company that works with Sam and he has stayed true to his word. Burkman said the Rams and Sam are violating Christian beliefs, and that he's mobilized a grassroots campaign made up of a coalition of Christian leaders in 27 of the 50 U.S. states, according to The Independent.

“Visa and the Rams will learn that when you trample the Christian community and Christian values, there will be a terrible financial price to pay,” said Burkman.

“Openly gay football players send a terrible message to our youth about morality. Somebody needs to step up because the moral fiber of the nation is eroding.”

Please read the article if you aren't dying from ennui. 

Anyway...

First of all, wow, Jack Burkman has contacts in 27 of the 50 states... good for him... I hope his mom stops for ice cream after soccer practice...  78.5 percent of the nation is Christian. It is positively laughable that his coalition isn't in 48 of the 50. If all non-Christians lived in their own states, they would occupy 10 states. Even if that were the case, he should still be able to find contacts in the remaining 40.

Secondly, how and in what way is Michael Sam playing in the NFL trampling "the Christian community and Christian values." It's just so fucking stupid, res ipsa loquitur. Dear lord my head hurts simply trying to write this article. 

It is my experience that most of the gays that I know are looking forward to day when the act of existence is not viewed as a political statement. 

Blah Blah Blah

So I went to Photoshop and here's what Heterophobia would look like:

And how about this:

Or this:

Have you ever seen this?

What about from prominent gays:

Yeah, I haven't seen that either...

I realize that last one doesn't make a lick of sense, so I fixed it:

Wapow!

I was going to show actual photos that were the result of homophobia, but it was too much. So I posted a bunch of links that shows what homophobia actually looks like.

Warning: the following is far too graphic for this blog.

Mark Carson

Barie Shortell

Kerry Tyler Street (Actually Straight)

Dustin Martin

Ferrucio Silvestro

Wilfred de Bruijn

Sachsenhausen

And so many more, but I just can't go any further...


Liam '14

Damn You Michael Sam, Now I Have Type 2 Diabetes

Yesterday I was fairly upset by the NFL Draft. Just minutes before he went to the St. Louis Rams, I started pulling up statistics on Michael Sam, because I was convinced that he would go undrafted. I was getting ready to send a sharply worded letter to the NFL, ESPN, and Fox, letting them know that I would no longer be watching football, playing fantasy football, and that I would be contacting their sponsors after I would cancel my subscription to the Weekend Ticket. But voila at the second the Rams saved the day.

And then after I woke up today, I saw this video:

Uggh.. need insulin..too sweet.. too endearing... and no I'm not crying, I long ago established that I have no soul and am incapable of any real human emotions, so my eyes just be super dry.

Ok back to the statistics.

I complied a spreadsheet (the gay's best friend) of all the SEC Player-of-the-Year winners since the SEC started giving them out to defenders in 2003.

Year	Name	Position	Team	Round	Overall
2003	Eli Manning	QB	Ole Miss (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 1
2003	Chad Lavalais	DT	LSU (Defense)	Round: 5	Pick: 142
2004	Jason Campbell	QB	Auburn (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 25
2004	David Pollack	DE	Georgia (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 17
2004	Carnell Williams	RB	Auburn (Special Teams)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2005	Jay Cutler	QB	Vanderbilt (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 11
2005	DeMeco Ryans	LB	Alabama (Defense)	Round: 2	Pick: 33
2005	Skyler Green	RS	LSU (Special Teams)	Round: 4	Pick: 125
2006	Darren McFadden	RB	Arkansas (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 4
2006	Patrick Willis	LB	Ole Miss (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 11
2006	John Vaughn	PK	Auburn (Special Teams)	Undrafted in 2007
2007	Glenn Dorsey	DT	LSU (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2007	Felix Jones	RS	Arkansas (Special Teams)	Round: 1	Pick: 22
2008	Tim Tebow	QB	Florida (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 25
2008	Brandon James	RS	Florida (Special Teams)	Undrafted in 2010
2008	Eric Berry	DB	Tennessee (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2009	Rolando McClain	LB	Alabama (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 8
2009	Javier Arenas	RS	Alabama (Special Teams)	Round: 2	Pick: 50
2010	Cam Newton	QB	Auburn (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 1
2010	Nick Fairley	DT	Auburn (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 13
2010	Patrick Peterson	RS	LSU (Special Teams)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2011	Trent Richardson	RB	Alabama (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 3
2011	Morris Claiborne	CB	LSU (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 6
2011	Joe Adams	RS	Arkansas (Special Teams)	Round: 4	Pick: 104
2012	Johnny Manziel	QB	Texas A&M (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 22
2012	Jadeveon Clowney	DE	South Carolina (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 1
2012	Caleb Sturgis	PK	Florida (Special Teams)	Round: 5	Pick: 166
2012	Ace Sanders	RS	South Carolina (Special Teams)	Round: 4	Pick: 101
2012	Jarvis Jones	LB	Georgia (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 17
2013	Tre Mason	RB	Auburn (Offense)	Round: 3	Pick: 75
2013	C.J. Mosley	LB	Alabama (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 17
2013	Michael Sam	DE	Missouri (Defense)	Round: 7	Pick: 249
2013	Christion Jones		Alabama (Special Teams)	Junior in College

On this list, three players were undrafted: one was a Return Specialist; one was a Place Kicker; and one is still in college. 

Michael Sam is by far the lowest drafted excluding Special Teams. Out of the 30 people drafted, they had an average pick position of 42.3 and a standard deviation of 60.35 meaning any pick below 102.65 is low.

In fact besides Michael Sam, the only other defensive player on this list to have been picked below 112 is Chad Lavalais who was picked at 142. The three-sigma value is 223.05, and yet Michael Sam was drafted 26 spots lower.

So how and why did Michael Sam go from being a possible first or second round choice in January to being a seventh round pick?

He had what many consider to be a poor showing at the combine; he also might not fit in well in the tradition 4-3 scheme due to his height; or perhaps it's the fact that he came out.

There is no way of telling how he will do in the NFL. He might fizzle out like Tebow or become an average player with a long career in the NFL or perhaps even go all-pro. 

No matter what there are a lot of people out there wishing him and his partner the best. 

Congratulations Michael Sam.

'Liam 14

New rule: drink every time you hear that Michael Sam is "ramming" his gayness down someone's throat.

Sorry Pat. F & U Don't Solve the Puzzle.

As emperor of the gays, I want to congratulate game show host, Pat Sajak, for coming out as a heterosexual.Who would of guessed, he seemed so gay.

Klassy.

But no, I'll be serious for moment. Congratulations for being straight. Congratulations for feeling secure enough to come out. Congratulations for feeling so secure that you can tell your boss that you love a human being without the fear of being being terminated. Congratulations for feeling so secure that you can tell your family that you love a human being without the fear of being ostracized or financially or emotionally reprimanded. Congratulations that you feel so secure that you can tell your siblings that you love a human being without your siblings shielding their children from you, because they might emulate a "deviant lifestyle." Congratulations that you feel secure enough that you can tell your property manager that you live with the person that you love without the fear of being evicted.

Congratulations that your little stunt of trying to become the next right-wing martyr did not succeed, and you still have a job, a wife, a family, and a future.

May your second marriage continue going strong.

And perhaps now that you had the benefit of coming out without repercussions you could champion ENDA, so that no person should have to suffer consequences for saying the words "I love you."

But you won't.


Liam '14

As emporer I command you to kiss my ring

Apparently there are no Men in Gay Marriages

Thursday the 10th Circuit Court heard the oral argument to Kitchen v. Herbert 2: If You Can't Stand the Heat. Coming this Fall.

Kitchen is the groundbreaking decision out of the District Court of Utah that was the first ruling to overturn a marriage ban after the Windsor and Perry rulings. Yes, Utah.. right? But then again the court does what the constitution wants.

After the Kitchen decision, a tsunami of lower court decision, heretofore known as the Gaydal Wave of 2013, gave deference to the 14th amendment, which of course had previously been turned down by the Burger Court in Nelson v. Baker for "want of a substantial federal question."

The post Perry/Windsor victories cropped up in Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, while pending cases in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin all look increasingly promising.

When going through all the material to see on a national scale what marriage looks like, I became interested in how the United States got to this point, legally speaking. Before I read Kitchen, I knew the basics of the history. The basic frame work looks like this Loving v. Virginia, Nelson v. Baker, Bowers, Romer, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor, and Perry. 

In Kitchen there is a great section that summarizes the movement towards equality:

In 1971, two men from Minnesota brought a lawsuit in state court arguing that Minnesota was constitutionally required to allow them to marry. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1971). The Minnesota Supreme Court found that Minnesota's restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 186-87. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court summarily dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question." Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972).

Utah argues that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker is binding on this court and that the present lawsuit should therefore be dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. But the Supreme Court has stated that a summary dismissal is not binding "when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise." Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975).

Here, several doctrinal developments in the Court's analysis of both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause as they apply to gay men and lesbians demonstrate that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker has little if any precedential effect today. Not only was Baker decided before the Supreme Court held that sex is a quasi-suspect classification, see Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 688 (1973) (plurality op.), but also before the Court recognized that the Constitution protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635-36 (1996). Moreover, Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that it was unconstitutional for a state to "demean [the] existence [of gay men and lesbians] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). As discussed below, the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence removes a justification that states could formerly cite as a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

The State points out that, despite the doctrinal developments in these cases and others, a number of courts have found that Baker survives as controlling precedent and therefore precludes consideration of the issues in this lawsuit. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012) (holding that Baker "limit[s] the arguments to ones that do not presume to rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."); Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1002-03 (D. Nev. 2012) (ruling that Baker barred the plaintiffs' equal protection claim). Other courts disagree and have decided substantially similar issues without consideration of Baker. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (ruling that California's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). In any event, all of these cases were decided before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Windsor.

As discussed above, the Court's decision in Windsor does not answer the question presented here, but its reasoning is nevertheless highly relevant and is therefore a significant doctrinal development. Importantly, the Windsor Court foresaw that its ruling would precede a number of lawsuits in state and lower federal courts raising the question of a state's ability to prohibit same-sex marriage, a fact that was noted by two dissenting justices. The Honorable John Roberts wrote that the Court "may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples." Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2697 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). And Justice Scalia even recommended how this court should interpret the Windsor decision when presented with the question that is now before it: "I do not mean to suggest disagreement . . . that lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today's case when the issue before them is state denial of marital status to same-sex couples." Id. at 2709 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It is also notable that while the Court declined to reach the merits in Perry v. Hollingsworth because the petitioners lacked standing to pursue the appeal, the Court did not dismiss the case outright for lack of a substantial federal question. See 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). Given the Supreme Court's disposition of both Windsor and Perry, the court finds that there is no longer any doubt that the issue currently before the court in this lawsuit presents a substantial question of federal law.

As a result, Baker v. Nelson is no longer controlling precedent and the court proceeds to address the merits of the question presented here.

The Burger Court's denial of Certiorari in Baker v. Nelson had persistent consequences for the marriage equality movement. No court could accept a 14th Amendment argument except the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would then have no lower court decisions to argue over. Essentially until laws fundamentally changed, any decision would have had to been de novo. 

The legal shift happened, incidentally after 3 events occurred:

1. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which were codified under 28 U.S.C. § 1738C and 1 U.S.C. § 7. Among other things, it allowed states to not recognize Gay some marriages. It also forbade the Federal Government from recognizing Gay some marriages.

2. State Constitutional Bans. Under the logic of Baker, the issue at hand applied to statutory bans. So a boost to the advancement of marriage equality came from those who exploited discrimination for political gain. The movement to enact state constitutional bans against same-sex marriage began in 1998 with Alaska and Hawaii amending their constitutions to prohibit gays from  getting all gay with each other, am I right fellas?  

3. Marriage equality in the various states. People were married in one state and later moved to another. The notions of full faith and credit were challenged. Furthermore marriages were not equal at the federal level, due to DOMA.

By the time the courts had reached the Perry/Windsor Era, the legal landscape of America look like the following:

Maximum States Constitutional Bans: 30
States with Marriage Equality at the Time of Perry/Windsor: 9
Maximum States to Ever Have Marriage-Lite: 16 + DC

The legal setting was in place to overturn the Baker v. Nelson precedent.

Which brings me to the oral argument for Kitchen.

Here is copy of the oral argument from the April 10th, 2014 Kitchen v. Herbert hearing. It is three straight white dudes discussing my rights as an individual, so what could be more entertaining and in no way frustratingly patronizing.

The audio file has an issue with the left audio feed, so if it sounds gargled, open your equalizer and push the feed to your right output.

A few quick comments:

What is marriage? Apparently only something that a state has one hundred percent control over (because that's what I concluded from reading Loving v. Virginia.)

According to the defendant, it's better to have all of your rights taken away than to be a second class citizen... great argument.

Why the fuck did the defendants just bring up Maggie Gallagher? Seriously. She is a pointless nobody, with zero credibility. She has no higher degree, no JD, no Phd in psychology, and no expertise. I mean for fuck-sake, why didn't they just cite me or even my mom, or fuck it why not my Westie, who can put together an argument that is more coherent and more germane to the topic than Gallagher.  What a bunch of assholes. fucking fuck fuck. I mean seriously, I am glad this douchebag quoted her, because it is on tape, and he will go down in history as the small-minded bigot who quoted Gallagher and then got his ass handed to him in court and everyone in the world pointed and laughed at his tiny dick.

"[Gay marriage] is too new" to have data on societal effects. And so it will be if we never allow gay marriage.

"The disappearance of the dad." We cannot allow gay marriage because the children won't have a dad.... right. Also did he just try to equate gay couples to single parents?

"'Traditional Marriage'" Yes nice 200 year old tradition in a 400,000 year old species. If I hear traditional marriage one more time, I am going to yak.

DOMA was about states right to define marriage, that does not exclude the ability of the Federal constitution to enforce equal protection. It is not that hard to understand. We do not have any laws prohibiting poor people from getting married. Or ex-convicts. Or people named Trent. All of whom probably should be suspect parents/spouses before gay people.

Why don't conservatives get that gay people can have kids. I don't, but others do.

Why does it always come down to polygamy? A court couldn't simply allow polygamy. The polygamous marriage system wouldn't function without additional legislation to regulate how it would function. Most states have a system where each spouse owns half of the property of the marriage. How would that work in a polygamous system? Answer it wouldn't. Polygamy literally changes the definition of marriage, not who can marry.

So did Kitchen et al sue the right people?


Liam '14

Our Inheritance

I have inherited a shared history that does not come from my mother or my father. It is a rich culture with a devastating history of genocide, discrimination, and an undying animus aimed against it.  If evolution is descent with modification, gay history is more similar to Prokaryotic Horizontal Gene Transfer. It is not a history taught by parents to gaylings but one that is acquired later through life, either by discussion or literacy or life experience.

It is an understanding that gay men of certain age have lost nearly all of their friends to a virus. It’s realizing that governments have and will continue to round up people like myself and executing them in cruel and humiliating ways. It’s understanding the struggle just simply to avoid being arrested by the police for simply existing. It’s knowing that simply existing is a political statement.

It’s sitting down and devouring Christopher and His Kind. It’s pretending you’re dating Frank O’Hara every time you crack open Meditation’s in an Emergency. It’s empathy for men similar to yourself and the desire to learn about them. It’s wondering why same-sex marriage is still not permit in many states.

It’s in this vein of anaphora that I found the cases germane to Perry v. Hollingsworth and United States v. Windsor.

Perhaps one of the most famous legal cases in LGBT history is Baker v. Nelson. Claire Bowes with the BBC wrote a wonderful piece describing the background of the case. Here is a brief background into the case:

Going public about your sexual orientation could cost you your home, your job and your family.

Baker and McConnell didn't fit the stereotype. Both in their late 20s - clean cut and with short, neat hair - Baker was a law student and McConnell a librarian. They'd been together for four years when they first applied for a marriage licence in 1970.

This was rejected - on the grounds that they were both men. But the couple decided to fight. They appealed, and kept on appealing until the case reached the US Supreme Court. It was the first time the court had been asked to rule on gay marriage - but it refused to hear the case "for want of a substantial federal question".

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23159390

Read the rest of the article. Here is how the background is described by J. Peterson writing for the Minnesota State Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971):

Petitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.

The trial court, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, ruled that respondent was not required to issue a marriage license to petitioners and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. This appeal is from those orders. We affirm.

While the Baker case is an interesting read, I feel like it has been discussed and analyzed and dissected so many times that I cannot add much to it.  I have posted a copy of the Minnesota SupremeCourt decision on my website. It is actually a short document that is fairly easy to understand without much legal reasoning. Most of the decision is quite familiar. To me it is frustrating but not overly offensive in tone.

If I ever write on Baker again, it will probably be more about how the US Supreme Court denied certiorari, and how the right wing lost the legal battle by campaigning for anti-gay state amendments.    

What I am more interested is in the companion case.

McConnell v.Anderson, 451 F.2d 193, 196 (8th Cir. 1971)

Jack Baker’s husband, Michael McConnell, was scheduled to become a librarian for the University of Minnesota. Then he had the audacity to get married… to a man… I mean can you imagine what temerity and political grandstandingness it takes to be an outspoken radical by getting married to a consenting human being… I mean seriously, the balls it takes, and did Mr. McConnell just think the University would sit there and allow one of its soon to be employees to get married. I mean for fuck sake who gets married besides communist radicals? So they shit-canned his ass just like what any Good Christian Institute would do, right. Because there’s nothing that’ll butch up a limped wristed Nancy quite like taking away any means of feeding themselves.

All this joking around has inadvertently made me physically angry about this case and the severe injustice of it all. I know that it happened 40 years ago and everything worked out for Mr. McConnell and Mr. Baker but still.  I’m going to go drink a beer and come back when I don’t want to anger-puke anymore over the background of the case. I mean for fuck sake, getting fired over getting married uggh what the verdammtes Arschloch… du  Arschbackengesicht… idoitische… blöder Scheißkerl.. kannst mich im Goethe lecken.

Ok. back. sorry.

The U.S. 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals decide McConnell v. Anderson on October 18, 1971 and is penned by Judge Stephenson.

In addition to the allegations above, his complaint asserted that he was a homosexual and that the Board's resolution not to approve his employment application was premised on the fact of his homosexuality and upon his desire, as exemplified by the marriage license incident, specifically to publicly profess his "earnest" belief that homosexuals are entitled to privileges equal to those afforded heterosexuals.

Umm.. aren't we though. Entitlement to privileges isn't a bad thing; it’s kinda what America is centered around; that is freedom. I don’t know why there has to be a use of scare quotes here with his earnest belief. And furthermore, if you are trying to say UMN acted properly and in accordance to the law, shouldn't the Court be saying McConnell wrongly believes that homosexuals are entitled to fewer privileges. Because the way it is stated, it seems that the Court is suggesting that gays are entitled to fewer privileges and so what. It’s not like we have a 14^th amendment or an Article IV or anything. 

It suffices merely to stress, by way of summary, that McConnell apparently is well-educated and otherwise able, possessing both an academic degree and a master's degree;

Well this is a hot way to start off. Mr. McConnell is well-educated. That is a fact. It is not subjective. It is demonstrated by his master’s degree.The use of apparently is just a teenesy bit offensive in this circumstance.

McConnell and a friend referred to in the record as "Jack Baker" encountered Dr. Hopp and informed him of their intention to obtain a license to marry; that during this conversation Dr. Hopp expressed concern that such an occurrence might well jeopardize favorable consideration of McConnell's employment application; that about three hours later on the same day, McConnell and Jack Baker appeared at the Hennepin County Clerk's office and made formal application for the license;

Well, I for one am glad that you cleared up how Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell are associated. There is nothing condescending or douchey about calling a person’s husband just a “Friend.” Secondly, McConnell was a librarian, not a stripper at some Podunk nudy-bar. Getting married is his prerogative. Well according to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.” It would appear under this logic that denial of employment from a State Actor would be arbitrary and capricious. But what did the Warren Court know about the Constitution.

It is McConnell's position that the Board's decision not to approve his employment application reflects "a clear example of the unreasoning prejudice and revulsion some people feel when confronted by a homosexual." That being so, he argues that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious and thus violative of his constitutional rights. We do not agree.

Thanks asshole. Would you care to elaborate on how the Board of Asshats Regents’ decision wasn't based on discrimination:

It is, instead, a case in which something more than remunerative employment is sought; a case in which the applicant seeks employment on his own terms; a case in which the prospective employee demands, as shown both by the allegations of the complaint and by the marriage license incident as well, the right to pursue an activist role in implementing his unconventional ideas concerning the societal status to be accorded homosexuals and, thereby, to foist tacit approval of this socially repugnant concept upon his employer, who is, in this instance, an institution of higher learning.

Once again fired for getting married. Apparently getting married is socially repugnant… who knew. Also how was Mr. McConnell seeking employment on his own terms? What a fucking asshole, what happened did Judge Stephenson forget to up his Klan membership or something so he had to compensate. I have poured through many cases, but few have dripped so deeply with contempt and bigotry.

We know of no constitutional fiat or binding principle of decisional law which requires an employer to accede to such extravagant demands.[8] We are therefore unable fairly to categorize the Board's action here as arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.

Once again man gets married. Man gets fired for getting married. How is that an extravagant demand? After reading this case, I think I may have been transported to an alternate dimension. I think it’s call the Planet of the Douchebags. It’s an upside down world where Douchebags rule men.

Anyway, I want to say congratulations to Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell. It only took them 40 years to become the first legally married gay couple in America.

Liam '14

Retorts and Straight Jokes

A while ago I went to a party at a friend of a friend's house.  I had never met the guy before, but hey, he was kind enough to let me into his house.  I was having a very good time; there was plenty of food and really good beer. The conversation was perhaps a little dull as most of the people there worked at the same office. Everything was going great until later on in the evening the host started telling unprovoked gay jokes.

Perhaps I was a coward, at the time I thought I was simply being a courteous guest, but I said nothing. As far as I know I was the only gay person at this small get-together. I really didn't want to spoil everyone else night, so I just let it go. The city I live in, I have never had a problem being gay before.  People are out, and others are tolerant. There really isn't much of a gay scene here, because there is no need for one. Gay and straight are pretty much the same thing. So that has led me to the point where I am not closeted, yet I do not go around introducing myself as Liam the Homosexual. That is not who I am, just as a straight guy doesn't go around introducing himself as Harry the Heterosexual. Because I am not a massive walking stereotype, people just assume that I am straight.

I can take a joke, as well as I can dish them out.  If someone jokes about my sexuality, and it comes from a good place, then alright. However when someone makes a joke and then says "It's not alright with me, and I would tell them to get the fuck out," then I cannot deal with that.

At the time I now wished I had started telling straight jokes. But once again  I didn't want to make it into a bigger deal, and secondly I didn't know any jokes.

The gay people I know, do not tell anti-straight-jokes.  When you live on the side that is being oppressed you typically are sensitive to the larger issue. When you have your sexuality mocked, mocking other people's sexuality is pretty much the last thing you want to do.  It typically just adds more hate. I looked online to see if I could find any jokes to use as retorts, but I didn't find many; so I decided just to write some myself.  I am sure they are similar to other jokes you may have heard, but what the hell.

I have known people that use the word breeder.  For the first time, I feel like I get why.

These are only to be used to champion justice, never bigotry.

Q: What’s the difference between a straight man and a vibrator?

A: The vibrator lasts more than 5 minutes.

Q: Why are hetero women always left unsatisfied?

A: Straight men never ask for directions to the G-spot.

Q: How many straight men does it take to bring out the trash?

A: One man and his wife to bitch at him for an entire week to do it.  

Q: What’s straight and satisfying?

A: Nothing.

Q: Why did the straight man cross the road?

A: Because he was tired of his wife’s nagging.

Q: Why did the straight woman cross the road?

A: To escape domestic abuse.

Q: Why don’t gays date women?

A: We don’t trust anything that bleeds for 3 days and doesn’t die.

Q: What do you get when you cross two 15 year olds and box of wine coolers?

A: A baby and a life-time of flipping burgers.

Q: What’s the difference between a straight man and a piece of shit?

A: A piece of shit doesn’t beat his wife.

Q: Why are homophobic jokes typically so short?

A: So that breeders can remember them.

Q: Why are homophobic jokes typically so short?

A: Because nothing a straight man does ever lasts for more than 5 seconds.

Q: How does a straight woman know she’s dreaming?

A: She orgasms in the dream.

Q: What’s the difference between a straight man and a pig?

A: You can kill and eat the pig.

Perhaps more to come.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me