Category Archives: Homophobia

Friday, March 29, 2013

You Gotta Have Fringeship

Dr. Benjamin Carson has been touted as a rising star in the Republican party ever since he raised eyebrows at the National Prayer Breakfast by being snarky to President Obama.  (Of course, if a liberal had been rude to President Bush, he would have been targeted — literally — by the orcosphere.)  But it seems as if the good doctor is already fringing out.  On Sean Hannity’s show he laid out his views on marriage equality:

Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition. So he [sic], it’s not something that is against gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

So with the GOP’s awkward attempts to get on the good side of marriage equality, this is probably one of those moments that they’d just as soon not have publicized.  And I wonder whether Dr. Carson, who is African-American, holds the same view that “changing the definition” of marriage applied to the Supreme Court ruling that banned interracial marriage.

Maybe he and Rep. Don Young should put together a road show for National Brotherhood Week.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Joe The Plumber Mansplains Marriage Equality For You

Via Steve M, the former candidate for the House from Toledo tells us that teasing boys with gay slurs is a part of growing up and Becoming A Man.

While being gay has been around forever, (here I go) it’s not a normal thing for a man to look upon another man with lust in his eyes. Acceptance is one thing, but to label it as normal is where things begin to go south. A little background.

30 years ago we use to play a game called “smear the queer;” a game where whoever had the football got gang tackled. It was a normal. If you had the ball, you were the queer, because no one else had the ball, and having the ball made you odd or “queer” in that respect. Of course, you could throw the ball to another player and the pack would quickly turn to smear that queer, without regard to his or her sexuality, I might add. Queer, gay, homo, fag meant nothing having to do with what you were attracted to and no one committed suicide, got beat up or even called names in that regard. That was my experience.

Then, about ten years later, the media and the ever-tolerant Hollywood (not), began portraying homosexual (men) on television and film as the “Funny” one or the one you felt sorry for – just to get us used to the idea. C’mon – who didn’t laugh at Paul Lynde or Charles Nelson Reilly? And not until Ellen demanded her character come out of the closet (which she was summarily fired for) did gay characters litter the big and small screen alike, whether it was important or not. ( Just to go a little further with this point, Hollywood will put “gay” characters in tv show/movies that are not relevant to the plot. They try to portray this as “Normal” America. I can tell you right now, when I’m tossing the football with my son in front of the house, I have never seen 2 men hand in hand prancing down the street. You?)

In other words, hey, what’s wrong with bullying and marginalizing people who don’t act like “normal” people?  C’mon, butch it up!

Yeah, it’s not like Joe has issues or anything.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Without a Prayer

When Barack Obama was inaugurated the first time, he had the invocation read by Pastor Rick Warren, who, among other things, is noted for not being terribly sympathetic to the rights of all people.

Those of us in the gay community were not happy, but we figured, hey, he’ll learn, and his attempt at being open to all points of view from the pulpit was well-intended if not well-handled.

So this time around, the invocation will be read by Myrlie Evers, the widow of Medgar Evers who was murdered 50 years ago for his work in civil rights in Mississippi.  Well, that’s a nice move; it represents a historical connection with the modern times and reminds us how far we’ve come to be inaugurating our first African-American president for the second time.

But then the inauguration committee stepped on the rake by inviting Pastor Louie Giglio of the Georgia-based Passion City Church to deliver the benediction.  Mr. Giglio is on the record as being vocally anti-gay.

 In a mid-1990s sermon identified as Giglio’s, available online on a Christian training website, he preached rabidly anti-LGBT views. The 54-minute sermon, entitled “In Search of a Standard – Christian Response to Homosexuality,” advocates for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, references a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impels Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society.

Here’s an idea: drop the invocation and the benediction altogether.  It’s a political ceremony, not a church service, and exhortations to mythological beings really don’t belong there.  After all, the oath being taken is to the Constitution, not to some god, and while taking it with the hand on the bible is tradition, it’s not required; John Quincy Adams used a law book.

Actually, the ceremony at the Capitol on Monday, January 21, will be just that; a ceremony.  The actual inauguration will take place the day before in the White House because the Constitution requires it on January 20.  But since that’s a Sunday, it will be done privately, presumably without Ms. Evers and Mr. Giglio.  And that’s the inauguration that really matters.

Update: As Reader Julie noted in the comments, Mr. Giglio has backed out of the ceremony, leaving in a holy huff:

Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.

The pastor demonized gays and then gets his tail all puffed up because people pointed it out to him.  Well!

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Remote Control

Via JMG, we learn today that One Million Moms, the right-wing guardians of all that is pure and holy, is hawking a device called TVGuardian.

Have you ever been watching what you thought was a good, clean, family movie…only to be ambushed by crude, offensive language? Ever heard God’s name used in vain or Jesus’ name as a cuss word on TV? The leading cable and satellite providers in America KNOW that families and people of faith don’t want obscene language on TV…yet they continue to do NOTHING about it. Now there’s a way YOU can take control over the language in your home: TVGuardian, the only foul language filter available for TV today. TVGuardian is a small box you connect to your TV and it automatically filters out foul language…crude language…sexual language…racial slurs…even God’s name in vain and Jesus’ name used as a cussword!

They want $129 for one of these little devices.

I have one on my TV and doesn’t cost a cent.  It’s called a Mute button.  There’s also something called the Off button.

I wonder what it was like at the TVGuardian factory when they were coming up with the list of “foul language” to include in the blocking software.  That must have been fun: “Hey, what about ‘sanctimonious busybodies’ — should that be on the list?  What about ‘closet case Speedo sniffer’?”

Isn’t it nice that a bunch of right-wing Jesus-shouting control freaks can dictate what you and your family should be watching on TV?  It’s so much better than you having to think for yourself or do your job as a parent.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Sunday Reading

The Change Is Coming — Jonathan Chait reviews the plans of each candidate if they win.

If you ask Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, or merely wander in front of a television when they are speaking, they will confidently tell you the same thing: This election poses a fundamental choice to America. And they are right. America is struggling to pull out of its deepest economic crisis in 80 years. The past four years have unleashed a raw, bitter war over economic class, our social obligation to the poor and sick, and the basic sustainability of the modern state that has existed since Franklin Roosevelt. Various events have conspired to compress the decisive battles of the war into a brief period at the beginning of the next year, in what will likely be an atmosphere of economic crisis. “2013,” says Paul Ryan, correctly, “is the magic year that determines how all this gets resolved.”

But when you press the candidates to explain just how it is they could escape the muck that has ensnared Obama the past two years, they descend into mushy platitudes. Romney promises “leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together and get the job done, and could not care less if it’s a Republican or a Democrat”—at most a mild Republican retreat from Obama’s aggressive reforms, or perhaps even a reprise of Romney’s often liberal tenure in Massachusetts. Obama, for his part, has offered up an even less plausible scenario, which is that, even though Republicans in Congress responded to his 2008 victory by becoming even more radical than they were under George W. Bush, winning a second election will beat the crazy out of them and usher in a new era of legislative compromise and good feelings.

It seems natural to conclude from all this vapid, buoyant patter that neither candidate has a plausible blueprint to avoid political gridlock, and that, whoever wins, the stalemate of the past two years will grind on into the next four. President Obama would still likely face a Republican House, and President Romney a Senate in which Democrats can mount a filibuster. Yet all the signs suggest both candidates do have strategies in mind to prod the creaky machinery of Washington to life and effect the dramatic change they vaguely but ardently promise. In fact, shortly after the next Inaugural Ball—perhaps very, very shortly after—the great stalemate between socialism and social Darwinism will break open and likely turn decisively in one direction or the other.

For different reasons, the candidates cannot openly describe these plans to the voters. But the clues are everywhere.

Pro-Gay — Charles Curtis of The American Prospect looks at the wave of support for gay rights coming out from professional sports.

The professional sports locker room can be a scary place, with unwritten rules and political rankings that include which players get lockers next to each other — or far, far away from one another. There are cliques, hazing, pranks, and outsize expectations of toughness. It’s the ultimate site where the stereotypes of what it means to be a man get played out, and the challenge is to fit in and not shake up the coveted “chemistry” teams strive to create. So it isn’t surprising that not a single active gay athlete has come out in American baseball, hockey, football, or basketball. But as the gay-rights movement makes strides in society at large — including the Obama administration backing marriage equality, more states voting to legalize gay marriage, and the military ending its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — the sports world is starting to change, too, with more and more athletes speaking out in support of the LGBT community.

Leading the way is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who has become most famous for his response to a controversy in Maryland last month. It began when Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo threw his support behind the state’s attempt to legalize gay marriage. Maryland Delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote a letter to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti demanding Bisciotti “inhibit such expressions from [his] employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions.”

Kluwe didn’t hesitate to respond: “Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level,” he wrote in a letter posted on the sports site Deadspin. Kluwe’s language got colorful — for lack of a better word — but the message was clear: Gay Americans should be “full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails.”

Kluwe has since written further pieces, including one that disagreed with former teammate and current Ravens center Matt Birk, who wrote a recent article for the Minneapolis Star Tribune opposing gay marriage. Kluwe even appeared on the cover of Out magazine and sees the change in attitude as generational. “I don’t think the environment has changed so much as the people have changed,” Kluwe says via e-mail. “As younger generations, ones that have been raised in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, make their way into the professional leagues, I think we’re seeing that it’s OK to discuss issues like LGBT rights because it’s not something to be scared of.”

Pay Attention, Class — Carl Hiaasen imagines a teacher conducting the debates.

If a fourth-grade teacher was moderating the final presidential debate:

First of all, everybody say good evening to Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. We’re very glad they came to South Florida for their last debate before the big election.

My name is Mrs. Krupkin, and I’ll be your moderator. As all my students at Red Tide Elementary can tell you, I run a pretty tight ship. Therefore, the rules for this debate will be a bit stricter than for the others.

Smirking or eye-rolling by either candidate won’t be permitted while the other is speaking. If I catch you doing it, I’ll stop the debate immediately and embarrass you in front of the whole country.

Is that clear? Excellent.

Second: The only person in this auditorium allowed to interrupt the candidates is me. If either Gov. Romney or President Obama cuts in while the other one is talking, the interrupter will lose his next turn and go into time-out for four minutes.

If you think I’m kidding, just try me. Annie Krupkin is not Jim Lehrer.

In my right hand is a list of questions from students in my class — good questions, too — and we’re going to get them answered one way or another tonight.

If a tough issue comes up, and either Gov. Romney or President Obama tries to change the subject, I will clap sharply and instruct him to start over.

Although past moderators didn’t seem to mind, changing the subject isn’t allowed here. Neither is stalling, or repeating one’s self.

When a detailed question is put forward, please don’t go off on a story about some hard-working American you supposedly met who can’t pay off a college loan, or get medical insurance, or find a job, and then tell us how things are going to be better if people vote for you instead of your opponent.

With all due respect to Gov. Romney and President Obama, everybody watching on TV knows why you guys like these heart-touching anecdotes. They chew up a lot of time, and save you from actually addressing the question.

But not tonight.

One word about that struggling single mother you met in Cleveland or the unemployed vet you saw at a donut shop in Biloxi, and I’m turning off your microphone. I even have a special switch — see?

Doonesbury — Facts for sale.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Insufferable

I am getting really tired of hearing about people like this.

The Catholic Church has been a leading force against marriage equality in all four state campaigns, and Archbishop John Nienstedt has been the fact of that opposition in Minnesota. He has repeatedly asked parishioners to vote and pray against marriage equality, arguing that such views “not prejudicial.” Now a letter has surfaced he wrote in 2010 “to a mother who pleaded for acceptance for her gay child,” in which he tells the woman she must reject her son according to Catholic teachings, or she might go to Hell as well.

I know that a number of people who read this blog are faithful members of the Catholic Church and have invested a great deal of their lives to it, and yet they also support the idea of marriage equality as a fundamental human right.  So my question to them is simple: how can you see this happening and not be angry and moved to change it?  I just don’t get it.

As you might expect, Chris Kluwe has some thoughts on the matter:

Millions of children grow up raised in the Catholic faith. Some of these children will be gay, through no choice of their own, but because of how God created them. What does it say to those children when the head of their religion in this state, a man who claims to “explain and defend the teaching of the Church because I have been ordained to do so and I believe those teachings with all my heart”, a man acting under the direct auspices of the Pope himself, tells them that they can’t be as worthy as everyone else, even though they believe in the teachings of Jesus? What will these children think, as they suffer the barbed insults of their classmates and teachers; I ask you, sir, what will these children think as they are belittled and tormented due to teachings you espouse? What judgment will be passed on your soul when yet another poor child reaches for the knife or the noose to end his or her earthly torment due to your example?

Do you presume to speak for God, Archbishop Nienstedt? Will you tell these children, faithful children who attend Sunday school and earnestly pray every day, that they are somehow lessened in God’s eyes? Will you grasp that millstone, Archbishop Nienstedt, grasp it all the way to the bottom, clutching at the heavy weight of earthly power and influence even as it drags you down?

Amen.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Sunday Reading

Today I have only one article to share.  I usually excerpt a portion of a piece to entice the reader to follow the link and read the entire article.  But this post by Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe as he responds to letter to the editor on the subject of marriage equality and why it does not affect straight marriage was too good not to include in its entirety.

Dear Mr. Balling,

I read your opinion piece in today’s Star Tribune, and I would like to take a brief moment of time to offer you some assistance in your future writing endeavors. I can only assume that you’ve never been trained in classical logic, debate techniques, or basic empathy, so I will humbly offer my own meager knowledge in these fields as it relates to your literary masterpiece “Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage”.

You start off strong, with an opening salvo ostensibly promoting the rights of other groups to have their own views (if we ignore the fear-mongering tag line “The goal is to move society — in this case, away from a safe environment for children), but then, much like a Michael Bay plot, your argument starts careening off the rails. Your first mistake is what we would consider “mind projection fallacy” – where one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.

When you state that “As we have seen, and understandably so, people in homosexual relationships are trying to change society to more readily embrace and promote their view of their identity. This is possible largely due to the disassociation between sexual relationships and procreation.”, what you’re really saying is “Those gay people do sex things that I find icky, and we should oppress them because they can’t have babies.” You completely ignore the fact that “people in homosexual relationships are trying to change society” not just because they want to have teh buttsecks (or rise and grind for the ladies), but also to avoid, oh I don’t know, things like being tortured and tied to a fencepost until you die (Matthew Shepard), shot to death while attending school (Lawrence King), shot to death for being transgender (Moses King), committing suicide by hanging due to repeated bullying and taunting (Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover), shot to death and burned while standing military guard (Seaman August Provost), stabbed to death after serving in the Vietnam War (James Zappalorti) – every single one of these attacks because of the victim’s sexuality. Let’s not even get into the over 1100 federal benefits gay couples are legally unable to obtain in this state because they can’t get married – things like health care, survivor benefits, legacies to pass on to their families (including children); things like tolerance, acceptance, and compassion.

Deep breath.

Moving on, we come to the next little pearl of wisdom hidden in your manifesto, that hoary old chestnut of “traditional marriage”. In this case, you’ve made the logical error of the “etymological fallacy” – that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual current meaning.

Which version of “traditional marriage” would you like to use Mr. Balling? Should we go back to ancient Israel and practice polygamy, with a woman’s only right that to own her own tent? Or should we use the ancient Greek definition of marriage, one more concerned with inheritance than love or procreation, one that would force a woman to divorce her current husband and marry a sibling if that was required to continue the family? Should we force a brother to marry his dead sibling’s wife? Or perhaps we should make arranged marriages with child brides, that’s certainly traditional enough. Wait, I know, let’s go with the one where you have to pay three goats and a cow in order to ensure the woman is yours to keep forever, and you can stone her to death if she cheats on you. That one sounds terrific!

You see, Mr. Balling, since you don’t actually provide a definition of what “traditional marriage” is, I think your definition of “traditional marriage” boils down to “I want to make other people who believe differently than I do miserable by taking away their free will so I’ll cloak my hate in the guise of ‘tradition’ and ‘history’ without knowing what those words really mean”, and, well, I’m not really ok with that. Also, “traditional marriage” has traditionally been rather tough on 50% of the human population, what with the whole enslavement and forced child bearing and stoning to death thing (I’m talking about women if you haven’t figured it out (sorry to the people who figured it out like 5 minutes ago but I wanted to make sure he got it)), and I’m not really ok with that either.

Deep breath. <whelps!>

Your third logical fallacy, and oh boy does this one crop up all the time, is that of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Now I’m guessing you may not be up to date on your Latin (or maybe you are, in which case well done!), so if you need help, I’d like to ask the entire class to say it along with me.

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

You can’t make the statement that “Bless the single parents who try, but there is a direct correlation between single homes and crimes of all types. If anything, the effects of broken homes indicate the importance of reestablishing the ideal of traditional marriage” and not expect any moderately intelligent person not to jump all over it. Single homes don’t *cause* crime. That’s like saying “I rode my bicycle to work today, and it rained, therefore my bicycle causes rain”. There are a multitude of factors related to crime including income, residence location, public resources available, education, education available, age demographics, police presence, temperature patterns, etcetera ad nauseum ad infinitum (that one means I could go on for a while (also, way to take a giant steaming literary dump on every single parent, infertile couple, and those who choose not to have kids; you’re making all sorts of friends today)). To single out single parents is, to put it bluntly, absolutely absurd.

And then, to make it even better, you somehow link an unsafe environment for children (somehow caused through single parents?) to same sex marriage by claiming it “reinforces changes to the marital definition”. Hooboy. Tell me, were you worried about the children when all those colored folks started marrying the white people? Because that sure was a change to the “marital definition”, and funnily enough there were a bunch of people using the same argument back then. Or how about when women started working? Are the kids unsafe now because mom wanted to actually do something with her life instead of putting on a plastic smile and tending the kitchen all day? (no offense to any stay at home mom or dads who choose to do so, I know that’s a full time job in itself and you have my respect) What happened when the “marital definition” changed to allow divorce and remarrying? Should we pass some more constitutional amendments preventing those? C’mon, don’t just stop with the gays, let’s go oppress a bunch of other people too!

AND THEN, to make it even more betterer (grammars!), you return to the mind projection fallacy by claiming that “Currently, as a society, we have wavered from this traditional motivation, and many, not all, view marriage as a venue for self-fulfillment”. It’s so nice of you, Mr. Balling, to define mine, and countless other marriages as “venues for self-fulfillment”. Odd though, I don’t remember you ever hanging out with my family and I, or with our neighbors, or providing any sort of factual information to back up your claim (and if you say I need to provide evidence to disprove it, that’s called onus probandi, in case you were interested). In fact, the only evidence that I’ve been able to glean from your entire ill-constructed argument, is that you don’t know how to construct an argument. You know, with facts and stuff. (Your argument is called an “appeal to emotion”, more specifically, an “appeal to fear”, if you wanted that for future reference)

Deep breath. <1%, don’t wipe now!>

Frankly, sir, your blatant attempt to sway people by using the “OH MAH GAWD THINK OF THE CHILDREN” argument is tiresome, bothersome, and insulting to anyone who cares to take the slightest interest in pulling aside your curtain of self satisfied drivel to expose the ugliness underneath. Furthermore, you never made any sort of logical attempt to explain how same-sex marriage affects your marriage in any concrete way, instead offering up vague generalizations with no proof. When it comes to “the children”, I can assure you that I *am* thinking of my children, and not just my children, but all the children they will come in contact with, and all the adults they will someday be; and it is my sincerest wish as a parent that I can raise them to be tolerant, to respect the free will of others, and above all, to see beneath the smug bigotry and oppression of those who would enslave the world to satisfy their own ugly lust for control. If you have any children, it is my hope that they enjoy a peaceful life, one free of tyranny.

Aaaaaaaaand fin.

Doonesbury — Prison reform.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

No Big Deal

A year after the repeal of DADT, the sky has not turned to fire, it is not raining frogs and pitchforks, and soldiers and sailors and all the other people in the military who lived on the knife edge of losing their job for who they are can go about their business.

Which was the whole point of the repeal in the first place.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Top Value Stamps

Because the Republican convention wasn’t full of enough Jesus-shouting and gay/women/immigrant/Muslim bashing for some, the good people who make their lives and their living out of doing things like that are getting together this week to roll around in their smug hatred of everyone else who isn’t full of the love of God and hatred of everyone else: The Values Voter Summit — long on irony but short on self-awareness — hits Washington on Wednesday.

The Values Voter Summit began in 2006 by a collection of Christian political action groups. This year is sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, Liberty University, Gary Bauer’s American Values, and bona fide Southern Poverty Law Center-certified hate groups, including the American Family Association, Liberty Counsel and the Family Research Council.

It’s a great way for mostly white, affluent, Christian heterosexuals to network and compare notes for hating on and oppressing gays, poor people, sexually active women, uppity people of color and, of course, any of those dangerous religious whackos that don’t worship the baby Jesus like all real Americans do. You can learn new strategies for meddling in other people’s lives and imposing your own values and beliefs into their most personal decisions.

Slated to appear:

Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann, Gary Bauer, Rick Santorum, Eric Cantor, Jim DeMint, Steve King, Rand Paul, Jan Brewer, William Boykin, Sean Hannity, Bishop Harry Jackson, and Edwin Meese III.

What, no Ted Nugent? I guess they’ll have to karaoke with Pat Boone.

HT to Betty Cracker.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Quite A Kick

Baltimore Raven player Brendan Ayanbadejo expressed support for Maryland’s referendum on marriage equality, much to the ire of Baltimore County state delegate Emmett Burns (and a Democrat, oy), who wrote a letter to the Ravens owner, basically telling him to shut his team member up.

That got the attention of Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings, and he knows how to kick. David Zirin at The Nation sums it up.

The punter sat down at his computer and produced the greatest political statement by any athlete ever… or at least since Muhammad Ali told the US Government that “the real enemy of my people is here.” Perhaps that’s hyperbole. Certainly it’s arguable. But what’s undeniable is the greatness of Kluwe’s rant. I quote my favorite parts below but I strongly encourage people to read it in it’s entirety here at deadspin. Warning that it’s brilliantly profane, or profanely brilliant, so you might not want to print it out at work and leave it lying around. Then again, if you work in a place with NFL fans prone to homophobic slurs, you might want to leave it everywhere.

Here’s just a part of it, in all its glory:

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you? In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterf-ck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

Touchdown and goal line dance.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Update from the War On Chicken

Rick Santorum and family go all golly-gee-willikers in support of family values and high cholesterol.

Before spreading delicious, delicious Santorum sauce all over his chicken sandwich, Santorum posted this Facebook note endorsing Mike Huckabee’s Chick-fil-A appreciation day:

“Help us fight to [sic] for traditional families and eat chicken at the same time.”

It’s an attempt on the part of the sanctimonious gay bashers to support the anti-gay restaurant chain in their effort to keep the icky queers away.

Trust me, it would work. If the Santorum brood showed up where I was eating, I’d leave.

Update from the War On Chicken

Rick Santorum and family go all golly-gee-willikers in support of family values and high cholesterol.

Before spreading delicious, delicious Santorum sauce all over his chicken sandwich, Santorum posted this Facebook note endorsing Mike Huckabee’s Chick-fil-A appreciation day:

“Help us fight to [sic] for traditional families and eat chicken at the same time.”

It’s an attempt on the part of the sanctimonious gay bashers to support the anti-gay restaurant chain in their effort to keep the icky queers away.

Trust me, it would work. If the Santorum brood showed up where I was eating, I’d leave.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Oreos Are Satan’s Snack

Oreo put a picture of a rainbow Oreo on their Facebook page to celebrate gay pride and the backlash among the sniveling bigots was both predictable and depressing.

Predictable in that these people will bark at stuff (and stuffing) like this, and depressing that they would get that worked up about a cookie. Seriously.

Oreos Are Satan’s Snack

Oreo put a picture of a rainbow Oreo on their Facebook page to celebrate gay pride and the backlash among the sniveling bigots was both predictable and depressing.

Predictable in that these people will bark at stuff (and stuffing) like this, and depressing that they would get that worked up about a cookie. Seriously.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Short Takes

The U.S. will help Turkey hold Syria accountable for the jet shoot-down.

Pakistan blames Afghan militants for killing 13 soldiers.

The Supreme Court struck down mandatory life sentences for young murderers.

A teen lesbian couple were shot in a park in Texas; one has died.

A federal judge has blocked a Florida law banning trade with companies that do business with Cuba.

R.I.P. Gad Beck, 88, last known gay Jewish survivor of the Holocaust.

Tropical Update: TS Debby is wreaking her havoc and heading east.

The Tigers beat the Rangers.

Short Takes

The U.S. will help Turkey hold Syria accountable for the jet shoot-down.

Pakistan blames Afghan militants for killing 13 soldiers.

The Supreme Court struck down mandatory life sentences for young murderers.

A teen lesbian couple were shot in a park in Texas; one has died.

A federal judge has blocked a Florida law banning trade with companies that do business with Cuba.

R.I.P. Gad Beck, 88, last known gay Jewish survivor of the Holocaust.

Tropical Update: TS Debby is wreaking her havoc and heading east.

The Tigers beat the Rangers.

Saturday, June 23, 2012