When I saw “The Joy of Gay Sex” on the Helena Public Library’s “New” bookshelf, I wondered, “What are they presenting to the children of our community?” It was worse than I expected. This book is full of explicit drawings of male homosexual acts of every kind imaginable.

Hmm…the book was “full” of those nasty drawings, was it? One would think a person would have stopped reading upon first encountering such hateful material. Maybe censors are less concerned about protecting others than themselves.

It’s a pile of horse shit, and I’m tired of it.

Rasmussen trots what has become the argument du jour of homophobic bigots: that no society has ever endured, after endorsing gay marriage. While that historical analysis probably plays pretty well with people who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, it’s an insultingly stupid argument to make to anyone else. No society has ever endured that offered true equality for all people, regardless of race or gender, either, and that’s hardly an argument to stop striving for those goals. History, especially American history, has been a slow march towards true equality, and to oppose gay marriage on historical grounds is absurd.

In fact, history might show the opposite of Rasmussen’s claims. The Roman Empire made same-sex marriage illegal in 342, and barely lasted another hundred years. By Rasmussen’s logic, the United States better repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, stat.

As for defending marriage, another of Rasmussen’s concerns, I just don’t get it: why in the hell are conservative Christians so afraid that homosexuality will spread like wildfire through the nation? Freud might have an answer to explain their irrational fears, but I have never been able to understand. When Rasmussen writes that “sexual confusion that would be created among young people is not fully measurable and is scary even to consider,” it makes me wonder if Tom watched a few too many scary movies in high school.

Rasmussen also introduces this compelling argument: because marriage is about producing children and gay couples can’t produce children, they can’t be married. Syllogism much? Many married couples choose not to have children; many cannot have children. I assume then, that when Rasmussen writes, “relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage,” that his heart is full of Christian compassion for sterile heterosexual couples, ones he would presumably deny marriage licenses to.

Finally, though, Rasmussen really pisses me off. Though I am far from a Biblical scholar, I don’t remember the tone of the New Testament being one of smug condescension, the tone that Rasmussen employs when he compares homosexuality to adultery and drunkenness. He suggests that gay men and women can be cured through Jesus, conveniently ignoring the fact that the American Psychiatric Association has demonstrated that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

Rasmussen closes his piece with this head-scratcher:

Certainly people who believe they are homosexual need love, support and understanding. They should not be discriminated against or have to experience bigoted behavior against them. They have every right in our culture to continue in their behavior if they choose to.

We must not, however, let a false sense of “fairness”, “tolerance”, or “non-discrimination” undercut a foundational part of the fabric of our culture. The price to society and succeeding generations would be too great.

I think I understand what this means. We shouldn’t discriminate against these sinners, who should be treated equally, other than discriminating against them in innumerable ways.

As far as I can tell, the foundational part of our culture threatened by gay marriage is bigotry, one of those foundational values that it’s time we work harder to eliminate. The only price of gay marriage is the discomfort felt by people like Tom Rasmussen, whose discomfort is no different than the people who opposed inter-racial marriage in the 1960s. No straight person will convert, no cultural traditions will be lost, and no church will have to perform ceremonies it opposes. What will happen is that people who love each other will be able to commit to one another legally, an arrangement that can only benefit individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole.

[The] Senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art… He also introduced amendments to reduce or eliminate funds for foreign aid, welfare programs and the arts… He even used the word “redneck” to describe himself… He fought bitterly against Federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.

Okay, so what exactly did he do? He was a staunch supporter of Both Nixon and Reagan (big whoop), and he was opposed to the “liberal bias” in the media at the time, except for there wasn’t one. Clearly, his time had come. Rest in peace in the globe’s warming; I hope no homosexuals or Black Americans were pallbearers.

(i know - i am going straight to hell).

I love America for what it aspires to be, and what is has the potential to become. The foundation of what this nation celebrates today, the Declaration of Independence, was more than a statement of revolution; it was a statement that governments exist to secure the rights of their citizens, and not to enrich and empower the few. That aspiration has been a inspiration for countless people, revolutionaries and dreamers, and a model for governments around the world for over 200 years.

I love America for its incredible diversity, for its commitment to the idea that our unmatched military might should be used for good, not dominance, its belief that every man and woman should have the opportunity to achieve his/her dreams, and its incredible optimism. I love America for its sense of community, its belief in civil rights and equality, and its capacity to be united.

And yet, we fall so short of some of those aspirations. Our government, like any human institution, often falls short of the aspirations that guide it, and sometimes even deliberately does wrong. With all of our power and all of our wealth, we sometimes fail to do what is in the best interest of the world, or even our own citizens. As someone who loves his country, I cannot be silent when  I believe we are on the wrong course. I cannot acquiesce when the government oversteps its power, or when it ignores its responsibility to the people it serves.

Liberal criticism of our nation’s policies is often mistaken or mischaracterized by the Right as hatred of America, or a desire to leave. Nothing could be further from the truth. We criticize the government because we believe it can be better, do more, infringe less. Blind devotion to one’s country is not patriotism; it is nothing more than subservience that Jefferson would have despised.  As James Baldwin once wrote, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” 

The celebration of our independence isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum. Patriotism isn’t about whose flag is flown higher or whose lapel pin is shinier; it’s about working together to make our nation what Jefferson and the other founders hoped it could be, an inspiration for the rest of the world:

"The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them."

Have a wonderful Fourth.

“I want the Finance Committee to be ready, to be ahead of the curve,” he said. “That’s why I’ve begun hearings, getting the facts out, pushing the edge of the envelope.”

As much as I’d like to believe that Senator Baucus is truly interested in protecting the the 47 million Americans without health insurance, I have to admit that it crossed my mind as I read the piece that Senator Baucus might just be saying this because he is running for re-election. After all, hasn’t he had a few decades in Washington on the Finance Committee to make this happen?

No, instead of being ahead of the curve on universal health care, he’s chosen to be ahead of the curve on incredibly irresponsible tax cuts, Medicare giveaways to giant pharmaceuticals, and protecting the economic interests of struggling farmers to make millions every year. While there certainly have been some positive steps from Senator Baucus, like his work on the SCHIP program, no one can seriously believe that he can be at the forefront of ensuring universal access to health care.

Consider what he said in 1992:

`No more scotch tape and baling wire,” said Senator Max Baucus, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, who spoke at the AAPS regional meeting in Great Falls, Montana, on June 20. “It’s time for fundamental reform, not tinkering.”

Although he does not believe that significant changes will occur in this session of Congress, he thinks they will not be long delayed. . .

Medical insurance as an employment benefit was an “accident of history,” the Senator said, a side effect of the Nixon wage- and-price controls. Increases in health benefits were not counted as a wage increase.

And today? 16 years later?

“Now is the time to seriously address health care reform,” he said. “It’s been kind of simmering around the edges for a while, but it’s close to reaching a boil right now….

“We will have insurance companies in America,” Baucus said. “We’ll have uniquely American solutions.

“Those (other) countries have a different history of the public sector providing health insurance. That’s their history, that’s their culture. We Americans are a younger country, and we’re founded on a principle of independence, on free markets.”

This story illustrates just what is so frustrating about Senator Baucus. He talks the right talk when it comes to Democratic issues, but when it comes to vote, far too often his decisions are the ones that benefit corporate interests, from the insurance industry to major banking interests, often at the expense of individuals.

Just short of 17% of Montanans have no health insurance, one of the highest rates in the nation, and much higher than any of our neighboring states. Promises aren’t going to get them to doctors, promises aren’t going to ensure that they can stay productive and healthy. It’s time to stop the press releases about leading, Senator Baucus, and time to start leading.

Senator Baucus could have such a profound impact on the lives of ordinary, working Montanans and Americans, if he’d invest real energy into health care reform, rather than just talk about it. All these of experience in the Senate don’t mean much if they haven’t taught him who he really represents.¹

1. Standard caveat: If you’re undecided, his opponents will be worse. Just sayin’.

Of course, not remembering the people involved makes changing our own society that much more difficult. We should remember why Richard and Mildred Loving challenged the law:

“We loved each other and got married,” she told The Washington Evening Star in 1965, when the case was pending. “We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants.”

It’s hard not to read what Richard Loving said in 1965 without thinking about the millions of Americans who are still unable to live the simple dream that he and his wife shared, and were eventually allowed to live: to be able to commit your life to the person that you love, without the government deciding who that person should be.

How, forty years later, can we deny that basic right to Americans, simply based on their sexual orientation?

The struggle for the rights of gay Americans needs to continue in our courts and our legislatures, because fundamental rights must be the same for all Americans, or they aren’t rights. But true equality will only come when any two people who love each other are allowed to express those feelings without fear. I’m confident that we are moving in the right direction. Our society is, slowly, growing more tolerant, and within a generation, anti-gay bigotry will be just as socially unacceptable and morally abhorrent as racism is today.

We are moving in the right direction. That’s no reason to become complacent and accept the inevitability of change, however. Individual lives and shared loves are happening today. Richard Loving died in 1975, eight short years after the case that changed his life, and the legal status of thousands of Americans in the South. How much of their lives should GLBT Americans give up, waiting for a tragic legal situation to end?

On the one side is a gathering of coaches, teachers and concerned citizens who “want to give these kids another opportunity to ‘just say no,’ ” in the words of athletic director Jackie Fuller. “We’ve been researching this for some time now as coaches, about six years now, and we’re convinced it’s the right thing to do.”

While encouraging students to not use drugs is certainly valuable, there are certainly better approaches available than both denying students the right to privacy and teaching them that government agencies have the right to search them without consent or probable cause. It’s a knee jerk reaction driven by fear and false information, something proponents of the plan acknowledge:

One major impetus for this latest discussion was a survey showing that more than 90 percent of Whitefish High School students had tried marijuana.

It was shocking, to say the least. And it was absolutely untrue.

The survey, it seems, had been misread, and in fact the percentage was less than half of what was initially reported…

Maybe deficient reading skills would be a better crisis to respond to.

In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition…

Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation.

How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle.

Which one of these bold leaders should I support?

not voiting

Oh, right. Campaigning to be President is more important than working to constrain the unprecedented power grab of the current occupant of the White House.

Thanks again to Senators Tester and Baucus, for believing that the United States should strive to uphold international law and reject torture.

Of course, now come the real test. Will the Democrats (other than Schmuer and Feinstein, of course) have the courage to stand up against the Republicans and block this nomination?