It’s amazing the stuff that can inspire a little Christmas spirit in your heart.

Sometimes we toss around the b-word too easily. But after seeing this ad from Rick Perry:

I’ll say the man’s one big, bobbleheaded bigot.

[Feel free to right-click on the bobbler, save the image, and share it if you like.]

This video’s pretty controversial, even in the gay community.  I don’t like it.  I expected to like it — I’ve been mocking Michele Bachmann for a long time — but I don’t.

First, I’m not a big fan of using kids as political props. I’ve ridiculed our opponents for doing it. Was this video his idea? I don’t know but I doubt it. Is he just being pushed into camera to parrot what his mother told him? That feels more likely. I have no confidence this kid understands what he’s saying.

Gives me the creeps.

It’s bad for another reason, though:

I like Michele Bachmann in this video!

I didn’t even think that was possible. But for these few seconds, I see a side of her I’ve never witnessed. She’s charming with the boy, kind and gentle. She’s helpful when he’s shy. And when the shock hits, she directs her reaction to the mother, not to him. She casts a frozen glance at Mom, then smiles at the boy and quietly tells him, “Ba bye.”

The videographer’s intent may have been to cut through Bachann’s political facade and expose a monster within, but this video does just the opposite.  I still can’t stand the woman, but this snippet humanizes her. In fact, if you framed it just right and gave it a good spin, the video could be an ad for our opponents.

What do you all think?

Everything I’ve said so far is subjective. I don’t know the boy, don’t know the Mom, don’t know how this whole thing came to be. Did anyone have the same reaction? The opposite? Did anybody see their reaction shift with multiple viewings?

I’d like to know.

People with a religious aversion to marriage equality sometimes offer up secular reasons against it.  I’ve seen this one many times:

1. Premise:  Legalizing same-sex marriage will increase homosexual activity.
2. Premise:  Homosexual activity is inherently harmful to one’s physical health.
3. Conclusion:  Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriage is public health hazard.

You can argue with the truth of either premise, and you can dispute the logic of the conclusion, but I’d like to go another direction and point out that marriage equality states turn out to be the healthiest states.

The United Health Foundation has just released health rankings of the 50 states.  The top 5 are:

1. Vermont
2. New Hampshire
3. Connecticut
4. Hawaii
5. Massachusetts

4 out of the 5 of the healthiest states are marriage equality states!  That’s all the more striking when you remember that only 6 states in the country have legalized same-sex marriage.  And all 6, by the way, are in the top of half of the health rankings.

Now don’t go all Yee-haw! on me yet.      Read more…

I’ve been flabbergasted by the desperate sub-mediocrity of the Republican presidential field.

So has the American electorate: Polls show Obama losing to a “generic” Republican candidate, but defeating any of the folk who’ve actually appeared at the Republican debates.  And watching how quickly the frontrunner changes, how high each one soars and then crashes to earth, I’ll borrow language from David Reuben and say that Republican voters change candidates endlessly, trying each one in succession, then turning away remorsefully: “No, that’s not the one!”

The pathos is so extreme that common prose can’t describe it.  Something absurd, something surreal, is required.  Luckily a German newsweekly, Der Spiegel, has run a brief commentary on the Republican field, and when you run the words through Google Translator, you get broken English that perfectly captures the mood.

For instance, on the candidates’ laughable performances so far:

And this time it would all certainly very funny — if one were not laughing long stuck in the throat…They lie, feign bluster and talk so silly stuff…and cringe even friends can party.

Exactly.  Doesn’t your laughter stick long in your throat?  The resulting despair is so great and yet so comical, who can deny — who, indeed? — that cringe even friends can party.  And trust me, there ain’t no party like a cringing friends party.

As for Cain:

Cain dismisses the nonchalant.

I’ve seen him do it. Also:

Even Cain is a caricature of content.

What about Gingrich?    Read more…

When I reviewed David Reubens’ vile, best-selling character assassination of gay people recently, I did find myself laughing at one choice bit:

The homosexual must constantly search for the one man, the one penis, the one experience, that will satisfy him. Tragically there is no possibility of satisfaction because the formula is wrong. One penis plus one penis equals nothing. There is no substitute for heterosex—penis and vagina. Disappointed, stubborn, discouraged, defiant, the homosexual keeps trying. He is the sexual Diogenes, always looking for the penis that pleases.

That is the reason he must change partners endlessly. He tries each phallus in succession, then turns away remorsefully. “No, that’s not the one!” He is in a difficult position—condemned eternally to search after what does not exist—after what never existed.

I wanted to parody this, but I could never invent anything more ludicrous than the image of a man who “tries each phallus in succession, then turns away remorsefully. ‘No, that’s not the one!’”

(And even if I did, I’d still fall far, far short of the anti-gay commenter on a conservative blog who wrote that gays have lots of sex because gay sex so unsatisfying, while straight sex is so great that heteros go months without wanting it.)

Truthfully, I think Reubens is on to something, just not what he intended.    Read more…

Gay men and our dogs.

Will and I are at a friend’s house in Palm Springs. Seven guys and six dogs. Those are the mutts Lucas and Chloe, and four purebred (we think) golden retrievers. Lucas is best frenemies with the golden lying next him. They wrestle constantly. Chloe is so much smaller than all the rest, but everybody loves watching her launch herself into the fray.

Much to be thankful for. Not just the dogs, but also everyone who reads this blog and offers their support. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

As a follow-up to my post, NOM’s Special Right, I got this comment from Betsy, a moderator at Ruthblog. As thoroughly as I disagree with her on most everything we’ve talked about, I’ve never viewed her in the same light as I do many NOM folk, so in response to her request, I’m highlighting this message.

Hi, Rob. Long time no “see.” About this Ari business, this was entirely my fault. NOM has nothing to do with the Ruth blog, and they had no idea about Ari. I’ve never met or even spoken to anyone at NOM. I’m just a stay-at-home mom whom Dr. Morse hired to manage her blog. As she gives me almost entirely free reign there, she’s not to blame for the Ari thing either. Therefore, Ruth Institute isn’t to blame either. Dr. Morse didn’t know anything about the Ari post until today.

Months ago she and I had reprimanded Ari for going over the line in his comments. We suppressed him for a while, but then let him try again months later. He sometimes writes good stuff, but now it’s clear he has his own agenda and is using the Ruth blog to get readers for his own site. What he posted on the Ruth blog seemed safe enough, I thought, so I allowed it, but it was my fault for not following it back to his blog to see where else he would go. If he had written that ridiculous stuff on the Ruth blog I would never have allowed it. I only saw it today. I get the impression that he is being purposely inflammatory in order to sell his book.

I’ve never met the guy. He wasn’t employed by Ruth. Dr. Morse let him start posting things years ago because she thought he was witty, but he has clearly changed.

Rob, I remember you asking me to print a retraction on the Ruth blog, and I complied. I would expect you to extend the same courtesy now. If you want to blame someone for the Ari debacle, it should be me, as manager of the Ruth blog. Pinning this on NOM is completely unfair.

Thanks, Rob.

Betsy

I would like to point out that my problem wasn’t with Ari’s post. He’s a fringer, and that’s what I expect from fringers. My issue, rather, is that when schools and companies want to dissociate themselves from people with extreme anti-gay views that affect their work, NOM accuses them of repressing freedom, even though NOM is doing the same thing with Ari. Frankly, I believe NOM — or Ruthblog, as you prefer — did the right thing in cutting off their association with Ari. I do, however, wish they extended the same courtesy to Bank of America’s (temporary) decision to dissociate themselves from the hateful distortions of a man like Frank Turek.