Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for August, 2011

Colonel Gadhafi a member of our community?

In breaking news out of Libya, it appears that the dictator Muammar Gadhafi (Qaddafi, Gaddafi, Kadafi, Qadhafi) has slipped into hiding. As his government crumbles, rebels have seized the seaside palace of one of Gadhafi’s sons and uncovered a world of dazzling wealth.

Libyan rebel poses in Gadhafi's compound with a couch in the shape of a golden mermaid. With the demise of Gadhafi's last stronghold, the dictator has officially been eliminated.

The rebels were shocked at the opulence of the compound. In a nation racked with poverty, the Gadhafi family lived high on the hog. One rebel snorted,

“Libyan children have no childhood, their lives are destroyed by Gaddafi. But his children, his family, have everything.”

Rebels uncovered a Lamborghini, an indoor swimming pool, a full amusement park, a zoo, and..gay porn?

http://queermeup.com/queer-facts/a-gay-porn-dvd-was-found-among-gaddafi-sons-belongings/

Yes, that’s right. A hot, boy-on-boy DVD entitled Boyz Tracks was found on the property. I immediately dashed to my porn library to see if I owned that one. As a matter of fact, I do. There on the third shelf, fourteenth from the left, on the third page of volume F, was my very own copy of Boyz Tracks. Haven’t watched it in a while, but there it was. As I handled the disc lovingly, I recalled the moments that I had shared with this particular DVD. Boyz Tracks was an instant classic.

So what does it all mean? Can we conclude from the evidence that the good colonel is himself a cum-guzzler? If he is, I say welcome to the community. As a vicious tyrant and all-around opponent of free speech and free exercise of religion, Gadhafi will fit right in. These two gay bullies can hardly find fault with Gadhafi, if he in fact turns out to be a gay bully as well.

Let’s look at the evidence, both for and against.

Evidence that Gadhafi is a homo

1) The wardrobe. One the one hand, his fashion sense is terrible. It borders on criminality. I wouldn’t be caught dead in some of the outfits that he wears. But on the other hand, it’s certainly flamboyant. Who does he think he is–Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile? When I see the man strutting around in outfits like this, I can’t help but think of a wrinkled, old Liberace.

Gadhafi (left) and Liberace (right). The resemblance is eerie.

2) The creepy obsession with children. An amusement park and a zoo? Seriously, dude? Is that to entertain other despots like Hugo Chavez and Jim Jong-Il? Of course not. It’s for the kiddies. Just think of Michael Jackson and his Neverland theme park. And as we all know, homosexuals have a bizarre obsession with kids, which might explain why we feel compelled to get right down into the elementary schools to push our agenda, or why we need to have “gay days” at Walt Disney World or “Out in the Park” at Six Flags. It’s why we’ve set our hearts on infiltrating the Boys Scouts and why we get so pissed off that they won’t let us join. In many ways, we are emotionally and cognitively retarded, stuck in the anal stage of development. It goes a long way to explain why we exhibit about as much maturity as the average fourth grader.

3) The Amazonian guard. Gadhafi’s most trusted bodyguards are all women. Now, if I were to choose a group of people to protect me, I’d pick a group of strapping young lads–young, fit, and preferably smoking hot Latino guys. If you remember the boys from Menudo, that’s pretty much what my security detail would like. Except they’d have guns. If you look at it from that angle, this piece of evidence seems to support the theory that Gadhafi is a hetero. While it may seem odd that a gay man would choose a group of women to defend him, consider this–the women are all virgins. That means that Gadhafi himself hasn’t laid a finger on them, which strikes me as very odd. If he were using these women as his personal harem, I would say that’s about par for the course. Dictators have had harems since the beginning of time. But for a powerful man to surround himself with young women 24/7 and never partake? That’s weird. I’m thinkin’ he likes the cock.

Flamboyant Gadhafi surrounded by his entirely female security detail. A straight man would have brought a few of these girls to bed with him. If they're truly virgins, as he says they are, then I'm going to have to question his sexual orientation. Hideous wardrobe, by the way.

Evidence that Gadhafi is not a homo

1) The weird Condeleezza Rice photo album. Among Gadhafi’s belongings was found an album filled with pictures of the former Secretary of State and National Security adviser. Gadhafi’s obsession with the her borders on the pathological. Last time I checked, Condoleezza Rice is a woman. So it appears that his crush is heterosexual in nature. Weird.

Rebels found this album at Gadhafi's crib. It's filled with nothing buy Condi Rice pictures.

The depths of the dictator’s fascination were not known until recently, although clues existed. Gadhafi once commented:

“I support my darling black African woman. I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. … Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. … I love her very much. I admire her, and I’m proud of her, because she’s a black woman of African origin.”

Still, the Condeleezza obsession could just be a cover. Remember when Rosie O’Donnell used to have that thing about Tom Cruise? We all know she didn’t really have the hots for Cruise. It’s just that her audience thought her crush on a man was a lot cuter than her being an angry bull dyke. It’s possible that Gadhafi is infatuated with Dr. Rice in a “gay icon” sort of way–kind of like  I am with Cher and Judy Garland.

Despite the strong circumstancial evidence that Papa Gadhafi is the owner of Boyz Track, I think it’s more likely that it belongs to his son, al-Saadi. It was, after all, found at his villa. Also, a 2009 State Department cable–released as part of the Wikileaks document dump–describes al-Saadi Gadhafi as a bit of a wild child. He has had run-ins with European police, as well as drug and alcohol abuse and excessive partying. That sounds like most gay men I know.

Heck, al-Saadi might want to check to see if Bawney Fwank is available. Al-Saadi is definitely Fwank’s type. See previous post:

https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/this-day-in-lgbtqxyz-history-july-20th/

Of course, there’s no reason why both Gadhafi the elder and Gadhafi the son couldn’t both be queer. Perhaps they watched the movie together. It’s called a circle jerk. Don’t pretend you haven’t done it.

My feelings about a gay Muammar Gadhafi are mixed. I certainly don’t find the aging man attractive. But on the other hand, he is rich and powerful, which really turns me on. I’d be lying if I told you that I’ve never acted as some older man’s boytoy just to enjoy the benefits of his riches. I could get hip to Gadhafi if the price was right.

Until he surfaces, I guess we’ll never know.

UPDATE: A friend of al-Saadi Gadhafi is now claiming that he was thrown in jail for refusing al-Saadi’s gay advances.

Saadi is gay. He tried to have sex with me but I refused. I only like girls. So he threw me in military jail.”

According to the UK Daily Mirror, the compound in question has “three cell-like rooms and a caged ­building where Saadi is said to have set dogs on people who displeased him.” Oh yeah. This guy’s a sick fuck. I’d bet he’s got all sorts of sexual issues.

I think the mystery has been solved. The DVD most likely belonged to Gadhafi junior. It does not, however, preclude the possibility that they’re both big fans of sodomy.

I might have to rethink this “wall of separation” now that it inconveniences me.

Raging homophobe Mike Adams is at it again. This time he’s taking aim at the University of North Carolina for publishing a list of pro-LGBTQXYZ churches.

Adams, a criminology professor and Christian turned atheist, turned Christian again, took issue with a list of approved churches distributed by the university’s  LGBTQIA Office. That’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed, and Allied, for those of you who are not in the know.

Professor Mike Adams of UNC-Wilmington. It's just too bad that these homophobes have to be so handsome. He opposes the official state endorsement of churches based on their gay friendliness. Is there any way we can fire this man?

Adams viciously attacked the church-endorsement program, saying:

“…they investigate and then endorse churches based on their stance on homosexuality. And they print lists of approved gay-friendly churches using official university letter-head. Then they circulate their approved church list on state-owned computers to other state employees who then recommend the approved churches to their students.”

Uh..yeah. So? Isn’t that what a state-run, tax-payer funded university is supposed to be doing?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a believer in that ancient religion of cannibalism. I don’t think that this guy named Jesus became a zombie and walked out of his tomb. Or that a guy named Jonah was swallowed by a fish and lived to tell the tale. I also don’t believe in talking serpents, or exorcising demons. And I certainly don’t believe in this concept called “sin”, or that I need to be saved from my sins. So please don’t think that I’m suddenly getting hip to Christianity.

Typical service at Christian churches across America. Not here in Provincetown, of course. The churches here fly the rainbow flag out front, so you know that they are filled with normal people who have completely abandoned the Bible and all of the weird/dangerous things that it teaches. This picture is from one of those gay-hating churches found in other parts of the country that I've never actually visited. I'm talking about the Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon churches in places like Oklahoma and Nebraska.

I might be able to join this religion called Christianity if I weren’t required to believe all of those things listed above. Like the resurrection, for example. I would really like to drop the concept of sin from any version of Christianity I might choose to join. Also, I think all people should be able to go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not. Buddhists and Jews go to heaven. Heck, even atheists go to heaven, despite the fact that we don’t believe in it. The only ones who aren’t going to heaven are these judgmental Christian fanatics who actually believe what the Bible tells them.

Isn’t that right, Queer Christian?

I haven’t found God, or anything like that.  But I do think that pro-gay churches play an important role in our community–namely, they serve to confuse people about what scripture actually teaches. Which is a very good thing. The Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments. There is essentially no ambiguity. But that shouldn’t stop queer activists from infiltrating churches, changing doctrine, reforming attitudes, and generally placing the targets of their aggression on an un-Biblical path for years to come.

The primary purpose of gay-friendly churches is to drive home the point that Christianity itself has nothing to say about the morality of sexual behaviors. Yes, some denominations have a lot to say on the subject. Those are the hateful, evil, intolerant denominations. Those denominations are filled with child molesters and crypto-Nazis. They care only about what you do with your private parts.

But other denominations think it’s all fine. Since some denominations think it’s okay for a man to sodomize another man, that means that Christianity has no agreed-upon teaching. Some individual churches do, but those are on the fringe. Christianity itself is silent–even supportive–of homosexuality. Or whatever your particular bag may be.

Of course, only an illiterate person who can’t read the Bible would believe this, but that’s okay. I’ve heard that the members of the pro-gay congregations haven’t cracked their Bibles in quite some time. Kudos to them for that. The Bible is hate speech and should be avoided.

And if the LGBTQIA office of UNC-Wilmington wants to further that goal, I’m all for it. Please endorse gay-friendly churches.

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington celebrates perversity. I mean, diversity.

Professor Adams disagrees.

“If I were to stand up and start recommending churches in the classroom, that would be a serious problem.”

Well, yeah. But that’s because he’s a Christian. A Christian who believes the Bible. And those types of Christians should not be endorsing churches in their capacities as state employees. In fact, they shouldn’t be state employees. Or employees anywhere.

Under normal circumstances, I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. In fact, I often insist that it’s a constitutional principle, despite its absence in the constitution. Let’s just say that it’s written in invisible ink, readable only to the wise judges of the Supreme Court. If I had to admit that the separation of church and state was not actually in the constitution, I might then be forced to admit that most of the things progressives believe to be part of the constitution are actually not there at all. For example, there is no right to privacy, no right to safe space, no right to birth control, no right to abortion, no right to a court-appointed defense attorney, no right to marriage, no right to serve in the military, no right not to have my feelings hurt by the mean things that right-wingers say. There are no sexual rights listed in the constitution at all.

And that’s highly problematic for me. So let’s play along for a while and pretend that the separation of church and state is actually there…somewhere in the penumbras.

And it took Justice Hugo Black to find it!  Justice Black was an Old South segregationist appointed to the court by President Franklin Roosevelt. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, in which he upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps. (Justice Black always endorsed the policies of the man who appointed him. He was essentially a rubber stamp for the executive branch.)

Black was a former member of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and a rabid anti-Catholic. He hated Catholics almost as much as I do. He once worked as defense counsel to a KKK member accused of murdering a Catholic priest. The KKK member was acquitted, thank goodness!

Hugo Black. He was a mixed bag. Although he supported segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans, it appears that he also hated Catholics. And so do I. Without him, the phrase "separation of church and state" might never have entered case law, and we might have to actually refer to the first amendment of the constitution for guidance rather than to a letter written by a guy who wasn't at the constitutional convention. And that would be shitty because I prefer to believe that the separation of church and state exists.

The term “separation of church and state” first became case law when Justice Black cited it in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). The case involved a school district that used its buses to help transport children to Catholic schools. Keep in mind that Black was a Catholic-hater of the first degree, although that certainly had no bearing on his judgment at all. Black interpreted the constitution with an eye toward Thomas Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”. He plucked the phrase “separation of church and state” from Jefferson’s letter, albeit wildly out of context. Which is really odd, because Thomas Jefferson was not the author of the constitution. In fact, he had nothing to do with its text as he was serving as the US Ambassador to France at the time. But I don’t care. I like Black’s conclusion and I don’t care how he came to it.

In the majority opinion, Black wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

For years, the doctrine established in Everson v. Board of Education has been used as a weapon against people of faith, and that’s great. That’s what it’s supposed to used for. But now it appears that it’s being turned around against us. Dr. Adams seems to be suggesting that his university, UNC-Wilmington, is endorsing particular churches just because they’ve issued a list of endorsed churches. And he’s saying that, according to supreme court precedent, the university can’t do that.

That just doesn’t sit right by me. It’s okay for governmental institutions to endorse churches, to prefer one religion over another, to influence a person to go to a certain church, and to spend taxpayer money in support of certain churches, as long as they are churches that I like. If they happen to be churches I don’t like–churches that haven’t abandoned the Bible, for example–then they should be shunned.

So let’s just put it this way. These aren’t normal circumstances. We’re not talking about a state-run university endorsing churches that preach hate. We’re talking about a state-run university that’s endorsing good churches; ie, churches that make gay people feel all warm inside. And so the endorsement of such churches is fine. Perhaps the university can do its part to grow the pro-sodomy churches and to perpetuate the belief that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. That would be a great service to the community.

In other words, pay Justice Black’s “separation” no mind. That concept has outlived its usefulness now that it can’t be used as a weapon against people I hate.

Ireland’s great gay hope tripped up by petty concerns about pedophilia.

In the pantheon of gay heroes, David Norris ranks among the greatest. His long legal battle with the Republic of Ireland led to the repeal of its anti-homosexuality laws in 1993. His career in the Seanad (Irish Senate) has been characterized by his passion for civil rights (for homosexuals, not for anyone else). And until just recently, he was the odds on favorite to be the next President of Ireland. If he had achieved that feat, he would have been the first openly gay president in the history of Ireland; and Europe for that matter. His candidacy had strong support across Ireland, particularly among Irish youth. His following generated comparisons between Norris and Obama circa 2008. He was, in short, a rock star.

David Norris at pro-baby killing rally. You go, girl!

Electing an openly gay president would have signaled Ireland’s complete break with the medieval institution so long associated with it–the Catholic Church. The once socially conservative country has moved left in a big way, having legalized divorce, homosexual relations, and even gay civil unions. Abortion and gay marriage seem like the next logical steps.

Faith in the church has largely declined because Irish priests are a bunch of icky child molesters. Which wouldn’t normally bother me, except for the fact that the child molesters involved are Catholic priests. I don’t hate child molesting Catholic priests because they’re child molesters. I hate them because they are Catholic priests. And David Norris basically agrees with me.

Mr. Norris abandoned the campaign for the Irish presidency last week after a trumped up pedophilia scare brought the pressure to bear on him. Which is so stupid, because when I look for a president, I don’t ask myself what his personal feelings are on adults having sex with children. That’s of no consequence to me. I want competency. And I also want to advance the homosexual agenda while simultaneously bankrupting the nation, which is why I voted for Barack Obama. And if I were Irish, I’d be voting for Norris.

The statesman weathered a previous “scandal” in May when a tawdry restaurant critic–Helen Lucy Burke–dug up an old interview she’d done with Norris from 2002. In it, Norris mentions his support for pedophilia.

“In terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think there can be something to be said for it.”

What’s controversial about that? One of my favorite tactics to use when trying to justify the morality of homosexuality is to point out that it has always existed. And that means that it’s okay. Just like pedophilia has always existed. Homosexuality was rampant in all sorts of pre-Christian societies like Rome and Greece. And that means that it’s okay. Just like pedophilia. The samurai of feudal Japan were raging homosexuals and no one thought anything was wrong with it. They were usually raping the boy apprentices placed in their charge, and no one thought anything was wrong with that either. To tell the truth, I can’t think of a single society that has tolerated homosexuality that didn’t also tolerate all sorts of other perversions. Those societies are clearly more enlightened than this one, which drips of Chrisotfascist moralisms.

Scenes like this have been found in archeological digs from all over the Hellenic world. Homosexuality was common in the ancient world. Powerful friendships blossomed between men and boys. It wasn't until the Christianization of these areas that such practices were suppressed. David Norris sees nothing wrong with it and I don't think we can fault him for that. He's clearly the victim of a homophobic witch-hunt.

Basically, everywhere you look in the non-Christian world, homosexuality has flourished. Well, except for the Muslim world, where they kill fags like me. But then along came these religious zealots with their moral hangups about sex and everything changed. All of a sudden it wasn’t permitted anymore for guys to take it in the poopchute or to have huge orgies with eleven year old boys or to fuck the samurai trainees. It’s a good thing we’re rapidly progressing toward the post-Christian world when these taboos on things like homosexuality and pedophilia will fade away again.   

The senator continued:

“Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that  I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life – yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that.”

Yeah, me too.

Norris called the reemergence of a nine year old interview “sabotage”, which it clearly was. No fair bringing up stuff like that, especially in an election year. Norris fired back:

“This is an attempt to sabotage my campaign. It’s a 10-year-old article. There is nothing new and I want to ask why is this being brought up now… I abhor, and I’ve made that clear, again and again on the record, I abhor the abuse of children, sexual, emotional or physical”

Yeah, so there! It’s old news. Everyone knew that Norris thinks it’s okay for adults to bang boys. Everyone knew, and nobody cared. Certainly not the people of Ireland who continued to name Norris as their top pick in poll after poll, even after the restaurant critic attempted to sabotage him.

The dapper senator has always been quite liberal in his views. Cosmopolitan, you might say. He thinks, for example, that Ireland’s age of consent law is much too high. Well, not that it’s too high, but that it shouldn’t exist at all. That’s right, these silly laws are really just as backwards as all the others that came before it–the ones against sodomy and killing children in the womb and stuff like that. David Norris remarked to Jason O’Toole of the Irish Daily Mail that he doesn’t believe there should be any laws regarding the age of consent for sexual activity.

Oooh…so “controversial”. If you’re a complete square, that is.

Now, he DOES abhor the abuse of children. He’s been on record about that. He took the church to task for its sex scandals in the Seanad’s Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Read it here:

http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/blogger/2009/05/statements-on-commission-to-inquire.html

That’s right, this perv was on the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse! But, like me, he only hates pedophiles when they belong to the homophobic church in Rome. Because they’re HYPOCRITES. Not like David Norris.

Ireland’s leading LGBTQXYZ crusader loathes child sexual abuse so much that he even dated a child sex abuser for about thirty years. In fact, his love an adoration for this man was eventually what brought down his campaign. Norris was once romantically linked with an Israeli peace activist named Ezra Yitzhak Nawi.

Ezra Yitzhak Nawi, former partner of David Norris. He's a lifelong peace activist and supporter of Palestinian rights. Which is kind of strange because he likes to sleep with Palestinian men who take up arms against Israel. Odd that a peace activist would do that. I bet he's a member of QUIT!--see link at right side. Anyway, Mr. Nawi was convicted of statutory rape of a fifteen year old Palestinian boy. Which could have happened to anybody.

Mr. Nawi bedded a fifteen year old Palestinian boy in 1992. He was later convicted of statutory rape for the offense in 1997. Senator David Norris then sent a letter, on his official Irish parliamentary letterhead, to the High Court in Jerusalem begging for clemency. Norris presented himself as a character witness on Nawi’s behalf. He’s the Irish Bawney Fwank! (See This Day in LGBTQXYZ History: July 20th)

The senator really went to bat for his butt buddy:

“I know him to be an intelligent, honest, trustworthy, good and moral person for whom the present difficulty is quite uncharacteristic.”

See? So this is totally uncharacteristic. He’s only done it like two or three times before. Usually he only sleeps with men who are at least sixteen…usually. He’s also a very moral person. He’s the most moral statutory rapist there’s ever been. Norris even went as far as to say that Nawi is “a very good son to his mother”! Yeah, Nawi really makes his old Jewish mother proud when he piddles Palestinian boys. He’s a real Mensch, eh?

Senator Norris rounded out his chutzpah by arguing that his ex-boyfriend was the true victim here, having been “lured into a carefully prepared trap.” No doubt by the Joos! But Nawi pled guilty nonetheless, just so a trial would be averted and the Palestinian boy would be spared the pain of having to give testimony. So he pled guilty for the boy’s sake, and not because he did anything wrong. Norris also wrote that he was writing his letter “out of love and concern” for his former lover.

I do not regret supporting and seeking clemency for a friend, but I do regret giving the impression that I did not have sufficient compassion for the victim of Ezra’s crime.

Um…what crime, David? Ezra’s the victim here, remember? 

Well, we all know that Norris has compassion for the “victim”. That’s why he thinks that age of consent laws should be abolished. And that there’s something to be said for “classical pedophilia” in the Greek tradition. And why he talks dreamily about how wonderful it would have been if an older man had stuck his dick in his rectum when he was a child.

That letter brought down the presidential campaign of a gay giant, and along with it the hope of a new, post-Catholic generation of young Irishmen and -women. Ireland is the poorer for it.  The nation will just have to wait a little longer for its first gay president. Hopefully the next one won’t like the lads as much as this one does.

As David Norris remarked:

“I have lived a decent, respectable life, and there has been no scandal.”

So true, David. So true.

Kiddie porn ring busted. GLAD they’ll have good lawyers.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced earlier this week the conclusion of Operation Delgado–the take-down of a  multinational, internet-based kiddie porn ring operating from servers in the US. The website, entitled “Dreamboard” was a virtual nightmare of abusive sexual exploitation. It had around six hundred members, all men, from various countries across the globe, including the US, Canada, Kenya, France, and Ecuador.

"We got 'em!" Holder fist-pumps the sting operation that brought down an international child pornography ring. Just kidding. This is a picture from his black power days. Well, that would imply that his black power days are located somewhere in the past, which clearly they aren't. He still hates whitey. Okay, so this is a picture from his ridiculous necklace days.

Kind of wish I’d known about Dreamboard before they took it down. Oops…did I say that out loud?

Attorney General Holder laid out of some of the more sordid details:

“In order to become part of the Dreamboard community, prospective members were required to upload pornography portraying children under 12 years of age or younger.”

“Under 12 years of age or younger”. Well said, Eric. I’m guessing you got into Columbia on the affirmative action program. Just a guess.

Apparently, there was some really sick shit on there.

“Some of the children featured in these images and videos were just infants and in many cases, the children being victimized were in obvious and also intentional pain, even in distress and crying, just as the rules for one area of the bulletin board mandated. They had to be in distress and crying.”

As I watched the story unfold on CNN, I found myself asking–is GLAD going to come to the men’s defense or what? Seriously, they’re going to need a good legal team with experience getting pedophiles off the hook.

When I speak of GLAD, I’m referring of course to Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that was formed for in 1978 for the specific purpose of defending adult men who had sex parties with teenage boys. (Not to be confused with GLAAD–Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). The organization really should have called themselves PAD (Pedophile Advocates & Defenders), but that didn’t have quite the same ring to it. It was better for PR purposes to portray themselves as an organization dedicated to defending gay men. Which, I suppose they were. Gay men who organized drug-fueled sex parties with kids from the local junior high.

Equal Justice Under Law...except for victims of pedophiles.

It was the seventies…what can I say? Things were really taking off for the LGBTQXYZ community. It was nearly ten years after Stonewall and we were starting to see cracks in America’s anti-gay exterior. There were enclaves here and there–San Fransicko, Manhattan, Boston–where it was almost acceptable to be out and proud. Harvey Milk had just been elected America’s first openly gay politician and AIDS was yet to put a damper on our hyperactive sex lives.

Sexual emancipation was the buzz word of the day. Sure, pedophilia seemed like traversing some kind of boundary. But that’s what we were about! Traversing the sexual boundaries that had choked us for centuries. If there was anything we stood for, it was the destruction of sexual mores that mandated sex occur only between husband and wife, and then only in the missionary position, and only for the purposes of procreation. Adults having sex with children was a new frontier, but then again so was men having sex with men, and women having sex with women.  They called boy lovers “perverts”, but  they called us queerboys “perverts” too. Who were we to judge?

And then disaster struck. In June of 1977, police raided a home in Revere, Massachusetts, arresting its owner and eventually twenty-four other men. It appears that the house on Mountain Avenue was the hub of some kind of pornographic sex ring where adult men threw beer bashes for underage boys. The objective was, of course, to get the teenage boys drunk and high, then to sodomize them.

How come nobody told me about these parties? You guys are really letting me down.

The twenty-four men indicted were charged with raping boys ranging in age from eight to thirteen, which was such an exaggeration because it later turned out that they could only prove that the men were having sex with boy hustlers who were at least fifteen years old. Okay, and one of them was nine. And most of them liked it. So it’s all cool.

The men took a plea bargain deal and got off with fines and probation. Great work on the part of their lawyers.

Boston Magazine has a great story on the Revere sex ring, the Boston area pedophile/gay rights scene, and the two major organizations that arose from the flap–GLAD and the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Read all about it:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/boy_crazy/

Enter the villain of this affair. No, not the ring of pervy sexual predetors with the sex dungeon in Revere. I’m talking about the District Attorney of Suffolk County, Garrett Byrne. DA Byrne surmised that there might be other such pedophilia houses in the county, which isn’t such a wild assumption considering the fact that the Boston public library and Revere Beach were pretty much the hottest spots for anonymous liaisons between men and sometimes boys.  Believe me, no one was checking ID’s. I certainly wasn’t, and I was there.

Mr. Byrne’s witchhunt began with a simple hotline. Anonymous tipsters could call in and report on anyone they thought was sexually abusing children. THE HORROR! Anonymous sex? Yes. Anonymous tip lines that notify law enforcement about possible sexual predators? That’s downright un-American!

I mean, someone could just dime out a person they didn’t like. Kind of the same way they could dime out a person they didn’t like for any crime just by calling the police station. People should not be able to report a crime because they might make a false report. So we musn’t allow reporting. Did you hear me? NO REPORTING!

Clearly, the hotline was unconstitutional. Because we didn’t like it. Anything we don’t like is unconstitutional.

The DA had declared war on Boston’s pedophile community and we homos would be his first casualties. I can’t understand why a gay man would be concerned about a pedophile hotline unless he was in fact a pedophile himself, but…we all know that “pedophile” is a code word. So law enforcement must never make any attempt to smoke the pervs out, because they’re really after adult men who have consensual sex with other adult men. As well as gay men who lure high school freshmen to their homes with pot and beer and then rape them up the ass.

Even though there’s no overlapping between the gay community and the pedophile community, we get a little nervous whenever anyone suggests that something should be done about child molesters. So, just to be safe, let’s not do anything about child molesters unless they happen to be Catholic priests.

The local gay community mounted an intense campaign to shut down the pedophile hotline, by judicial order if necessary. The courts always give us what we want and that’s why we love them. The effort was spearheaded by John Ward, Boston’s first openly gay male attorney and the founder of GLAD. He took the DA to court and the Byrne backed down, agreeing to “voluntarily” terminate the perv hotline.

Gay hero John Ward. He fought valiantly to shut down a hotline where people could tip off law enforcement to the existence of child rapists. Not that gay men do that sort of thing. Child rapists owe him a debt of gratitude. Though it's imposible to put a number on just how many child rapists were spared the shame of getting caught and going to jail, it's certainly a large number. Thanks, John.

That was 1978. Needless to say, most of Boston’s elected officials didn’t want to touch GLAD with a ten foot pole. Since then, the organization has gone completely mainstream. Every politician in the state kisses GLAD’s (diseased) asses. In 2003, they brought the case of two Northampton lesbians to the Massachusetts SJC. Maybe you’ve heard of it–it was called Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and it brought marriage equality to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Yesterday’s pro-pedophile crusaders are today’s advocates for marriage equality! Who knows what lies ahead for GLAD? Heaven knows we’re never satisfied.

GLAD offers its annual “Spirit of Justice Award” to warriors who toil in the name of total equality for the LGBTQXYZ community. In 2008, that award was presented to…John Ward! It’s kind of cool that you get a lot of awards from an organization when you’re its founder. Anyway, the ceremony really brought a tear to my eye. Mr. Ward was given an introduction befitting his status as a civil rights hero:

The man giving John Ward’s introduction is GLAD legal director Gary Buseck. And as much as I respect Mr. Buseck, I have to correct a few mistakes he made in his introduction. All honest mistakes, I’m sure. Not some kind of attempt to justify a pedophilia ring involving gay men and underage boys.

“…and lo and behold in December of 1977, the DA broke the news of a ‘sex ring’ in nearby Revere, Massachusetts, indicting twenty-four people  on over a hundred felony counts involving older men allegedly having sex with younger men.” 

Well, no. They were accused of having sex with boys. Boys as young as eight. I guess if you consider an eight year old boy a “younger man”, then yes. That was the charge.

The DA called it ‘the tip of the iceberg’ and he set up a hotline asking the public for anonymous tips on homosexuals.

Okay, so that didn’t happen either. Garret Byrne set up a hotline asking for anonymous tips on pedophiles, not homosexuals. But I guess we all need our comforting fictions, our founding legends. So, even if the official GLAD version of what happened is bullshit, that’s fine by me. It’s just one of the many lies that we sodomites tell to advance our agenda. Kind of like Mathew Shepard, the gay gene, AIDS not “discriminating”, one in ten people being gay, and every thing else you hear coming out of our cocksucking mouths.

So let’s hope John Ward comes to the rescue for this generation’s Revere sex ring. The poor guys at Dreamboard need help and who better than GLAD to defend them?

I LOVErmont: The Green Mountain State keeps up the heat on religious bigots

Bigots will find no shelter in the state of Vermont. Nor Roman Catholics, although that’s sort of synonymous with bigots.

The first state in the union to legalize civil unions–due to the legislation of then Governor Dean’s faith–and the first state to pass marriage equality without the judiciary’s gun to its head, Vermont will also become the first state to force Christians against their will to rent out their private property for gay weddings. Vermont is super-progressive and that’s why we like it so much.

The Vermont chapter of the ACLU is now suing a rural Vermont inn on behalf of a lesbian couple that wished to hold its wedding reception there. The lesbian couple nearly committed suicide after finding out that these private citizens did not want to allow their their private property to be used in a celebration of their homosexual relationship.

And you wouldn’t want them to commit suicide…would you?

Of course, the bigots played the religion card, as if religion is offered some kind of special protection in the Constitution or something. John and Mary O’Reilly, owners of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont explained:

 “We do not, however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

When are these people going to learn that free exercise of religion does not mean that you can break the law when it violates your conscience? For example, the government can draft Quakers into the armed forces. Also, Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to stand and say the pledge of allegiance in schools. It’s permissible to force Orthodox Jews to open their businesses on the (Jewish) Sabbath. Wait…we don’t do any of those things? Well, we should be able to.

When the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it didn’t mean religions that piss me off. It meant warm, mushy, cotton candy religions that tell homosexuals that God made them just the way they are and God don’t make no mistakes. You know, fake religions.

The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont. Nice place. Hate to see anything bad happen to it.

The idea that these two innkeepers can just decide to pick and choose which customers they take on–as if it were their business!–really makes my blood boil. The entire purpose of marriage equality laws is to force people like the O’Reilly’s to do things against their will. That’s why we need the state to recognize our relationships. Without state sanction, we can’t call on the power of the state to force other people to recognize our relationships and, when we feel like it, to take part in our ceremonies.

You’ll never find us making the libertarian argument that government should have no role in marriage because that would mean that the government can’t shove our morals down other people’s throats. Absolutely we want the government involved in marriage. We want the heavy hand of the state involved at all levels, and we want it to bully people on our behalf. We want our morals enshrined in law.

And let’s be clear–we do want to shove our morals down other people’s throats. John and Mary O’Reilly think that gay marriage is morally wrong. I think their exclusionary policy is morally wrong. John and Mary O’Reilly may not force their morality upon me through the force of law, though I may still force my morality on them.

That’s why it’s okay for former Governor Howard Dean to tell the voters of Iowa that it was his faith that motivated him to sign civil unions into law. But it would not be acceptable for an actual Christian governor–as opposed to Dean, who’s only a Christian when he’s running for president–to veto such a law because of his faith.

See how this works? We legislate our morality, and you just keep yours to your fucking self. I don’t want to see your morality, hear your morality, or even know that it exists. If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get gay married! And just as long as you participate in my wedding against your will, everything will be fine. I won’t have to call the authorities, who are pretty entirely in the tank for me.

Nice message. It’s important to perpetuate the myth that other people are meddling in our lives, preventing us from loving each other, and getting in our business.

Now, I’m not advising any of my readers to go blabbing about all of this all around town. Yes, the whole purpose of gay marriage is to force people to recognize our relationships who don’t want to. But as always, stealth and deception are necessary. It’s important to keep up the illusion that people are meddling in our lives, telling us whom to love and whom we may sleep with. The emotional weight of that argument is enormous.

It’s bullshit, of course. But that shouldn’t stop us from making the emotional appeal that we really, really love each other. So who are you to stand in the way of our love? Who are you to police my sex life? I loved my husband even before we were married and I slept with him as well. Even if every gay marriage in the whole country was nullified by some federal marriage amendment, I’d still love him and still have sex with him. So it really has nothing to do with love or with bedroom behavior. It has to do with forcing people to do things our way.

When we portray opponents of marriage equality as moral busybodies, we win. They’re running around telling everyone how to live their lives! Which is totally different than what the State of Vermont is doing to the O’Reilly’s, of course. But they’re just Christofascist losers, and they have no rights.
 
This whole ordeal in Vermont really reminds me of what happened to me and Michael when we were first married here on the Cape in 2004. We were one of the first gay couples in the state–in the nation!–to be married legally. We contacted a woman photographer to do our photos, and she told us that she was a Christofascist and that she wasn’t planning on doing any gay weddings because of her “faith”. She referred us to other photographers.
 
Now, there are dozens of good wedding photographers on the Cape, but it didn’t seem right that this woman could just pick and choose her clients. So we told her that she’d better get her ass to the wedding or we’d sue the shit out of her. You see, I wanted to force her to do something against her will. I wanted to make her an unwilling participant in our ceremony, forcing her to look at us through that camera lens of hers, shoving cake in each other’s mouths, kissing at the altar, etc. I know that there were other photographers who would have been glad to have had our business, but I really wanted to knuckle this bitch under. I wanted to make her choose between her Christian faith and her livelihood. I certainly didn’t want a photographer who wanted to be there.
 
In the end, she did the pictures. So much for her “faith” in some wacky “God”. Apparently, paying her bills was more important. 
 
Now, some of you may believe in “live and let live”. I don’t. I believe in live and destroy other people’s livelihoods. If other people have beliefs that conflict with mine, I like to force them to abandon their beliefs or become unemployed. (See previous post of Dr. Frank Turek)
 
I heard that ours was her last wedding ever. It’s too bad because she had had a thriving business before gay marriage became the law in Massachusetts. Last time I saw her, she was a sandwich artist at Subway in Hyannisport. Hope that bitch likes making minimum wage! I bet she’ll remember next time that “this doesn’t affect you”.   
 
 Update: The Wildflower Inn is no longer doing weddings and special events, according to its website. I consider this a partial victory. Can the State of Vermont force them to continue doing so? That would be sweet.

Tag Cloud