Laurie Essig

Does TX GOP think homos ' eat da pooh pooh ' ?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

Have you seen the "Eat Da Poo Poo" video yet?  It's of Ugandan minister Martin Ssermpa who is leading a church of homo-haters in disgust and revulsion at what gay men do behind closed doors.  And what do they do?  They "eat da poo poo," of course, "like ice cream." Despite the very real possibility that this sort of propaganda will lead to the death penalty for men who have sex with other men in Uganda, the man is so ridiculous and clearly located elsewhere that American queers have responded with humor more than outrage .  In fact, there's even a dance remix of the minister's anti-homo remarks. Having watched this with my teenaged daughter - it was on her favorite vlog- we had one of those "teachable moments." Teenager:  That's so messed up.  Uganda's messed up. Me: Yeah, but they're funded by American conservative Christians. Teenager: But Uganda's more messed up than here. Me: I hope so. Of course, "here" is a big country.  And what happens in the Northeast or the West coast is not necessarily what happens in Texas.  This is particularly true with the new Texas GOP platform that calls for the re-criminalization of sodomy AND seeks to make gay marriage a felony. According to the party's platform,

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Wow, the Texas Republicans must be watching some pretty strong anti-gay propaganda, maybe even Ugandan anti-gay propaganda, if they want to start putting people in jail for having sex that is not "reproductive."  Because that's what sodomy is: non-reproductive sex.  So really, straight couples are often guilty of it too if they engage in oral or anal, but somehow they're not the ones targeted by the police.  And although it was the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Lawrence that overturned sodomy laws nationally, Texas Republicans apparently think they can vote to ignore Supreme Court rulings. Meanwhile, back in Washington, the Obama administration is surprised that queer Americans aren't satisfied with all that the administration has done for "the gay agenda."  According to an article in the Times today,

The Obama White House has accomplished more than any other on gay rights, yet has drawn sharp criticism from an unexpected constituency: the same gay activists who backed the president's election campaign. Instead of the sweeping change gays and lesbians had sought, a piece-by-piece approach has been the administration's favored strategy, drawing neither serious fire from conservatives nor lavish praise from activists.

But according to many people living queer lives in the US, it's too little too late.  The Obama administration hasn't repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, has defended "traditional marriage" including by invoking "incest" in one of its briefs, and has generally insisted it cannot pass any sweeping gay rights because Americans don't support it (despite at least half of Americans supporting gay marriage and 70% of Americans thinking gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military-- and if we throw Texas out of these polls, I'm guessing the numbers are much higher). Hopefully the GOP in Texas is a dying party, not due to its anti-gay bigotry, but its anti-Latino rhetoric and policies.  In fact, the GOP wants to make sure there are no rights for children born in Texas unless their parents are citizens, arrest any and all illegal immigrants immediately, shut down day-laborer centers, and is utilizing a variety of anti-immigrant images to whip up its base.   With Latinos expected to be the majority population by 2015, this seems like a losing strategy.  At least, I hope so. But I'm afraid of Texas. Remember those bumper stickers when Dubbya was President?

Somewhere in Texas a village is missing an idiot"

I think the idiot has been found along with the rest of his kind.  And they're running the Texas Republican Party.  And they might even win the elections.

Proof that gay marriage is a conservative plot

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

Okay, it's been a joke for years, as well as a serious analysis.  Gay marriage is a conservative plot, a way of taking the alternative out of alternative lifestyle, and forcing gays and lesbians to "grow up" and confine their sexual impulses to the conjugal bed so that straight, married people, bored out of their minds with one another, wouldn't have to feel  as if their own lifestyles were so unsatisfactory. But now there is concrete proof that gay marriage IS a conservative plot and it comes in the form of Ted Olson, one of the most powerful and most conservative lawyers in the country. In case you don't remember, it was Mr. Olson who defended- successfully- George W. Bush in the Gore v. Bush case before the Supreme Court- the case that mistakenly awarded Dubbya the Presidency of the United States despite obvious and glaring problems with the Florida vote, problems that turned out to mean that Dubbya was not actually elected President in 2000. After Olson got Dubbya mis-elected, he worked with Bush to expand the Executive Branch's power during "wartime" (and since Dubbya was first not elected it has been non-stop "wartime" and an unprecedented expansion of Executive power). Before bringing us Dubbya, Olson also spent years under Ronald Reagan getting rid of affirmative action in schools and in employment.  He even helped with the impeachment of Bill Clinton (not over something as trivial as lying about WMDs, but over the far more serious matter of an extra-marital blow job). This week, Olson

will argue on behalf of two gay couples in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal case challenging Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in the state... Even if he prevails, defendant intervenors will almost certainly appeal; ultimately the case may wind up before the Supreme Court—a possibility Olson clearly relishes.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229956 So apparently same-sex marriage proponents don't mind using the same lawyer who gave us President Dubbya 2000. Apparently getting in bed with a man who has done almost as much to dismantle affirmative action as Chief Justice Rehnquist is fine as long as you get to have that lovely wedding come June. That's because the same-sex marriage movement is a conservative plot.  It was the gay marriage folk and their allies who insisted that we take the alternative out of alternative lifestyle.  Promiscuous gays, gender queers, and sex-working sorts were no longer welcome at their parades.  The same-sex marriage people were so anxious to be "like straight people" that they lost sight of the revolutionary possibilities of the original gay liberation movement- a movement that tied racism to patriarchy to homophobia and would have never, ever gotten into bed with the likes of Olson. And so Dubbya's number one lawyer will probably also be the gay marriage movement's savior.  Olson will probably see the case go to the Supreme Court and he will probably win.  And we can all "celebrate" with a big white wedding (and the cynical understanding that you can get a lot further in the American political system by pushing a narrow, special interest agenda than anything as truly revolutionary as gay liberation). Of course, the cynicism of using Olson may backfire on the gay marriage movement.  Dubbya's lawyer as the gay marriage advocate might just be so jarring, cause so much cognitive dissonance, that millions of seemingly sane people will suddenly wake up to the truth that marriage is not going to set anyone free.

Romance is why a British bride stole a fortune for ' perfect wedding '

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="210" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

I am in London beginning research for a new book on romance as an ideology of capitalism, an ideology completely embedded in gender, race, and class hierarchies.  What perfect timing then, to come across a story about a bride- white and blond as a perfect bride is usually imagined in American and British culture- who stole 470,000 British pounds  to create the perfect dream wedding.  The bride then used her whiteness to cloak herself in the role of "good mother" to escape the nightmare of a lengthy prison sentence. From The Daily Mail:

Joanne Kent stole the money from her firm for flowers, the perfect gown, renting a cliff top hotel for her guests, and even buying her bridesmaids Armani bracelets...Judge Michael Challinor appeared to take pity on the mum-of-two as he jailed her...'Because you have an eight-week old baby and it suffers from hip problems I will attempt to sway the prison service to allow you to attend a mother and child unit.

In order to understand why this "mum" stole so much money and then got sympathy, we have to return to romance as an ideology.  Most people think of romance as "natural" and even "universal."  Although the biochemical changes in a person's brain when "in love" (or "in lust") may be innate, how we organize the feelings and desires that love arouses are culturally and historically specific.  In that sense, romance only became "happily ever after" at the birth of the modern era, as people were increasingly expected to marry for love and stay "in love" (that is, both men and women were supposed to be monogamous and have all their emotional needs filled within the dyadic coupling and that dyadic couple was increasingly isolated from extended family networks into the "nuclear family" in a geography of split-level, suburban isolation). Before modernity, love generally happened outside of the dyadic and married couple and, more often than not, ended in tragedy for one or both of the lovers (think Romeo and Juliet or the romantic love of knights in shining armor and their Ladies- who were, of course, married to Lords, not the knights).  But sometime around the turn of the last century, these feelings of "in love" got organized into the basis of marriage, a marriage that was to begin with a wedding that would be "perfect." Indeed, "perfect" as a concept appeared in wedding advertising in the 1930s. Another concept- "Diamonds are forever"- was sold to us by DeBeers as proof-positive that "forever" required consumption. At the same time that romance capitalism began to explain the fetish items needed for a marriage (i.e. the white dress, the veil, the diamond ring),Disney and other Hollywood studios began to produce stories about the prince who would sweep the maiden off her feet and carry her off into the sunset for a perfect white wedding and a happily ever after (think Sleeping Beauty or Snow White). Romance capitalism was not just about selling us a white wedding and a happily ever after, though.  Instead, the perfect wedding was always not just white, but about whiteness (e.g. Chrys Ingraham's content analysis of Brides magazine revealed that the bride is nearly always pictured as not just white, but blonde and blue-eyed).  White women were "virginal" and "pure" and could wear white because they were sexually controlled AND their virtue was worth saving.  The white wedding was built not just on women's sexual virtue, but on the virtue of whiteness because of white women's supposed sexual virtue. Fast forward to the past 30 years, a time during which  spending on weddings has gone up and up and up, perhaps as a response to high divorce rates and the "threat" of same-sex marriage.  To be a perfect bride and to have a perfect marriage REQUIRES a perfect wedding.  Otherwise the bride is less than perfect, her virtue far from unblemished, her future far from secure. No wonder Mrs. Kent stole all that money for her wedding.  Otherwise, she would not have been worthy of a happily ever after.  And although her crimes cost her a couple of years of her life, her whiteness and therefore supposedly virtuous motherhood protected her as well.  It is impossible to imagine a judge taking pity on a non-white bride who stole a small fortune for her wedding.  Such a woman would not be a "mum" but a bridezilla, an intruder on the sacred whiteness that is the bride.  She would also not be a mum who was needed around her kids, but a bad mother, a threat to her young, since perfect motherhood, like the perfect bride, is also always about the role of white femininity in shoring up white privilege more generally. Too bad Mrs. Kent was not more aware of the dangers of perfect white womanhood before she got married.   Well, the perfect thing to say to a bride is "Good luck," and even with her lenient prison sentence, Mrs. Kent will certainly need it.

New Year ' s Resolution: Recruit children for the homosexual agenda

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="240" caption="Image by Zanastardust via Flickr"][/caption]

I'm not sure how many of my readers get the Homosexual Agenda memos sent to them, but as a holiday gift, I'm going to share what's on the Agenda for 2010.  Item number one: RECRUIT INNOCENTS TO THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE.  Check. Apparently that's exactly what is going on in the DC schools, where a parent, Margaret Hemenway, recently filed a complaint that her daughter's first grade teacher had discussed her upcoming wedding TO ANOTHER WOMAN in class. According to a post by Ms. Hemenway, dated October 22, 2008, on Human Events: Headquarters of the Conservative Underground, it is clear that her daugher's lesbo teacher is part of the Homosexual Agenda

Since homosexual activists cannot reproduce their own children, recruitment to their cause (especially at a young age, before parents have raised such sensitive and controversial topics with their children) is essential to the political agenda of promoting homosexuality and “gay” marriage.

Can you believe crazy Homosexuals are trying to convince us that they are reproducing (my own children believe they have two mothers!) just so they can recruit the innocent and pure children of Ms. Hemenway??? That's the thing about Homos: like Commies, they're sneaky and possibly expanding their numbers in bathrooms across the country right now. Unlike Conservatives like Ms. Hemenway who filed her complaint with the DC school district over a year after her daughter's innocence was stolen. But as Ms. Hemenway points out:

Our first-grader... relayed... that her teacher announced her impending marriage—to another woman—to the class. Following her revelation, this teacher encouraged questions from the children. Our daughter also mentioned a book the teacher read aloud, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about two male “gay” guinea pigs, promoted by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender Lobby for children. Since homosexual activists cannot reproduce their own children, recruitment to their cause (especially at a young age, before parents have raised such sensitive and controversial topics with their children) is essential to the political agenda of promoting homosexuality and “gay” marriage.

Ayers' Agenda: First-Grade Guinea Pigs - HUMAN EVENTS. So if you really want to promote the homosexual agenda in 2010, you better start now with some stories about that big bear of a homo Santa, in his bright red suit, and his upcoming gay wedding to an elf named Bruce.  Otherwise, how will we ever create a new generation of queers to destroy the sexual innocence of children?

No gay marriage in New York. No divorce in California?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image by Getty Images via Daylife"][/caption]

Despite the strong support of Governor Patterson, the same-sex marriage bill was voted down yesterday in the New York Senate.  Interesting pieces of the debate included the claim that New York should not legalize gay marriage because 31 states already ban it.  To which Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Dem, replied these were the same states that "at one time or another sold blacks into slavery."

"Because the majority is in one place does not mean they're in the right place," he said. "We're in the position right now where we have to lead the country to the right place."

Perhaps one of the most interesting moments of the debate was when Senator Diane Savino stood up and explained that heterosexual marriage was the real threat.  Savino argued that shows like the "Bachelor" and "The Littlest Groom," not to mention the way heterosexuals actually act within and without of their marriages, are what threatens the sanctity of marriage.  Not committed gay and lesbian couples.   [youtubevid id="dCFFxidhcy0"] Governor Patterson tried to rally the troops by telling them

As disappointed as we are today, let's get up tomorrow and redouble our efforts...We are going to lay the foundation to make people feel comfortable to vote their conscience and not fear political backlash." "There's never a good time for civil rights. There's never, ever, ever, ever a good time for civil rights. I know. I get that," said Sen. Tom Duane, a Manhattan Democrat who was the chamber's first openly gay member. "But the paradox is, it's always the time to be on the right side of history."

Although a majority of New Yorkers seem to support gay marriage, with a recent poll showing 51% in favor and 42% opposed, the legislature in New York has always been far more conservative than the population because of the extra weight given to upstate New York districts which are generally far to the right of the city. Same-sex marriage bill voted down in New York Senate - CNN.com. In California, where gay marriage was defeated in a state-wide referendum, with the help of tens of millions of dollars from the Mormon Church, support for gay marriage is taking an absurd turn.  In order to counter the obvious injustice of privileging a minority of Americans (married heterosexuals), John Marcotte started a campaign to ban divorce.  Meant to show the absurdity of the "save traditional marriage types," Marcotte is trying to gather enough signatures for  a state-wide referendum on whether people who say "I do" should be allowed to say "I don't."  After all, given that nearly half of marriages end in divorce (and have since no-fault divorce laws were passed nearly forty years ago),  shouldn't people who want to save marriage also want to ban divorce? Marcotte's joke is being taken very seriously by some.  Even the movement's tee shirts, which say "You said till death do us part and you're not dead yet" do not make the "joke" obvious for some supporters. In Vermont, during the marriage debates, I was part of a similar group called Heterosexuals for Mandatory Marriage (HMM) and we too advocated that anyone who wants any civil rights- from voting to taking out a student loan- should have to be married.  We also supported special parking spaces for married people, right next to the Handicapped ones.  Our "joke" was lost on many people, but Marcotte has been receiving donations from around the country from people who sincerely believe we should stop divorce to save marriage. Perhaps this is the way of future civil rights movements.  Instead of getting civil rights, what we'll get are draconian marriage laws as the result of activists trying to point out the irony of saving marriage by denying marriage. As a former member of HMM, I have to say I support that.  If divorce were illegal, no one would get married (okay a few people- but fewer than 5% of the population) and then marriage would disappear as a source of special privileges for the few at the cost of the many.  And quite honestly, if married people really were forced to stay in it till death do them part, maybe I'd be willing to afford them the over 1000 extra rights and privileges they get now.  Heck, I'll even throw in the parking spaces right next to the Handicapped ones.

Hey, I thought only Born Again Christians could run US politics?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image by Getty Images via Daylife"][/caption]

So a friend pointed out how the campaign against same-sex marriage in Maine created some strange financial bedfellows.  In particular, Catholic Churches from around the country gave  a lot of money to defeat same-sex marriage in Maine. For instance, Savannah, Georgia's Catholic Diocese gave $2000 and the Roman Catholic Foundation in Baltimore gave $2500 and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia gave a whopping $50,000. What?  There are no pressing problems in Philly that Christians should attend to?  Unemployment?  Poverty?  Sucky sports teams?  They have to go and send fifty grand to Maine? Welcome to the Public Campaign Finance Page for the State of Maine. Now call me stupid, but I was under the impression that the Church and State had to be separate in the US. I thought a religious organization could not be involved in politics unless(and here's where it gets confusing- please excuse the constitutional law terminology), it's  one of those bleeping Born Again Christian types who has met and spoken with Jesus Christ personally and Jesus told them that America is His favorite country and therefore we should bomb all those other countries where they don't know Jesus personally back to the Stone Age so they could evolve into the sort of people who can rely on Jesus for foreign policy advice as well as tips on with whom to have sex and whether or not it's okay to slap your children upside the head if they come home with some crazy uppity ideas about the so-called science of Evolution. I told you this was complicated.  I mean, there are basic issues of the Constitution at stake here.  So I'm going to spare you all the other fancy shmancy legal talk and just say this: Turns out the whole separation of Church and State thing was mostly about not having the State interfere in the Church- not the other way around.  Thomas Jefferson, who really and truly believed in the principle, also used federal money to teach those Heathen Natives about Jesus Christ.  And of course the likes of Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Rehnquist have consistently argued that religion cannot and ought not to be kept out of public life. But, it does seem that some laws were violated in the Maine campaign because not all of the money came from Catholic dioceses in the US.  About $252,000 seems to have come from the magic and bottomless purse that is the Vatican.  Which would be a foreign country unduly influencing a political process in the US. I am not sure what Jesus would say, but I am pretty sure that even the most conservative of Supreme Court Justices would have to say the anti-gay-marriage campaign in Maine violated basic principles of  US law. Oh, and by the way, if I could have a personal conversation with Jesus, I am pretty sure He would have said to spend the money on feeding the poor and healing the sick.  Right after He smote all those unconstitutional and ultimately unChristian sorts who wasted time and money on hate rather than love.

Queer spawn attack gay marriage agenda

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image by Getty Images via Daylife"][/caption]

One of my favorite former students likes to wear a shirt with the words "Queer Spawn" on it.  She was raised by two dads, as well as a mother and step father, and she herself identifies as queer.  The shirt is meant to shock.  Spawn indicates something evil, something perverted, something from the scary world of frogs and monsters from the deep lagoon. Well, I suppose the Right did warn us that the spawn of queer families would be nothing but bad news.  Not only more likely to be queer themselves, but having all sorts of crazy ideas about marriage.  Of course, what the Right thought is that those crazy queer kids of queer families would want to get married themselves. Instead, the queer kids of queer families are attacking gay marriage as a political and ethical dead end. Kids today!  Why can't they be like we were and think that two men or two women (white, educated, middle class) mimicking a hetero wedding are a revolution in the making?  Why do they have to go ahead and ask why, as

More and more Americans are suffering and dying because they can’t get decent health care, and gays want weddings. What happened to us? Where have our communities gone? Did gays really sell out that easily? Marriage is an institution used primarily to consolidate privilege, and we think real change will only come from getting rid of a system that continually doles out privilege to a few more, rather than trying to reform it. We know that most families, straight or gay, don’t fit in with the standards for marriage, and see many straight families being penalized for not conforming to the standard the government has set: single moms trying to get on welfare, extended family members trying to gain custody, friends kept from being each other’s legal representatives... We are seeing a gay political agenda become single-issue to focus on marriage and leave behind many very serious issues such as social, economic, and racial justice.

Like all of us who are critiquing marriage as a source of civil rights, the queer spawn are not attacking your relationship or mine.

We think long-term monogamous partnerships are valid and beautiful ways of structuring and experiencing family, but we don’t see them as any more inherently valuable or legitimate than the many other family structures.

What queer spawn are asking for is a rejection of the idea that queer families are like "everyone else".  "Like everyone else" is code for "like the dominant groups' ideal family"- which means straight, white, middle-class, nuclear families living somewhere in the suburbs- a group of people who make up fewer than 1/5 of the population.  Queer spawn are pointing out that very few families- queer or straight- are like "everyone else."  They are calling on everyone, but especially their "elders," to work for a system and a movement that recognizes the diversity of family configurations as they actually exist.

We write this feeling as if we have to grab our community back from the clutches of the gay marriage movement. We’re frightened by its path and its incessant desire to assimilate. Believe it or not, we felt incredibly safe, happy, taken care of, and fulfilled with the many queer biological and chosen parents who raised us without the right to marry.   Having grown up in queer families and communities we strongly believe that queers are not like everyone else... Our families are tangled, messy and beautiful – just like so many straight families who don’t fit into the official version of family.

Queer Kids of Queer Parents Against Gay Marriage!. When I first met my "queer spawn" student, she was pretty convinced that gay marriage was a revolution.  Over the years, however, she became less convinced.  After her father broke up with his long-term partner, whom she still considered a parent, my student realized that her gay family was now not part of the gay marriage movement.  One of her friends was raised by 4 mothers- the original pairing and then, after they split, the two new parents.  How did the gay marriage movement represent their lives?  Her dads, who were never married and were no longer even together? Her friend's moms? The more she thought about it, she and other "queer spawn" were not terribly well represented by the gay marriage movement. Not only that, but she was unclear whether the people pushing the marriage agenda cared about larger, more important issues like health care or ending the wars. Eventually, she started to see gay marriage as diverting attention from what really mattered in the world, but also as a movement that refused to recognize the lived experiences of most queer families- who are, like most straight families, not living the "ideal" nuclear family dream. That's how it is with queer kids raised in queer families.  They grow up with crazy ideas about economic and racial justice.  They are fed a feminist critique of marriage as a patriarchal institution with their mamas' milk or their papas' formula.  And when they feel like their community, the one they grew up in and felt supported by, is being hi-jacked by people who don't care about them, they speak up. Thank God for queer kids today.

Is divorce part of the homosexual agenda?

I never really received the memo on the whole homosexual agenda thing.  I know the homosexual agenda involves bringing the fiery pits of hell to the front-door of every God-fearin', red-meat-eatin', fully-armed white family, but other than that, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. Maybe they left me off the mailing list for my latent heterosexual tendencies?  But I'm starting to be convinced that gay divorce is part of the homosexual agenda. Here's what the sneaky homos have been doing for years now.  They run off to states that allow same sex marriage, like Massachusetts.  They have a big wedding, get their perfect place settings and that espresso maker they've always wanted, then they go back to their crazy, homophobic states with "mini-DOMAs" (state level Defense of Marriage Acts just in case the federal DOMA falls to those homo-lovin' feds).  Then, in a surprisingly clever move, they get DIVORCED. Then judges are faced with citizens of their state who entered into a legal contract in another state, but can only dissolve said contract in the state in which they reside. Whether you're an "activist" judge (liberal) or "objective" (conservative and trying to maintain the status quo), you have a big fat legal dilemma on your hands.  You can either grant these two crazy, gay kids a divorce or force them to stay married.  But, if you let them divorce, you might just be opening the way up for gay marriage since you have to say that the state DOMA is unconstitutional. This is a brilliant strategy on the part of gay marriage activists because what conservative, straight-family loving, judge is going to say "You two have to stay married" to a same-sex couple?  Instead, such a judge has no choice but to say "divorce granted." This tricky maneuver of the homosexual agenda has been around for years.  When I  went through my own gay divorce 8 years ago, same sex couples were managing to have their divorces (but not their marriages or civil unions) recognized in a handful of states with DOMAs on the books, like Virginia and West Virginia.  Back then, in an article I wrote for Legal Affairs, I called gay divorce a Trojan Horse.  Current events prove that I was uncharacteristically prescient. On Thursday, Texas entered the legion of straight-lovin' states now succumbing to the homosexual strategy of gay divorce. Judge: Texas Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth. According to the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, many gay-marriage/ homosexual agenda advocates are calling it a "day of victory." Judge Tena Callahan

ruled that the state's gay-marriage ban unconstitutionally prohibits same-sex parties who were married in one state from getting a divorce in Texas.  (The two men) were married in Massachusetts in 2006 after it became the first state to recognize same sex marriages.

Many legal experts are saying that the ruling would overturn a ban on gay rights that Texans overwhelming approved in 2005. Clever homos.  Despite the craziness of the extreme right and their anti-gay, anti-everyone who is not like them agenda, it appears that the Trojan Horse is within the perimeter and yet another battle for equality has been won.

Is divorce part of the homosexual agenda?

I never really received the memo on the whole homosexual agenda thing.  I know the homosexual agenda involves bringing the fiery pits of hell to the front-door of every God-fearin', red-meat-eatin', fully-armed white family, but other than that, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. Maybe they left me off the mailing list for my latent heterosexual tendencies?  But I'm starting to be convinced that gay divorce is part of the homosexual agenda. Here's what the sneaky homos have been doing for years now.  They run off to states that allow same sex marriage, like Massachusetts.  They have a big wedding, get their perfect place settings and that espresso maker they've always wanted, then they go back to their crazy, homophobic states with "mini-DOMAs" (state level Defense of Marriage Acts just in case the federal DOMA falls to those homo-lovin' feds).  Then, in a surprisingly clever move, they get DIVORCED. Then judges are faced with citizens of their state who entered into a legal contract in another state, but can only dissolve said contract in the state in which they reside. Whether you're an "activist" judge (liberal) or "objective" (conservative and trying to maintain the status quo), you have a big fat legal dilemma on your hands.  You can either grant these two crazy, gay kids a divorce or force them to stay married.  But, if you let them divorce, you might just be opening the way up for gay marriage since you have to say that the state DOMA is unconstitutional. This is a brilliant strategy on the part of gay marriage activists because what conservative, straight-family loving, judge is going to say "You two have to stay married" to a same-sex couple?  Instead, such a judge has no choice but to say "divorce granted." This tricky maneuver of the homosexual agenda has been around for years.  When I  went through my own gay divorce 8 years ago, same sex couples were managing to have their divorces (but not their marriages or civil unions) recognized in a handful of states with DOMAs on the books, like Virginia and West Virginia.  Back then, in an article I wrote for Legal Affairs, I called gay divorce a Trojan Horse.  Current events prove that I was uncharacteristically prescient. On Thursday, Texas entered the legion of straight-lovin' states now succumbing to the homosexual strategy of gay divorce. Judge: Texas Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth. According to the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, many gay-marriage/ homosexual agenda advocates are calling it a "day of victory." Judge Tena Callahan

ruled that the state's gay-marriage ban unconstitutionally prohibits same-sex parties who were married in one state from getting a divorce in Texas.  (The two men) were married in Massachusetts in 2006 after it became the first state to recognize same sex marriages.

Many legal experts are saying that the ruling would overturn a ban on gay rights that Texans overwhelming approved in 2005. Clever homos.  Despite the craziness of the extreme right and their anti-gay, anti-everyone who is not like them agenda, it appears that the Trojan Horse is within the perimeter and yet another battle for equality has been won.

Breaking News on Perez Hilton vs. Miss California

Yeah, I know, who cares that Perez is fighting with some beauty queen b***h (his word, not mine).  There are very important things we should all be thinking about like torture and TARP.  And yet, here I am watching Perez on CNN defending his actions and still calling the beauty queen a b***h.  If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read on. During the Miss USA contest, Perez Hilton, a judge, asked Carrie Prejean, Miss California, what she thought about gay marriage.  She gave a very confused answer that basically ended with marriage is between one man and one woman This seems to have cost her the contest.  Perez admits she was the front runner up until then and that the question cost her a lot.   And Perez is really MAD.  He is particularly angry because Miss USA is apparently an IMPORTANT platform and she must represent her country well.  Perez said on CNN that he does not represent the gay community or the Cuban community because he's just Perez, no one else.  But Miss USA is our representative (to what and to whom is unclear) www.truveo.com/Perez-vs-the-beauty-queen/id/2305843011399728727 I know I personally am often influenced by what Miss USA says.  After all, she represents me, an American, and is respected for how she looks in a bathing suit, so of course I want to base my understanding of the world on what she thinks.  But maybe, just maybe, I can help Miss California and Perez kiss and make up (thereby increasing my commitment to world peace, a favorite policy of beauty queens everywhere). I think they both need to take a deep breath, hold hands, and think beyond marriage.  A recent book might help them do just that.  Written by  American University law professor Nancy Polikoff, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage explores a variety of legal and policy alternatives to our current laws assigning rights and privileges on the basis of marital status as opposed to actual living arrangements. Bookslut | Beyond Marriage: An Interview with Nancy Polikoff. In this way, Perez and Miss California could stop arguing about who has access to marriage and who doesn't and get onto the important business of representing us in a bathing suit.