Sunday, January 31, 2010

Bogus ManCrunch Super Bowl Ad Deserves Rejection

Talk about your obnoxious gimmicks. is whining because they are upset that CBS rejected their request to run the above ad during the Super Bowl.

ManCrunch is apparently not even gay-owned. It appears that the owners run a bunch of niche-dating sites like

Either way, I find this depiction of gay men to be obnoxious beyond belief. And then, to show an African-American man staring dumb-founded at 2 allegedly gay sports watchers, who suddenly go at it with each other on the couch because their hands touch?

No gay-friendly sponsor would ever put out crap like this.

What ManCrunch did, in their supposed plea to get gays outraged at CBS, is reap a lot of free publicity for themselves. That was their plan. Not positively representing the gay community.

I am glad that CBS rejected this ad.

I wish they had rejected the Tim Tebow ad for Focus On The Family, but that is another story.

This ad is an embarrassment and should cause potential ManCrunch customers to question whether the owners of the site are just using gays to fatten their wallets, as opposed to really hoping to get people connected.

Queerty has a very comprehensive piece on this as well and makes an excellent case for CBS rejecting it. You can read their analysis here.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Problem With Media Coverage Of DADT

If the media took the time to properly cover America's flawed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, the bigots (like John McCain) who say it's working just fine would be exposed for the homophobes they are.

Unfortunately, we get articles like today's useless piece from the AP. Sadly, this is the version that will make it into countless papers.

Rather than reprint the entire article (you can link to it here), let me just explain what makes the reporting so offensive.

First, the global model.

I have written about this in the past, but most Americans have no idea that the U.S., along with Turkey, are the ONLY 2 NATO countries that do not allow gays to openly serve. If outlets that reported on lifting the ban as controversial actually took the time to report that simple fact, it would make a huge difference.

Reading from the AP story:

"Lifting the ban poses some emotional questions that go to the heart of the military's command structure and the trust relationships within military units. Among them: Will U.S. troops and leaders tolerate openly gay members in their midst? And if they don't, what should the Pentagon do about it?
That question becomes absurd if the article noted that in all the other countries where gays serve openly (like Israel, for example), gays were readily accepted without any negative results.

Is someone suggesting that American men are too fragile to deal with this, unlike the military of our allies? It would seem so.

Now consider this nugget:

While his promise is being hailed as a good start by gay rights' activists, Obama is finding resistance in several corners. Some high-ranking military officers are reluctant to embrace the change while the forces are stretched thin at a time of two wars.
America has booted a number of gay arabic translators at a time when there were precious few of these specialists to begin with. Did this not compromise our troops in time of war?

And, if over 10,000 gays have already been booted (as the article acknowledges) and many more won't enlist because of the insult of DADT, wouldn't it make sense to end this discriminatory policy BECAUSE we are stretched thin and do not have the manpower we need to occupy 2 countries?

The policy, as it currently stands, dehumanizes gays and asks us to lie, if we want to serve our country.

Finally, nowhere does this article state that polling shows the repeal of DADT to have majority support from all quarters, including conservatives. If it did take the time to report this fact, it would defeat the agenda of the reporter, who has a desire to make the move to repeal seem daring and controversial.

It would be nice if reporters were a bit more honest covering the story, rather than propping up phony arguments and leaving out important facts.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Don't Ask Don't Tell...The Deal On Repeal

(note: I had fully intended to do more blogging while I was in California...unfortunately, life got in the way!)

As angry as I have been with President Obama's total inaction on glbt issues, I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the language he used in his State of the Union address, when he said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do."

I did not expect Obama to include these words in his SOTU and he offered a specific timeline, "this year." I am slightly more hopeful that the repeal may actually happen.

Here's why.

First, it is a bit of a no-brainer.

The chief argument against allowing gays to serve openly in the military is that it would destroy unit cohesion.

At the time this argument was raised, in the mid-90s, there was not much empirical evidence that we could call up to absolutely refute it. But times have radically changed. As of today, the only other NATO nation that does not allow gays to serve openly is Turkey! Gays serve alongside straight soldiers in the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Israel and many other nations. And the sky has not fallen.

The argument about the proposed detriment to the military has been proven to be a fallacy.

Additionally, in polling, even among Conservatives, a solid majority supports an end to the ban. So, Obama is hardly ahead of the curve in asking for DADT's repeal.

Second, the loss in Massachusetts, where 22% of Democrats voted for the Republican, made it clear that Obama is in trouble with his party's base.

As long as Rahm Emanuel is Chief-of-Staff, the Obama administration will never be friendly on glbt issues. The promises Obama made in 2008 were merely to grab an influx of gay dollars and campaign footsoldiers, and get himself elected.

Everything Obama has done, to this point, makes it very clear that he has no intention of getting behind gay marriage, which will insure that we will maintain 2nd-class citizenship status.

Repealing  DADT, which has majority support, would be relatively risk-free, and would allow him to still make a pitch for glbt dollars and support in the mid-terms and beyond. And yet, how many times have we heard Obama make empty promises and not deliver? It would be easier to count the solitary number of times he actually kept his word.

Though it was buried at the end of the SOTU, the fact that he gave a timeline made me feel that it was a legitimate pledge.

Not so fast

However, looking at reaction in the past few days, it appears that maybe Obama's pledge was just another empty promise.


1) As the Joe. My. God. blog pointed out...a bad sign was sent when the military Joint Chiefs of Staff (pictured above) stood stoically, not applauding, as the president delivered that line, which drew general applause from others.

2) Yesterday, on MSNBC's Hardball, WaPo's Eugene Robinson said that he had information from a WHite House source that the repeal would not be undertaken this year. From AmericaBlog:

Robinson and NBC White House Correspondent Savannah Guthrie were talking about the President's commitment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell with Chris Matthews. As to whether or not it's really going to happen, Guthrie said: "The proof will be in the pudding. Is this something they try to move forward with with all deliberate speed. Are they going to slow walk it? So, I think in the coming days and weeks we'll know how serious they are about it." That's exactly right. We'll know soon.
Then, Robinson added, "What I heard this morning from somebody at the White House was probably not this year. But, maybe we would be hearing from military brass at some point."
3) Finally, an article in today's NY Times, says the repeal is "not imminent." Observe this gem:

Officials said they were pressing ahead with one of the more controversial items Mr. Obama laid out Wednesday night: repealing the policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

Senior Pentagon officials said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had been in close discussions with Mr. Obama on the issue and would present the Pentagon’s initial plans for carrying out the new policy at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.
Changing the policy requires an act of Congress, and the officials signaled that Mr. Gates would go slowly, and that repeal of the ban was not imminent. And it could be a hard sell for the president, even among Democrats; Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, on Thursday restated his opposition to repealing the ban.
To that, I would like to ask, what would make a proposal with majority support, a policy enacted by virtually all of our allies, "controversial?"

It is just a further indication of how seriously out-of-touch America is on social issues. When it comes to policy matters affecting gays, America is closer to Arab and African nations, than it is to Western countries.

Obama is now on record as working to repeal DADT this year. Let's see if this will be the latest promise to not be followed with true advocacy and, ultimately, become another promise broken.

Because of the president's past track record, I will believe what he says only when I see it followed up with action.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Prop 8 Trial

As I wrote in my last entry, I am currently in California (and will most likely be heading here to live in a few months). I was not able to blog as much as I wanted to during the week I have been here, but I should have a much easier time getting posts in this week.

Rather than play catch-up on the Prop 8 federal trial, currently underway here, I will just pick it up from the most recent developments.

Before I get to that, I do want to send a note of alarm. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against allowing cameras in the courtroom was a very bad sign. By a 5-4 vote, justices bought into the argument from the right-wing, that they risked harassment if the trial was televised. It could very well be this same majority that further codifies anti-gay discrimination in America. There is a reason to be very concerned. For more on this element of the story, click here.

This week has, so far, featured testimony from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who for the past couple of years has favored gay marriage over civil unions. This represented a change of policy for Republican Sanders. He indicated that the impetus behind the change was the fact that his lesbian daughter had to go to Vermont to wed, noting  “My daughter deserves the same opportunity to be married in front of friends family and coworkers."

Additionally, according to the San Jose Mercury News,

Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts professor, and plaintiffs expert, has outlined four conclusions she's reached on Proposition 8's impact in California, including a "substantial economic harm" to same-sex couples denied the right to marry, as well as damage to California's overall economy. She also will testify on research that there is scant demographic difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples, and no evidence same-sex marriage harms children.
Live Blogging The Prop 8 Trial

There are 2 excellent sites to check out, if you want to follow this trial live.

My favorite progressive blog site is Jane Hamsher's excellent Firedog Lake. Access their live blog on the trial here.

The San Jose Mercury News is also live blogging the trial here.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Uganda Appears To Be Backing Off Of Anti-Gay Legislation

The president of Uganda is now giving indications that issuing new punitive measures against Ugandan gays might seriously damage that nation's foreign relations,  There had been earlier reports that Uganda was preparing to back off of their demands for the execution of gays, under certain circumstances.

As I have pointed out in this blog, and has also been addressed by other outlets, merely switching the penalty to life imprisonment (with rehabilitation) is not an option. Additionally, incarcerating Ugandans for not reporting fellow countrymen they know to be gay is unacceptable.

The Guardian quotes president Yoweri Museveni (pictured above) as saying that the anti-gay legislation has now become a

"foreign policy issue."

"When I was at the Commonwealth conference, what was [the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper] talking about? The gays. UK prime minister Gordon Brown ... what was he talking about? The gays," said Museveni.
America is apparently entering the fray finally, following the lead of Europe:

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, had also called him to express strong concerns about the proposed law, he said. "It's a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way that does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests."
Yeah, some principles.

As, The Guardian reported, American right-wingers have much to answer for:

The final impetus for the proposed legislation came after a conference hosted last year by three controversial US evangelists who claimed that homosexuality was a curable habit and warned of the danger of the international gay "agenda". The evangelists have since, however, criticised the severity of the punishments in the proposed law.
Criticised the severity of the anti-gay legislation? As if any punitive measures would be okay?

I guess the fact that Uganda already crimializes homosexuality isn't good enough.

Access the full story here.

(note: I am in the L.A. area for the next couple of weeks, but I will be reachable via e-mail. I will be able to continue to blog from here.)

Friday, January 08, 2010

NY Post & NY Daily News Make Gays Irrelevant

2 New York tabloids demonstrated this morning why it is so easy for Democratic politicians to not take the issue of gay civil rights more seriously.

Back in the early 90s, when I first came out and began my glbt newsfeeds, I focused on the way that newspapers covered glbt issues. I did this, recognizing that what people read each day in their local paper went a long way towards shaping their perceptions on glbt issues. The same holds true today.

One of the main reasons that attitudes towards gays have been gradually improving and evolving over the years is that there is generally far fairer coverage than there was 20, 30 and 40 years ago. Look back at pre-Stonewall coverage and one can see how far we have come.

Yet, we still have a long way to go.

New York City employs 10s of thousands of New Jerseyites, who make a daily commute in, before trekking back to the Garden State. Many of these workers are gay. There is a reason that New Jersey stories merit extensive coverage in the 2 big city tabloids.

Yesterday, there was a highly significant vote in the New Jersey Senate that effectively confirmed the 2nd-class status of New Jersey's gay citizens, as gay marriage got defeated 20-14 in the state Senate.

Here is how both local papers covered it:

Both the Daily News and NY Post used a very abbreviated Associated Press story (no local reporters) and each relegated the story to the shortest space possible.

In the Post, the story was buried on page 11. Ironically it was about 1/10 the size of a feature on Ellen Barkin's busted heterosexual marriage, which was above it. Actually, Barkin's picture was 5 times larger than the gay marriage piece.

Flirting with disaster

The Daily News (pictured above) was slightly better, in one way, and far worse, in another. At least they put the story on page 3, which showed some sense of the vote's importance.

What made the coverage so offensive? The Daily News headline: "N.J. ends its flirtation with gay marriage bill."

Ends its 'flirtation?'

This is a civil rights issue, but the headline writer at the Daily News makes a mockery of this with a lead-in like that.

If we want to be taken seriously, we need to make sure that the news outlets that cover issues vital to us do the same.

Thursday, January 07, 2010

No Jersey

It has been a year into President Obama's neighborhood and we are running backwards on progressive issues and, especially, on glbt issues.

Gay marriage was defeated in the New Jersey Senate 20-14, with 5 brave Senators choosing not to vote.

Please note that 6 Democrats voted against gay marriage and 3 did not vote. They are our enemies. 2 Republicans voted in favor of gay marriage. There is a reason I am no longer voting the party line and am now an Independent.

Here is a link to the roll call vote.

There is now going to be a Republican Governor, who has vowed to veto any gay marriage legislation that would come before him. We cannot get a simple majority, even when Democrats are in how can we expect to override a veto?

The focus is now turning to the courts.

There needs to be some serious strategizing and planning going on. Now.

For more coverage on the story, select from among the following:

The New York Times
The Newark Star-Ledger
NBC New York

Most Absurd Gay Comparison...Ever

I was reading an article in the Ugandan daily, The Monitor, this morning. The article, titled "Foreign press hits Uganda over gays," was a fairly straightforward account of international condemnation of Uganda's proposed new anti-gay legislation. The piece referred to the NY Times editorial condemning Uganda, as well as the governmental response, dismissing the critics.

However, what really caught my eye was the only comment that was printed (as of this post, at any rate). It contains the most outrageous gay comparison I have seen, thus far. From a reader named Pembe01:

I am willing to take a pay cut to accommodate the foreign aid we may lose.Someone please remind the West that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other allies of theirs reject homosexuality. Do they hold Uganda to a higher moral standard? If homosexuality is a right, why not cannibalism. I should be able to decide what I eat, right?
Gays are being equated with cannibals?

Well, if we are talking about glbt politics in America I can understand the comparison.

But seriously, this country suffered Idi Amin...and they still have a multitude of citizens, like this poster, who just do not understand the concept of treating others with simple human decency.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Washington Post Editorial Rips Uganda

The Washington Post, in an editorial to be published on Thursday, slammed Uganda for its proposed anti-gay legislation.

As I have been reporting on, in this blog, even if Uganda were to eliminate the death penalty option, as an alleged concession to Western complaints, the bill would still be horrific and unacceptable. Thankfully, The Washington Post gets it:

If it is approved, the gay people of that nation would be subject to life in prison. This retreat from the death sentence originally proposed should neither be celebrated nor considered a concession by the government in response to pressure from the United States and other nations. The proposal is barbaric. That it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations.

The editorial correctly adds:

The law would apply to citizens or permanent residents of Uganda, and would cover behavior both in and outside that country. The measure would turn neighbor against neighbor by requiring those with knowledge of a gay person to report them to police within 24 hours or risk three years in prison. A seven-year jail term awaits the Ugandan who "aids, abets, [or] counsels" homosexuals. And anyone convicted of "aggravated homosexuality," which could mean someone who is HIV-positive and is intimate with another person of the same sex, could "suffer death."
I suppose it wouldn't even matter if the hiv-positive person was practicing safe sex.

If this legislation passes, civilized nations need to respond with sanctions. We allow such barbaric behavior to go unpunished, to our shame.

The Washington Post seems to agree.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

New Jersey May Sked Vote This Week Legalizing Gay Marriage

             (signs from a pro-gay marriage rally in Trenton from November 23, 2009)

Even though we apparently do not have the votes in the New Jersey Senate to pass gay marriage, it's been announced that it will be put up for a vote this week.

The effort is a last-ditch attempt to pass gay marriage before the Governor-elect takes the reins on January 19th. Incoming GOP Governor Chris Christie has indicated that he would veto any gay marriage legislation that came to his desk, so a simple majority would not cut it in future votes.

The results do not look encouraging, as Reuters reports:

The outcome is uncertain, but local media reported on Tuesday that backers of the bill do not have the 21 votes necessary to win Senate passage.

Christie's victory in November has made some lawmakers wary of supporting the controversial measure, and little time remains to convince legislators whose votes are unknown or undecided, observers say.

If the bill fails in the Senate, the proposal could lie dormant for several years.

The reason for bringing up the bill now? According to Senate president Richard Codey,

"Given the intensely personal nature of this issue, I think the people of this state deserve the right to a formal debate on the Senate floor."
Personally, I am all for a vote. Given that it would be nigh impossible to pass this during Christie's tenure, why not find out who our supporters are and who our enemies are?

Just like in New York, those Democrats who choose to vote against gay marriage can look forward to aggressive primary challenges and lack of financial, and other, support from gay constituents and our allies.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

BBC Puts Execution Of Gays Up For Discussion

While reading a story out of Kenya today, on the proposed anti-gay Ugandan legislation, I came across something disturbing that happened a couple of weeks back.

As the East African reported on a House of Commons debate, which termed the proposed bill "abhorrent," the article noted,

The debate followed sustained criticism for the BBC, which posted a comments section on its website asking whether homosexuals should be killed.
The Bill proposes the death penalty for any HIV positive person who takes part in a homosexual act, and life imprisonment for anyone convicted of the “offence” of homosexuality.
More than 600 people posted their views. While some agreed that gay men and women should be killed, others were appalled that the debate was being conducted online, terming it as “disgusting”.
Yes, 'disgusting' fits.

I went to that BBC site, where the dialogue is now closed, and learned that, of 633 comments, 188 were published and 207 were rejected. I assume the remaining 238 were consigned to some sort of BBC purgatory.

You will be happy to learn that most people, at least among the entries published, did not favor our demise.

The most 'recommended' response, from 'Robert, UK,' had this to say:

Isn't it strange that the Ugandan parliament doesn't suggest the death sentence for corruption? Political corruption in Ugandan causes far more misery than gay men.
And I wonder how many of those politicians secretly have homosexual feelings?

This is obscene, hypocritical, prejudiced nonsense. It is something from the Dark Ages.
Other popular posts condemned those who suggested that, while they did not like the proposed law, Brits should stay out of Uganda's affairs. That prompted this popular reply:

I'm pretty sure it was our business when Hitler started killing people because of their race, and rightly so. If Uganda starts killing people because of their sexual orientation, then it's very much the world's business.
One poster said that even the mere suggestion of ignoring the bill,

 is as immoral as the execution. I guess we had no right to criticise the holocaust?
Here are a couple of the anti-gay comments that were published (one can only imagine what hatred was filtered out):

"The West is quick to berate and undermine anything barbaric or primitive. The West presents its culture as universal--using terms as human rights, universal freedom, global war on terror etc.The assumption is that other societies can only become civilized if they abandon their cultures and embrace Western ethos. Behind this agenda there is race, racism and racialism.On the surface, it appears to be just homosexuality but there is a deeper meaning. Get rid of this vice Africa."

"What other treatment should anyone else prescribe for anyone who knowingly gives a disease with death sentence to their innocent victims?"

"I fully endorse the legislation intended to protect the culture and traditions of Uganda. What we should understand that much as people have their rights, these rights should not be exercised at the detriment of the society in which we live.
"Remember that Uganda (and by extension Africa) has a unique tradition which needs to be protected by the influences of Western culture which seem to corrupt the morals of our generation."
The original piece from the BBC can be found here.

For many, it was the actual posing of the question that is most infuriating. We do not have forums questioning whether slavery was just, or if inter-racial marriage is acceptable. How can there be any justification for a respected news outlet to even put the question up for discussion.

The BBC, under intense criticism, responded with this explanation from their editors:

The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate.

We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake.

If Uganda's democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.

We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.

This issue has already sparked much debate around the world and understandably led to us receiving many e-mails and texts. We have sought to moderate these rigorously while at the same time trying to reflect the varied and hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa."
Sorry BBC. That did not fly with me. I am glad that the House of Commons saw fit to take your 'coverage' on.

The only good that I see coming of this is the fact that it made more people focus on what Uganda was trying to do.

However, there are better ways to get that accomplished.

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Malawi & Uganda: The Religious Right's Wet Dream

Much of my blog for the past month has concerned the persecution of gays in a couple of African nations, Uganda and Malawi.

One reason I think it is important to cover this story in America is because it shows what happens when Christian fanaticism is allowed to shape governmental law, and when hate-filled brainwashing is allowed to permeate the populace.

These anti-gay statutes are not unpopular. They reflect the messages that have been willfully pumped out, not just from African preachers, but from imported American evangelicals, who are just as shrill in their anti-gay condemnations.

In the same way that people could profess Christianity and cite the Bible to justify slavery, Bible verses continually get taken out of context to justify the demonization of homosexuality.

I thought it would be illuminating to just show one batch of comments from a recent article in the Malawian newspaper, the Nyasa Times.

The article, "Rights campaigners says Malawi should legalise same-sex marriage," concerned comments from the head of the (chillingly named) Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation. (note: campaigner is the British term for 'activist.')

I linked to the story so that you can read it for yourself. While the story is not as horrible as the comments that follow it, it certainly is not exactly supportive of gay civil rights and makes some skewed points.

What I wanted to highlight today was the 'comments' section, so you can see what Malawian citizens think of gay civil rights. It should remind you of the same kind of hate you might see in an American forum on a conservative site, after an article on gay marriage. That fact is scary, in and of itself.

While America is behind the Western curve on glbt issues, at least we now have some protections in place. There are no longer anti-sodomy laws, for example.

More gays are out, as well, breaking down many of the old stereotypes. Visibility is an important weapon in fighting homophobia. Just ask Dick Cheney.

However, because of the rabid homophobia of American religious activists, we still deal with much anti-gay hate speech, anti-gay violence, and deprivation of full civil rights.

Thanks to a couple of decades of generally positive articles in newspapers on glbt issues, combined with positive media images, we now have a much better balance in America between pro and anti-gay speech. According to polls, the younger the individual, the more inclined the person is to support glbt civil rights. But it wasn't all that long ago that one would be hard-pressed to find a positive word about homosexuality.

African attitudes about gays is America just 40 years ago, before Stonewall. Today, in African newspapers, you will not find many stories, or reader comments, that speak out against the hate, though there are a few.

I want you to see these comments, because, in many ways, it shows what happens when religious zealots are allowed to unleash their hate speech, without much to counter it.

If we do not fight the religious right, and keep them in check, then our future will look more like Malawi and Uganda, than Denmark and Sweden.

Here are some selected comments. I will provide the link to both the story and comments section at the bottom of the page.

anastazia says:
Homosexuals will always defend thier pals. Dont be surprised with the lawyers they too are in it. I was just looking at the photo of fischer Kondowe and was imagining that there is some man out there admiring him for sex. Oh! God forbid!!!

Tom says:
For once I commend the reformed Malawi Police for taking appropriate action. To say the least, what were those homosexual fellows trying to prove when they fully knew that it was illegal to do so in the country? Malawians should be extra careful. How many people could profess to be truly homosexual? Some of the fellows are made to behave like that just because of economic benefits that they can get from the predator.

I recall sometime back in my college days when I was invited to a party organized by the big people at a Company that I worked for during the holidays. That party was only attended by men and I knew something was not right. One man came to me and started caressing my beard and my side whiskers then he went on to touch me where no one dares not to. I pulled his hand off and asked to be driven home. I do not know what happened to the other young men who were there but I would not be surprised if in this present age they turned out to be brides. At least I escaped that entrapment and am now married to my beautiful wife.

Vernon A.D says:
Man was created in the image of God and after His likeness. Man’s standard and reference is the Bible. The only opposer of the Bible as God’s word is ONLY Satan and his team of fallen angels. Human beings who support the fallen angels will work against the Holy book (Bible) also. No wonder some support Satan while some support God and His word in the Bible.
God is for multiplication of human beings on earth while the Devil is for no multiplication and condons same sex marriage.

Chipapwiche says:
Rights campaigners say Malawi should legalise same-sex marriageRights. Thank you so much for coming up with this proposal. My appeal! Before legalising same-sex marriageRights, or whatever you call it, can we legalise chamba first becos its smoked by so many people among us! Can we legalise all the sins committed by people because they are committed within us! I thought you learned people could assist driving our people the right way but alas! look at what you are asking the country to legalise. The same-sex whatever was there before the Bible was written, why was it not accepted in the Bible? You rights whatever groups, why are you there? What is a right? All the rights were already given to us by God. If He did not include same-sex whatever, how dare you? Watch out! there is another life after this one with so many human rights.

Ex Hon says:
No way Hosea. We Malawians will not accept legalisation of homosexuality in our country, because next they will be asking for beastiality (sleeping with animals) as a birthright. Let them (Europeans) first legalise Marijuana as our birth right then we will talk, but never accept homosexuality. We cannot be responsible for the Sodom and Gommorrah.

Mbonga says:
Its not about using GOD to oppress other people, it is GOD Himself who designed the laws of nature. Just read Gen 1:27-28, it is clear that God created man and woman for a special purpose of companionship and reproduction. You can also read Genesis 2:24 to understand more. On the surface, homosexuality behavior should be recognised as sinful becoz it violates God’s original plan for heterosexual monogamy.
Read Leviticus 18:22 to understand that any form of homosexuality is a sin before God. Also read Romans 1:27-32 in the new testamant.
Homosexuality therefore is a consequence of rejecting the creator order, no wonder God gave laws to the Israerites on how to deal with all perveted people who indulge themselves in homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13).
You get the picture.

To read the article, and all the comments, go here.

Friday, January 01, 2010

Outrage In Malawi

Earlier, I reported on the celebrations in New Hampshire, after gay couples were officially allowed to marry in that state, beginning today.

Last week, in an act of courage, a gay couple in Malawi had a symbolic marriage ceremony, and have now been arrested.

Tuesday, Reuters South Africa had this to report:
Two Malawian men were arrested and charged with public indecency, police said on Tuesday, after becoming the first gay couple to marry in the conservative southern African state where homosexuality is illegal.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza publicly wed in a symbolic, traditional ceremony on Saturday.

"We arrested them last night at their home and charged them with gross public indecency because the practice is against the law," police spokesman, Dave Chingwalu, told Reuters.

Homosexuality is banned in Malawi and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Today's news, courtesy of The Guardian, is even more grim:
The first gay couple to marry in Malawi face a humiliating medical examination aimed at proving they have had sexual relations, it emerged today.

How scary is it for the couple? Consider the following:
The men have denied all the charges against them, but remain in custody pending an application for bail on Monday.

Supedi said he had not yet had opportunity to ask them why they had chosen to make such a public stand.

"I think maybe they regret it," he added. "Chimbalanga was happy and normal in court, but Monjeza seemed very worried and was crying. Perhaps he did not know it would go this way."

As he was sent back to prison, Monjeza hinted to reporters at the court that he might consider calling off the marriage.

"I am sad I am going back to Chichiri prison," he said. "The conditions are terrible there. People are exaggerating this thing. I may just as well dissolve this marriage."

Chimbalanga refused to speak to journalists, other than to accuse them of writing "stupid" things.

The Guardian also noted that Malawi may be more inclined to recognize gay civil rights, due to an alleged 25% HIV rate among gay males, vs. an overall 12% rate of infection. However, the persecution of this couple would seem to dispute the fact that conditions for gays are going to get better anytime soon.

As bad as conditions are for gays in Muslim nations, it appears the focal point on gay oppression currently is located in Africa.

New Hampshire Gay Newlyweds Usher In New Year

Happy New Year everyone!

Starting off the new year on my blog with some positive marriage is now legal in New Hampshire.

I thought it was rather cool that USA Today had a story today titled, "New Year's newlywed gay kiss may be sign of 2010." The kiss (pictured above) was between 1 of 15 couples that had their marriage made legal at the capital statehouse in Concord, just after midnight.

Legal on the state level, that is. There are still no federal protections in place. Further, DOMA means other states have the discretion of invalidating the legality of their union, should they move.

Local Coverage To Check Out

Below, I am providing links to 3 state papers. Don't just check out the articles, but read the forum comments, as well. You have the option of registering, and adding your own thoughts to the mix. Please do.

Nashua, New Hampshire, had nice coverage from the local paper, on a local couple's wedding, complete with photo. Click here to read.

The Concord Monitor, while not affording it prime story status, did have a good piece here.

The notoriously conservative Manchester Union-Leader had very short, cursory coverage here.