An Irish politician is in hot water for making offensive comments about the gays. Today she slammed her critics—and offered this helpful clarification:

Stormont Health committee chair Iris Robinson last night accused her political rivals of twisting her comments on homosexuality and denied she believed it was a mental disorder.…

Mrs. Robinson said: “People have attempted to suggest that I indicated that homosexuality was a mental health issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I did say was homosexuality, like all sin, is an abomination.

Thank you for clearing that up, Mrs. Robinson.

Seen at the Pride Parade in San Francisco a few years back: a group of people in regular street clothes marching under a banner that read "THE RAINBOW IS FOR EVERYONE."

I wish we could do a Worn Out issue during Gay Pride... DAMN!

More photos after the jump.
There's also TONS of excellent Pride 08 photos in the Stranger's Flickr pool.

Continue reading "Worn Out: Gay Pride" »

A scene from this weekend's Gay Pride Parade in Toronto:

The Spouse and I were walking home up Broadway on Saturday afternoon, when an attractive young man asked us if we had a minute for gay rights.

Actually, I've had decades.

I've never been a big Pride booster. Living for the last quarter century on and about Capitol Hill, and being completely open about my gayness since I was 17, I always regard Pride as a celebration geared toward the people who dwell outside the gay community, who need one day a year to be away from jobs where they can't be out, and neighbors who might not take kindly to having fags-or-dykes-next door. Colorful though I am, I've never been a Rainbow Gay, and, although I want my civil rights as much as the next person, I've never been in a big hurry to assimilate. The rainbow flag, introduced in 1978—that last delirious year of the Gay Movement before the decimation began—has always seemed too shiny-happy. I prefer the pink triangle as a reminder of things homosexualist. I'm optimistic like that.

Anyway, this year, feeling a more hopeful about the future (Thanks California! Stay true, Obama!) and wanting do our part to swell the ranks of the gay, Spouse and I fortified ourselves with some of the Uncle Riz's birthday brownies, and rolled down the hill to see if we could find something for us—a couple of mid-40s art fags—in Sunday's Pride festivities that didn't involve the financial support of a liquor vendor.

We arrived at Fourth and Stewart to an onslaught of rainbow… and a crowd deep enough to make it difficult to see the signs identifying the various contingents. There were a lot of young people marching. Especially young women with Burning Man hair. This was heartening, as it has been my experience that young women actually Get Things Done. (See also: The cool music bookings for Pride weekend at the Wildrose.)

Soon we were delighted to behold giant trucks representing the various city utility workers. There was City Light and Puget Sound Energy. (All the Department of Transportation folks sat on their asses in the back of a rather shabby looking vehicle. Your highways at work! Well played, DOT!) Then there was a gigantic white truck (ooh, shiny!) that appeared to be a giant vacuum, complete with enormous hose. And then a merry thought: To have control of that vehicle for the day! Sucking up rainbow beads and Pride roses, those damn Macy's bandannas, panting purse dogs and their n-n-n-nervous meth queens! (Not a radical housecleaning, mind you. Just some tidying up).

After 20 minutes, the parade seemed potentially endless, so we continued down Fourth until we reached the revue stand… which was apparently sponsored by this newspaper. I noted Savage and that cute little Dominic Holden on the panel, but between my sunglasses and the brownie buzz, everyone else was a blur. Was that Jen Graves? Sylvia O'Stayformore (hard to miss) was commenting, colorfully, but we couldn't hear from across the street. We ran into one or two people we know, patting ourselves on the back when we hit the half-dozen mark. For the most part, this was a sea of happy strangers.

We moseyed on down to Seattle Center and arrived about 12:30 p.m. Well, someone had to get there early. Loud, thumping music, people already dancing in their underpants around the fountain. The weather was of course spectacular, and the stage set for all and sundry to marinate together into a big rainbow gumbo.

There were, of course, the vendors, peddling Equality, elephant ears, and a big display of tiny underpants for all your dancing-around-the-fountain needs. (Dancing in my scanties has been limited to one unhappy evening in a cheap Chicago disco circa 1979, and an underwear party at Tugs on Belmont back in '92; Savage may remember the details I've blocked out.) Eh. Nobody seemed especially crazy, or angry, or demented. I witnessed no protesters of any kind. The requisite leather Daddy or two, deflated cheeks in chaps. A lot of whiteys smiling around the Gays for Obama tent. I looked in vain for a Gays for McCain tent or anything at all contrary to the conventional. Whither the lone, angry evangelist? Alas, I came up short.

Overall, everyone seemed thrilled to be participating. And I'm thrilled they were thrilled, but I'm too contrary for going with the mob. So much cheery togetherness wears on me. As hordes of people started arriving from the parade, we moved against the flow to make our exit.

Lest my personal crankiness take over too much, let me say I'm glad that Pride has moved downtown. It all seemed like a fantastic fit: the parade, the festival, the reported 400,000 attendees. Everyone seemed happy, hopeful, and looking toward the future. This is what we need. I feel optimistic for the first time since the damn rainbow flag was introduced. With the possibility of a black man in the White House, full marriage rights probably just a matter of time, and my personal health so robust my doctor took me offone of my HIV meds, I can't help but feel good. We finished our Gay Pride Sunday with the family on the porch, making ice cream.

^{Pride rose photo by It's Mark Mitchell.}

Legalize gay marriage for the win:

[L]egalizing gay marriage is good for sports teams. Spain did it a few years back, and wham, they win the Euro for the first time since 1964. Canada did it just before the 2006 Winter Olympics, and bingo, they had their best-ever medal haul. South Africa legalized gay marriage in 2006, and won the Rugby World Cup the following year. Massachusetts gave same-sex couples the right to wed a few years ago—and ask Red Sox and Celtic fans about how nicely things have gone for their teams since. For all those folks who insist that God’s punishment for gay marriage will be obvious, so far the evidence is, um, lacking. The evidence for the opposite is growing.

If California upholds gay marriage at the ballot box in November, I predict championships for USC football, UCLA basketball, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Anaheim Angels — all within short order.

Via Sullivan.

It seems the Christian news site OneNewsNow automatically changes the word "gay" into "homosexual" for its stories. So when sprinter Tyson Gay set a wind-aided record this weekend...well, something funny happened.

(Via Deadspin.)

Gay No. 1: Why weren't there more floats at the parade this year?

Gay No. 2: It's the recession. The first thing to go are the gay floats.

I'm not as down on today's parade as Christopher seems to be. It was quicker and tighter this year (fewer looooong gaps between contingents), and the energy was great despite the heat. Yes, it would've been nice to see more floats and bigger floats—this is the second year in a row that we've offered cash prizes to give people some incentive to pull bigger, better floats together—but we weren't wanting for potential winners at the end of the parade. (We even had to debate who to give the awards to, so there were more than three possibilities—but there was no "Bear, Bath, and Beyond" this year, no twenty-foot-tall pink poodle.) I rather liked this traditional—and patriotic!—float design...

More of that, please. And a lot of work went into the Julia's/La Faux float—oh, and check out the boy lifting his leg at the top right.

Much more of that, please.

But here's what we'd really like to see if we keep the awards going: Some entries pulled together groups of friends—not goo-goo community organizations, not AIDS alliances, not the Committe to Reelect Christine Gregoire. If some creative types got together and created a big, funny, interesting float just for the hell of it—just for pleasure, not to promote their missions or raise awareness or scrounge up votes—they could walk away with the $2,000 first prize.

And here's something we never, ever want to see in the parade again:

That is a rolling billboard for a condominium—because, uh, gay people, you see, sometimes live in condos, so... uh... here's our rolling condo billboard in the Pride Parade! No one in our group was rude enough to boo, but we decided that next year and we're bringing paint guns and we're going to shoot up any rolling billboards that come down the street.

Oh, and I realize this is heresy and shit, but I'd like to see less of... Dykes on Bikes. You rock, ladies (and gents), your bikes roar, but remember that old show business adage: Always leave 'em wanting more.

Folks were partying in the fountain at Seattle Center immediately after the parade—hell, they're probably still partying at the fountain now. Hey, remember how people used to argue that "the community" didn't want the parade downtown or the rally at Seattle Center? I'm glad that's all over.

Oh, the parade may be over but our memories will last forever—as will these pride beads, all of which will spend eternity in area landfills.

Gays! Not going anywhere. Now more of them than ever. More gay-identified children than ever--whole school busses of them! And drag queens continue to endure, plum-colored plumage and all.

But the FLOATS this year?! Uhhh.... Anyone? Anyone make a float? What it was like being a judge: Hmm, well, that uh sorta looks kinda float...ish...

Considering the money handed out, that was pathetic.

Today's Pride Parade was fantastically well attended despite the hot hot heat. The Seattle Times is estimating 400,000 attended. For those of us in the parade, it was a grueling trek down Fourth Avenue, which was lined with masses of smiling people. The heat off the pavement was intense and the street was littered with globs of melting chocolate. Attendees bearing squirt guns helped us fend off heatstroke.

^{Photos above by Evil Robot 6 via The Stranger's Flickr Pool}

Right now PrideFest at Seattle Center is still full of happy homos, drunk drag queens, and liberal lookie-loos (sorry, too much beer brings out the alliteration). I kept hearing that the Cuff will be where it's at this evening.

Pick up the paper Wednesday to find out who won the cash prizes for best floats.

From Friday night at the Wild Rose, the Wet T-Shirt Contest...

More photos after the jump!

Continue reading "Gay Pride, in Photos, Part I" »

Via SF Signal.

The boys just stopped by to give me the video they made while building their Gay Pride Parade Float. I think they missed the deadline to officially enter the float in Sunday's parade, which is just a darn shame.

So this campaign, according to Dom's post earlier today, is a good example of effective HIV prevention education:

But Dom hadn't seen the fine print on the full-page ads running in the Stranger and elsewhere that are part of this campaign when he sat down to write about these sidewalk stencils. Here's the ad from the back of the official Pride Guide, which reproduces the copy above ("IT'S THE LITTLE PRICK YOU CAN DEAL WITH: It's just a swab or finger prick to know your HIV status"). I have two issues with the ad.

First, the small one: Local HIV prevention educators have been telling us for, oh, fifteen years now that their primary mission is boosting the self-esteem of gay men. Raise gay men's self-esteem, they've argued all the way to the bank, give gay men accurate and non-biased information (which has meant, perversely, giving gay men information that isn't biased against dangerous and unhealthy behaviors and people), and gay men will start making better choices about sex, condoms, safety, etc. But... uh... what about the self-esteem of gay men with small cocks? You know, all the men out there with pricks other gay men presumably can't deal with? Won't seeing this message on sidewalks and in newspapers and pride guides all over town increase feelings of worthlessness in the non-hung community?

Second, the big problem: The fine print that isn't being stenciled on the sidewalks but is in the full-page ads in the Stranger, on the back page of the official Seattle Pride Guide '08, and in the SGN:

What message does the fine print send? Here's the intended—and confused—message Public Health no doubt means to send: If you're the kind of gay man that isn't using condoms for anal sex over and over and over again ("No condoms?"), be sure to get tested over and over and over again. Because, you see, once the inevitable happens and you find out that you've finally succeeded in getting your dumbfuck ass infected, then you'll be motivated to start taking precautions! Because, hey, even though you failed to use condoms to protect yourself from HIV, you'll surely want to start using condoms to protect others after you're infected. Right? Um, hello? Anybody listening?

No, those guys aren't listening.

Here's what this ad really succeeds in doing: It further confuses testing with safety in the minds of many in its target audience. Some HIV prevention campaigns do this far more explicitly ("Stay Safe: Get Tested."), but this ad campaign helps drive that message home. Years of hammering away at the "stay safe: get tested" message has left a number of gay men with the impression that they're somehow being safe if they're getting tested regularly ("test often. test often. test often."), as if the test magically provides them with some sort of retroactive immunity. It doesn't. Being safe means taking all reasonable precautions—which means, for neg guys, yes condoms for anal sex with partners whose HIV-status they're not absolutely certain of—and taking those precautions consistently.

Sure, test often—know your HIV status. But testing isn't safety and regular testing is no substitute for consistent condom use. Public Health shouldn't create ad campaigns that imply otherwise.

Stole the headline from John Aravosis because it's just too perfect. Guess who introduced the "Defense of Marriage Act"—a constitutional amendment that ban gay marriage in the United States—in the U.S. Senate today? Those noted defenders of the sanctity of marriage Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig (R-ID), and Sen. David "Vitter the Shitter" Vitter (R-LA).

Craig, of course, is a pathetic closet case who sucks off strangers in toilets; Vitter is a "family values" crusader who frequents prostitutes.

I don't even know what to say. This is just... literally... shameless.

James in the comments thread on my earlier post...

"Abstinence-only sex ed programs don’t acknowledge the existence of gay people, much less give young gay people the tools they need to protect themselves."

Actually, I'd expand on that point. I know of NO sex ed program that acknowledges the existence of gay people. Mine back in high school was pretty comprehensive (we had a huge problem with teen pregnancy... classrooms converted into nurseries to encourage mom and dad to stay in school, etc.). I learned all fifty million ways to keep a girl from getting pregnant. I learned about all sorts of STDs, sperm-killing foam, diaphragms, and more. There was even required viewing of a video of a birth (three football players passed out, and one girl went into false labor). They even told us which condom brands are less likely to break during heterosexual intercourse.

But, nothing at all on gay sex. Notta. Zip. Not that I was looking at that point (I didn't come out until a few years later). Still, seeing as how we had notebooks and notebooks of information on hotlines, clinics, counselors, and welfare programs we could turn to for help with our straight sex lives, you'd think the could've at least handed us an index card with a few info hotlines or clinics or medical experts we could talk to safely about gay sex.

And, you're right. There is no gay community. I know many Seattleites disagree on this point. But really, I've never encountered this supposed inclusive, all-encompassing gay community. The closest thing we have is an annual parade. And if that constitutes a community, then I'm sure there's also a "Thanksgiving Community" and a "Veterans Day Community" and a "Christmas Community."

Somewhere between here and Portland lies, among other things, a peculiar little berg called “Centralia”. I know. I’ve never heard of it either. But while we Seattlers or whatever twitter and fuss over our own meager Pride doings, the gays of Centralia Community College are fearing for their proud gay lives.

A spokesdyke from the Centralia Community College Gay Straight Alliance appeared on KING 5 News last night to share the flurry of hate-messages and evil letters that her group has received since they announce their intention to march in Centralia’s annual Fourth of July Parade. She expressed the growing fear for their personal safety in light of the mean-spirited barrage, and says that at this point, unless an armored car or Spiderman or something is provided for their gay, gay protection, she and the group are opting the hell out.

“I don’t want someone to get shot…I don’t want someone to get beaten up afterwards…”

The full report from KING 5 can, and should, be seen here.

(And please forgive Jean Enersen’s face. It’s not her fault.)

A piece by me that didn't quite fit into the How Not to Get Married theme.

It's accompanied by a Justin DeGarmo illustration that eerily gets my glasses right (and maybe my aspect too?) even though DeGarmo and I have never met...

...and it's about becoming bored with the gay marriage movement.

They've risen fast, says to the CDC, between 2001-2006. I'll have some thoughts up about why that is shortly. But I wanted to say this now...

The study found that homosexual men were the only "risk group" in which the number of new infections rose annually from 2001-06. In contrast, injecting drug-users, homosexual men who injected drugs, and heterosexuals each showed declines in new infections over that period.

In the 13-to-24-year-old group, the average annual increase was 12 percent, compared to a 1 percent decline in 25-to-44-year-olds, and a 3 percent rise in gay men 45 and older.

So... between 2001-2006 younger gay men were getting infected at much higher rates than older gay men. Excuse me, but wouldn't most of these young gay men—these boys—have been subjected to the same disastrously ineffective abstinence education programs that their straight peers were? Sex "ed" programs that result in higher rates of STIs and unplanned pregnancies among straight kids are unlikely to produce better results for gay kids.

Hell, the results are likelier to be much, much worse. At least abstinence-only sex ed acknowledges the existence of straight kids and straight sex. These programs don't acknowledge the existence of gay people; they certainly don't give young gay people the tools they need to protect themselvesm (accurate, useful information about gay identity, sex, condoms, etc.). Abstinence education programs—designed and promoted by religious groups, above-board and stealth—argue that sex outside of marriage is always wrong, and since gay people can't get married (or shouldn't be able to get married), gay sex is by definition wrong. And since gay sex is always wrong, you shouldn't be doing it at all, so there's no point in teaching you to do it right or safely.

This problem—HIV infections among high-school age gay boys—will, like all problems confronting gay youth, be laid at the feet of that idiotic fiction, "the gay community." But these infection rates don't represent a failure solely—or even primarily—on the part of the "gay community." They represent a failure on the part of straight parents and straight schools to take responsibility for—to responsibly parent and educate—their gay children. Like I wrote in the Queer Issue ("Appropriate This") in 2003...

But what I found most interesting about the "STDs and young people" stories written in the wake of the mini-epidemic [among straight kids in a Minnesota high school] were the calls to action that invariably came at the end. The calls all went something like this: "Parents are going to have to wake up! They're going to have to get involved in their children's lives! Guide your kids, Mom! Protect your kids, Dad! Wave condoms under their noses! Drag them to an STD clinic and get 'em tested!"

At the same time chlamydia was roaring through student bodies in Minnesota, there were stories in the news about other teens and young adults contracting an STD far more worrisome than chlamydia. These stories occasioned a lot of handwringing and included impassioned calls to action. But the calls to action were very different. Because these stories were about gay teenagers, not straight teenagers, and because the disease was HIV/AIDS, not chlamydia, the calls to action all went something like this: "What is the gay community going to do about this?"

The moral of these two stories is this: When their straight kids are doing something risky and dangerous, straight parents are told they have to take responsibility for protecting their children and get more involved in their kids' lives. But when a child is gay? Then straight parents are off the hook. Suddenly the child isn't the responsibility of Mom and Dad, but of the "gay community," that hardy fiction. Straight parents don't have to look after their gay kids. They're absolved of all responsibility for their care and protection. It's supposedly my job, as an adult gay person, to look after their gay kids--to guide them, protect them, and wave condoms under their noses.

Well guess what, straight moms and dads of gay and lesbian kids: Besides not fucking "gay youth," there's not a whole hell of a lot gay adults can do for them. While we can offer some help to the ones who run away from the miserable small town you chose to live in (or the intolerant high school you sent them to), and to the ones you kick out on their asses, we simply don't have access to that many gay youth. Most are deeply closeted and live far from urban areas, far from gay neighborhoods and organizations. Even if we wanted to help them, we couldn't.

Oh, right: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

On the eve of National HIV Testing Day comes this disappointing news from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of gay men diagnosed with HIV/AIDS is steadily rising, even as infection rates among heterosexuals and drug users have slowed.

That’s disappointing because gay men have been at the center of the HIV/AIDS epidemic for more than 25 years yet current efforts to stem infections in this population aren’t working.

The CDC admitted as much Thursday in a report noting that that HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM—men who have sex with men—climbed 8.6 percent between 2001 and 2006. “HIV prevention services that aim to reduce the risk for acquiring and transmitting infection among MSM and link infected MSM to treatment must be expanded,” the agency wrote in the report.

Current efforts to stem infections in the gay community aren't working... so, hey, let's expand them.

These have been stenciled all over Capitol Hill.

It’s refreshing to see some savvy gay-health advocacy. And this agitprop stencil, at first, seems an especially good example. It’s funny; little-dick jokes crack a smile, and even if they piss off some guys, funny health messages are a welcome rarity. It’s edgy; they just sprayed this shit on the sidewalk. It’s cheap; they just sprayed this shit on the sidewalk. It’s humble; there’s no logo grandstanding an organization. The message seems clear: Everyone should get an HIV test. So I walked in this morning prepared to praise this campaign, but then someone pointed out something I wasn’t aware of… stay tuned.

....that an openly gay former child star would one day be hired to hawk the butchest old-school man's man scent in America, I would have laughed in your face, and maybe called the cops on your obviously-whacked-out-on-PCP ass.

To paraphrase the marketing geniuses who tried to make smoking
a feminist issue in the 1970s, "We've come a long way, gaybee!"

(Also, you rule, Doogie.)

To check out the Stranger's full gay pride listings, go here.

These are the subjects of my piece in the Stranger's 2008 Queer Issue, where it appears as How Not to Get Married on a Deadline.

Also featured in the "How Not to Get Married" package:

*Paul Constant on how not to get married in a Star Trek Outfit.
*Amy J. Ruiz on how not to get married on credit.
*Brendan Kiley on how not to get married by a complete stranger.
*Mistress Matisse on how not to get married in Vegas.
*Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on how not to get married young.
*And Eric Grandy on how not to get married over and over again.

Read the whole thing here.

A transformer explosion has disabled our internets. Paul Constant is reading poetry aloud and we may soon resort to cannibalism.

Slog will be slow for a while. Please make a note of it.

Update: We're back.

...But did Al Sharpton just call Anderson Cooper a big huge fag or something?

The transcript:

SHARPTON:..I think Senator Obama is right. None of us leave our personal convictions or religious feelings at the door. But we also respect the fact that everyone doesn't have to have those same convictions in the public marketplace. So, I may have some very conservative personal feelings, but I feel you have the right to live your life differently. I might think what you do, Anderson, is going to put you in hell, but I'm going to defend your right to get there. So, I think that that's where I differ with some of my other brothers.

(LAUGHTER)

PERKINS: I'm going to try and keep you from going there.

SHARPTON: Well, I am too, but I'm not...

(LAUGHTER)

SHARPTON: But there's a difference in forcing him to heaven, Tony, and in legislating him in heaven, and converting him. I would rather convert him. Let me convert him, Tony.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I appreciate both of your concerns about my -- my afterlife.

Your "afterlife", indeed, Mr. Cooper. Your big, screaming "afterlife".

Well spotted, Rev. Sharpton. Your gaydar is totally ferosh. Or whatever.

(Thanks to Blaire, the big tipper.)

Slog commenter Jubilation T. Cornball, currently attending a gay wedding in San Francisco, waxes emotional in an email he just sent me:

Thought you might be interested in a real time description of the weddings in San Francisco...I am at the City Hall rotunda now. There is a band playing love songs. Small and smaller gaggles of folks are in various spots under the rotunda dome, all of which have, at their center, two guys or two women and an officiating, um, official.

And hey—there are straight people getting married here, too! They don't seem to act like their marriages are under threat.

This experience is, simply put, one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life. I am certainly going to cry for happiness when my friends get married (or if Turkey beat Germany, which I have been following on my blackberry—my damn friends had to get married during a Euro semifinal), but now I find myself tearing up watching strangers.

One walks through the front door of City Hall to the rotunda, under four large panels of the AIDS quilt, reminding us that the struggles our community have undergone in our lifetimes are huge. But we somehow get through them, and move on to better days and places...including a room filled with marrying couples who might wonder who that strange guy is crying a little by the stairs.

I think this is what pride is all about.

In honor of big gay Pride Week, here's Big Gay Lunchtime Quickie #1! You may remember Seattle's gender-bending-queer-lady-boylesque-performance-art-solo-stripping-sensation Waxie Moon from THIS video. Here's his newest, Waxie's Choral Line.

You can see Waxie perform tonight at The Triple Door with the one-and-only Dina Martina, El Vez, Queen Shmooquan, and more!

It looks like GLAAD and I weren't the only folks offended by this interview night's 30 Days:

Americablog:

FX says gays abuse kids, are mentally ill

Yep. The FX network thought it would be cute, or funny, or something to put on TV an anti-gay bigot and let him spout all the tired old lies from decades ago—and THEN, not have anyone there to say "uh, those are all lies." So, FX's viewers were left with the message that gays abuse kids, are mentally ill, beat their partners, and more. Lovely. Maybe FX can get Heinz as a sponsor.... This is outrageous. It's bad enough for FX to let these bigots broadcast their tired old libel against gays, but then to not have someone there to point out that the "facts" are actually lies. Incredible.

Towleroad:

The episode also airs a disgusting statement from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.... I've posted about Sprigg before. You may remember that back in March, Sprigg talked about immigration to the Medill Reports, saying, "I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society."

Good As You

So first, just as we had been warned, they introduce Peter Sprigg and let him present his baseless "facts" in an unchallenged fashion. Even though the episode featured several pro-gay speakers, it is 100% irresponsible to let Sprigg, sitting in the "expert" chair, rail off this list of supposed gay ills as if they are the gospel. That simply would not be accepted with any other group of people! And it's unfair to just trust that the American public is going to realize that Sprigg's words are the product of his own one-sided views, and not credible information.

But that being said, this portion of the program gets almost worse after the Sprigg clip, when the show proceeds to present the conversation with Dawn Stefanowicz in a way that makes it sound as if she is merely a child of gay parents who has written a book about her experiences. Only problem with that? Dawn is not just someone who they found through an advertisement of casting call. Dawn is an anti-gay activist who has taken a situation that is unique to herself, filtered that through a faith in Jesus, and began a new career of using her own past paint to fight against equal rights for gays and lesbians (attracting the attention of rabidly anti-gay extremists like the American Family Association in the process). She is telling the story of her family, from only her own personal perspective, even admitting that "it was not until [her] father, his sexual partners and [her] mother had died, was [she] free to speak publicly about [her] experiences." And she's taking that one-sided story, with nobody alive to challenge it, and sweepingly misapplying it to gay parenting as a whole. It's patently unfair, both Dawn's misuse of personal trauma, and her inclusion on this program in this casual, unfleshed out way!

Complaints should be directed to...

20th Century Fox Television, Inc. Jeffrey Glaser Senior Vice President, Current Programming (310) 369-0211 jeffrey.glaser@fox.com

FX Networks:
Nick Grad
Executive Vice President of Original Programming
(310) 369-0949
ngrad@fxnetworks.com

Chuck Saftler
Executive Vice President of Programming
(310) 369-0949
csaftler@fxnetworks.com

Scott Seomin
Vice President of Public Relations
(310) 369-0938
scott.seomin@fxnetwork.com

Video via JoeMyGod.

In the UK, Heinz pulled an ad featuring a "gay kiss" after receiving approximately 200 complaints from viewers.

Watch the ad here.

It doesn't come off as a "gay" kiss to me. The joke is clearly that the "Mum" making lunches could be a New York deli guy because the mayo is so great.

Stupid, stupid bigots. This is a gay kiss.

The third season of Morgan Spurlock's FX series 30 Days kicks off continues tonight with Spurlock dropping an opponent of gay adoption into a household headed by a same-sex couple in Michigan.

I happen to know the gay couple featured, Tom and Dennis Patrick, and their four boys. Every summer my family attends Gay Family Week in Saugatuck (not just me and the boyfriend and the kid, but my whole extended family), as do the Patricks. Tom and Dennis are great, mellow, thoughtful guys who've adopted four boys out of foster care. The state of Michigan, which should be pinning a medal on these guys, has instead threatened to take away their health-care benefits in the wake of an anti-gay marriage amendment to Michigan's state constitution. But that's not the point of this post...

Yesterday GLAAD—the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation—sent out a mass email urging "community members" to contact FX Networks to protest statements made by an anti-gay activist Spurlock interviews during the show. GLAAD, which once gave an award to 30 Days, says...

Regrettably, the episode also features a defamatory statement by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay activist organization, who claims: "Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse, and those are all reasons for us to be concerned about placing children into that kind of setting." While there is no credible scientific research that backs Sprigg’s claim—and much that disputes it—the episode presents his assertion as if it were fact and offers no credible social science experts or child health authorities to challenge Sprigg’s assertion. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, and many other child health and social services authorities who support parenting by qualified lesbian and gay parents dispute Sprigg’s claim.

GLAAD asked FX Networks last week to either edit Sprigg's comments out of the show or bring in one of those "credible social science" experts to respond to Sprigg's comments. FX refused.

I just watched the episode on a preview copy that FX overnighted to me—in hopes, no doubt, that I would disagree with GLAAD and defend FX and Spurlock's decision to air the show as-is.

Uh... sorry, FX, sorry, Morgan, but GLAAD is 100% right.

Sprigg's comments come early in the program and linger like mustard gas over every scene that comes after. A casual viewer may watch Tom and Dennis with their kids and think, "Okay, these guys are decent parents, and maybe their boys are going to be fine... but other kids adopted by other gays might not be so lucky. Other kids might wind up adopted by those gays that abuse kids, and rape them, and worse."

And GLAAD didn't even mention the interview that comes immediately after Sprigg's: Right after handing the mic to Sprigg Spurlock talks to Dawn Stefanowicz, a woman that wrote a book about living with a gay parent—her biological father—after he came out of the closet in the 1970s. This woman's father talked to her about bathhouse sex "at the kitchen table," and dragged her to a "downtown sex shop." She holds her father up—with Spurlock's help, and tinkly so-sad music playing in the background—not as an example of a lousy parent, gay or straight, but as an example of why no gay people should be allowed to parent. "Based on your personal experience do you believe children are at risk if they’re raised in homosexual households?" Spurlock asks this woman. "Children need a married mother and father," she replies. "I know that there are so many situations that are not ideal, but we still need to hold to an ideal that is best for children."

And, as with the interview with Sprigg, Spurlock doesn't challenge this woman's assertions or bring in anyone to address them. Instead Spurlock moves on to this: Hey, you can make piles of money providing sperm to lesbians that want to be moms—you know, those non-ideal parents that aren't best for children!

So basically Spurlock didn't just talk to Sprigg, and let him lie and lie and lie some more, he brought in someone to second Sprigg—someone using right-wing religious code—and allows her to assert that it would be better for Tom and Dennis's kids if they hadn't been adopted at all. And, again, the casual viewer is left to conclude that it would probably be for the best if Tom and Dennis hadn't been able to adopt those boys because, hey, God only knows what Tom and Dennis are talking about at the kitchen table when there aren't any cameras (or clueless Mormon bigots) in the house.

GLAAD wants you to contact the folks listed below to complain about Sprigg and Spurlock and 30 Days—and so do I.

20th Century Fox Television, Inc. Jeffrey Glaser Senior Vice President, Current Programming (310) 369-0211 jeffrey.glaser@fox.com

FX Networks:
Nick Grad
Executive Vice President of Original Programming
(310) 369-0949
ngrad@fxnetworks.com

Chuck Saftler
Executive Vice President of Programming
(310) 369-0949
csaftler@fxnetworks.com

Scott Seomin
Vice President of Public Relations
(310) 369-0938
scott.seomin@fxnetwork.com

Because—just like when I’m checking into a one-bed hotel room with a guy—I’m always worried the online reservation form will judge my lifestyle.

Instead, I'd feel discriminated against driving the pink car around town, except: 1) I don’t drive. 2) Zipcar doesn’t actually have any pink cars. I called them, and the receptionist said she’d never come across any pink cars and she was sorry about that.

Happy pride pander week!

Also in Milan this week, at the Vivienne Westwood show...

Jonathan Rauch in today's Wall Street Journal...

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples—including gay parents—live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.... Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.

...

America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.

...for the US Men's Olympic Swim team to be announced, here's a hot Brazilian guy dancing around in his Speedo.

Via Fleshbot.

This news item from AP comes to us via Towleroad:

A Saudi newspaper says religious police have arrested 21 allegedly homosexual men and confiscated large amounts of alcohol.

Al-Medina daily says the Commission for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which employs the religious police, was told Friday of a large gathering of young men at a rest house in Qatif, in eastern Saudi Arabia. The paper says scores of men were initially arrested but only 21 remain in detention.

Religious police arresting queers—let's not forget that that's what our religious right wanted to see here. Back before the Supreme Court declared that gays had a constitutional right to privacy, "mainstream" leaders of the religious right called coyly for the enforcement of sodomy laws, a.k.a. police arresting gay men at parties, in bars, in our bedrooms, etc.

Anyway, it can't happen here... not now. Unless, of course, John McCain gets to appoint three or four new Alitos/Roberts/Scalias to a the rapidly solidifying conservative majority on the Supreme Court. If McCain wins then, shit, all bets are off. The activist conservatives on the Supreme Court lives to overturn liberal decisions. And if McCain wins with an assist from those bitter Hillary Clinton supporters we're not supposed to talk about anymore—women who wanted to badly to see a woman in the White House that they're willing to help McCain pack the court with justices that will vote to end abortion rights and giddily hand down more decisions like this one—I think my head will explode.

But it is happening there. Unfortunately there's not a lot homos here do to help oppressed gays and lesbians being persecuted in Saudi Arabia. We could—and should—support the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (donate here). But what if you want fuck with the fuckers Commission for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice? What do you do then?

Right off the top of my head... well, I'm thinking we threaten to mail one gay porn titles (mag, video) into that miserable sand trap for every "allegedly homosexual" man authorities arrest. Any better ideas?

J. Steve Mayo’s idea of a rollicking Gay Pride Parade is painting his nude body and cycling through the streets of downtown. That was cool with pride parade organizers, who queued about 20 bare bicyclists in the Body Pride Ride—headed by Mayo—in slot #81 for the parade on June 29. But Mayo got chills when he heard police might arrest him for violating Washington's indecent exposure law, which bans nudity that is “likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.”

“A person naked and painted on a bike while cheering is not something sexual and it’s not patently offensive in any way,” says Mayo.

On Wednesday, pride parade attorney David Coffman informed Mayo that—according to one of the parade organizers—an SPD officer threatened to arrest the cyclists if there was a complaint, and the SPD would take parade organizer to the SPD’s West Precinct. Coffman tried to verify that claim, but SPD Deputy Chief Nicholas Metz told him that Seattle's nude cycling-policy hadn’t changed. And he sent Coffman this letter from Chief Gil Kerlikowske:

Click here for a larger version.

In 1998, SPD officers arrested two naked cyclists in the Fremont Solstice Parade. However, the city attorney declined to prosecute the pair because they hadn’t violated the indecent exposure law cited in the chief’s letter. But this is the first time the naked pride riders, who have ridden in the Capitol Hill pride events, have threatened to shake their junk in the downtown parade.

Had an SPD officer claimed police would bust the cyclist and take a parade organizer to the police station? “It’s was a non-denial denial” from the deputy chief, says Coffman. When I called, police flatly denied any officer had made that threat.

How will it all shake out? “[Police] will not engage anyone who is publicly nude unless someone makes a complaint,” says Coffman. “That person who makes a complaint has to be present at event and be willing to testify in court,” he says. The nude contingent is still scheduled to ride in the parade, somewhere behind Governor Christine Gregoire, who is expected to wear clothes.

OK, I get it: Obama (or his campaign staff) think he needs to pander to homophobic bigots to get elected in November.

Still, I'm disappointed. Opponents of gay rights aren't going to vote for Obama anyway. And isn't he in a position--now of all times, when acceptance of the idea of gay marriage is at an all-time high--to take a bolder position than "I oppose gay marriage but I support civil unions"?

It's so ... Clintonesque.

Props to SOAP, the people behind the downtown Pride Parade; last year's was huge and better than ever (in my lifetime), and this year they've promised to make it shorter (only three hours!), with less gaps, less garbage, and more sanicans. And the new announcers... thank god.

But what's with the flaccid theme, Out for Change? What is anyone supposed to do with or learn from that? It conjures beggars and not much else. Yet float-makers and participants are emplored to "use this theme to guide your Pride Parade expression!" The Dyke March theme is not much better: Start it Up! Pfffft.

Pride is not prom and it comes ready-packaged with a plenty rich theme. The theme of the Pride Parade should be gay pride, visibility, and civil rights. The theme of the Dyke March should be, obviously, Yay, dykes!

It's possible that the necessity of these vague themes is a gay thing that I don't get.

Other Pride news: If you're a planner-aheader, we have Pride listings online already.