D-Bag O' the Day (v. 1.15)—Ken Mehlman, Gay Basher, Throws Gay Bash

This week, in what was a complete non-surprise, Ken Mehlman finally got around to publicly acknowledging that he is—gasp!—gay.  So another rich dude turns out to be a little light in his tasseled loafers.  Why should we care?

Well, maybe, just maybe, it's because Mehlman was the first political director for the George W. Bush administration, the campaign director for the Bush 2004 reelection campaign, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee after the Bush reelection.  His political career was built in large part on a foundation of cynical, anti-gay demagoguery, using gay marriage as a national wedge issue in the 2004 election, and standing silent as the Bush administration and the Republican party pandered to the religious right with overt gestures (threatening to veto ENDA, resisting repeal of DOMA and DADT, and advocating two Federal Marriage Amendments) and "dog whistle" tactics (e.g., campaigning on the classic "San Francisco values" or "protect the kids" memes).  Joe.My.God summed it up nicely with this pithy headline:  "Repulsive Anti-Gay Quisling Homophobic Scumbag Asshat Closeted Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman Has Come Out".

To call Mehlman's actions "bigoted" or "anti-gay" really understates the case.  Trust me, during the 2004 election, I actually felt like Republicans, including my President, regarded me as a second-class citizen.  It is difficult to express how hurtful that era of politics was to me on a personal level, when a political party actively campaigned on a platform designed to whip up votes through divisive hatred toward gays.  It is even more distressing to me that Republicans routinely resort to gay-bashing to win elections, when the Conservative (Tory) Party in Britain has made efforts to be more inclusive and welcoming of gays (and other minorities), while still advancing conservative policies and winning a few elections along the way.  Over the past decade, voting Republican has never been a live option for me, at least at the state or national levels, because even if an individual Republican could get elected without campaigning against gays, that candidate's election would indirectly assist the bigoted Republican party core in advancing its social agenda.

What's even more galling about Mehlman's announcement is how fake it all seems, massaged to minimize any negative PR.  Mehlman's statements simply defy belief:

Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. ...

"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life," said Mehlman, now an executive vice-president with the New York City-based private equity firm, KKR. "Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."
 
—Interview by Marc Ambinder in "The Atlantic"

Bullshit.  I'm only a few years younger than Mehlman, I grew up in a conservative rural area, and I went into the legal profession at a time when being openly gay wasn't common, so I have a pretty good idea of the path he's traveled.  Let me be very blunt—Mehlman has known he is gay for decades.  He might have been afraid of being openly gay, but he didn't just wake up one day this past March and think, "Hmmm, wonder if I'd enjoy sex with men."  And let's keep in mind, Mehlman has been credibly reported for years to have been dating men even while enjoying his powerful political positions, so pardon me while I roll my eyes at his sudden gay awakening.

Mehlman's public acknowledgement of the blindingly obvious has been accompanied by plenty of self-pitying hand-wringing about how difficult the process has been for him:

The disclosure at this stage of Mehlman's life strikes one close friend as being like a decision to jump off of a high diving board:  Mehlman knows that there is plenty of water below, but it is still very scary to look down and make the leap.  Mehlman likes order and certainty, and he knows that the reaction to his public confirmation cannot be predicted or contained

....

Because his tenure as RNC chairman and his time at the center of the Bush political machine coincided with the Republican Party's attempts to exploit anti-gay prejudices and cement the allegiance of social conservatives, his declaration to the world is at once a personal act and an act of political speech.

"I wish I was where I am today 20 years ago.  The process of not being able to say who I am in public life was very difficult. No one else knew this except me.  My family didn't know.  My friends didn't know.  Anyone who watched me knew I was a guy who was clearly uncomfortable with the topic," he said.
 
—Interview by Marc Ambinder in "The Atlantic"

Oh, please.  Trust me, the decision to come out can be difficult, laced with fear of rejection by family or friends, and for some folks, very real fears of loss of job, harassment, or bullying.  But Mehlman has always been a part of the privileged classes, where his being openly gay might have hurt his chances to work publicly in certain Republican party leadership positions, but otherwise being out would have had minimal effect on his life.  Even in today's more gay tolerant environment, there are gay youth coming out publicly despite facing real consequences—bullying, physical attacks, estrangment from family and friends, and loss of financial and emotional support.  Other gay folks are living openly out lives in more gay-hostile areas of the country, with none of the safety nets conferred by Mehlman's social status.  Mehlman's failure to come out before now has nothing to do with any struggle over his identity, and has everything to do with a cynical, craven, and cowardly choice to pursue his personal interests at the expense of common gay folks.

Now, I'm not one to support "outing" closeted politicians or celebrities.  Who people sleep with is generally none of my business, and doesn't seem to correlate much with their ability to do their jobs.  But I feel comfortable condemning those closet cases who actively use positions of power and influence to advance their own careers at the expense of gay folks who don't enjoy the same degree of acceptance and protection.  Mehlman decided long ago that being out would be detrimental to his career.  Fine, he was entitled to make that difficult choice.  But as Mehlman was building his conservative resumé, hobknobbing with fat cats, strutting around the upper echelons of the national political scene, and parlaying it all into a small fortune and plum job (executive VP at "legendary leverage-buyout mastodon KKR"), there were hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of regular American gay folks suffering from job and housing discrimination, being kicked out of the military, and being denied the right to adopt kids or receive even minimal recognition of their relationships.  Obviously, Mehlman isn't solely responsible for all Republican anti-gay bigotry; there are plenty in the party who share that blame.  But Mehlman was a key figure in the Republican decision to pursue gay-baiting as a campaign strategy, which appears even more cynical now that other key Republican insiders from that era—including notably Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, and Steve Schmidt—have recently stated public support for gay marriage, as well as repealing DADT to permit gays to serve openly in the military.

Mehlman says he wants to work to advance gay causes within the Republican party, including raising funds for the fight to legalize gay marriage.  Some in the gay community are welcoming Mehlman's belated support for gay rights issues:

Dustin Lance Black, the Academy Award winning writer of "Milk," said, "Ken represents an incredible coup for the American Foundation for Equal Rights.  We believe that our mission of equal rights under the law is one that should resonate with every American.  As a victorious former presidential campaign manager and head of the Republican Party, Ken has the proven experience and expertise to help us communicate with people across each of the 50 states."

—Interview by Marc Ambinder in "The Atlantic"

Mehlman is a despicable lying, cheating, opportunistic weasel (with apologies to the many fine weasels among my readers), so you'll pardon me if I don't drop off a "welcome to the community" fruit basket.  However, I do believe in atonement and redemption.  Mehlman deserves a chance to repair the damage he and his party caused.  But after cashing in on the demonization of gays, Mehlman needs to do more than sign onto a few high-profile fundraisers for gay rights groups.  And, until gays can serve openly in the military, work free from discrimination, and marry the person they love, Mehlman should be rightly reviled for not using his power and influence to step up and fight for the rights of gays when it mattered the most.

"Now that I'm rich and out of politics,

I have more time to enjoy cosmos and show tunes"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM (28 August 2010):  I meant to include a link to Michael's post over at "Life & Times In Cleveland", but couldn't find a good way to work it into my diatribe.  So, please, go give a read to a straight guy's insightful take on this epic case of d-baggery.  In particular, I was struck by this point: 

2. Is it possible to be gay and not want same sex marriage? (although I relent there are some days all of us would vote to abolish marriage, I digress). My point is, while I disagree with the standard conservative argument against same sex marriage, I can at least (somewhat) understand their position.  For someone who is gay to not only be against it, but to champion policy and public opinion against it, seems unbelievable to me.

I don't think gays, or any other minority group, should ever be expected to hold homogenous views on any political issue.  There are certainly reasonable arguments to be made that gays should be granted civil recognition of their relationships on an equal basis, while reserving the label "marriage" for relationships recognized by a religious faith tradition.  But the hypocrisy of helping lead the charge against gay equality on a wide spectrum of issues, through the method of vilifying gay folks, is what is particularly galling conduct by a closet case like Mehlman.

Shaun Deeb Should Play Gay ... Bingo!

While catching up on my Google Reader poker blog feeds today, I learned some appalling news via Pokerati.com—the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City is hosting a gay bingo night!  You read that correctly, those bastahds are brazenly targeting a bingo night towards gays.  Seriously?!?  As a gay man, I find this utterly offensive.  We aren't back in the 1950s, or even the 1970s anymore.  Bingo is no longer a game where only Catholics or women over 50 excel.  Elite bingo players come from all walks of life—old men, cougars, Episcopalians, and yes, even a few gays.  Now these groups are certainly minorities in the upper echelons of the game, and historically have not fared as well as the hardcore older Catholic women players, but I find it insulting that any casino markets a sexually restricted event to gay bingo players.  The Taj Mahal might as well be saying, "Gays just can't compete at bingo."  Now, it's true that many gay bingo players find traditional bingo halls an intimidating place, filled with legions of hardcore bingo players with their polyester pant suits, bad dye jobs, and chunky jewelry, grooving to Rat Pack classics on their iPods.  But gays will never improve at bingo if they are sheltered from the rough and tumble world of an open bingo scrum.

I intend to protest the travesty of this Taj Mahal gay bingo event by not playing in it.  In fact, the Taj Mahal will not see another dime of my money so long as they offer gay bingo and I live in Iowa.  However, I fear my personal boycott of the event will not bring sufficient publicity to this grave injustice.  So, I propose that famed gender equality warrior Shaun Deeb be recruited to crash the event.  As a straight bingo player, Deeb could stand up for the rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation or fashion sense, to play bingo free from discrimination.  To make his point even more forcefully, Deeb could dress gay*—some highlights and product for his hair, a shiny synthetic fiber shirt, and a fabulous jewel-tone colored belt and shoe combo would really drive home the message that it is unfair to straights and gays alike for casinos to sanction gay-themed bingo competitions.

Please help me recruit Shaun Deeb to be a champion once more for sexual equality.  Let this post serve as a petition to draft Shaun Deeb to be the poster boy for the Democratic Bingo Alliance of Gays & Straights (DBAGS); leave a comment below to show your support for this noble cause.  Gay and straight bingo players everywhere deserve a worthy hero to lead this important fight for sexual equality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Below are some possible gay outfit choices for Deeb:

   

Relax!  Don't do it, when you want to .... BINGO!

Dear Language Police, Please Chill the F@#$ Out. XOXOXO

Dear Language Police,

Please chill the f@#$ out.

I know, you've been busy rooting out hateful and offensive language.  I have to admit, I've been impressed with your results eradicating the "N-word" and other ethnic or racial epithets from common conversation.  Cheers and well done!  All of our lives are better with those words banished to the dustbin of history.

I also give you props for cracking down on the use of language that is demeaning to women.  There's no good reason to refer to women as "girls" or "b*tches", or to use coarse sexual terms in mixed company.  Women deserve respectful treatment as equals.  Kudos for helping us clean up our act.

Your successes have given you some free time, and I know you've started a project to shield gays and lesbians from linguistic abuse.  As a gay man, I appreciate your efforts to eradicate the "F-word", which more often than not is hurled as an angry or hate-filled barb.  But, we need to chat a little about the word "gay".

It seems over the past three or four years that "gay" has become the term kids in their teens and early twenties use to indicate something that people my age would describe as "lame".  Yes, there is a negative connotation.  Yes, this particular usage appears to be mildly offensive, insofar as the term suggests that something "gay" is something undesirable or bad.  But let's get a little perspective.

Last week, UFC fighter "Rampage" Jackson was interviewed about his role in the upcoming movie version of The A-Team (a favorite TV show in my distant youth).  Unfortunately, the first part of the article focused on Rampage's rather indelicate language, including a declaration that, "Acting is kind of gay."  Rampage also reportedly commented that, "Vancouver strikes me as a San Francisco-kind of place," and used a "gay slur" (likely the F-word) when yelling at someone on set.  Based on these reports, you decided to prosecute Rampage for felony verbal bigotry, and convicted him in under two media cycles.

The problem is, I think Rampage got a bum rap.  Reading his explanation of the events, it seems pretty clear to me that Rampage undeniably has a lockerroom gutter-mouth, but he doesn't seem to use "gay" with any intent to be hurtful or offensive:

Let me teach you a little something about me cause I know y'all don't really know me.  I am a black man from Memphis Tennessee who grew up in the south where I faced discrimination my whole life.  I know very well how it feels for someone to judge you for something you have no control over so having gone through that I know how it feels.  I took a vow that I didn't even have to say that I would never discriminate against anybody for anything other that how they treat me or others around them.  So not only DO I NOT HATE gay people, I actually accept them for who and what they are.  They always seem happy and most of them I met are very kind and nice individuals.  Yes, and like most straight guys I joke around with the whole gay thing and I see it as comedy, not saying that's right or wrong but I don't do it out of hate. ...

I hear the word "gay" used a lot these days in its "lame" connotation.  I hear it at the poker table when someone takes a bad beat ("What a gay river!").  I hear it when my friends' high school kids are joking around (and their parents invariably shoot me a worried glance when they overhear their kids).  During a fantasy football draft last fall, one of the guys described a couple of draft picks as "gay"; he gave me a call the next morning to apologize profusely for a slur I hadn't perceived at all.  I see "gay" used in blog and discussion board posts.  My Ironman pals throw the word around from time to time (but in the case of Sahara and his shirts, it is the only word that is an adequate adjective).  I'll confess that I have even used the word on occasion.

I know your intentions are pure.  I realize that many gay teens face enormous pressure trying to figure out who they are while also trying desperately to be accepted and to fit in.  In a school or youth sports setting, I think a gentle admonition about appropriate language use can be a valuable teaching moment when "gay" gets thrown out in a callous manner.  But I think we also need to be aware of linguistic and social context.  Frankly, the usage of "gay" nowadays is in many cases almost wholly divorced from its sexual meaning; in fact, kids often use "ghey" to convey "lame" without a negative attitude towards gay people.  Polls show an overwhelming majority of today's youth are accepting of and comfortable with gays and lesbians.  Even among people nearer to my age, I rarely hear "gay" used in a manner that indicates any negative, hurtful, or offensive intent.

When used in a joking context, "gay" is rarely meant to be hurtful.  To the contrary, I think society's growing acceptance of gays and lesbians is actually reflected in good-natured joking about gays and lesbians.  There is a distinct difference between being the target of a mean-spirited put-down and the butt of some joshing among friends.  In fact, I think the use of "gay" as slang for "lame", or some friendly "gay" joking among straight people is actually evidence of increased acceptance of and comfort with gays and lesbians, rather than a symptom of hidden hatred and bigotry that must be punished with a scornful rebuke or drowned in a torrent of righteous indignation.

Look, as gays and lesbians are accepted as a normal part of everyday life, there needs to be some room for straight people to adjust how they talk and act.  The focus should be less on words, and more on attitudes and actions.  Rampage Jackson actually gets this just right in his response to the controversy—he has no mean intent, and his actions reflect a man against discrimination in any form.  Rampage—and millions of other straight people—use the word "gay" as slang or a joke, yet in their hearts they have love and acceptance for gays and lesbians.  By contrast, a minority of Americans remain hostile to gays and lesbians; they are usually marked by their use of the F-word, or an insistence on using "homosexuality" as their preferred terminology.  These are the folks who commit violent acts against gays and lesbians, or want to keep gays and lesbians in a second-class citizenship status.  I think an occasional "gay" comment or joke really is rather harmless in the grand scheme of things.

So, can we make a deal?  Let's focus the word policing on those who want to harm or oppress gays and lesbians.  But the overzealous crackdown on our friends who use "gay" on occasion is really rather silly and pointless.  In fact, it may even be counterproductive by depriving our straight friends of a comfort zone in how they interact with gays and lesbians.  To be blunt, calling out people for using "gay" as slang or as a joke is, well, gay. 

So please, when it comes to the casual use of "gay", chill the f@#$ out.

XOXOXO,
Grange95

P.S.  My straight buddy and fellow Ironman Santa Claus has long declared that he supports gay marriage, "because gays should be able to be just as miserable as straight couples."  In Santa's honor, I present the following video—if you laugh at least twice, you have my official dispensation to use the word "gay" without fear of reprisal from the gay mafia.

Devin & Glenn - watch more funny videos

EDITED (9 June 2010) to change the video link (hat tip to reader JHO who provided a new link in the Comments.  Thanks!).  YouTube is perilously close to #taserlist status.  That is all.

ADDENDUM (9 June 2010):  Some of the commentors have correctly pointed out that the usage of the "F-word" is also evolving, and its use does not necessarily imply a hurtful or mean-spirited intent.  In fact, in the right social context, it frankly has a similar innoccuous usage as "gay", meaning an inconsiderate D-Bag.  (South Park addressed the "F-Word" issue with good humor last season:  recap and full episode).  The F-word requires a little closer monitoring, as it still has a strong association with schoolyard taunts and gaybashing incidents.  But allowing the F-word to be used in a joking or innoccuous manner actually may help strip away its ability to be used in a more hateful manner.  So, in the right social context, the "F-word" can get a free pass from me as well.

D-Bag O' the Day (v. 1.7)—No Gay Campers in Jellystone Park!

Out to prove he is just as nutty and bigoted as his Republican compatriots representing Iowa on the federal level, Iowa state senator Merlin Bartz last week announced he intends to oppose efforts by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to rewrite its regulations for state-owned parks to permit gay married couples the same privileges now enjoyed by straight married couples.  Never mind that gay marriage has been legally recognized in Iowa for over a year.  Never mind that the proposed rule simply changes "husband and wife" to "spouse".  Never mind that the only effect of the rule change is to allow gay couples to obtain a "family permit" that authorizes use of more than one tent.  By golly, Sen. Bartz intends to be "vigilant" to ensure that no rules get past him (and his rules committee) that might "extend new benefits to gay couples".  Of course, straight and gay couples are legally entitled to identical benefits—there are no new benefits being proposed at all.  I guess these days a good Republican can't ever be too far right in appeasing their radical conservative base.

What is the deal with these Republicans anyway, that gets them all hot and bothered by the idea of a couple of gay men going to a state park and pitching a tent?

Sen. Bartz—keeping gay couples safe from

Yogi Bear's pic-a-nick basket raids since 2010.

Bi-Ware the Gay Mafia

I swear, I'll get some poker and sports posts up this week, but the past few days have seen some really silly moments on the gay news front, including:

• The decision to disqualify a gay softball team from the gay softball association's national championship game, because three of its bisexual players were declared to be "heterosexual" (the subject of my post a few days ago).
• A Pennsylvania state legislator "outing" her primary opponent ... as straight!  According to Thomas Fitzgerald at the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Veteran Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.) last Thursday accused her primary opponent, Gregg Kravitz, of pretending to be bisexual in order to pander to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters, a powerful bloc in the district."  Who thought we'd ever see the day when being straight was a political scandal?
• A Sacramento, California man, has filed a lawsuit alleging, "he was fired for not being gay, or gay enough, while working at Suzie's", a local porn shop (excuse me, "adult bookstore").  As reported by David Begnaud of the local CBS affiliate (KOVR), the man asserts, "I was told flat out that I wasn't the 'gay boy' they were looking for; they were looking for someone who was more gay."  Oh, and the man is "a plumber by trade."  'Nuff said.

Clearly, the Fairy Godfather of the gay mafia is hard at work, keeping the straight man down.  While you mentally make your own half dozen truly tasteless jokes, let's hand it off to Robin Williams and Elton John to explain the gay mafia:

Robin Williams, Live on Broadway (at the 4:30 mark):





Will & Grace (special appearance by Elton John):

D-Bag O' the Day (v. 1.3)—Pitchers & Catchers Report!

Our latest winner of the prestigious D-Bag O' the Day Award goes to the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (NAGAAA), whose website proudly proclaims:

Created in 1977, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (NAGAAA) is a 501c(3) organization that promotes amateur sports competition, particularly softball, for all persons regardless of age, sexual orientation or preference, with special emphasis on the participation of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community; and to otherwise foster national and international sports competition by planning, promoting and carrying out amateur sports competition.

NAGAAA's current membership includes over 680 teams from 37 leagues throughout the United States and Canada. Teams representing these leagues participate annually in NAGAAA's Gay Softball World Series (GSWS), hosted each year by a different member city.

NAGAAA sounds like a nice way for athletically inclined GLBT folks to enjoy some sports-related community bonding.  Also, the gay softball leagues allow straight people to play as well, which leads to increased tolerance, not to mention unlikely friendships.  As a good example, one of my close college buddies and roommates moved halfway across the country after graduation.  Doug was a typical small town Midwesterner by background, played every sport imaginable, and straight to the point where I doubt he had ever met a gay person.  When he got to Florida, his co-workers were gay, yet they hit it off over sports, and within a couple of weeks, Doug was a star player in the Tampa area gay softball league.

So why am I throwing NAGAAA  under the D-Bag Express?  Well, it turns out that even gays can be intolerant and discriminatory when it comes to sexuality.  Apparently, at the 2007 Gay Softball World Series, a team from the Seattle area placed second, but was challenged by another team(s) for violating a rule limiting the number of "heterosexual" players to two per team.  How did NAGAAA handle the allegations?  According to a discrimination lawsuit recently filed over the incident:

Each of the three plaintiffs was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people, and was asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if the player was heterosexual or gay, the lawsuit alleges.

—Janet I. Tu, "Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias," Seattle Times (20 April 2010).

Now, NAGAAA's rules only reference "heterosexual" and "gay" as possible sexual orientations, and the distinction is drawn based on the "predominate sexual interest" of the player, apparently making individuals who identify as bisexual "pick a team", so to speak.  So, these three gentlemen, who had publicly declared themselves gay (for purposes of softball, at least), still had to prove they were gay, or at least mostly gay, to a bunch of other gay people. When they were deemed insufficiently gay, their team was disqualified.  So much for "promot[ing] ... softball, for all persons regardless of ... sexual orientation or preference, with special emphasis on the participation of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community."  It's good to have goals.

First off, how do you even decide if someone is "gay enough" to play softball?  See how many fashion designers they can identify in 30 seconds?  Have them identify interior decorating faux pas in pictures?  Ask them to create a Madonna-Lady GaGa mashup, and then choreograph it?  Decide if they run or throw "like a girl"?  Oh wait, the gay community is (correctly) opposed to such trite and offensive stereotypes.  So was the questioning more a matter of keeping score while the players were asked if they would rather sleep with Ricky Martin or J-Lo ... Paul Walker or Jessica Alba ... Will Smith or Beyonce' ... Joaquin Phoenix or Reese Witherspoon?  Or did it come down purely to an over/under on sexual encounters—"you must have sucked this many c---s to play our reindeer games"?  The entire premise of "gay enough" is simply absurd.  Let's be blunt—if someone is willing to self-identify as gay or bisexual, and face the negative societal attitudes that still come with such self-identification, well in my book, that's plenty gay.  I seriously doubt the NAGAAA is going to see a huge influx of faux-gay players who can't resist the opportunity to win a gay softball title.

Even setting aside the ridiculous complaints and resulting sexual inquisition, the NAGAAA rule itself is way out of line.  Sports are one area in society where gays still face some degree of systemic discrimination.  Trust me, it's tough to be gay and to love sports.  But if you don't believe me, take a look at a list of prominent "out" gay athletes, and note how many waited to come out until after their retirement from competition.  So when straight guys not only accept openly gay athletes but also accept them as teammates and friends, why on earth would gays want to limit straight participation in their leagues?  What better way to break down gay sports stereotypes and build stronger gay-straight ties in the sports community than to encourage even more straight guys to participate in predominately gay sports leagues?  The NAGAAA's rule prevents the very acceptance of gays in sports that the organization is trying to promote.

Besides, doesn't the NAGAAA realize that good switch hitters are always in great demand?

Picture of the DQ'd softball team.  Can you identify the not-gays?

(Answers and some interesting reader comments at Towleroad.com).

ADDENDUM (22 April 2010):  The three DQ'd players apparently were suspended for a few months, but later reinstated with threats made to ban the team from NAGAAA competitions if the team subsequently were found to have again violated the "two heterosexuals" roster limit.  The players are seeking not only monetary damages (a requirement for federal court jurisdiction in this type of case), but also are seeking injunctive relief, including a court order to strike the use of "gay" and "heterosexual" labels from the NAGAAA rules, as well as to abolish the "two heterosexuals" roster limit.  The plaintiffs are being represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and the full complaint is available online.  Incidentally, a big high five to a gay rights advocacy group willing to stand up for folks who have been wronged by a gay organization on the basis of sexual identity.

ADDENDUM (23 April 2010):  The NAGAAA put out an "open letter" response to the lawsuit today.  Over at the Boneyard, blogger "davyjones" effectively skewers the NAGAAA's obsessive use of "gay/lesbian" and an apparent head in the sand approach to the existence of bisexuals. 

I also noticed that NAGAAA made several references to "security" and "safety" in its PR release.  Perhaps in the distant past (the NAGAAA dates to 1977) there were concerns over safety for gay athletes, but if there is a serious problem of gay-bashing straight softball players, I certainly haven't heard of it.  I think this purported "safety" justification is a pretty small fig leaf to hide behind. 

Frankly, if the NAGAAA wants to exclude straight folks for safety (or any reason), then they need to exclude all straight folks (why allow two scary straight players per team?).  The fact that NAGAAA allows some straights to play pretty well eviscerates any of their purported justifications for their silly rule.  The NAGAAA should be honest and admit their rule is based on an old (and untrue) stereotype that gays are not as good at sports as straights, and straights must be "ringers" whose participation should be limited.  The original protest seems founded on this very stereotype; the protesters didn't care that they were losing to a team with bisexual or straight players, they were upset that those players were giving their opponents some kind of "unfair advantage".  Are we as gays really going to buy in to this kind of bovine excrement?  The NAGAAA should be ashamed of having this rule, and the protesting team should be ashamed for protesting based on that rule.

-------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, since he wasn't given his own individual post, our D-Bag O' the Day Award (v. 1.2) went to this gentleman for intentionally vomiting on an 11-year old girl at a Phillies game.  You stay classy, Philadelphia!

You Can Lead a Horse to Gay Marriage ....

"You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage—now get this—it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy.' Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point—I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support."—Arizona U.S. Senate candidate JD Hayworth

I really have little interest in turning this poker/sports/random musings blog into a gay rights blog, but when some right wing yahoo blurts out a quote like this, I have to interrupt the degeneracy chatter for a little sober and rational analysis.  After all, I'm not one to suffer fools gladly. Or at all.

So what is it with the right wing nutcases, that makes them go for the man-horse (or in Rick Santorum's case, the man-dog) argument anytime gay marriage is brought up?  Gay marriage is certainly a controversial topic worthy of serious public debate.  I happen to be gay, and I'm in a long-term relationship which, thanks to the Iowa supreme court, is eligible to be recognized as a civil marriage.  I look at my relationship and I see a lot of what my straight friends have in their marriages—I get nagged for not keeping the house clean, I get static about the amount of poker I play, my poker bankroll gets siphoned for house projects and spouse gifts, he rolls his eyes when I watch sports, I roll my eyes when he watches "House Hunters", when one of us is sick the other babies him, when he drives on a closed road and gets stuck in a snowdrift I bite my tongue ... The only difference is that we gays have a lot more angry sex and make up sex, and no angry withholding of sex; jealous, aren't ya?

Look, gay marriage is a major change.  It is going to be controversial, and there will be harsh words and hurt feelings from the debate.  That is all part of the healthy process of democracy.  I fully understand that well-meaning and rational folks might not agree that gay marriage should be legalized.   But what I don't understand is the ultra-right-wing's reflexive slippery slope argument that gay marriage is somehow an endorsement of bestiality.  It is incredibly offensive, not to mention irrational.*  In some ways, the fact that they resort to this argument is reassuring—if they have to stoop to such a ridiculous "analysis" then they are essentially admitting their position is intellectually bankrupt.  I think most Americans who are undecided recognize the bestiality "argument" for the specious drivel it is.  But when a serious candidate for a high political office feels the need to articulate this point, it establishes either that he is too stupid to be trusted in public service, or he is too cynical a panderer to be trusted with public office.

Now, I'm pretty sure there's some saying about giving a man a fish ....

-----------------------------------------------
*Just to be clear, two adult humans can enter into a contract, such as marriage.  A human and an animal cannot enter into such a contract.  I lost IQ points simply by spelling out such a rudimentary argument, but apparently there are folks who need this point explained to them.  I will be happy to forward a Venn diagram and a sledgehammer to the skull to anyone needing further explanation.