The newly male Chaz Bono makes his debut on Good Morning America...

A few years ago my mother gave me a book of cartoons about Catholic priests—"Priests Are Like People"—that was published in 1954. The cartoons, by Joe Lane, originally appeared in Extension Magazine, an old Catholic magazine that still exists. ("Promoting the missionary spirit of America's Catholics.") My good Catholic mother—my good Irish Catholic mother (black sense of humor)—felt that some of Joe Lane's old cartoons were newly relevant thanks to the sex scandals rocking the church. Her favorites:

Click the 'toons for a larger version. The middle one was her favorite. But Lane's cartoons seem a little less relevant today:

A preliminary report commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the clergy sex abuse scandal has found no evidence that gay priests are more likely than heterosexual clergy to molest children, the lead authors of the study said Tuesday.

Despite the fact that most of the victims of clergy sex abuse were boys, the study—commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops—found that sexual identity was not "a predictor of abuse." What was? According to the authors of the study the Church has to distinguish between sexual identity and behavior and be on guard against pedophile priests, not gay priests, "and to look at who the offender had access to when seeking victims." This study is going to throw a serious wrench in the Vatican's efforts to pin the whole clergy sex abuse scandals on teh gays.

A man claims he had no choice but to murder, decapitate, dismember, and burn the remains of a gay teenager—the kid made a pass at him, the alleged killer alleges, and deadly force is the only appropriate response to an unwelcome advance. It's why women are always killing straight men. More—and more depressing—details at Towleroad.

The Washington Blade, Southern Voice, Houston Voice, and four other publications—quality gay papers—are no more. But somehow this is still publishing.

Earlier this week Rhode Island's governor vetoed a bill that would've allowed same-sex domestic partners to claim each other's bodies and make funeral arrangements should one DP predecease the other (and one almost always does). Yesterday Rhode Island's governor—Republican Don Carcieri—met with a gay group to discuss his veto. Here's what Carcieri had to say after the meeting:

Two days after vetoing a bill giving domestic partners the right to make funeral decisions for each other, a conciliatory Governor Carcieri told a gay-rights activist group he is open to supporting a domestic-partnership law that bestows many if not all of the rights of marriage, without the right to marry.

“Maybe it’s something we should consider,” said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him “a bigot”… Citing as a possible model the “everything but marriage” referendum that won approval in the state of Washington earlier this month, Carcieri said: “I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples… outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage. “Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [sic] [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.

What Carcieri is referring to is Mark Goldberg when he says he doesn't think it's a good idea for the legislature to pass "discreet [sic] [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up." Here's what "came up" for Goldberg after his partner of 17 years died:

The [vetoed domestic partnership] bill was prompted by the tale Goldberg brought to the General Assembly in February of his battle to convince state authorities to release his partner’s body to him for cremation after his suicide. Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner’s office “our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate” from Connecticut, but “no one was willing to see these documents.”

We're all talking about Maine but the vote to uphold R-71 here in Washington state may wind up having a more significant impact. Washington was the first state where voters backed a law that provided same-sex couples with the all the rights of marriage that the state can confer (no federal rights), if not the magic word "marriage" itself, and Washington voters approved R-71 despite the fact that the forces campaigning against our everything-but-marriage law here in Washington used the same imagery and scare tactics used by successful campaigns against marriage equality in California and Maine. The results here may wind up giving other legislatures and other governors—even Republican governors—the courage and political cover to move on domestic partnership rights in their states.

Domestic partnership rights are not marriage rights, and they're not full equality, but they're something. We should keep reaching for marriage equality where we can—come on New York and D.C.—but same-sex couples in states where the fight for marriage equality could take decades should reach for whatever protections can be secured now. State Sen. Ed Murray's incremental strategy—widely derided by activists who wanted marriage or nothing—has not only been vindicated here in Washington but may wind up securing rights for same-sex couples all across the country.

UPDATE: Says Jiberish in comments: "and does this change your thinking on obama then?" I addressed that on Countdown—looking a little worse-for-wear (Auntie Dan was hung, darling)—the day after the election. The relevant bit comes after the 4:48 mark.

Crazy.

Cynthia Stewart, a 17-year-old junior at Tharptown High School in northern Alabama, is a member of her school’s prom planning committee, had personally raised over $200 for the prom, and created the theme her classmates had chosen for the dance. She is also an out lesbian. When Cynthia approached her principal to ask if she could bring her girlfriend with her to the prom, he said no. He also made Cynthia remove a sticker she was wearing that said, “I am a lesbian,” telling her, “You don't have that much freedom of speech at school.” Cynthia’s aunt and guardian, Kathy Baker, then appealed the principal’s decision to the school board. But the board let the decision to bar Cynthia from bringing her girlfriend to the prom stand.

Then the ACLU got involved and the school cancelled the prom altogether. Maybe the gays—so good at throwing parties—could come together and rescue this kid's prom for her and her tolerant classmates? Raise some money, book a hotel ballroom somewhere, and invite the kids to come and dance without any interference from their asshole principal and the bigots on the school board. (Via JoeMyGod.)

So says Barney Frank:

Though some moderate Democrats have recently expressed concern about repealing the policy during a midterm election year, Frank said resolve at the White House has never wavered. “The Administration is totally committed to this and has been from the beginning,” he said.

Michelangelo Signorile takes a look at what the leaders of gay rights groups said they expected from the Obama administration back in November of 2008—the things it would be easy for the president to accomplish, "items that do not require legislation or heavy lifting with Congress," all "low-hanging fruit" in the words of Rea Carey of NGLTF—and asks...

Here's a link to the exhaustive list on NGLTF's web site that Carey was talking about. As you will see , only one item—just one out of dozens and dozens, pages and pages—has a check mark next to it denoting that it has been completed. I guess that fruit wasn't so "low-hanging" after all.

Why then, after looking at what these leaders expected in December of 2008 and what has not nearly been accomplished, are they not adamantly criticizing the White House? Why, in the case of Joe Solmonese and HRC, which was enthralled by the President's speech to the group, are they actually praising him at this point for simply continuing to reiterate promises but not follow through? I think we need some answers and accountability for their comments—and the low-hanging fruit list—from a year ago.

Pastor Joe Fuiten, who at first seems to be among Washington's more sane Christian fanatics, concedes that the campaign to reject Referendum 71 has "fallen short of the glory of God." In a statement posted over at the Tacoma News Tribune in response to an editorial (posted in full after the jump), Fuiten blames his former brothers-in-bigotry—Gary Randall and Larry Stickney—for disappointing the Lord and for failing to oppress the gays.

Fuiten dives into a tirade against his former cohort Randall for being exactly what The Stranger exposed Randall to be long ago: a greedy bigot who takes money from naive evangelicals and puts little of their contributions into the campaign. Today, Fuiten writes, "On August 28th, Mr. Randall promised 'All income is spent directly on printing, mailing, Internet promotion and going forward, media ads and expenses, rather than salaries or consulting fees.' We were promised 'Radio ads are running and more are on the way.' As it turned out, according to the PDC reports, virtually nothing was spent on media ads and precious little on anything else."

But Fuiten is not trying to be reasonable for the sake of, you know, thinking rationally about gay people, whose sweet gay love or even their despicable sodomy has done nothing to harm his flock. No, Fuiten is being reasonable because he's determined to oppress gay people in the most calculated way possible.

Randall and Stickney bungled the campaign, Fuiten continues, by using the wrong messages—failing to tailor their bigotry to the homophobic-but-unchurched masses. But he acknowledges that by lying about the measure was a boon: "Changing the wording to marriage instead of domestic partnerships, and sticking with it, probably added 7-10% to our side of the column," Fuiten writes.

He applauds Colorado-based Focus on the Family and its state affiliate for meddling in Washington laws: "In terms of actual campaigning aimed at bringing people over to our side, Focus on the Family and Family Policy Institute of Washington were the two giants in this campaign. They contributed the most money and invested the most in trying to reach the culture."

In the end, the very presence of God in our northwestern state must be questioned. "Randall claimed the referendum was a miracle from God," Fuiten writes, "but I have to wonder at that. In the Bible, the miracles of the loaves and fishes fed 5,000 with 12 baskets left over. In this 'miracle' we didn't have enough money to fund television ads but the gays had millions."

He concludes that "it appears we have fallen short of the glory of God." Indeed, God's glory has vanished from Randall and Stickney. But the one we should be worried about—the real devil of Washington state to watch out for—is Joe Fuiten. Your daily douchebag.

Gary Randall, the carpetbagging, tax-evading loser behind the campaign to Reject Referendum 71, thinks I'm the enemy of freedom and he calls me out today on his blog. Randall is upset that people who supported his campaign are subject to the same disclosure laws as every other campaign in state history. (I took advantage of those laws earlier this year to ask folks who donated to Randall's campaign why they did it.) And this measure of equality—subjecting bigoted campaigns to equal disclosure law is as sinful as granting gays equal rights, apparently—motivates him to beg the courts to hide their names and addresses. Otherwise these straight folks will be subject to harassment. Straight-bashing. Really.

Randall has a few questions:

Dominic Holden, from a homosexual newspaper in Seattle, has harvested names and addresses from the PDC donor disclosure forms submitted by Protect Marriage Washington. He called the people at their homes demanding to know, "Why do you hate me?" He then posted their full name, where they live and some of their comments in the newspaper.

You tell me. Is that harassment? Does that have a chilling effect on their freedom to participate in the political process? Does that compromise their expression of free speech?

Here is my (possibly) chilling article. Names of donors, which (possibly) compromise freedom of speech because they're already public, are on the state's campaign disclosure site. Reading them is (possibly) bad for democracy!

But I just have to say, none of the people I spoke to "compromise[d] their expression of free speech": They got more free speech because I printed what they had to say. It's just that what they had to say revealed Randall's supporters as hateful, misinformed bigots.