Reading through the NJFPC website, I discovered the reason why Lenny is such a dick. God told him to do this. The site makes it clear that there are “moral absolutes” in this universe, handed down by God and hence, unalterable. This is the foundation of everything the NJFPCers believe. From this flows their self-awarded mandate to re-structure society, by law, along the lines of Christian fundamentalism. What are these moral absolutes? They are selected notionally from the King James Bible and the various modern translations that have flowed from it. A proscription on eating shellfish is evidently not a moral absolute – nor is wearing a garment of mixed thread, even though Leviticus puts those matters on the same footing as same-sex relationships. How, then, do the folks of NJFPC know that same-sex relationships ARE an absolute moral no-no? We can only presume they have received a special memo from God telling them which of the proscribed activities listed in the Bible are to be taken seriously and which may be safely ignored. People who think (or claim) that God is giving them special instructions are either put in rubber rooms or they become evangelists or right-wing politicians – depending on how their PR is handled.

It is difficult for us to take such people seriously and therein is their true strength. In the U.S. today, these people are as serious as a heart attack. NJFPC has almost a million and a half dollars to devote to fighting our civil rights and even perhaps to roll back what we have already gained. They have a good friend in our present asshole of a governor and that’s an advantage they do not want to waste. We can assume a sizable part of the million and a half is going to anti-gay candidates for the legislature in the coming election. Our own state-wide organization, Garden State Equality, doesn’t have anything like that kind of money and in politics, money talks in a loud voice.

The poisonous acid of Christian fundamentalism is eating away at democracy everywhere in this country. A look at the present slate of contenders for the Republican nomination for President is truly scary. Mike Huckabee is one of the most chilling examples. In March he made a speech to a room full of fanatic Christian supporters calling for all citizens to be indoctrinated in revisionist “historian” David Barton’s imaginary, Christian-centered version of U.S. history “at gun point if necessary (applause) and I think our country would be better for it.” Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister. Now, I have nothing against Baptists except that when they do that full immersion baptism routine, they don’t hold them under long enough. However, Huckabee represents the world the people of the NJFPC wish to bring into being. It is a world where science, reason and facts are obsolete – a world in which reality is determined by the fantasies of “the chosen” and is imposed on the rest of us “at gun point.” It is a world in which “moral absolutes” take no account of differing opinions or beliefs – a world in which democracy exists in name only.

The right-wing embrace of David Barton is an excellent example of how little facts matter to these people. Barton has absolutely NO scholarly credentials whatever – no advanced degrees, no college or university position, no standing in the academic community at all. And yet he is touted as a “scholar” by Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Fox News and others. Does one have to have such credentials to be a serious scholar? Not necessarily. In the 18th Century, Edward Gibbon who likewise had no advanced degrees or university position, wrote what is possibly the greatest historical work of all time – The Decline And Fall of The Roman Empire. The difference is that Gibbon really was a scholar. His massive erudition is evident throughout his work and it has stood the test of time, endorsed by generations of scholars and academics. Barton however simply makes up his material as he goes along. His contention that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and the separation of church and state is a liberal myth is so easily refutable by reference to documentation and original sources that it would be a joke if it wasn’t being accepted wholesale such as the NJFPC and tea party Republicans all over the country. we see again that facts don’t matter when stacked up against a really good fantasy.

These people are dangerous. Their mind-set is the same as the one that produced fascisim. In fact it was Dr. Gobbels who said “if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it.” This is a lesson our enemies have learned well. They may be funny-looking, unfashionable and creepy but they have a lot of money and a lot of support. The war is not only not over – it may have barely begun.

To begin with, you say “does anyone really give a ….about this?” Clearly a great many people do care about it very much indeed, if sales of souvenir coffee mugs, TV time and special editions of magazines are any clue. The royal establishment is a fairy tale brought to life – an ancient institution of mysterious customs, fabulous costumes and grand ceremonial. It brings some color and some dreams into ordinary lives and is a great deal more interesting than a boring president in a dark suit or a bunch of wrangling politicians.  Edelstein goes on to write “the whole point of the Revolutionary War was to get out from under the King of England.” Wrong. Poor George III had little to do with the whole affair. The point of the Revolution was to liberate the wealthy landed aristocracy and New England merchant class from having to pay their fair share of taxes resulting from the expense of the French & Indian War. England sent troops here to defend those very classes, at the request of those classes and then got struck with the bill. The most famous of the taxes was the one on tea. Tea was a very expensive commodity at that time and only the rich drank the real thing. There is considerable doubt that the revolution would have been supported by a popular vote and in fact, such a vote was never taken. Further, over 50,000 loyalists fled the colonies rather than abandon their allegiance to the crown.

Edelstein’s next bone-headed remark is “and it’s not like they have any real power anyway, these so-called royals. Seems to me they have about as much pull as I do.” One hardly knows where to begin with such a breath-taking display of raw ignorance. Being a so-called journalist here in Trenton, New Jersey, there is no particular reason why Edelstein should know anything about the English constitutional system and he convincingly shows us he does not. Let’s start with the “so-called royals” snark. The British Royal Family, through various “houses” and branches traces its monarchial lineage all the way back to Cerdic, an ancient Saxon king who was himself supposed to be the son of the god Wotan – in other words the line goes back into the mists of myth thousands of years ago. Only the Imperial Family of Japan is older. That is about as legit as you can get in this world and the “so-called” remark illustrates nothing but the petty envy of the lower bourgeoise.

As for power – The Queen has what are known as the residual powers. These are powers that are very real though seldom exercised. The oaths of officers the armed forces (except the Air Force) are sworn to the person of the sovereign, not to the government. In other words, the army and navy take orders from Her Majesty. Normally of course, military affairs are not handled that way but push come to shove, everyone knows to whom those oaths were sworn. Does Edelstein have an army and a navy that swears their oath to him? I’m not familiar with the power structure at The Trentonian but I don’t think he even controls the newsboys.

Another power is that the Queen can veto legislation. It hasn’t been done since Queen Ann in 1702 but it has been threatened more than once and in modern times too. The Queen can dismiss parliament and the Prime Minister and call for a new election. That too has not been done in a very long time but has been privately threatened during certain situations such as the Curragh Crisis in the 1920s. There are other powers as well but perhaps most important is the fact that the government MUST keep the Queen informed and MUST listen to her advice whether or not the advice is taken. The monarch is the ultimate protector of the liberties of the people against the possibility of a dictatorship. When we look at Washington D.C. today and contemplate the lunacy of the Tea Party Republicans we must wonder if a king might not be a better idea.

Next Edelstein gives vent to an envious rant about the wealth of the Royal Family. Are you missing any meals Jeff? No? Then what’s it to you? If your family had stayed in one place and carefully husbanded their resources for one or two thousand years, you too might have a bit more than a mortgage and a bag full of grocery coupons – but alas, such is not the case. Much of the wealth of the royal family is in the form of palaces and art collections that would have to be maintained as museums anyway. The famous crown jewels are state property, not the property of The Queen. Further, the monarchy is one of the world’s great tourist attractions and turns a profit for England just by existing.

Sorry to disappoint you Jeff Edelstein but April 29 will not bring a “giant yawn.” It will open a window of magic, pageantry and mystical magnificence for a fascinated world – doing for grown-ups what Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty did for us as children. For those few moments, fairy tales will be real and the world will be a place of colorful wonder. Only the most spiteful and meanest of curmudgeons would begrudge us that brief surcease from the daily grind of disasters, hate-spewing fundamentalists and idiot tea partiers.

To: Sen. Gillibrand & Staff

Senator: You are of course, well aware of the on-going vigil outside your Manhattan office. I wonder however, if you have given full and appropriate weight to its most recent escalation; the fast undertaken by Alan Bounville. As both the editor of the region’s largest LGBT magazine and as someone who is proud to claim Alan as a personal friend, I urge and plead that you will view his action with the utter seriousness it merits. This is neither a joke nor a “scare” tactic. It is precisely what Alan has stated it to be. Be assured he will indeed carry this action through to its ultimate conclusion regardless of his own fate. That conclusion can be none other than his fading into death, such is his dedication to achieving equality.

You do not know Alan personally but I do. He is a person whose beauty of spirit and selfless dedication to the welfare of others are treasures our benighted old world can ill afford to lose. To lose him for want of a few words from yourself would be a tragedy both profound and inexplicable.

Without being presumptuous, I hope I may be permitted to point out that, with the campaign over and your victory sealed, it is time to act on the fine words and noble sentiments that ornament a political campaign – time to show the sincere concern for the well-being of your constituents you have advertised – time to show that the queer community is not merely a source of votes but is also the object of your very real concern.

If your advisors have told you to ignore the vigil, as it seems they have, do not permit them to also blind you to Alan’s fast. It would be a mistake both morally and politically. As a life-long student of history, I can absolutely assure you that if indeed this fast goes unabated, you, personally and your career as a legislator will be remembered not for whatever your accomplishments may be but for the fact that a beautiful young man chose to die on your doorstep rather than live in a world that relegated him and those like him to second class status as citizens and that you could have prevented it but did not.

Our publication will be watching and reporting on your actions in this matter – or lack thereof. We hope you do the right thing – for your own sake as well as Alan’s.

Sincerely, Tobias Grace, Out In Jersey magazine
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that enough good men do nothing” Edmund Burke

Cy Vance has no access to the hangman’s noose but he does the best he can with the tools available. He has brought the full weight of those tools to bear on one of New York’s most respected and beloved activists. Kate Barnhart. Kate is executive director of New Alternatives For Homeless LGBT Youth, an East Village program now serving several hundred homeless kids with GED and SAT programs, food, help with housing and benefits and most important – a little love; a commodity most of these kids have had in short supply. What are the lives of these kids ordinarily like? Perhaps this poem can express it better than a volume of prose:

No One’s Child

In the darkness of the doorways,

Underneath the aging piers,

Hides a child of the rainbow,

Growing old beyond his years.

Furtive, living in the shadows,

Dancing sometimes with the moon,

Darkness is his best companion,

Fantasy his dish and spoon.

They who made him, turned against him,

He was different, so they said.

Somehow, those who should have loved him

Decided he was better dead.

Now he sleeps with rags or lechers,

Home is only in his dreams,

Hoping that the men who pay him

Might hear the silence of his screams.

We can’t hear unless we listen,

We can’t see with eyes we’ve closed.

We can cross the street and hasten,

But he is not what we’ve supposed.

A word in kindness could be offered,

Not expecting a return,

though kindness seems a thing most often

Quite difficult for us to learn.

Easier by far to judge him,

Hustler trash on midnight street,

Love is just a ghost behind him,

Ever more distant, dim and fleet.

Where will you go now, no one’s child?

What to do if they won’t pay?

There’s no more path for you to follow,

Your tomorrows are yesterday.

Formerly director of Sylvia’s Place, a shelter for homeless LGBT kids at New York’s Metropolitan Community Church, Kate has devoted her life to this cause with a selflessness that puts even the most charitable among us to shame. To really comprehend this, one needs to understand that this is most assuredly not nine to five work. Kate is on duty 24-7. Her cell phone can and does ring at any time of the day or night, weekends and holidays included, with a desperate call from a kid in trouble. That kid will NOT get a recording suggesting he or she call back during office hours. The kid will reach Kate and, depend upon it (as these kids do) Kate will do her best to deal with the problem. She won’t wait until Monday morning. She will do it at once as best she can. This is not new. Kate has been the abiding rock for these kids to grasp for many years, as the dark tides of fear, exploitation and helplessness threaten to pull them into a maelstrom of destruction such as only the underworld of as big city can produce. Kate has been at it long enough now to see the results – kids in college and doing well, kids who have jobs and apartments, kids who have hope where there once was none.

One boy who is now in college as a result of Kate’s help said to me ” Kate? She’s the most wonderful person in the whole world.” Well, there are some pretty wonderful people in this tired old world and Kate may or may not be the most wonderful but as sure as death and taxes, she is on the short list. Kate accomplishes all of this on top of caring for an aged father and battling her own quite serious health problems. If justice was served, she would be brought down to City Hall in a limo to receive a medal from the mayor. Instead of that, she received a subpoena from Cy Vance. The reason why is detailed in the story on our website. No doubt Vance can present a legal platform on which to rest his effort to prosecute Kate. You don’t get to be a DA without the skills to fabricate logic out of the treacle and sludge of the language of the law. However, when a servant of the law departs from the spirit to gain advantage from the letter, he betrays his descent into self-interest, self-promotion, service to special interests and hidden agendas. He has departed from the spirit of justice and entered the dark realm wherein the law is used as a tool to abuse the poor and the weak for the advantage of the powerful. So it is with Cy Vance.

Damaged and threatened from within though this nation is however, it is still a democracy and ordinary people are not entirely without resources. To begin with, it will be very interesting to see where Cy Vance’s campaign contributions come from. Are there significant contributions from the health care industry or its employees? Have an unusual number of executives of Aetna Insurance decided to support the electoral process by writing checks to the Vance campaign chest? We’d really like to know – just idle curiosity of course. Call us cynical and suspicious if you will but a more thorough waste of tax dollars than Vance’s effort to re-instate previously dismissed charges stemming from a life-saving demonstration at Aetna’s offices, conducted peacefully AND on a public right-of-way is very difficult to imagine. What then is the real agenda here?

Note to Cy Vance: we’re not all complete idiots out here in the land of the little people. Some of us have that really scary thing called a brain – one that has had the advantage of an education that trained us to spot bullshit when it is shoved under our noses. Our noses are twitching Vance old man – twitching hard. We smell BS and we smell a scumbag. Have you showered recently?

Link to the story

http://www.outinjersey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=906:the-persecution-of-kate-barnhart

Link to video of demonstration in support of Kate  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvv6Qr3n-bo

Oh, I know all the arguments about equality and they are correct. The right to serve openly in the military is a hallmark of full acceptance as citizens. That is simple logic – but this isn’t about logic. It is about life and death. The one big advantage of our second class status up to now has been that we were excused from being used as cannon fodder in this country’s endless wars. We got to live. Our classmates – including the ones who perhaps made fun of queers – the macho ones – the BMOCs – they marched off to Nam and Cambodia and Iraq and many of them never came back except in bags. Many of the ones who did come back…well… perhaps it would have been better for them if they had not survived. That last is not for me to say however. Still – shattered alcoholic, drug ridden wrecks, missing arms and legs, haunted by horrors that allow them no sleep – is that the price of equality? Pardon me if I think it steep. Frankly, I’d be perfectly content with not being quite equal if it meant the beautiful gay kids I see every day would be spared all that. Ah! I hear the martial music welling up in the background. I see the serried ranks of flags waving as you say “our country! our duty! defend freedom!” and on and on. Sigh. Do you actually know what you are talking about? Review the long list of wars the United States has fought and select those in particular in which we were actually defending our freedom. Let’s see…World War II of course. That one is a definite – The NAZIs had to go, root and branch and no argument. OK, that’s one. The Civil War is clearly another. There we see two irreconcilable social/political/moral systems contending for the same ground. There was only room for one. Slavery had to go and so did the concept of secession. That’s two. Now the search gets difficult. The Mexican War? A naked land grab that was certainly not about anyone’s freedom. The Spanish-American War? Another land grab fueled by the totally irresponsible lies of the Hearst Press syndicate, the Fox News of its day,  and covertly about gaining coaling stations for the Pacific Fleet pursuant to the doctrines of U.S. Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan in his seminal book The Influence Of Sea Power On History. World War I? Wow – talk about a subject that has been almost completely shrouded in propaganda and misconception! Can anyone tell me what the Hell difference it would have made to us if the Germans had won that round? What real negative difference would it have made to anyone? Think about it – the French would have lost Alsace-Lorraine perhaps for the final time. I think we could survive that. The Brits would have had a bit of a black eye but their empire would still have existed. Maybe they’d have had to give up some of their African territory – but within one long generation it was all gone anyway. And what else? The ancient imperial dynasties of Europe would not have collapsed – hence the rise of the Nazis would not have occurred. The communist revolution might well have been avoided, along with the 20-odd million consequent deaths. Mapping the route of an alternative history is a risky business but with the benefit of hindsight, it is perfectly clear at least that all the hype at the time about defending freedom was total bullshit. A man from Mars could not have told the difference between the two sides – culturally, morally or politically. Tens of thousands of American boys died in that war – for what? British prestige? French honor – La Gloire ?

On the eve of his declaration of mobilization, Czar Nicholas II was visited by Constantine Probedenostov, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, who said “I’m an old man. I’ve seen wars all my life and they all seemed so important at the time. Now I can’t even remember what they were about. All those thousands of dead and I don’t know why. If you do this, [mobilize] it will be the end of our civilization, of culture, of honor – and our children will walk among the ruins and curse our name.” How perceptive that prediction was! Certainly that is precisely what happened in Russia. Will our children walk among the ruins of their own lives and curse the name of those who fought so hard to give them the chance to sacrifice themselves for jingoistic propaganda and multi-national corporate advantage? I think it not unlikely.

Then there is that sacred war, the American Revolution. “That,” you may say, “was a time of heroes. That was a war that changed the world!” Was it indeed? Just who was it that actually organized that war and what, really, was it about? The Tea Tax? Hardly. Real tea was a very expensive luxury affordable only by the elite. Taxation without representation? The British parliamentary system was that every member of parliament represented all British subjects, not just his elective constituency. Certainly the system needed reform and within a few decades, it was indeed reformed. But the dead were all still dead. Perhaps it was about the impost of new taxes – except those taxes were to pay the cost of British troops brought over to fight the French & Indian war AT THE REQUEST of the colonial legislatures. In subsequently objecting to those taxes, we were essentially demanding a free lunch. The Revolution was promoted and run by the existing power structure and colonial governments of this country. It promoted the interests of the New England merchant class a well as those of the southern planter aristocracy. Over 50,000 citizens who were loyal to the ancient, legitimate regime fled the colonies, losing everything in the process. There is no evidence that a majority supported the revolution at any point in time. And in the long term, are we any more “free” than the Canadians? Thousands died – but we got a monopoly on the Triangle Trade. I hope that was a comfort to those boys who starved and froze at Valley Forge.

Then we come to Viet Nam. Is it even possible to sort through the layers of rotting, foul smelling lies that enveloped that hideous exercise in national destruction? Volumes and volumes have been written in the effort to do so and still a large part of the population is so ignorant, so deluded as to think there was some valid purpose to it. In large part it is because we can not accept that all those boys died – horribly – in vain; that their sacrifice as for nothing but empty rhetoric and the reputations of a handful of slime-ball politicians. But it WAS in vain. The power elite misjudged, mishandled and failed utterly to understand what they were doing in Indochina all the way back to the settlements following WW II. Every step they subsequently took compounded the errors. All the State Department and intelligence “experts” got it completely wrong. The generals were by and large a pack of sycophantic time-servers who, like William Westmorland, talked a big game but had no clue what they were doing and consistently lied about every aspect of the war. Eventually it became easy to tell if Westmorland was lying – just check to see if his mouth was moving. Thousands and thousands died, including boys I knew – for what? Can anyone tell me at last? Please?

Finally we come to our present endless nightmare in the mid-East and Afghanistan. Perhaps the root cause is oil – in which case, since the oil production of Iraq has been decimated and we have created a fanatic resistance to resurrecting it in any way that will benefit us , it doesn’t seem to have worked out very well. As for Afghanistan – if ever there was an example of learning nothing from history, this is a big one. No invading army back to and including Alexander The Great has succeeded in that impossibly hostile place – and let’s be frank – General Tommy P.  may be quite a good officer but he is NO Alexander The Great and neither is our president. The only real mystery is why the British allowed themselves to get dragged in. One would have thought they’d remember their first effort to conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet government back in the 1840s. Of the more than ten thousand soldiers and civilians that comprised their force, exactly ONE man survived – probably because the tribesmen allowed him to return and tell the nightmare story. This present Afghan adventure is going to end badly too. The only question is how long it will take and how many more kids must die before the generals and the senators and the “experts” finally realize it isn’t going to work.

If the United States was being invaded – if enemy forces were landing on the beach at Asbury Park or Miami or Laguna  or San Francisco, we would all, naturally, take up arms and defend the homeland. Gay or straight, it would make no difference. That DID happen – in the War of 1812. In such a circumstance there is no choice but those are not the circumstances that prevail in the turgid history of our conflicts. It is classically said “the first casualty of war is truth,” and that has surely proved to be the case throughout our history. Lies compounded upon lies, enhanced by vacuous rhetoric, delivered by men and women who will not themselves be in danger, disguising profit motives and naked grabs for land and resources benefiting a power elite – this is the history of our wars – with a heavy dose of cultural arrogance and undisguised racism helping to fuel the conflagrations (the Indian Wars being the best example of that.) And you expect me to rejoice that now gay kids will have an equal opportunity to participate? Pardon me if I do not rejoice, but rather weep instead. All the rhetoric about equality and noble sacrifice means little when you stand by the coffin of a kid you loved and know that his or her life was thrown away for the greed and insanity of people you don’t even know and wouldn’t want to. A victory for gay rights? Yes – a pyrrhic victory.

Katz is a professor of Physics at Washington University and has a distinguished scientific record. His credentials in physics are unchallenged. Sadly, few scientists seem to have the ability to move beyond their narrow speciality and, like Einstein or Hawking, extend their understanding and brilliance to the community at large. When stepping out of his academic specialty, Katz at once flounders in an ocean of prejudice, assumption, hypothesis and arrogance – the very qualities the “scientific method” was designed to suppress. A  psychologist could speculate at length regarding this volta face’ of intellect – bursting the confining bonds of provability, observed fact and replication of results science demands and leaping into the unconstrained open air of social commentary – where any loud jackass must be heard. Such a leap must be liberating – exhilarating – we applaud Katz for having the courage to make such a leap, and sadly tsk-tsk that in doing so, he lands flat on his distinctly unattractive face.

Professor Katz despises queers. He makes no secret of it. Personally, he has nothing to worry about if the photo of him now making the internet rounds is at all accurate. His face resembles a hatchet bearing a large brillo pad. Perhaps it is his inner jealousy of beautiful gay men that has caused his ostensible hatred. We could speculate at length but unlike Katz, let’s try to stick to facts.

Like scientists of old who espoused new and unpopular theories in the face of derision, Mr. Katz is determined to stand firmly by his beliefs. Of course, those old scientists – such as Galileo - were right and Katz is as wrong as last year’s hemline but that doesn’t matter to him. I conclude it doesn’t matter to him because of the methodology he employs in formulating his conclusions about gays. Let us examine key elements of his essay.

In his very first sentence, he defines homophobia as the moral judgment that homosexual behavior is wrong (and he misspells judgment.) a “phobia” is by definition an irrational fear. Moral judgments  fall into the realm of ethics or perhaps theology. Phobias need to be treated by a mental health professional. Ergo, right from the start we see Katz doesn’t know what he is talking about.

He then moves on to attempt a differentiation between ethnic, racial or religious prejudice and homophobia by writing that homophobia is a “moral judgment upon acts engaged in by choice.”  Perhaps Katz is under the impression that religion is genetically implanted. If so, we must disabuse him of the notion. It is engaged in “by choice.” Much of ethnicity is also engaged in by choice. I am of Irish descent. If I chose to make a production of that fact, people will know my ethnicity. If I do not wear green on St. Pat’s Day, collect for the IRA and disproportionately listen to Celtic music, people will think I’m just another white guy. It’s a choice. Being gay however, is not a choice. The only choice involved is whether I decide to be what I was born to be, or spend my life hiding in the shadows, living a lie.

Next Katz quotes the Bible. So what? I’m not a Christian so I couldn’t care less what that particular folklore collection says. My rights as a citizen are not based on the Bible. They are based on the constitution. Further, as a scientist, Katz really should know that the Bible is not a source of scientific veracity. Katz maintains the Bible is a compendium of “traditional wisdom.” In part that is so but the Bible is also a compendium of Bronze Age superstitions – the oral traditions of a primitive desert tribe of three thousand years ago. Beyond such basics as the Golden Rule, the Bible is simply not acceptable as a source of instruction in a scientific setting.

In his next two paragraphs, Katz blames gays for the spread of AIDS. Oh sure – blame the victim – oldest trick in the book. Katz claims “a few sporadic AIDS cases have been identified as far back as the 1950s.”  As a scientist, Katz should be aware that such a retroactive diagnosis, without actual examination of the patient, can never be more than tentative. He should also be aware that the one or two such cases in the record could have been caused by other factors. There can be a number of paths to immune deficiency other than the HIV virus. Again we see the utter absence of rigorous method in Katz’s conclusions. Further, Katz completely ignores the many hypothesis, speculations and conspiracy theories regarding the origin and spread of AIDS. All three categories present facts and  partial explanations contradicting Katz and in need of additional exploration.

From there Katz moves on to the realm of pure inspired assumption – inspired that is by his own prejudices. He states categorically that “the human body was not designed…to be promiscuous and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts.”  His choice of phrase implies a designer who created the human body with specific intent. That, dear Professor Katz, is religion, not science – period. Leaving aside the design issue, I can personally inform Katz that the human body works very well indeed for gay sex. There are two basic male orifices for the sex act. Obviously the mouth functions perfectly well regardless of whether it is part of a male or female person. Of that there can be no question. As for the rectum, maybe Katz has led a sheltered life and is in ignorance of the fact that this is the location of the prostate – the male “G spot.” What do we conclude from this? Only that if indeed there was a “designer” he, she or it must have deliberately provided for gay sex by this specific locating of that important body part.

The objection that the male anus serves as a waste evacuation facility is nugatory. The female vagina also serves in this manner, though for liquid waste only.

As for promiscuity – the body is not equipped with a counting or a partner ID mechanism  in its sexual system. To say it was not designed for promiscuity is an assumption without foundation. While clearly promiscuity elevates the risk of exposure to STDs, that has nothing to do with bodily design. If one has, say, 100 sexual encounters, the body will function equally well or poorly regardless of whether they are all with the same person or with 100 different people.

At this point in his essay Katz begins to get plain nasty. He blames gays for all the “innocent” deaths from AIDS (gays being ipso facto guilty.) He states children, spouses, receivers of contaminated transfusions “died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves.” To that hate filled diatribe, there really isn’t much we can say except Fuck You, Jonathan Katz – you are a truly evil-minded person. Obviously, such sentiments as Katz expresses here have nothing whatever to do with scientific inquiry and are merely the mouth frothings of a committed bigot.

From bigotry, Katz moves to pure fantasy when he writes “the homophobe does not engage in violence against homosexuals.” Really??!! That will come as a surprise to Matthew Sheppard, Sakia Gunn, the four college students gunned down in Newark and so many, many others. Oh wait – no it won’t. They’re dead. However it will come as a great surprise to all those who loved those poor kids. Katz’s statement can be summarily dismissed as being obviously ludicrous.

Next Katz asks “what of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress those desires?”  Value laden phraseology is hardly the scientific method and one would think Katz knows that. The assumption that homosexuality is unnatural is not substantiated by the evidence. To the contrary, it is plainly part of the natural world since it occurs therein. Further, many species of birds and animals display homosexual behavior, including lifetime partnering. On a personal note, I would add it isn’t a curse. In my own life it has been a joy and a blessing and I am eternally grateful for it.

Of course Katz concludes that indeed we must suppress these desires, just as people must suppress desires to steal and kill. This simile is without merit. To compare love and sex with stealing and killing makes no sense whatever.

Finally, Katz states “I am a homophobe, and proud.” That much at least is true. Katz is indeed suffering from irrational fears and grasping at any straw to make those fears seem grounded in reality. What he has actually accomplished is a graphic demonstration of how, when he leaves the confines of his scientific discipline he also leaves behind the entire structure of the scientific method of arriving at truth. Someone so handicapped and so blinded by prejudice is not needed on a presidential commission of any sort. Go back to your laboratory, Jonathan Katz, and concern yourself with quasars and algorithms where your foul hatreds can do no harm. You understand nothing of life among human beings

So – why would Mixon do this to himself? Is he simply stupid? There have been plenty of really stupid generals throughout history. Even a cursory examination of both the British and French High Commands in World War I for example, will display rigidity, utter failure to learn the most obvious lessons from experience and a stupidity so deep and broad that it is truly breath-taking. World War I is far from the only example. Google the name ”General Dyer” if you are interested in seeing an example of bloody-minded stupidity that almost defies belief. In U.S. history, try General Butler in the Civil War. The famous George Armstrong Custer was clearly not a military genius either, based on results.  We could go on and on. General Mixon’s record however, shows this is not the case with him. There can be only one reason: because gays trigger a revulsion in him so deep as to verge on the psychotic. There, as I noted above, we have a microcosm of the problem. This is a revulsion bred into him from infancy and constantly reinforced by the know-nothing, far right culture of fundamentalist religion, the blatant editing of educational standards in many southern schools and colleges to adhere to or at least accommodate out dated and even nonsensical religious dogma and an overall culture that clings to stereotypes and prejudice. Clearly Mixon learned nothing at Western Kentucky University that would call those views into question – nor would we expect otherwise.

Mixon’s self-destructive course of action should not be viewed as an isolated aberration by a loon. His record shows he is far from being a loon. He is evidently a highly trained and competent officer with a great deal of experience. Instead it should be taken as a grave warning of how deeply and irrationally our enemies hate us. It is a hatred that can defy education and experience of the world outside of Georgia and Kentucky. It can defy logic and science. It is visceral. When someone like General Mixon is willing to toss a brilliant career on the scrap heap just to give voice to his fear of gays, we must be alarmed and warned that we are still a very long way from the security of equality, acceptance and full citizenship. To this end, we owe Mixon a debt of gratitude for showing us the dangers of complacency as well as reminding us that we are deeply hated by people who know how to use guns.

Lively however, is another matter. For one thing, the man is not stupid. He’s evil, yes, but moderately intelligent. That makes him dangerous and a threat to be taken seriously. His doctorate from Trinity Law School does not put him in the intellectual league of a Harvard or Princeton graduate of course, but at least it has given him the skills to write coherently. (We should note that this is not the Trinity, the ancient and eminent college in Dublin. It’s some other place that liked the name.) And what has he done with these skills? He has made a globetrotting career out of spreading hatred and fear of gays from his California base through Eastern Europe and Africa and is a prime mover behind the anti-gay legislation pending in Uganda. To this end, he has published a number of books including “The Pink Swastika,” a book purporting to prove the Nazis were a gay movement and hence, gay liberation is inherently fascist and a loathsome volume titled “7 Ways to Recruit-Proof Your Child.” This last book is undoubtedly responsible for untold misery on the part of gay kids who have the great misfortune of being born into fundamentalist families. One might wish the fundy’s primitive ideas about Hell were true and that, for contributing to the anguish of so many kids, Lively would find himself consigned there. However, as my grandmother said, “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

Lively is closely associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement and has written for it’s primary publication, The Chalcedon Report . Christian Reconstructionism is self evidently traitorous to the United States. The movement is based on the idea of replacing the constitution with Biblical law and the establishment of a “Christian” taliban. Hence, we may presume Lively does not respect the traditions of democracy handed down to us by the Founding Fathers.

Among Lively’s internet postings is a script for arguing with gay activists. It is a clever and effective use of the tools of debate and logic. It should be paid attention by activists as a lesson in sharpening one’s skills when confronting the enemy. Far too often, gays enter into such debates (on those rare occasions when fundamentalists are willing to talk to us at all) armed only with assumptions, generalities and a fuzzy-minded, live-and-let-live philosophy, making themselves easy victims of someone armed with Lively’s coaching. Let’s look at the scrip item by item.

First. Lively wants to define terms and asks “what is homosexuality?” He presumes the responder can be trapped into a discussion of whether it is an innate or a chosen condition. This argument cannot be won. While some studies indicate a genetic predisposition as a possibility, the results are not yet conclusive. Even if they were, they would not necessarily justify a given behavior since inclination and action are two different things. One might, for example, be psychologically inclined to violence but this would not justify assault. Instead of being trapped in a quasi-scientific minefield, define homosexuality as “the pursuit of happiness.” Always have recourse to the classic and enshrined phrases of American history whenever possible.

Lively will doubtless respond “so, what if your happiness is sex with your sister or a child or a sheep? Are there no limits on this pursuit?” You could reply “provided the sheep is over 18 and specifically consents. Now let me ask you a question? What should one do if the sheep is the aggressor? Ignore its hopes and aspirations? That seems cruel. As for sex with one’s sister, there are already quite enough congenital idiots in the world who believe primitive and simplistic dogmas.”  The references to age 18 and to consent clearly reply to the issue of children and no more need be said about that.

Lively advocates returning to the definition issue again and again, therefore he will say there is no test we can administer to determine if a person is gay. We must rely on their word. One can reply that the same is true of Christians, yet their status is recognized in law and they even get tax exemptions for their churches. Why then can we not have tax exemptions for gay bars? That this reply is silly is its strength. The use of sarcasm and humor has ever been among the gay movement’s strongest weapons.

Lively passionately argues that children must be saved from exposure to the normalization of homosexuality, lest the be “recruited.” This chestnut belongs in the same trash barrel as “Reefer Madness,” but it still has many believers as is evidenced by the sale of Lively’s abhorrent “7 Ways” book. The response to that would be to quote statistics on the number of gay teens who commit suicide every year, primarily because of the intolerance of their families. Point out that the majority of teen suicides are caused by this very issue and suggest Lively would prefer dead kids to gay kids, since that is precisely what his views result in.

Lively may counter that Kids can be “saved” through counseling, treatment and “coming to Jesus.” Point out that no reputable medical or psychological association supports such treatment and Jesus evidently couldn’t care less since he never said word one about the subject.

Among Lively’s favorite techniques is to reduce everything to absolutes. He discounts “diversity” because it doesn’t include all cultures, giving slavery and cannibalism as examples of the excluded.  Respond that there are no absolutes and give the example of not being allowed to cry “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire as the accepted example of limits on freedom of speech. Likewise, freedom of religion does not include human sacrifice. Point out that cultural limits change and evolve constantly. A hundred years ago, children were routinely beaten with a switch or a cane for misbehavior in school. Today, the teacher who did that would go to jail. Limits change. Four or five hundred years ago, Lively would have been himself burned at the stake as a heretic. One might argue, especially in this last example, that the old ways were best but, sigh, change has happened and continues to happen.

Lively is particularly incensed by the term “homophobia,” which he claims is a snarl word we made up to give the impression that everyone who opposes homosexuality is in the same class as the killers of Matthew Shepard (his example.) He challenges his debate opponent to define the difference between homophobic and non-homophobic opponents of homosexuality. The reply to that is – he’s right. They ARE all in the same class. The preacher who condemns gays from the pulpit need never personally lift a finger to harm a gay. He contributes more than his share by helping to create the moral justification for those who actually do the heavy lifting. The person who passes crude anti-gay jokes or who objects to positive portrayals of gays does the same thing.

Lively attempts to employ the scare tactic that gays are “taking over” mainstream religious denominations, schools, the entertainment industry and politics. Uh – huh. That must be why we only have full equality in five states and the District of Columbia. That’s why DOMA is still in place. That’s why we can’t file joint federal taxes. The list does go on for quite a while.

The point of all this is that when confronting an enemy such as Scott Lively, avoid the traps, be armed with facts and statistics from reliable sources and whenever possible, turn the question aside with sarcasm intended to show the oppression and absurdity inherent in his position.

Moving right along, interpersonal communications in an academic environment should be a topic on the training agenda. “Shut the fuck up, asshole,” is not generally considered to be the sort of elevated discourse parents pay good money to have their young ones exposed to on campus – not at least, when used in an official capacity. However, such a phrase could be classified as instructional and perhaps it is intended as part of a new, pithy, down-to-earth style of “eduspeak”. Fashions change so quickly in education that we may be behind the curve. Perhaps the college is inaugurating a whole new way of communicating. Gone, maybe, are the days of the semi-pompous, convoluted phrasing of the here-to-fore standard official memo. Instead of announcements reading something like “faculty are reminded of the importance of delivering grades by such and such a date in order to ensure timely transmission of data to appropriate repositories…” we may expect something more like “listen fools, get your shit in on time or hit the bricks.” It might work!

Next we need to more carefully delineate the parameters of power. “I can do whatever I want,” is a statement that does not seem to reflect the fullest possible understanding of the proper role of a security guard. Even Her Majesty The Queen can not do “whatever” she wants. She can do a lot, true – a whole lot more than a campus guard. She could, in theory, shoot someone dead on the street and not be held to account (dream on, campus guards!) but there are things even she can not do. Now, we climb way, way, way down the social ladder – so far down (compared to The Queen)  we need a snorkel – and we get to campus guards. The list of things a campus guard can not do is encyclopedic. The list of things they should not do is even longer. High on that list is get excited about two kids kissing – or fifty kids kissing for that matter. Kids fighting, being abusive, destroying property, selling hard drugs … now those would be activities to take an interest in…. but kissing…??? One would have thought security would be grateful that such was the program of the day, as opposed to all those other evil things kids are routinely suspected of.

Of course, to be fair, one must look at security’s side of the question. Kissing clearly can lead straight on to other things. Let’s see – friendship for one – perhaps even love – and those of us with experience of life know all too well how totally disruptive love can be. One loses sleep, daydreams, moons about, tires one’s friends with endless agonizing over the intentions of the beloved. Oh yes – love is certainly a problem . No doubt from the vantage point of the old, security was merely attempting to  save the students from such a dreadful fate. Perhaps they should be thanked instead of chastised.

Finally we must consider security’s stated concern for the welfare of the on-lookers who were exposed to kissing while trying to eat lunch. Let’s see if we can make a connection here between bad lunch and good kissing. Hmmm… No, sorry, nothing comes to mind. In fact, if kissing had a negative effect on digestion, every dinner theater in the country would be out of business. It seems the reverse is the case. Check the listings – dinner theaters NEVER produce Hamlet. They always do romantic comedies – but always. There you have it – the experts, the people whose bread-and-butter rests on informed evaluation of this burning question come down squarely on the side of exposure to kissing during meals. Case closed.