The gay community is outraged that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 43, a bill that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry in California. Indeed, small protests in opposition to Schwarzenegger's decision were held in different parts of the state earlier this week--including in my own home, where I subjected myself to nude self-flagellation like that albino monk in The Da Vinci Code movie.

But after noticing how some conservatives and the religious right are covering the story, I think we would be remiss if we didn't recognize and applaud the legislative strides that were made last week in California. Progress is sometimes best measured by how upset the opposition is. And it's about time I put my whips away and my robe back on.

While CitzenLink (an offshoot of the ultra-right Focus on Family organization), for example, notes on its website that Schwarzenegger's veto is "a victory for traditional marriage," the group denounces the governor for passing "several bills detrimental to California families."

Mona Passignano, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family Action (another branch of Focus on Family), said that those other bills "will likely have a devastating impact on churches and Christian families in the state for years to come." This sentiment is echoed on similarly themed websites on the Internet.

The governor actually signed seven LGBT-friendly bills into law last week, after they were all passed by the Legislature:

So as we were all heading off for a lovely autumnal weekend, a very confused Terminator ran off to the local 7/ll for a quart of milk, a copy of Variety, some Depends and to veto the California same sex marriage bill. One can't be completely sure that he meant to do that, but Arnie's not terribly clever at multi-tasking.

I would never be so rude as to call the governor of California an "idiot". However, I don't agree with other gay voices who are this morning calling him a hypocrite and a bigot simply because he vetoed the gay marriage bill passed by the California State Legislature.

Clearly The Terminator is confused--which is very different from being an "idiot." The Republican party has insisted that the decision on same sex marriage should not rest with activist judges in the courts because the United States Constitution rests law-making power with elected representatives and not via popular vote and it was a popular vote five years ago in California that determined that the constitution was wrong and that civil rights and equality did not apply to gay Americans but under the constitution law-making power and determinations on civil rights rests with the legislatures which actually then passed a law approving same sex marriage but it is, as the Constitution says, up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws so The Terminator vetoed the same sex law constitutionally passed by the state legislature because he wants the determination to be made by the courts even though his party says the courts shouldn't be making such decisions rather such decisions should be made by lawmakers as outlined in the constitution.

Are you confused? Well, imagine how a brain ravaged by decades of steroids and fantasy role-playing both on the silver screen and with that insatiable Kennedy girl, gets all bewitched, bothered and bewildered in attempts to understand same sex marriage and the constitution.

Arnie is not an idiot, but how can he be anything other than terribly confused? However, his party, the Republicans--you've heard of them, I suspect? They're appearing every other Thursday in the men's room at Chippendales on the Vegas Strip--are counting on the notion that we're all idiots. And for the most part they seem to be right. The majority of Americans are idiots. What other explanation can there be for the widespread acceptance of the convoluted perverse logic that the GOP keeps using to block equality for all Americans?

Marriage discrimination inspired one of the most mainstream public figures in the country to come forward for equality this week: Jeanne Phillips, aka 'Dear Abby.'

Phillips, who offers advice through her widely syndicated column, said, "I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em. That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake."

Abby (as she prefers to be called), the daughter of the original 'Dear Abby,' made the comments to a reporter in relation to a "Straight for Equality" award she's to receive from GLAAD. Abby says she isn't planning to devote a column to her statement about gay marriage -- which is too bad. She has a strong record for addressing gay issues in a positive way in the advice she doles out to everyday Americans who read her, however, making her a powerful and respected voice in raising awareness of gay issues to the mainstream.

In the AP article about this which ran on AOL (and which has more on the story here), a poll shows some interesting but not too surprising reactions to Abby's gay-friendly stance: Readers were split fairly evenly on her comments, with a slight majority in favor of her position that gays should be allowed to marry.

With Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expected to veto a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in California, a multimillion-dollar television ad campaign will be launched this week, one that is meant to push buttons and appeal to the emotions--in the hearts of straight people. The TV commercial, which will air in major California markets, shows a bride on her wedding day, as she heads to the alter where her handsome groom awaits. On her way, she encounters a series of obstacles--debris in her path, a guest tripping her with a cane--until she falls to the ground and the screen reads: "What if you couldn't marry the person you love?"

Take a look at the commercial....

This blog has been abuzz lately about girl bands, with posts from Susan, Renee, and even Richard! I've been feeling so left out that I decided it was time to throw my hat into the ring--even though I generally don't listen to what I affectionately call "vagina music." (Affectionately, people! Don't flame me! Affectionately!)

I know that Renee wrote about Tegan and Sara earlier this year, but that was before they released their major-label debut, The Con. Identical twin sisters who also happen to be out lesbians, they kick off the album with the beautiful and stunning "I Was Married." It deals with the issue of gay marriage cleverly, and it brought me to tears the first time I heard it, particularly the lines: "I look into the mirror/For evil that just does not exist/I don't see what they see." To start off their big studio effort with a ferociously political song deserves applause, and that kind of vagina music I'm willing to penetrate.

I first heard about Tegan and Sara because musician Ben Lee, whom I adore, has talked about them, and now I know what all the hubbub is about. I love what Sara told MTV a couple months ago.

There are some things I wish I didn't know. One out of four homosexuals voted Republican in 2004. Thank you, Salon.com. I thought it was just Mary Cheney. So many gays voted against their own self-interest, Salon decided to post, The gay voter's guide to the GOP. I studied it carefully, because I never tire of hearing adulterers and divorce enthusiasts pontificate about the sanctity of traditional marriage.

In fairness, they're not all divorced adulterers. Three of the Republican candidates don't believe in evolution, so when they talk, I get all tingly like a kid on Christmas morning. Then there's Mormon and Sears Catalog model, Mitt Romney. Mormon's believe that an ancient tribe of Jews lived in New York 2000 years ago until Jesus visited them and turned them into Native Americans, or something along those lines. I know it's not as weird as the Pope, but it's weird and varmint murderer, Mitt Romney believes it.

Bringing up the rear is Fred Thompson, who is also a big supporter of traditional marriage, if by traditional, you mean divorcing your first wife of 25 years so you can marry a woman younger than your daughter. Fred says "we still get our basic rights from God, not government", which is Republican code for "bend over homo". It's also general code for "I'm clearly an idiot". So, which Republican will Mary Cheney support in '08? I'm not sure, but I hear her sister Liz is supporting the idiot in the rear.

The gay voter's guide to the GOP, is a Kinsey scale for homo-hate. It starts out with the Republican candidates who really don't like you and goes down hill from there. I know Mary, Gay Republicans aren't single-issue voters; you're all about lower taxes, smaller government and a strong defense. May I talk privately with you Log Cabinettes for a moment? Without Mary? Here's the thing ... the military is busy right now and it's not really their job to defend you against the gay-bashings that are coming if your guys get elected.

Today is the most Jewish day of the year and it's also our once-a-year 24 hour shot to gain entrance to God's house.

Catholics ask forgiveness for their sins whenever they please. Jews get one shot a year for one 24 hour period. God buys your excuses or he doesn't. The only way to know is to drop dead. Harsh. I like to observe this day with some very personal Jewalicious moment. For me, it's a tradition.

Have you noticed that there's a Broadway number for virtually every aspect of life?

Anyhow, so to keep up the tradition of remembering some very personal Jewalicious moment, I take you back to 1976 and then 2004--that's two moments, I know, but together they make one very big moment.

We start with a nice long illogical Jewish preamble.

Can a gay man play a straight man convincingly? This question has plagued Hollywood and the American public for a very long time. No one seems to have an issue with a straight man playing a gay man, gay for pay seems to be an honorable undertaking. Of course, the question is simply ridiculous. Consider the great gay actors who have convincingly and successfully portrayed straight men over the years: Rock Hudson, James Dean, Montgomery Clift, James McGreevey, Ted Haggard, me.

There are so many negative gay news stories we have to stay on top of all the time, it's like getting a present to come across one that we can celebrate. This story is a gift that merits sharing.

Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor of San Diego, reversed his position on gay marriage two days ago, just before he was about to veto a City Council resolution supporting gay marriage. The resolution directs San Diego's City Attorney to join other California cities in filing a brief to the State Supreme Court asking for an end to a statewide ban on same-sex marriage.

In an emotional public announcement with his wife standing by his side, Mayor Sanders explains the reasons that led him to change his well-known position of opposing gay marriage. Citing his personal relationships with his own lesbian daughter and gay people on his staff, he said that his beliefs have evolved and that he decided he needed to "lead with [his] heart" on this issue.

Sanders went on to say, "As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night I could just not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy, or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation."

Watching Sanders speak, you can see that his public change of heart did not come easily and that it means a great deal to him. The timing of his reversal is especially admirable given that he is up for re-election.

Mayor Sanders is a man who can stand as an example to other elected officials -- especially those in his political party -- that they too have it in them to find the courage to do what is right.

Watch Mayor Jerry Sanders (Warning: Tissue Advisory)



Update:
I meant to point out a glaring example of an elected official who acted just the opposite from Mayor Sanders.
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who had privately expressed his support for gay marriage, recently stood up for discrimination when he said publicly, "I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." His remarks followed this week's unfortunate Maryland high court ruling upholding a ban on same-sex marriage. Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff tells the whole story here about flip-flopping Democrat Martin O'Malley.

I usually come off as something of a pessimist when it comes to the advance of gay civil rights in the United States, but today's Washington Post reminds us that the first shot heard round the world happened in New England, the birthplace of the American Revolution. And today, the reality is that New England is now the epicenter of gay marriage--the champagne pop heard round the world. So? A good omen? Dare I hope that this is the beginning of the end for the neo-conservatives and religious fundamentalists, just as it was for the Redcoats?

Well, omens aside, New England will soon have the distinction of being the only American region to allow gay marriage or civil unions in all of its states. Only Rhode Island does not allow gay marriage or civil unions, but that state's lawmakers are weighing a proposed gay marriage statute. In the meantime, the state sanctions marriages by same-sex couples in neighboring Massachusetts.

The marriage alternative for gay men and lesbians, possible only in Massachusetts, gives the couples the same state rights offered to heterosexuals. Civil unions -- available in Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire (starting this January) -- allow couples a broad range of legal rights, but fewer than marriage provides. Domestic partnerships, offered in Maine, offer a more limited number of protections than civil unions. Of course none of the states are able to offer gays the federal legal rights granted to married heterosexuals.

The Post also points out that as a result of this unique situation, New England is fast becoming one of the world's major destinations for gay tourists. I'm hoping this will bring winter, snow and maple syrup back into vogue--three of my favorite things.

However limited, these statutes nonetheless are giving a mega-boost to the region's allure among gay tourists.

"The status of gays has made an enormous, quantifiable difference in travel to the region," said Ed Salvato, editor of the OutTraveler, speaking to the Washington Post. "There has been a huge uptick of travelers visiting for ceremonies and bringing their entire entourages along."

Of course, New England is no stranger to gay tourists, from the ski slopes of Vermont and New Hampshire to the beaches of Cape Cod. And antiquing through the hills and dales of Connecticut is about as gay a trip as a trip can be.

As of today, the region has hosted well over 20,000 legal same-sex unions.

The Holy Father has taken time out from his busy schedule of spreading the teachings of Jesus; inspiring love, compassion and forgiveness; feeding the hungry; healing the sick; and providing comfort and nurturing to orphans for some good old fashioned homophobia and gay bashing. Bless his generous soul.

Yesterday, September 1, appearing before 300,000 pilgrims who trekked to Loretto, Italy to rally for traditional marriage, Pope Benedict listened to young people's stories about their broken homes and assured them that he and the entire Roman Catholic Church were praying "that the crisis that is affecting families today doesn't become an irreversible failure."

Once again, Benedict bemoaned the collapse of family values and spoke of the need to support "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman. The Italian bishops conference - which organized the rally - has mounted a major campaign to support traditional families and oppose proposed Italian legislation giving same-sex couples new rights.

The Pope cataloged the impact of gay marriage on the traditional family. "There is so much failure of love all around us!" Benedict told the crowd, camped out on a vast, dusty field. "How many couples don't succeed and separate? How many families end up in pieces? How many kids, even among you, have seen their parents separate and divorce?"

I feel awful about this and want to point out that I personally have no intention of ever marrying. I really hope that helps save a few Catholic families. I really do. Of course, I'm not quite sure how this works. Every time two gay men or women legally marry an avenging angel swoops down from heaven with a flaming divorce sword and divides an opposite sex couple? Or is there a finite amount of love in the world and when two queers fall in love, it uses up love that would have otherwise gone to heterosexuals? I suppose you have to be closer to God to have the answer to this odd puzzle.

I've often blogged about the terrible mistake we make to confuse visibility with civil rights. Visibility is a thorny issue with positive aspects as well as the potential for great negatives. Visibility means we're a much more visible target, kept top of mind for those who would see us erased. Historically visibility has done little to aid the cause for equality for any minority group with the exception of visible anger and a more visible threat to society that must be addressed.

But on the positive side, increasing visibility has emboldened millions of gay men and women to stand their ground, come out and fight for their rights. And that in my view, is the key value of visibility: we see that we are not alone, that we can fight and that we can make our anger visible; and while fictional TV characters and pretty parades require no response, visible anger does.

Thanks to visibility increasing numbers of gay Americans are realizing that they need not be shy about demanding their full rights as American citizens. Visibility is teaching us that we can fight and we can win.

Recently but with almost no fanfare, two convicted felons scored a major victory in the fight for the rights of same-sex couples. Against all odds and it's likely that without increased visibility for the gay community, these guys wouldn't have had the courage or confidence to defy federal parole laws and go to battle for their relationship.

Apparently being a committed and active minister in the Presbyterian church means nothing these days if your sexual orientation isn't as straight as the very cross you worship. The U.S. Presbyterian Church has rebuked one of its ministers who describes herself as a "lesbian evangelist" for presiding over two gay weddings, officials said on Friday.

Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, 65, violated church doctrine when she officiated at the unions of two gay couples in 2004 and 2005. In 1992, she became the first openly lesbian Presbyterian minister to be appointed a local church pastor -- a move later overturned by the church's top judicial body. She since has been an outspoken advocate for gay rights -- and gay marriage rites.

Spahr, a minister for more than 30 years, came out as a lesbian in 1978. The Presbyterian Church does not allow openly gay or lesbian members to serve as ministers. Still, she was allowed to keep her position but was prohibited from leading an individual church.

The Presbyterian Church is among several Protestant denominations embroiled in debates over what role gays should have in their churches. Under a ruling by the denomination's highest court in 2000, Presbyterian ministers may bless same-sex unions as long as they do not equate the relationships with marriage and the ceremonies do not mimic traditional weddings. I guess your "union" is only allowed to be blessed if you get married on a beach in a hula skirt or if you don't wear a big white gown and/or tuxedo down the aisle.

(more after the jump)

The September issue of the University of Chicago JOURNAL OF MODERN HISTORY , the nation's leading scholarly journal for the study of European Intellectual, political and cultural history, will provide compelling evidence that legal procedures were commonly available throughout 16th Century France and other parts of Mediterranean Europe that formalized same sex civil unions and other forms of family units outside of the man/woman model.

The research author explains that "in cases where the affrèrés (the term used for a civil union between two men) were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents."

"The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth."

"Opponents of gay marriage in the United States today have tended to assume that nuclear families have always been the standard household form. However, Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize, and Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures."

Folks, the words here fail to capture the enormity and potential legal, legislative and cultural impact of this publication.

Simply put: mainstream and highly influential scholarship will demonstrate that same sex unions existed and were legally and socially accepted in Medieval Europe and that history has been grotesquely rewritten.

While much more research is needed in this area, it is no secret that rewriting history for propaganda, military, religious and political purpose has been a common practice throughout Europe and the United States for many centuries.

It is well documented that the Catholic Church did this many times throughout its history and it is no secret that American history has been twisted out of shape all too many times to suit political and social goals. One need only look at older versions of our history books as they address African Americans, Native Americans and our foreign relations with France and Spain. So it may very well be that the true history of marriage and civil unions has been very much warped out of shape over the course of recent centuries, presented to us through the very narrow-minded filters of Puritan and Victorian perspectives.

What more can I say? Let the pieces fall where they may.

SOURCE

Someone recently said to me, and I quote, "I wouldn't mind gay people if they would just blend in with the rest of the population."

I took this statement home with me, I pondered it and it reverberated. I decided I had to write a response to this person, and to anyone else with this mentality, as it seems to come up a lot when straight people address their feelings toward gays. So, here it goes.

I will blend in when... I can walk down the street holding hands with my partner without being called a dyke.

I will blend in when... I don't live in fear of being fired from my job for being gay

I will blend in when... I never have to introduce my partner as a "friend" again

I will blend in when... people accept that homosexuality is not a choice

I will blend in when... people stop using religion as a weapon against me

I will blend in when... when gender is about the person and not about their chromosomes

I will blend in when... I can be at my partner's side in the hospital during an emergency

I will blend in when... I can get married in ANY state

I will blend in when... I can adopt from ANY agency

I will blend in when... the words homo- and heterosexual become taboo

I will blend in when... everyone works together to fight against AIDS

I will blend in when... I can serve freely in the military

I will blend in when... I can dress and act how I wish, without judgement

I will blend in when... my family can be seen as any other family

I will blend in when... I send my children to school without fear of ridicule, on their behalf

I will blend in when... I recieve equal rights in the workplace for myself and my partner

I will blend in when... everyone can come together and focus on important issues like war, the environment, health care and global poverty

I will blend in when... my relationship is seen as normal and not immoral

I will blend in when... there's no such thing as a closet

I will blend in when... pride parades become an all-encompassing celebration of diversity

I will blend in when... you truly look at me as your equal

When will you blend in?

Thanks to QueerSighted's Richard for suggesting the video.

Looking for love in all the wrong places? You're not the only one. Finding the love of your life is about as easy as finding the best Cher impersonator at Drag night; there are so many choices but how do you know who's really the best?

Our friends over at Queerty.com sat down with the Dr. of Love herself, Dr. Helen Fisher. Not only is she known for being the leading expert on relationships, she uses her extensive background in evolutionary anthropology to merge physiological and emotional aspects of love. Having received my Bachelor's of Science in Zoology and Animal Behavior, this article really tickled my fancy so I was more than happy to report back on this intriguing article with such a knowledgeable figure.

Perhaps her most famous study, set forth in her 1992 book, Anatomy of Love, broke relationships down into three self-explanatory "stages": lust, attraction and attachment. Each stage develops at its own rate, typically playing out over many months, starting off in a compassionate stage and ending with a deep emotional attachment that leads into a companionate love.