Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘equal rights’

Even a broken clock like Rick Santorum is right twice a day. Senate greenlights bestiality.

If you missed this week’s press conference at the White House, you probably haven’t heard about the ridiculous question World Nut Daily reporter  Lester Kinsolving posed to press secretary Jay Carney. He actually asked what the president’s position is on bestiality! Oh for crying out loud, what a doofus. I can’t believe World Nut Daily reporters even get press credentials at the White House.

But alas, they do. Kinsolving was referring to the recent vote in the US Senate to abolish Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The article prohibits sodomy in the military, as well as sexual relations with animals. Presumably, repealing the whole article would have the effect of legalizing both behaviors in the US military.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

To Carney’s credit, he refused to entertain the ridiculous question, preferring to dismiss it off the cuff. Of course the commander-in-chief opposes bestiality in the armed forces. That’s why he plans on signing the bill just as soon as it hits his desk.

Okay, okay–so the Senate just voted 93-7 to abolish the article. But that doesn’t mean it would be legal to boff your poodle. That would still be punishable under other articles. Presumably, however, my favorite activity–sodomy–will not continue to be punishable under other articles. By abolishing the article that specifically prohibits sodomy in the armed forces, we are legalizing butt sex in the barracks. But by abolishing the article that specifically prohibits barnyard play, we are not legalizing it. Not sure why, we just aren’t.

Ho hum. Okay, so that explanation doesn’t work. How about this? I’m sure that the Congress will fix it at a later date. This whole thing is a mistake that will be straightened out eventually. Kind of like how two persons who are closely related by blood can get married in my state, just as long as the marriage is homosexual. Seven years after gay marriage came to the Bay State and brother/brother marriage remains legal. They’re still getting around to fixing it. State legislators are very busy people, you know.

Every time I watch this video, I imagine that horrible bigot Rick Santorum sitting at home, rubbing his hands together in glee. I bet he thinks he was right about the whole “man-dog” thing, which is just silly. As he famously remarked in 2003:

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. “

Can you believe that? It’s one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments. If we redefine marriage, there will no end to it. Next thing you know, we’ll have man-on-dog sex in the barracks! Ha! So stupid. Well, I mean it would be stupid if it weren’t for the fact that the US Senate just voted to legalize it. But I’m sure it won’t pass the House, and if it does, I’m sure the president will veto it. Even so, Santorum was technically wrong–sex with animals will now be permitted, but the full benefits of marriage are still an elusive dream from soldiers who love their house pets. I guess that’s tomorrow’s civil rights battle.

Yeah, I bet he smuggles cock on the side. They're all repressed homos. It would help though if the vandal would learn how to spell simple five letter words, such as "needs".

I remember the infamous Santorum “man/dog” interview. I was so offended that he would compare loving sodomy with my husband Michael (and a few score other casual partners) to something as repulsive as bestiality. There’s a HUGE difference between the two. In the case of homosexuality, the sex is consensual. It’s just two consenting adults gettin’ it on in the privacy of their home. But an animal can’t consent, and so it’s actually a form of rape.

Wait a second, did I just say that homosexuality involves consent? I slipped up there. There’s nothing consensual about two men sodomizing each other, because if there were, that would mean that there’s a choice involved. And as we all know, homosexuality is NOT a choice. If it were a choice, who would choose it? Nobody. So let’s just abandon the silly notion that we choose our sexual practices and partners. I know that I sure don’t.

And while I acknowledge that animals don’t consent to sex with humans, it’s also true that they don’t consent to being killed and stuck on our dinner plates either.  They probably don’t consent to having sex with each other, considering the fact that most non-human forms of life don’t possess the faculties to make rational decisions. They act on instinct.

The truth is that we consistently treat animals as lower forms of life. Humans do what we please with them, even without their “consent”. That’s why we find it acceptable to kill animals for food or sport, to do grotesque experiments on them for the advancement of medical research, to skin them and use their hides to make wallets and belts, as well as to place wagers on them and watch them race around tracks. We employ them to serve as guides for the blind, and to entertain us at the circus and SeaWorld. We do all of these things to animals without their consent, and we don’t give a shit. Because they’re friggin’ animals, that’s why.  No one cares about the consent of animals.

Except we don’t usually have sex with them. Because that’s gross.

Even so, just being “gross” isn’t reason enough to ban a person’s behavior. Some people think that it’s gross when I open my asscheeks to other men. Some might say it’s gross when all of that ‘Santorum” comes dripping out after the fact. For those of you not “in the know”, Santorum is a mix of fecal matter, lube, and jizz that sometimes seeps from a person’s asshole after anal sex. Kind of a little bit gross, I suppose.

The dilemma I face here is that I have to think of a reason why bestiality is wrong on a rational basis. I can’t just say that it’s wrong because it’s disgusting, immoral, unnatural, or against some religious doctrine of mine. Because then I wouldn’t be able to dismiss those arguments against me as mere prejudice. I need to think of a reason why my objection to man/dog sex is based in reason, while the homophobes’ objection is simply overbearing religiosity. What we came up with is the old “animals can’t consent” canard, which really isn’t all that believable.

The more I think about it, the more I see that this prohibition against bestiality has got to go. With a few simple questions, I can determine whether or not bestiality enthusiasts “choose” their lifestyle or not. I’m leaning towards no.

First of all, if bestiality were a choice, who in their right mind would choose it, knowing that society would shun and hate them? Does someone reach a certain age and just decide ‘Hey, I want to be known as the neighborhood animal fucker?’ Who would choose it knowing that their old, religious, intolerant mother would cry herself to sleep every night knowing that her child is a perv? Who would choose to be at the bottom of the social stratum, denied equal protection under the law? Any takers? I thought not. So it can’t be a choice.

Second, if sexual attraction to another species is a choice, it naturally follows that sexual attraction to the same species is a choice. I ask myself, when did I choose to be attracted to homo sapiens? Hmmm? Well, I didn’t. It’s just part of my DNA code, the same way sodomy is part of the code. (I’ll find the gene later, m’kay?) So zoophilia (attraction to animals) is obviously not a choice, since androphilia (attraction to human beings) isn’t either. It’s science! There’s no way you can argue with that.

Third, I must say that I would fail Dan Savage’s “choicer” challenge. The pushy, annoying fag coined the term “choicer” in an obvious allusion to “birther” and “truther”. Because if you think that homosexuality is a choice, that means you’re as crazy as the people who think Obama was born in Kenya or that the Moussad pulled off 9/11.

You’re. that. fucking. crazy.

If you think I "choose" to open my asscheeks to other men, you're as crazy as this guy. For reals. There is no choice involved in my consensual behavior.

Dan Savage was a little perturbed when Canadian MP John Cummins mentioned on the radio that homosexuality is a “choice”. Enraged as always, Dan devised the ultimate test that would determine whether or not guzzling cum is a choice.  He threw the gauntlet down at Cummins’ feet.

But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they’re right! I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.

Suck my dick, John.

I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere. It’s time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it’s done. Suck my dick.

Ha! Ha! Savage sure showed him. Of course, the cowardly Cummins chose not to take him up on the offer, thus proving that sucking Dan’s dick never really was a choice. See how that works? If you choose not to engage in a behavior, you inadvertently prove that the behavior is not a choice.

Savage later offered the same choicer challenge to Herman Cain. Cain too declined to suck Savage’s cock, thus failing the choicer challenge. Bitch.

The legendary Dan Savage. He's a genius. I love his choicer challenge.

Now, let’s say a bestiality enthusiast devised a similar “choicer” challenge. You know, he could bring in his prized thoroughbred horse and part-time lover, then offer me the opportunity to get down on my knees and suck it. If I failed to go through with it, that would be proof enough that sucking horsecock isn’t really a choice at all. If it were, I could choose it.

I can say with 99% certainty that I would fail a bestiality “choicer” challenge. I say “99%” because there’s always that lingering doubt in the back of my head that I might be able to get hip to it. But I probably wouldn’t, because sex with animals is not really a choice at all.

The more I think about it, the more I see that zoophiles are kind of like gay people. And gay people are, as we’ve already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, kind of like black people, left-handed people, and redheads. Yeah. Makes sense to me!

So let’s not let the H8ers write the laws in this country. I’m glad Article 125 is being abolished, most of all because I am a sodomy enthusiast, but also because I can see that it unfairly targeted animal lovers. They have civil rights too, you know.

I’d bet that silly World Nut Daily reporter even harbors a secret love for the animal kingdom. He and all the other uptight anti-bestiality people are all a bunch of closet cases. The ones who scream the loudest always end up getting caught later on sneaking around with an Irish setter. Seriously, who spend their time worrying about this stuff other than a repressed animal lover?

Fwank blazed trails for LGBTQXYZ members of Congress

Sad news swept the lavender side of the blogosphere this week after Bawney Fwank–America’s only left-handed, gay, Jewish congressman–announced that he will not seek reelection. After sixteen terms, the affable representative from Newton is calling it quits, citing drastic geographical changes to his district as the reason.

Bawney playing grab ass on the campaign trail. Hot!

Fwank was one of the nation’s first openly gay congressmen, and as such he spent most of his career under siege by the forces of intolerance.  I chronicled some of his “scandals” in a previous post, so I’ll just briefly summarize them here. Let’s just say that his boyfriends keep getting him in trouble.

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

1.  Rep. Fwank sought out male prostitute Steven Gobie in the pages of DC’s most famous gay newspaper, The Washington Blade. He paid the male prostitute eighty dollars for sex, then had Gobie move in with him because he felt a lot of sympathy for the troubled gigolo, and certainly not because he wanted a younger man with a “hot bottom” to service him after long days on Capitol Hill.  As it turns out, Gobie continued to run his prostitution ring out of Bawney’s apartment, completely unbeknownst to Mr. Fwank! He was blindsided when he learned that his apartment was being used as a homosexual brothel. The lying, ungrateful Steven Gobie insists that Bawney knew everything, which is just silly.

“He knew exactly what I was doing.  It was pretty obvious.  If he had to come home early [from work], he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing.”

2. Congressman Fwank later wrote letters on Gobie’s behalf to the help him get out of a slew of parking tickets. He used his official letterhead to testify to Gobie’s good character. He also wrote to the Virginia probation authorities, asking them to take it easy on his boyfriend. Gobie had been found guilty of possession of cocaine, oral sodomy in public, and production of obscene material involving a minor. Big whoop. So he snorts coke, sucks cock in public places, and makes kiddie porn as a hobby. That describes half the gay men I know.

3. And besides all of that, Fwank oversaw the Fannie and Freddie crisis, which was all George Bush’s fault. And Tom DeLay’s. Besides the fact that he had appointed his boyfriend, Herb Moses, to oversee the corporation and then blocked any effort to investigate the clusterfuck of epic proportions, Fwank got to write the financial reform bill that fixed the situation. Everything’s fixed now, m’kay? You can thank him later.

By my count, there have been twelve openly gay members of Congress. Some of them only became open about it when they were caught piddling the pages or whatever, but hey I’m just glad that they’re out. I know what it’s like to live a lie. No one should have to do it. Let’s take a look at some prominent cock-smugglers on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Maryland)

Robert Bauman

Bob Bauman was a conservative Republican who was caught soliciting sex from a sixteen year old male prostitute in 1980. Shame on him! Not for soliciting sex from a sixteen year old male prostitute, of course. Who hasn’t done that? Shame on him for being a conservative Republican. He’s a HYPOCRITE and that’s the worst thing you can possibly be.  There is nothing wrong with soliciting sex from sixteen year old male prostitutes. There’s something wrong with speaking out against “immorality”.

He later copped to being an alcoholic and went to court-ordered treatment for his addiction. So apparently he  checked into rehab just to get out of trouble, which everybody seems to be doing these days. After he completed his course on alcoholism, he was let go without any punishment but unfortunately lost the 1980 election. Oddly enough, the homophobic voters of his district didn’t like a peter puffer representing them in congress, or at least not a peter puffer who paid children for sex.

Robert Bauman letter wrote a non-fiction book, “The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative”.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

Larry Craig

Craig denies to this day that he’s a cum guzzler but no one in their right mind believes him. As you may remember, Craig was arrested in men’s bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport by an undercover vice detective, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who had no idea at the time that the guy who fell into his trap was a US Senator. The spot was well known for cruising–that is, homosexual men knew that this was the place to go for some anonymous sex in the stall. The detective had only been sitting in the stall for thirteen minutes when along came Craig who, according to Karsnia, started creeping around, attempting to gaze into the crack of the door. He then chose the stall to the detective’s left. The detective’s police report describes the incident:

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. … The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward.”

Ha! He knows all the signals. Sounds like he’s done this before. I know a few spots on the Cape where Mr. Craig would have a ball.

So then the cop flashed his badge under the stall. He ordered Craig out of the men’s room and had him arrested. Craig initially declined to cooperate, asking again to see the detective’s badge. After his arrest, Craig presented the detective with a business card identifying himself as a US Senator as some kind of get out of jail free card. Craig said that he was worried about missing his flight.

Of course, Senator Craig has vehemently denied that he’s gay or that he cruises for sexual trysts in the bathrooms of airports. He’s not into that, supposedly. Unfortunately for the senator, other men keep coming forward and confessing to sexual encounters with him. One man recalls giving Craig a hummer in a bathroom stall at Washington’s Union Station. Another man claims that Craig tried the old waving-the-hand-under-the-stall trick with him at the Denver airport.

Eight gay men later came forward and claimed to have had sex with Craig or been propositioned by Craig. One of them, Mike Jones, was a male prostitute–the same male prostitute who got Ted Haggard in so much trouble. Mr. Jones claims that Senator Craig paid him for his services. Another was a College Republican at a gathering of Republicans in Coeur D’Alene when he met Craig in 1981. He says that Craig propositioned him.

Oddly enough, Senator Craig was also a congressman when the Congressional page scandal broke in 1982. Although no one had accused Craig of any monkey business with the pages, his office issued a denial. Kind of like a guilty conscience.

It wasn’t me! I didn’t do it!

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida)

Mark Foley

We first learned of Foley’s sexual orientation after it was discovered that he was writing illicit emails and instant messages to congressional pages. Oddly enough, he resigned over the whole scandal, then came out of the closet.

I must say, I was perplexed about the whole thing for days. My own congressman, Rep. Gerry Studds was caught plying the male pages with booze and then buttfucking them and he didn’t step down. Hell no. He stuck it out for another six terms! The people of our district resoundingly voted for him time and time again. So why would a congressman resign over such a small peccadillo as dirty IM’s to sixteen year old boys?

And then it came to me–he’s a Republican! I was immediately up in arms over the whole thing. This Foley character is a sick-o! Now, granted Foley wasn’t the most conservative of all Republicans. He was pro-choice, he voted against an amendment that would have narrowly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, he voted for gay adoptions in Washington, DC, and he was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans. But he still had an “R” after his name.

In one message, Foley asked the page how long his penis was. When he said it was seven and a half inches, Foley responded:

“Get a ruler and measure it for me.”

After resigning, he returned to Florida, divorced his wife, and took a male lover. Again, I’m perplexed. This guy can’t really be gay because he’s a pedophile and pedophiles are definitely not gay. But then I realized that he only sent dirty IM’s to children while he was in the District of Columbia, and the age of consent in DC is sixteen, which makes the pages fair game for anal sex and propositions thereto. In Florida, he never touches the boys because the age of consent in Florida is eighteen, not sixteen. He never even feels attracted to sixteen year old boys when he’s in Florida, only when he’s in DC. So he’s a gay man there too. Heaven knows that gay men never sink their schlongs into anything under the legal age. If they did, they’re automatically kicked out of the gay club.

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Mississippi)

Jon Hinson

Jon Hinson was first arrested before he was a congressman at Arlington National Cemetery for committing an obscene act. The whole thing was much ado about nothing. All he did was flash an undercover cop at the Iwo Jima Memorial.  He’s a dickwaiver, so what? Obviously, he was just being himself. I bet he was just born that way. After all, if being a dickwaver was a choice, who in their right mind would choose it? No one. Exactly. So it’s not a choice. When he pulled out his dick at a sacred memorial and waved it at an undercover police officer he was being true to himself. He later blamed it on alcoholism, which seems to be the catch-all excuse for all sorts of perversions. Good for him.

Hinson managed to keep his arrest a secret while running for office in Mississippi, which as we all know, is a very backwards state so steeped in Christian intolerance that it would never elect a sexual deviant to Congress.  Being a dickwaiver is perilous enough, but being a homosexual dickwaiver is even worse. It must be hard living in such a restrictive environment.

Congressman Hinson’s political career came crashing down in 1981 when he was caught in the men’s room with a male librarian from the Library of Congress. Yeah, he was gargling balls. Well, I can’t say for sure who was gargling whose balls, but it sounds like a lot of fun. Hook-ups in the men’s bathrooms are pretty common in the gay subculture. Just take a ride around Provincetown and drop by the public men’s washrooms. I guarantee you’ll find glory holes in half the stalls! I should know, I drilled a good number of them. Seriously though, visit any gay website and you’ll find message boards that post details of when and where to go if you’d like some anonymous bathroom stall blowjobs. Hinson just happened to very knowledgeable  about the bathroom stall scene on capitol hill.

Hinson later became a gay rights warrior, fighting for homos in the military. We know how much he respects and honors the military. That’s why he chose a veterans’ memorial to expose himself. I’m glad Hinson was on our side because he’s exactly the type of guy we need in the movement–a dick-waiving former congressman who resigned after hooking up with another dude in a Capitol Hill men’s room.

Oh yeah, and he died of AIDS. I wonder how he contracted that?

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona)

Jim Kolbe

Kolbe’s only crime is copious concern for the youngsters on the House floor. Yes, Congressman Kolby adores congressional pages, the male ones in particular. And for that, he was shamed into retirement.

The Arizona congressman is known to have taken a personal interest in the pages, mentoring them, and even throwing parties for them at his Washington home. Supervisors of the page program described Rep. Kolbe as a “problem member” because he spent an inordinate amount of time with pages, taking them to dinner and sporting events during their off time. Another “problem member” was Kolbe’s friend, Mark Foley. Kolbe also extended to some of the pages a standing invitation to stay overnight in his home if they were ever in the Washington area. He really cares about kids, okay?

A former page who spoke on condition of anonymity complained to the House ethics committee that he was “uncomfortable with a particular social encounter” that happened while they were alone and involved physical contact. Kolbe denied wrongdoing.

Kolbe may best be remembered for his camping trips he took with his staff and pages. On one such trip down the Grand Canyon in 1996, Kolbe appeared to be showering one seventeen year old former page with attention. One participant said he was “creeped out by it” [Foley’s attention to the former page]. He also said that there was  “fawning, petting and touching” on the teenager’s arms, shoulders and back by Kolbe.

But don’t worry! The lucky kid in question–the object of the congressman’s petting–said that he had “a blast” on the trip. I would have had a blast too! I can only imagine how exciting it must be for a young man to spend a whole week in the wilderness with an older gay man who keeps touching him. I bet Kolbe even visited the boy in his tent. Just innocent fun, of course. The page in question didn’t elaborate much on that.

“I don’t want to get into the details. I just don’t want to get into this… because I might possibly be considered for a job in the administration.”

I know Kolbe didn’t do anything inappropriate while he was on a camping trip because Kolbe is gay. But if this guy Kolbe was piddling a seventeen year old on a camping trip in Arizona, that would be child molesting because Arizonans are a bunch of prudes and they set their age of consent at eighteen. Considering the fact that Kolbe is gay, and certainly not a child molester, it would be a physical impossibility for him to get off on boning a seventeen year old. At least in Arizona.

Kolbe was later accused of knowing all about his good friend Mark Foley’s indecent instant messaging as far back as 2000. Kolbe claims that he reported the messages and then left it alone, satisfied that it had been resolved. And I believe him. Sadly, he resigned at the same time as Foley.

Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Massachusetts)

Gerry Studds

I am pleased to say that this gentleman was my congressman for many years. I voted for him every time I saw his name on the ballot and I displayed his campaign sign on my lawn proudly. I think I may have had a hook-up with him in the sand dunes down by the beach, although it may have been a guy who just happened to look a lot like Studds. I look back fondly on that memory, hoping against hope that it really was Studds.

Gerry Studds is best known for being a gay rights warrior. But besides that, he’s best known for bringing male congressional pages back to his home, getting them drunk on vodka and cranberry juice, and then buttfucking them until his heart’s content. But don’t worry–it was all totally consensual. You see, the age of consent in DC–as well as in Massachusetts–is sixteen. The pages he was bending over were all at least sixteen, so everything’s okay. The fact that he was an authority figure in their lives has no relevance, nor does the fact that he purposely clouded their judgement with alcohol. The boys all said they had a great time with Uncle Gerry and everything was consensual.

As I always say–what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. Or, you know, a consenting adult and a minor who happens to be over sixteen and also happens to be drunk in the presence of an adult authority figure. It’s all cool.

Studds never faced any penalty for his activities with the pages, other than censure by the House of Representatives. At the time that his censure was being read aloud in the house chamber, Studds turned his back on the proceedings in a symbolic gesture. The message was clear–this whole thing is a kangaroo court.

And it was! All he did was have sex with some of the male pages. Big deal. And then these right-wing Christianofascist homophobes had to go make a federal case about it. Geez. Can the man have some privacy or what?

Studds ended up coming out of this whole thing smelling like a rose. Not only did he refuse to resign, he continued his career in politics. Studds was reelected six times after the revelation that he was a child predator! That’s right, we don’t care about stuff like that here in P-Town. Feel free to boff the pages if you want, just as long as you vote for marriage equality and gays in the military and stuff like that.

There is now a marine sanctuary named after Gerry Studds off the coast of Massachusetts. I sometimes look out at that stretch of water and think nostalgically about ol’ Gerry and his fondness for boys. I think about my missed opportunity to be a page on his staff. Oh what fun it would have been! We miss you, Gerry.

As you can see, Bawney Fwank really paved the way for homos in congress. And there’s so much to be proud of too-dick-waiving, sex acts in public restrooms, underage sex, gay prostitution. It’s all there! We owe you a debt of gratitude, Mr. Fwank.

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