Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 85

Why is Mike Huckabee declaring war on lgbt families?

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Mike Huckabee has attacked lgbt families again. This is what he said recently on CNN:

"I believe that we're in denial about potential problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families. Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood."

Personally, I think the only person dealing with denial problems is Huckabee. If he had any true questions regarding same-sex households, there are a plethora of studies out there which prove that same-sex households don't pose a danger to children.

But let's be honest there. Huckabee  has no interest in educating himself on same-sex households.

He just doesn't like same-sex households just as he has proven that he has a serious disdain for the lgbt community in general.  His comments are obviously carefully measured soundbites designed to bash same-sex households while simultaneously making himself sound like a reasonable person.

No matter how nice he tries to make them seem, they still add up to ignorant homophobia of the highest level (yes I know I am using an oxymoron but it best describes the depths that Huckabee stooped to in this attack). 

Huckabee comes across as a bully, not a presidential candidate.

And by the way, just in case you need to keep score, in the perfect world of Mike Huckabee, a same-sex household who takes in children, thereby giving them the love and support they need to get through life is wrong:

However, mingling with an anti-gay hate group who claim that lgbts are trying to sexualize children when we aren't pushing gay marriage to open the door for bestiality, that's right:

A bizarro world indeed.

DOJ Backing Down On DADT As Well?

Lee, from Clarksville, TN, from Jeff Sheng's DADT photobook. Soon to be a collector's item from a bygone era? Buy it here.

The Department of Justice met its deadline to file briefs in the Log Cabin Republicans Constitutional challenge to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Law," late yesterday.

The news seems to be not so much what they did say, but rather, what they didn't say.

There is no contemporary reference to the Constitutionality of the law.

Cross-Posted to Daily Kos. Rec if you got it, please.
I know, we thought we were done with DADT. But the New York Times legal analyst Josh Schwartz reported earlier this week on the pending motions in Log Cabin Republican's case, he explains:

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Remains in Effect Months After Passage of Law to End It."

The bill passed by Congress did not actually repeal "don't ask, don't tell," but only created a mechanism for doing so. The policy will not end until 60 days after the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the Department of Defense "has prepared the necessary policies and regulations" to carry out the change, and that the shift will not damage the ability of the military to fight or recruit. Until then, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 expressly states that the old policy "shall remain in effect."

This is the primary justification the plaintiffs have utilized to keep the suit alive. Arguing against the DOJ's motion to stay the case, the LCR contended:

"The government has acknowledged, in conversations with appellee's counsel, that the military has in fact continued to discharge individuals under Don't Ask, Don't Tell since the stay of the district court's injunction."

That discharges have continued was not disputed in the DOJ's response brief. The Justices of the Appellate court subsequently denied the DOJ's motion for a stay.

The New York Times also quotes Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on the prospect of continuing discharges:

Mr. Sarvis said that his group was working with several service members who are currently under investigation, and that discharges were still possible. And that, he said, is "unfortunate."

It is also not clear if openly gay citizens are permitted to enlist. One presumes not as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not updated his post-bill signing declaration that DADT is still in effect. I've seen no reports that confirm or deny the military's enlistment policies toward openly gay citizens.

Now, the DOJ's argument in the brief appears to have been rather meager and off-point. Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly answers speculation that the DOJ might not even step up to defend it again, and take a pass, as they did on DOMA, but:

It has done so, though, in a rather remarkable way: It changed the question of what the lawsuit is. Noting that "[t]he repeal process is well under way," the government argues that the appellate court should not be deciding whether DADT is constitutional but should instead be deciding whether the DADT repeal process is constitutional.

The government, in fact, doesn't even directly address the constitutionality of DADT, aside from a single mention of past cases and past briefs.

I might suggest an edit that included the DOJ TRIED to change "the question of what the lawsuit is." I am not convinced the Justices will agree that the suit has changed, or that the option exists to change the question before the court, although they may agree it's changed.

Plaintiff attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans, Dan Woods agrees the DOJ has ducked the question:

"The government's brief is stunning for what it does not say. As expected, it argues that Log Cabin Republicans lacked standing to bring the case and that Judge Phillips lacked authority to issue a world-wide injunction. Judge Phillips's 85-page decision from October 2010 covered these points in great detail, and we are confident that the government's arguments on these points will be rejected. The government's only other argument is that the recent repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was constitutional but that was not an issue tried before Judge Phillips and was never part of the government's case before. The government's brief does not address the due process or first amendment issues on which Judge Phillips based her decision nor the standard of review applicable to our challenge to the constitutionality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. By not arguing merits of the constitutionality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the government's brief, by its silence on these issues, is effectively conceding that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was and is unconstitutional. While it may be implicit, it is the first time in the six-plus-year history of the case that the government has not argued that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is constitutional. This is a major change in the government's position."

Tom Carptenter, board member of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has the same read:

"I concur with Dan, that the Government in its open brief concedes the unconstitutionality of DADT by omitting to even address Judge Phillips' decision on the most important issue in the case."

Now, I'm not an attorney. But a friend of mine is, and I bounced it off of him, and his off the cuff reaction was very similar:

I think Woods is absolutely right. DOJ's brief is just BIZARRE. It doesn't address the standard of review. It also doesn't address the substance of the two issues on which Philips invalidated the statute. It's like the legal version of an air ball.

If I were one of the judges on the panel, my first question to DOJ's lawyer would be, "Excuse me, but would you care to tell us whether you think this statute is constitutional or not?"

Seems the DOJ is attempting to change the subject by not addressing the underlying Constitutionality of the statute itself. Lisa Leff of the Associated Press describes the DOJ's position this way:

The relevant question now before the 9th Circuit, West maintained, is not whether "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional, but whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to leave the policy in effect while the Pentagon works toward its repeal.

Generally this seems to have been met with a warm welcome in the gay community. John Aravois asks: Did Obama admin. just do a 180 on DADT's constitutionality?



One the one hand, "airballing" is a legal strategy the gay community could welcome. Many in the gay community do feel an investment in seeing a Court vindication the Constitutionality of LGBT discriminatory legislation (evidenced by the glee that erupted by the DOMA position reversal). A Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia moment for our own community, if you will.

Of course, on the other hand, the Supreme Court of the United States is not the friendliest terrain. And the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is more complicated than that of civil marriage recognition as it also bumps up against a long history of deferment to military authority on issues of civil rights.

It's very hard to divine what the DOJ's long-term strategy is in this case. If I had to guess, I'm betting they are hoping, regardless of the outcome in the Appellate Court that they never have to argue this case at the SCOTUS. They are perhaps banking on the hope the final certification of repeal of the statute predates any SCOTUS appeal and moots the case entirely. Even those who hope for a validating day in court may be wise to agree.

In fact, the news has been largely encouraging on the movement to actually repeal the policy. Air Force Times recently reported:

DADT training for broader force coming March 1

The Air Force has started instructing some airmen on the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," with training headed to the rest of the force March 1.

The service began instructing the Air Force experts who implement policy changes and personnel who will provide repeal-related services the week of Feb. 14, spokesman Maj. Joel Harper said.

The most awkward position the administration could find themselves is defending the Constitutionality of this law at the Supreme Court, while still in the process of dismantling it on the ground. The specter of that is a pretty powerful incentive to cut through bureaucracy and resistance that might drag out implementation and certification.

More response briefs will be filed, and although not scheduled, oral arguments are likely. It will be interesting to see if the appeals court allows them to be aired as they did the Perry v. Schwarzenegger arguments. The most recent schedule seems to be:

February 25, 2011: Government's opening brief due

March 28, 2011: LCR response due

April 11, 2011: Government's reply due

Stay tuned.

SPLC puts Cliff Kincaid's homophobia on centerstage

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

The Southern Poverty Law Center has given a "much deserved" spotlight to another purveyor of  homophobic propaganda - Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (AIM).

In the newest issue of its Intelligence Report, SPLC documents Kincaid's history of lies:

 Cliff Kincaid is one of the American far right’s most energetic and obsessive propagandists. For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the “liberal” media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views.

Regarding the lgbt community, SPLC had this to say about Kincaid:

He has blamed gays for corrupting the military and making America more vulnerable to terrorism. He says the “pro-homosexual media” has created the false perception of “overwhelming public support” for repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. “Establishment journalists,” he has written, “are aligned with academia” (“sexual perverts masquerading as scholars”) in supporting transgendered individuals — “a cruel hoax to undermine the already shaky foundation of the traditional family.” He can’t contain his rage at the Republicans for not expelling gays from their ranks, titling a recent article, “Is the GOP becoming the Gay Old Party?” And he has been one of the staunchest defenders of a draconian proposed law in Uganda that would impose the death penalty on large numbers of gay men — a proposal so radical that even many hard-line U.S. anti-gay groups have felt constrained to denounce it. To Kincaid, the proposed law seems merely “designed to send a message to … the foreign homosexual lobby to keep their hands off Uganda’s families and kids.”

Kincaid has taken his anti-gay message on the road recently, participating in an August conference put on by the hard-edged Americans for Truth about Homosexuality where he promised to expose “gay influence on the media” and “the homosexual drive for the ‘right’ to donate possibly infected and contaminated blood to the nation’s blood supply.”

Believe it or not, there is worse stuff in the article regarding Kincaid's "crusade" against the lgbt community, including his bad attempt at smearing Obama appointee Kevin Jennings as a pedophile; a crusade which backfired in his face.

The article sounds like there may very well soon be a new addition to SPLC's list of anti-gay hate groups.

And based on Kincaid's past behavior, it would be a welcomed addition.

Related posts:

One News Now and Cliff Kincaid demonstrate homophobia, ability to lie

Family Research Council distorts British article in attack on gay soldier

Anti-gay 'Truth Academy' on deck for this week

Cliff Kincaid's International Gay-Bashing

Cliff Kincaid: Outcry against Ugandan bill a conspiracy to save Kevin Jennings

From 'Fistgate' to 'NAMBLA-gate' - The attacks on Kevin Jennings get stranger and stranger

Cliff Kincaid: Outcry against Ugandan bill a conspiracy to save Kevin Jennings

Right-wing site removes post calling Kevin Jennings a pedophile

It's Time to Get Angry About the Promotion of Unsafe Sex in the Gay Community

[Cross-Posted at Daily Kos]

I'm angry at the proliferation and popularity of "bareback" porn and blogs and hook-up websites and their increasing acceptance in mainstream gay culture. Since this diary is about porn a lot of the links are going to be sexually graphic and those will be clearly labeled Not Safe For Work (NSFW).

A little history about me: I was a gay activist in the 70s and 80s in New York and here in San Francisco. More can be found here. I ran away from home in Queens, NY two months before my 16th birthday in 1971. I immediately joined the Gay Activists Alliance. At age 18 I moved to San Francisco and I, along with my friend Howard Wallace helped start Bay Area Gay Liberation (known as BAGL) in 1974. Many organizations (including what became the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club) and activists (including Assemblyman Tom Ammiano) grew out of or got their start in BAGL.

The last organization I was a part of in the 80s was, somewhat ironically given what I am writing about today, the Committee to Defend Our Sexual and Civil Liberties, which fought to stop the city from closing all baths and sex clubs as a response to AIDS. Actually, it isn't that ironic because we still believed in safe sex. I handed out pamphlets from the Harvey Milk club (despite my strong disagreement with their support of closing the baths) promoting safer sex. One of our arguments was that it was far better to have places where you could have condoms and safe-sex literature and where you could monitor the activity in the public spaces than to push it underground to places where there would be no way to monitor or provide condoms and which could also be dangerous. At the time we were thinking of parks and restrooms and the like but now it is the internet and the iPhone which has turned the whole world into a virtual bathhouse and made that prediction come true in ways that even we couldn't have imagined at the time. Now you have scores of websites like BarebackRT (Bareback Real Time -NSFW) that are devoted to facilitating hook-ups between men who want to have unprotected anal sex.

For anyone unfamiliar with the term - barebacking has become a euphemism for condomless sex in the gay community. It started with "bareback" porn in the late 90s. The gay male porn industry had voluntarily started requiring condom use in the mid 80s (after sadly, almost all of the major gay porn stars from the 70s died from AIDS). They were heroes in the fight against AIDS. They helped make safer sex hot and for many of us porn became, at least partly, a substitute for the real thing, the safest form of sex. Unlike in the hypocritical straight world, porn is very much a part of the mainstream in the gay male community. Porn stars and sex workers are valued and looked up to. In the 80s and 90s they very much earned that respect and adulation. But in the late 90s, after the discovery of Protease Inhibitors and the drug cocktail, which turned HIV from an automatic death sentence to a "manageable chronic disease", a new force emerged called "bareback porn" that openly featured unsafe sex. Hot Desert Knights from Palm Springs and Treasure Island Media from San Francisco were the first ones. While Hot Desert Knights presented it as fantasy that should not be tried at home and tested their models, Treasure Island Media were the bad boys who openly advocated "transgressive" sex. It's founder, Paul Morris once described HIV-negativity as "the new virginity" and he seems to be on a mission to make sure there are no virgins left.

What makes me so angry is that what was once a small underground phenomenon has now become mainstream, with very little protest from the majority of responsible gay men. Bareback porn studios claim that bareback porn now outsells gay porn with condoms. There is a video rental store in the heart of the Castro called Superstar Satellite. Barebacking used to be limited to one section in their porn room. Now it is everywhere. They have huge displays in the front window promoting it, even during the Frameline LGBT Film Festival which uses their store as their temporary headquarters. At a Q&A after a film about safe sex during last year's festival, I pointed out the irony of having to walk past a display promoting bareback porn in order to buy tickets.

What's worse is AIDS and other charitable organizations like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence co-sponsor fundraisers with companies like Naked Sword, which feature bareback porn on their website. It's parent company bragged (NSFW) about the fact that the movie most watched on all of their websites in a single month - gay or straight - was a Treasure Island Media creation called the "1000 Load Fuck" (NSFW) where a man "takes a thousand fucking manloads, over a gallon of cum up his ravenous young ass", some delivered in person, most by use of a turkey baster. A local leather bar featured this movie during last year's Folsom Street Fair after having sponsored a party for Treasure Island Media the previous day. Another South of Market bar held a party co-sponsored by Treasure Island Media and Naked Sword which featured a live barebacking show.

Bareback porn is given away as prizes at benefits for AIDS and other organizations. These benefits are organized by third parties but they are perfectly capable of telling those third parties not to allow bareback porn to be given away if they are going to be the recipient of any funds. I recently saw this happen at a benefit for Lyric, an organization for LGBT youth. I sent them an email asking if they thought this was sending the right message to LGBT youth. I got a "we weren't the organizer" and "sorry if you were offended" message back. At least the Stop AIDS Project responded that they have told organizers not to give away bareback DVDs when I complained about a similar incident involving them. The Sisters told me that they were "non-judgmental" about people's "fetishes" as if barebacking were just another harmless fetish. These organizations are all getting taxpayer money and they should be held accountable for what is done in their name.

What we ended up with in the 80s was a compromise ordered by a judge that said that sex clubs (and even bathhouses) could remain open but that sexual activity had to be monitored and condom use for intercourse had to be enforced and that there could be no private rooms that couldn't be monitored. Bathhouses could have stayed open if they removed the doors and some tried but ultimately closed for lack of business. However, this only applied to San Francisco and bathhouses with private rooms remain open to this day in Berkeley and San Jose. Mayor Feinstein and the Health Dept. Director at the time wanted all bathhouses and sex clubs closed so we won a partial victory. It was a good compromise that probably saved a lot of lives while still allowing for more sexual freedom than in most other urban area in this country. Unfortunately in recent years under Mayor Newsom new spaces have opened up that are not enforcing these rules. I have met with people in the Health Dept. and they say they lack the authority to act because the rules apply only to registered sex clubs and these other parties are at rented out private spaces. However we are talking about parties advertised on the internet, on Facebook or Yahoo groups. Admission or a "suggested donaton" is charged. In one case, City Entertainment, you have an adult bookstore that has opened up a second floor for what clearly is a sex club with beds, glory holes, large screen TVs showing porn. There was a party at City Entertainment after the last Folsom Street Fair that was sponsored by BarebackRT.com, which had a huge booth at the Fair promoting the party. No one seemed to mind.

I alerted the Health Dept. in advance but they did not take any action. They set up a meeting with me after the party and they asked me to tell them what went on if I went. That was the first and last specifically advertised as bareback sex party I have ever attended. To the credit of City Entertainment, they did put condoms everywhere and some people were even using them but the majority were not. There was no effort to enforce condom use and the rules posted by City Entertainment do not say condoms are required. They showed bareback porn on the TVs. There was one with the sound turned up (instead of music playing in the other rooms) made by the website and I thought it quite revealing that it had a guy constantly calling the guy he is fucking a "faggot". This is a new and disturbing trend I'm seeing in gay porn, especially on x-tube.

For those who say that bareback porn is just fantasy and that gay men can understand the difference between fantasy and reality, they should have seen what I saw at that party. People were clearly imitating the fantasies they have seen in bareback porn. Treasure Island Media introduced the ridiculous term "breeding" to describe the transfer of semen during anal sex between men. If you look closer what they really are fetishizing is the transfer of HIV. One video (very, very NSFW - a bareback porn blog) featured a model with a "Biohazard" tattoo just in case you didn't get the message.

And while most of their models probably contracted HIV a long time ago they are clearly encouraging the fantasy of seroconversion. They helped spur the real but overblown trend that emerged in the last decade of "bug chasers" and "gift givers" - people who actively sought out to get or give HIV. As one comment on that blog said:

SEAN'S SCENE IN BAREBACKING ACROSS AMERICA WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECES OF POZ BAREBACK PROPAGANDA IN MY CHASING DAYS...HE'S A MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR 100s or 1000s OF OTHERS LIKE ME. AND I KNOW HE KNOWS IT. A GOOD MAN...

The number of people who were consciously doing that was small but the number of people who were objectively doing the same thing is much larger. At this party people were shouting things like "breed him". One person was, with the active encouragement of an onlooker, begging for as many men as possible to use him as a "cum dump". Again, language from bareback porn. Last Saturday, Feb. 19th, City Entertainment hosted another party sponsored by barebackrt.com which I did not attend. It's time for the SF Dept. of Public Health to do its job and enforce safe sex rules everywhere in public spaces, whether registered as sex clubs or not. It is not fair to the sex clubs that are enforcing these rules to have to deal with this unfair competition.

I have fought for sexual freedom all my life. I am legally married now but I am definitely not monogamous. I don't want to shut any of these places down. I just want them to enforce condom use. Part of the problem is the LGBT movement, in our fight for marriage equality, has become so focused on showing how much we are like straight people that we have left a large segment of our community behind. The reality is that the vast majority of gay men, especially young gay men, are either single or in open relationships. And the last thing the movement wants to talk about these days is sex, especially casual or anonymous promiscuous sex. That has left a void that the bareback porn industry has been more than happy to fill. We need a radical sex-positive wing of the movement again to promote both sexual freedom and responsibility.

I support the campaign by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to require condom use in porn. I support the requirement to use condoms for businesses that allow sexual activity. Unlike Larry Kramer, I support Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV Prevention (a topic for another diary). Given the reality that even under the best of circumstances some gay men are going to have unsafe sex, don't we want every possible weapon at our disposal to fight this disease? And condoms sometimes break and very few of us use them for oral sex which, while less risky, the risk is not zero. So even people who practice safe sex most of the time might still benefit. Indeed, if PrEP should ultimately prove as effective as condoms when actually taken every day, I will gladly stand down on this issue because my only motivation is to stop the spread of this disease. I don't care how. We don't want to be like the religious right which would rather people die than do anything which might encourage people to have sex they don't approve of. Just about every argument against PrEP could be said about birth control pills too but I don't see anyone (on our side) saying we should ban The Pill because it could encourage people not to use condoms.

And of course, I certainly support efforts to find an effective vaccine or cure. But until we find another way, condoms are still the most effective way (other than abstinence) to stop the spread of HIV. We cannot let our guard down now. The startling statistic that 1 in 5 Gay men in urban areas are HIV Positive demonstrates that what we have been doing up to now is not working. A new and bolder approach is needed to turn this around. The time for action is now.

Montana: Moving towards a TP vision

I leave it to the reader to decide the exact meaning of TP. Via the Seattle Times:

With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.

It's the tea party world.

Does anyone in the class remember the last time states pushed hard for the theory of nullification? The scarey thing is that we are seeing the very same talk -- and often the very same bills -- in South Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, North Carolina and other states

I am really beginning to fear for this country, far more than I did when Bush II was president. Then, at least, the Republicans made an effort to appear sane.

Blogmistress heaven: five new songs from 'Eclipse' debut in throw-down set by Journey in Vegas

The usual disclaimer: it's an unusual break from political banter, so if this off-theme Journey post doesn't interest you, there's the regular brew of new content on the Blend to consume...

Let's just say that I'll be right up front when Journey comes to North Carolina in August (and go to a couple of other cities).

The concert was THAT good. Of course most fans would say that, but the energy Journey has playing live has always far surpassed its studio output, and this is absolutely the case. This was my first in-person concert, though I've been a fan since the late 70s. Sitting in a third row seat with a fellow friend who flew 24 hours from Japan to see this show at Planet Hollywood - Las Vegas, it was almost beyond belief to be that close to the band. And she's seen Journey 20 times, the majority of the concents with legendary frontman Steve Perry. Sachi said she was blown away last night by Arnel's performance.

As you can see by the photos (and I ended up with over 300+ fantastic shots), it was an incredible view. All of the guys in the band looked fit and road-ready; it's going to be a looong tour into next year. There's nothing like being able to make eye contact with Arnel Pineda, Neal Schon, Jonathan Cain and Ross Valory (sorry to say, I wish it were possible with drummer Deen Castronovo, who is a complete monster on the skins and has an angelic voice) while they jam to five completely new tunes that they debuted from the forthcoming "Eclipse" CD; it drops on May 24. (NOTE: See the setlist - and video of the five new songs - below the fold.)

In interviews prior to the concert, people were warned to expect a darker, heavier sound and theme to the new songs - and that's quite true of Edge of Emotion, Resonate, City of Hope, Chain of Love, and Human Feel. However, fans won't be disappointed --this is harder stuff, but it's still melodic Journey at its core.

The good:

All of the new songs kick ass. And despite songs with longer running times than the average single, my pick that is the most radio-friendly and sure hit -- if it gets played by DJs -- is Resonate. I can easily see Edge of Emotion and City of Hope charting well - there are a lot of album oriented rock (AOR) fans that are hungry to hear this kind of music.Arnel Pineda Rocks. There is no doubt. Any naysayers at this point have to give props or they are just holding serious personal grudges, and not judging talent. Arnel's pipes are married to the new material and to Neal Schon's harder licks on the new tracks. And props to him for being so generous to fans - I actually got a chance to speak on the phone to him after the concert.The fans rock: I was welcomed into the loyal online Journey fanbase fold prior to the concert. Many thanks for your kindness, enthusiasm and sharing your stories.Deen Castronovo gets to go wild on some of these new tracks. LOVE IT, Deeno.Good mix of old and new(er) tunes: A few songs from Revelation got a workout, thankfully, and the monster hits from the past are there.The seats and the venue. Um, yeah. There's no going back once you've been up front to see the band. The Planet Hollywood venue is not ginormous, and the acoustics were great.The volume: Mercifully, I didn't need earplugs, even though Journey rocked hard. The reason that I can report this is because the opening act, Night Ranger, prompted me to put in the plugs that Kate, my personal audiologist and spouse, told me to bring to Vegas. Rocking hard doesn't have to be painful. Thank you, Journey.The not-so-good (though these are subjective, of course):

Stage setup: Pretty spare, spartan; other fans seated further back said the lighting was excellent; when you're up close, that's not quite as apparent.Not enough Deen: While he gets ample time to show off his dazzling work on the skins, he only had 2 lead vocals - Mother, Father and Keep On Runnin'; Still They Ride was dropped. And the other obvious downside is he's behind the kit the whole time, so it's hard to see him when he's singing.If you came for ballads, you'll be disappointed: Aside from the must-plays - Open Arms and Faithfully, the soft stuff has been packed away in favor of the rockers. I like both, and generally the harder stuff is played is even heavier live. BTW, one song missing that rocks hard and was missed dearly -- "One More" from Trial by Fire -- that would have been a great addition to this set.Don't Stop Believing. I love this song, but it's been way played out. Also, the new coda was not as dynamic as the one on the last tour, so I spent my time focusing on taking photos. I guess the Glee crowd has to be tossed this bone.That's it for now; I do have more to say, but I have to check out and catch a plane back to the real world in a few. I'm looking forward to the summer so I can catch the J-Boys again.

Slideshow:

More below the fold - including the setlist and videos of the new songs.

The setlist for Vegas (vid, via hardcore fan RipRokken):

Separate Ways

Edge of Emotion (new song; mistitled on the YouTube)

Only the Young

Ask the Lonely

Never Walk Away

Send Her My Love

Resonate (new song):

Stone in Love

Keep on Running (Deen)

City of Hope (new song)

Lights

Open Arms

Chain of Love (new song)

Mother Father (Deen)

Escape

Guitar/Harmonica jamming - Neal/Jon

Wheel in the Sky

Human Feel (new song)

Be Good to Yourself

Faithfully

Don't Stop Believing

Encore:

Anyway You Want It

Lovin', Touchin', Squeezin'

Yes Maggie Gallagher, you are bigoted and NOM is homophobic. Here's why.

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

These days, it's relatively easy to be a talking head on news programs.

Just find some sucker with a lot of money willing to fund you,  created an organization with an important sounding name, give yourself an important sounding but meaningless title (senior fellow, research analyst, president, etc.), and they'll practically be beating at your door.

An incident yesterday on Fox News more than demonstrates that point. Not long after Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration would no longer defend DOMA, Fox News personality (you really don't think I'm going to call her a journalist, do you) Megyn Kelly had National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher on her show to whine about how evil this decision is for families.

Of course Gallagher's definition of families never seems to include lgbt families, leaving a lot of people out.

Nevertheless, Kelly allowed Gallagher to push her usual silly talking points, including one about how gays are inaccurately being compared to black people in terms of civil rights.

I sincerely hope that in discussing the DOMA decision - and hopefully this piece - no one falls for the divide and conquer technique of this person - Gallagher - who cares as much about the black community as she does the lgbt community.

And that level of care is zero.

What Gallagher and Kelly did were evasive tactics, much like other tactics Gallagher seems to have mastered when talking about gay marriage. Give her five minutes and she will try to pivot the conversation from the same-sex households negatively affected by her activism to how she and others like her are supposedly unfairly called "bigots" for supposedly simply trying to "protect marriage."

Okay, let go on that angle. Let's break down the acts of Gallagher and NOM and pose the question - are these the acts of a bigoted, homophobic organization or people simply trying to "defend marriage:"

November 20, 2009 - Signer of Manhattan Declaration wanted to jail gays and lesbians - By signing an anti-gay document, The Manhattan Declaration, Gallagher and NOM affiliates themselves with folks who want to jail lgbts.

February 1, 2010 - Maggie Gallagher commits 'sin of omission' to make case against marriage equality - Gallagher cites a study to bash gay marriage and gay parenting, even though the study had nothing to do with either concept.

March 8, 2010 - TinyU-R-Gay: @NOMupdates limits gay lives to less than 140 characters/years - A NOM tweet actually pushing the lie that gays have a short life span.

June 14, 2010 - National Organization for Marriage: Gays Were Never Hunted Down and Murdered Like 'Jews, Christians, and Blacks' - NOM is found to be affiliated with Louis J. Marinelli during its failed summer for marriage tour. Amongst other things, Marinelli claims that gays want to molest children. When Marinelli's words became public, NOM claimed that the organization had no affiliation with Marinelli. However certain links posted as an update to the story demonstrated that NOM did have an affiliation with Marinelli.

June 28, 2010 - Message to Maggie Gallagher: associating with bigots does make you a bigot - NOM associates itself with another bigoted group, The Traditional Value Coalition. Amongst other things, TVC head Lou Sheldon has said that gays should be referred to as "sodomites."

July 27, 2010 - National Organization for Marriage needs to disavow its 'zany' followers - NOM not only has a problem with the homophobia of those in its ranks, but also those who support the group, particularly the guy with the poster of the hangman's nooses.

February 11, 2011 - PolitiFact catches anti-gay group NOM in a huge lie about gay marriage and children - Pultizer Prize-winning news site calls NOM out on a lie that gay marriage is being taught to kindergartners in Massachusetts.

February 17, 2011 - National Organization for Marriage called out AGAIN for distortive tactics - NOM commissions a misleading poll claiming that the majority of folks in Maryland oppose gay marriage. They are called out on it by a local columnist.

February 22, 2011 - National Organization for Marriage makes the case for being an anti-gay hate group - NOM pushes a piece written by syndicated columnist Mike McManus of the group Marriage Savers. The column has several distortions about gays, including the lie that gay men have a shorter life span than heterosexuals. NOM has not distanced itself from this piece.

Again, I ask does this sound like a Christian defender of "the family" or a homophobic bigot exploiting fear and ignorance for a paycheck?

John Boehner's Made Of Fail Statement On DOMA

Speaker of the House John Boehner, having been on the recieving end of the political hot potato that the Obama Administration tossed into his lap released a statement that's delirious and hilarious in its irony:

From AmericaBlog:

A spokesman for Boehner's office criticized the administration change of position.

'While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,' said spokesman Brendan Buck."

Hilarious! While Boehner's tenure as Speaker has been characterized by his furious search for jobs in the wombs of women who wish to make their own reproductive choices, he's accusing Obama of "stirring up controversy" by essentially, ceding a fight.

The Obama administration just very wisely cleared their plate of this "controversial issue," Speaker Boehner. If this issue continues to generate controversy, it will be because members of your own caucus stepped up and did what the Department of Justice is no longer inclined to do: Defend DOMA in Court.

So, if you decry the continued controversy on this issue, Speaker Boehner, put the weight of your office behind that sentiment: Tell your caucus to let this go. Tell the House Republicans not to defend DOMA. And then, absent anyone to defend DOMA, the controversy will go away.

The ball's in your Court Speaker.



Do you want to concentrate on jobs? Or do you want your caucus to step up and defend DOMA?

IRS Cracks Code for Same Sex Couples in WA, NV and CA - Better Get Aspirin

The IRS took same-sex couples in Washington, Nevada and California one step forward in our battle for equality, but made it as painful and confusing as possible.

According to the Wall Street Journal, last year a partnered/married California couple (again) asked the IRS how they should file their taxes.  DOMA prohibits them from filing jointly, but California is a community property state for same-sex couples (in essence, what's yours is mine when it comes to assets in a relationships).  The IRS responded that they should combine their tax information, divide by two, and submit two separate returns.  According to the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News, the IRS is making it mandatory for all same-sex California couples in 2010.

Though Washington and Nevada have received considerably less press coverage then California, they are also community property states with domestic partnership laws and according to Lambda Legal the same rules are being applied.  If you are in this group, is time to consult an accountant!

This is great news if you are a same sex couple in one of these states and each of you is in a different tax bracket (think highly overpaid teachers matched up with severely underpaid governors).  Your family's tax bill may actually go down!  And you may be able to refile taxes for up to three prior years.

Now the bad news. 

You most likely cannot file electronically. 
You most likely will be questioned by the IRS because your taxes do not match your W2s. 
You will have to write the IRS a check for one person's taxes while you wait for the refund to come from the other's. 
And if you and your partner are in the same tax bracket, you get absolutely no benefit, but do have the pleasure of now having extremely complicated taxes!

All we can do is hope that the President's decision not to support DOMA Section 3 will allow the IRS to simplify this process in the future.

Breaking: Obama DOJ - DOMA unconstitutional; to stop fighting it in court

Jonathan Capehart at the WaPo:

A well-placed and trusted source tells me that, any minute now, Attorney General Eric Holder will issue a statement announcing that it will no longer defend so-called Defense of Marriage Act lawsuits in court. The source believes DOJ had come to the conclusion that heightened scrutiny would apply, and that these cases cannot be defended in court. A 530d letter has been sent to Congress informing it that, if it wants to defend the statute, it is free to do so. A case is pending now that has a filing deadline of March 11.

The official statement from the DOJ:

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

WASHINGTON - The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department's course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court.   Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment.   While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.  

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated.   In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.   The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.   Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.   I fully concur with the President's determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.   We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.   I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option.   The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.  

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ' s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.   At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because - as here - the Department does not consider every such argument to be a "reasonable" one.   Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.  

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA.   The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional.   Congress has repealed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.   Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional.   Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.   But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

You know this means that the bigots in the NC General Assembly are sure to move that marriage amendment now. Will the Dems take a stand?

As I said earlier, game on.