Ding Dong the DADT is Dead

And good riddance to it. It’s a policy that has cost us nearly 70 Arabic and Farsi speakers in a time when all branches of the military are suffering acute shortages of specialists in those languages. Apparently shaming gays for being gay is more important than actually collecting live intelligence so we can better protect our troops.

DADT was a bad idea to begin with; before, gays were banned because they were considered a ‘security risk’ because it was assumed that they were blackmail targets just for being gay. Rather than lift the stigma, DADT codified it, ensuring that gays and lesbians in the military were blackmail targets for anyone who knew they were gay.

Of course, the Repubs (with a few exceptions), who claim to be the party of the strong military, found themselves at odds with the JCS, the Department of Defense, and the bulk of the services themselves, all of whom agree that there’s no reason gays and lesbians can’t serve openly in the military. Again, I guess it’s more important to hate gays than actually support the troops.

And who ate John McCain’s brain, anyway?

While we’re at it, let’s take a quick look at the military that arguably has to be the most prepared on the planet: Israel. They ended gay exclusion completely in 1993. Subsequent effect on preparedness, effectiveness and morale? Nil.

Anyway, a welcome end to a bad policy.

On the nature of charity

Washington, DC is on the verge of passing a law permitting gay marriage, with all the usual exemptions stating that churches are not required to perform them in contravention of their doctrine, or even rent event space for them.

Sadly, this isn’t enough for the local archdiocese, which is threatening to shut down their charity services in the city if it passes.

So, if the city extends civil rights to their citizens, the diocese’s response will be to punish needy people who have nothing to do with the dispute.

A statement from the chancellor of the archdiocese says that this has to be seen in the context of balancing “the interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely.”

I fail to see any way in which the simple right to marry impacts anyone else’s right to the freedom of their own conscience. Nothing in the pending legislation requires a church, Catholic or otherwise, to officiate over same-sex marriages, and even exempts them from renting space for hosting the reception for a same-sex wedding. The church remains free to make their own determination as to whether or not they will sanctify such unions. The practice of one’s religion is not impacted one whit.

However, the church is attempting to force exactly the opposite. I am not a Catholic. Why should I be bound by the church’s rules on marriage, then? One would not apply the rules by which Jewish or Islamic marriages are made to a Catholic couple. It is therefore inappropriate for the church to expect the right to apply its rules to non-adherents.

As for myself, the only ‘rules’ I can think of for a couple to get married are: they are both of the age of majority and legally able to enter into contracts for themselves, and they love each other.

That the Catholic Church has additional requirements for a church service is entirely their business and emphatically not mine. But the any church’s rules for a wedding by necessity stop at the church door. That’s the fundamental basis of a civil society that honors freedom of conscience. One church may not tell another church what rules they must operate under, and neither may one dictate rules to non-adherents.

Fortunately, the city is not going to allow themselves to be bullied, but I can’t help but think of the thousands who will be directly hurt by the diocese’s action.

A better place to ask WWJD? I cannot think of.

A little late, Jo. Again

Link had from my dear : J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore was gay. That’s nice. D’you think you might’ve actually put that somewhere in one of the books, Jo?

This is bothering me more, the more I think about it, actually.

First of all, I’m not a big fan of divining authorial intent by anything more than the marks they made on paper—if they meant to make a particular statement, then a writer should be able to bloody well write it that way. If they can’t, then either they should rethink what they’re trying to say, or start major edits. If they didn’t write what they meant to say, then either they didn’t mean to say it, or they’re not as good a writer as they thought. So what she says now about what she wrote seems pretty meaningless to me. If she wanted Dumbledore to be gay, give us some better clues in text, not after the fact. I mean, she may as well be telling us that McGonagall and Sprout have been having a lesbian affair for the last fifteen years. We lack canonical data to back up the statement.

Second, it’s contextless, which is a problem we’ve had with JKR’s writing from day one that caught up with her in a horrible way in the last two books. Things appear from whole cloth in later books—particularly in HBP and DH—that she did no setup for in the first five books. So Albus had the hots for Grindelwald. I might care if we knew anything about Grindelwald other than a few obscure and negative references before now. Our pre-DH knowledge of Grindelwald is little more than A) he was a big nasty dark wizard during the same time frame as WW2 and B) Albus defeated him. How are we supposed to divine anything more from that?

Third, she had a couple that was damn near canonically gay—Lupin and Sirius—and ran away from it, as far and as fast as possible.

At best, I can say her authorial intent was muddy. At worst, she completely lost her narrative thread and didn’t know how to get it back.

Mainly, I say that if you mean to say it, write it. Don’t backfill after the trees have already chopped down and covered in ink marks.

What really pisses me off about Senator Craig

It’s not the rampant hypocrisy.

It’s not the Republican scandal of the week that the press will only play with long enough to get their money’s worth out of it before going back to deliberately ignoring Dumbass’ crimes.

It’s the fact that this scumbag is repeatedly shrieking “I’m not gay!!!” as though it would be some horrific, unforgivable thing if he were. As if being gay was a bad thing. As if it was a disease.

Shit, I don’t want him on my team, but I’m not the one who gets to divvy up the players.

Of course, what’s funny is that the more desperate his denials get, the more he sounds like a bitchy old queen. XD

Iowa. IOWA. Dayamn.

Here’s to Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan, who have become Iowa’s first legally married gay couple.

I-O-fuckin’-wa. Who’d'a thunk it?

Well hell, maybe I should just ask myself out.

Had from , , …

The Boy Next Door Random Gentle Love Dreamer (RGLDm) Kind, yearning, playful, you are The Boy Next Door. You’re looking for real Love, a lot like girls do. It might not be manly, but it’s sweet. We think the next three years will be very exciting and fruitful ones for you. Your spontaneous, creative side makes you a charming date, and we think you have a horny side just waiting to shine. Or glisten, rather. You enter new relationships unusually hopeful, and the first moments are especially glorious. If you’ve had some things not work out before, so what. Your exact opposite: The 5-Night Stand Deliberate Brutal Sex Master On paper, most gay guys would name the Boy Next Door as their ideal mate. In the real world, however, you’re often passed over for more dangerous or masculine men. You’re the typical “nice guy:” without just a touch of cockiness, you’re doomed with boys. A shoulder to cry on? Okay, sure. But never a penis to hold. More than any other type, Boys Next Door evolve as they get older. As we said, many find true love, but some fail miserably in the search. These tarnished few grow up to be The Men Next Door, who are creepy as hell, offering backrubs to kids and what not. ALWAYS AVOID: The Billy Goat CONSIDER: The Gentleman, The Loverboy Link: The 32-Type Dating Test by OkCupid – Free Online Dating.

A new personal record!

For the gayest thing I’ve yet said in my life: “Oh god, I can’t find my crochet hook!”

That Gay Rights meme goin’ around.

This is not to be construed as following that meme.

Obviously, I of all people have no objection to equal rights for the GLBT community, seeing as I fall under the “G” part of that acronym.

What I object to, what I object strongly to, is the assumption in the wording of the meme itself that not posting it in your journal means you don’t support equal rights.

So here’s a comment to the originator of this meme.

Fuck you.

“Agree with me publicly or else your’re against it!” is every bit as reprehensible as “Agree with (Dumbass/the GOP/etc) or else you’re (a turrist sympathizer/a traitor/etc).”

Fuck you.

I am perfectly aware that there are people out there who do not believe in equal rights, for reasons of simple ignorance, religious intolerance, or flat bigotry. Lumping people who don’t follow this meme in with them is just flat wrong.

Fuck you.

Fuck you for showing that there are people as intolerant and close-minded on our side as on the other side. You don’t represent me and you don’t speak for me, and I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself. If you want to know who really believes in equal rights, you have a lot of journals to read. If and when I feel the need to say something on the subject, I will say it in my own words–I have done so before, and I don’t doubt that I will do so in the future.

Oh, and another thing, o meme-originator. Equal rights. That’s what I want. Because that’s about everybody, not just my own little subset of humanity.

I ignore this meme because of your ignorance and intolerance, not out of any of mine.

A note to those who have followed the meme: thank you, I know your hearts are in the right places.

Ah, now this quiz, I can answer!

had the T & A & C quiz, which is useful for straight men and lipstick lesbians, I suppose, but didn’t do much for me.

So, Dumbass is not only a fucking moron, he’s a homophobic bigot. Big shock there. Although accorting to some reports, he really “doesn’t give a shit” about gay marriage, he’s going to go ahead and put his name on it over the objections of his own wife and his lord and master, Darth Cheney. Strange place to find your balls there, Dumbass.

Anyway. For people who support writing bigotry into the US Constitution, I offer the following questions that require good answers–no doubt, such answers will not be forthcoming. Bigotry wasn’t reasoned in, and it can’t be reasoned out.

1. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts began marrying same-sex couples. Exactly how many “traditional” marriages have “been destroyed” since then in a way that can be specifically and explicitly tied to the simple existence of gay marriage in Massachusetts?
2. How is banning gay marriage not an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion’s beliefs over another’s? Why should a religious interpretation of marriage be applied to atheists and agnostics?
3. Assume two people of majority with full control of their faculties, of the same gender. What is the compelling state interest in denying them the same rights afforded two people of majority in full control of their faculites, of opposite gender? In short, what is the compelling state interest in determining who may and may not get married, when two competent adults are at issue?
4. The same arguments–that it was “against tradition” and “would destroy the fabric of society”–were used against interracial marriage not that long ago. Since neither the institution of marriage nor society has ceased to exist since laws against interracial marriage were eliminated, why should we believe the same arguments when they were wrong before?

Use ‘em if you need ‘em.