My issue this week is that sexual orientation now apparently has age restrictions and I think it’s bullshit. You’re reading this week’s column and I thank you for coming back – by the end of this week’s rant, you’re going to see why, once again, I have a fundamental problem with fundamentalists and why I think public school administrators need to start acting like voices of reason instead of backwoods homophobic fundamentalist pricks afraid that someone’s “gay” is going to rub-off on a student body.

Gay Happens…

Gay happens. So does straight. So does bisexuality.

So, why the hell is “gay” such a shocker and when did the edict come down that people can’t tell what they like until a certain age? Sure I understand that a minor can’t enter into a legally binding contract and you need parental consent for lots of things before you hit the golden age of 18. I know that you can’t legally get liquored-up until you’re 21 and that the zipless fuck with that boy you lurv in the backseat of an ’84 Lincoln where neither of you brought condoms but you really don’t care because he promises to pull out before he ‘splodes…well, that’s a bad idea at any age.

If you can raise a child to believe in God at age 4, why can’t we understand that sexual orientation happens and there is no age restriction on our personal preferences for men or women…or both?

I Like Dick (not Ike)

I’ve done “college gay.” Hell, I’ve done “college gay” as late as 2006 (and I graduated in 1996) and I can tell you – girls are great kissers. But when it comes right down to it, I can’t deny that I get the same tingly sensation when my boyfriend puts his hand on my tits as I did in fifth grade when a guy whose name I can no longer remember groped me on the school bus. I like dick. I knew it when I was 12. And I’m sure there are plenty of guys out there who knew they liked dick at age 12, too.

As a culture, we raise children and fuel their growth based on preference. You like Thomas the Train? Bratz? Dora the Explorer? SURE! Mass Commerce ensures that we have an endless supply of accessories and whatnot so that we can cater to a child’s expressed preferences. We’re AOK with kids expressing that they like Star Wars, the color orange and playing basketball but there’s suddenly this underlying stigma attached to an expression of sexual preference.

Especially if it’s not heterosexual in nature.

Let Me Get This Straight…

If what the recent news has brought to light is correct, then it’s perfectly acceptable to be straight when you’re under 18 and gay is completely out of the question. For all that’s fucking holy, if I was expected to pick a major at age 17 for my college applications, wouldn’t I also be pretty damn entitled to make a choice about my sexuality?

I went on Twitter on Tuesday and lobbed a poll from both my @DearRedhead and @RedheadWriting accounts. For all my trying to almost 7000 followers, I couldn’t find a single person who would speak out against the gay prom date scenario. Not one person stood up. Apparently closet homophobes only shut their mouths when people ask them to speak. Granted, I have a fairly liberal following across the board but am fully aware that there are those of a more conservative ilk in my herd. If it’s true and not one of the 7000 folks following me had a single negative thing to say about a gay student being allowed to bring a gay date to his or her prom, then I consider myself to be in the company of open-minded folk who are more concerned about healthcare and why human sacrifice could turn bricks red. Yes, you may lodge a collective whatthefuck now.

What Are We Teaching?

It simply astounds me that we continue to be a nation where we’re worried that a student’s “gay” is going to rub-off on the rest of the student body. Late last year, my alma mater (Nimitz High School – Houston, Texas) sent home a transgender student (male) who decided to wear women’s clothing to school one day. Appalled…that was me (and delighted to no longer be a Texas resident). I stand firm when I say that school administrators who are calling attention to students who choose to dress differently and express their sexual preferences in a healthy manner are doing more to impede intellectual growth than foster it. Should boys be allowed to wear skirts to school? Fuck yeah – if he’s passing his classes. Girls can wear pants and cheerleaders can wear skirts that don’t meet the “fingertip test” so why the hell can’t a dude throw on a kilt or a little Donna Karan for good measure?

By calling these students out, school administrators are making them targets for hate. And don’t stand there and tell me “the students had it coming.” They know it. They’re already facing an uphill battle by the simple fact they feel comfortable in a different mode than their heterosexual peers and have a lifetime ahead of stares and ugly glances from folks who judge those who don’t meet their own parameters for “acceptable.” How many students in classes past have gone stag to prom out of fear that they couldn’t bring a date of the same sex? How many didn’t go to their proms at all? (Redhead raises her hand, but that’s only because I was dumped 3 weeks beforehand by my boyfriend in favor of two girls. Yes – TWO girls.) If we stop drawing attention to what’s considered “acceptable” social behavior and focus on…oh, I dunno…important shit like making sure students actually learn enough to not end up at the bottom of the academic pile?

The Round-Up

If you couldn’t stand to read my entire diatribe, here are the broad strokes for the Dear Redhead folks:

• If a kid knows they like
  • playing baseball
  • In-n-Out hamburgers
  • Blue t-shirts
  • And they know they don’t like
    • Peas
    • Tom Cruise
    • Mowing the lawn
    • And we encourage them to
      • Choose what they’re going to spend the next 4 years studying when they’re 17
      • Respect others
      • Not act like a jackass

Then, we can

• Understand that they’re perfectly capable of understanding whether they like the good ‘ol Texas Hangdown or eating at the Y
• Be comfortable in the fact that we each made our own choice with regards to sexuality and let our children experience the same process (regardless of how it turns out).

And our school administrators need to focus on

• Education.
• Encouraging acceptance among students.
• Driving diversity not homogeneity.

And when that’s all done, we can finally see the upside to a fabulously gay prom:

• Less risk for teen pregnancy
• Brilliant fashion choices
• Women who look good in a tux
• Guys who look great in dresses
• And the sure-fire inclusion of dance faves like YMCA and We Will Rock You.

Post from: Toy With Me

CDC No Longer Considers “Gay” a Disease

Related posts:

1. I think My Husband Is A Little Bit Gay
2. Guys, A Little Bum Play Won’t Make You Gay…. I Promise
3. My Cats Are Totally Gay

If I applied for new health coverage today, I’d be uninsurable. This, I know – because I tried.

Back in July of 2009, a simple accident resulted in a shattered tibia/fibula in my left ankle, netting me eight screws, one plate and six excruciating weeks on a pair of crutches. Apparently, this is a “major surgery” and the Percocet they prescribed me for pain management following surgery is “serious medication.” I slipped, fell and now…I’m uninsurable as a result of these two things as well “asthma.” Mind you, the asthma was disclosed on my initial health care application and they still insured me (with an approximate 20% upcharge for associated risk).

Denial based on breast implants, major surgery, serious medication and asthma.

As we’re approaching an era where a national health care option for the United States is possible, I’m stepping back this week to say I’m sick and tired of the bickering. I bust my ass to grow my business and the reward I get for making a go of it on my own is a health care and self-employment tax penalty.

And I think it’s horse shit.

Before I share my list of requests from the government in this country I’m proud to call home, here’s a preemptive strike: I understand there are those who do not have health insurance. I get it that “I should be thankful for what I have” and all that jazz. For all that’s holy, I’m not asking for sexual favors as part of my health care plan. What I’m asking for is for my government to start acting like a business and less like a collective bunch of Yes Men and listen to the American public.

If you’re a regular reader of Dear Redhead (and I thank you), you may find some of my views surprising considering I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage, the abolition of DADT and the right to choose. I think it’s pathetic that we can raise millions of dollars for earthquake relief in third world countries yet if asked to donate the same amount of money to lessen the federal deficit we’d roll our eyes and offer a staunch “hell no.” These are odd times in which we live and I feel our priorities as a nation have skewed so that we can’t see the forest for the trees.

Enough of the New Coke Healthcare Campaign

Remember back in the mid-80s when Coca-Cola decided that it wasn’t good enough? It released New Coke. They slammed the campaign through, kinda like Pepsi Clear. That’s what my government is doing with healthcare reform. You’re slamming a campaign through to fix something that people say needs fixing. I’m not arguing with the need for a “fix.” But what I don’t need is a syrupy-sweet placebo that’s going to be rushed and ill conceived because you have people screaming for answers. Sit down. Map a course. Think like a corporation. Understand the costs, ramifications and disclose your plan to your shareholders: the American public. I an still unclear as to what’s going to come down the pipe funded by my tax dollars if this reform bill should pass. I’m terrified that what’s coming is another AdWeek headline about a failed advertising campaign instead of an actual operable and sound solution set for the health care issues that my friends and I face. Lord knows, it took years upon years for the health care industry to become as corrupt and exclusive as it is today – how do you dare tell the American public that it’s something to be remedied in the first 18 months of a new Presidential administration?

Put the Human Back in Health Care

I go to see doctors for care, not an automated underwriting system. I am a healthy, childless female with great cholesterol results, CBC testing that gives no pause and athletic ability that allows me to aggressively pursue whatever I determine is my adventure-du-jour. I do not have asthma attacks and my boobs – saline-filled though they may be – are not a health risk. When I apply for a life insurance policy, I have to undertake a physical exam to qualify. If a doctor were to examine ME and not a computer-generated application, I’d be the ideal health insurance candidate. Active, low-risk, healthy diet, low to no risk factors.

But what a computer looks at is “triggers.”

Stop looking at me as an excuse to deny coverage and put the “human” back in health care. The message you’re sending me (and many other Americans) is that by forging our own way in our nation’s economy, we’re less worthy of care than those protected by a corporate umbrella where risk can be shared. You’re telling me that the life I’ve chosen for myself, one that’s active and healthy, is less insurable than the morbidly obese corporate lackey by nature of association. I don’t buy it. I understand that insurance companies are not charities and pre-existing conditions all have an associated risk. I want options for health care that allow for me to be considered as a person, not an application to be flagged by computer for probable denial.

Treat My Business Like Big Business

My entire life has been a collection of work, trials, successes and tribulations, culminating in the incredible place I exist in today as a small business owner. Where others are struggling, I’m breaking down walls and seeking alliances in order to expand my business. Yet I am a company of ONE. If I walked into an ad agency today and accepted a position as a W2 employee, my health care concerns would be silenced as I’d have the entire company to absorb whatever risk I pose with my saltwater boobs and asthma that lets me train to race bicycles and climb Mt. Kilimanjaro without the use of an inhaler.

I want my government to begin rewarding small business owners with the greatest gift possible: equal opportunity. Stop hitting me with a self-employment tax and telling me my “group of one” poses too much risk for me to get better healthcare. Especially if I’m willing to pay for it. I find it astonishing that my current insurance provider, Kaiser Perm, will continue to insure me (and raise my rates) on my current plan but will not allow me to pay $50-$75/month for a better plan because I had crap luck and took a fall down a few stairs. And no – my breast implants did not cause me to be “top heavy” and cause the fall and I was breathing fine at the time, I’m confident.

Offer Me Options, Not Ultimatums

As it currently stands, the healthcare reform bill is a pass/fail measure. Back to my point of running healthcare reforms like a slick (headed for failure) ad campaign, stop trying to shove the entire Thanksgiving turkey down your throat in one bite. Or rather, down MY throat.

If you offered the American public and their Congressional affiliates bite-sized options instead of a “take all you want but eat all you take” approach, we might offer you a bit more buy in. The current dictatorial healthcare buffet does one thing and one thing only: divides this nation – the nation that elected you. Take steps. Healthcare was broken before Obama landed in office. It’s likely to be broken for a fair time to come. Those in Canada, the UK and Cuba (nations with socialized or subsidized medicine) still have those who attest their health care is broken in places. We’ll never have a plan that pleases everyone, so stop acting like Yes Men and put on your strategic marketing hats. Think in healthcare morsels.

Who is the target beneficiary? What will it provide them? Who will it NOT serve? What are the pros and cons?

Tell us. We’re listening. We’re not idiots. We want explanations. We’re smart enough to determine if those explanations are answers for our particular situations.

So, there you have it: four simple demands from a demanding redhead in Denver, Colorado. My health insurance premiums are paid-up and I just had a voluntary follow-up with my orthopedic surgeon who was astounded at my strength, activity level and range of motion in my left ankle. And I’ll also add that he was appalled when I told him Kaiser denied my insurance application for a better plan citing “major surgery” and “serious medication.” I believe his exact quote was, “It was an accident!”

Yes. Yes, it was. And if we’re not careful, we’re headed for an even bigger accident with healthcare in this country. But it won’t be an accident. It will be very deliberate.

Post from: Toy With Me

The Redhead Healthcare Manifesto

Related posts:

1. Dear Redhead, I have A Boob Fetish
2. Dear Redhead, What’s The Deal With Women?

If you’re new to Dear Redhead, I’ll sum-up my fiber in a few phrases:

• I support our military with fervor and believe all should have the right to serve, regardless of sexual orientation. Americans are Americans.

• I have no tolerance for evangelical Christian fundamentalism that cries foul when national policy doesn’t support their preaching of hate. If there is a God, I think he’s a kind a loving one, accepting of all walks of life – not just those that walk in step with your path. Americans are Americans.

• I would appreciate it if the government would keep their laws out of my va-jay-jay (and everyone else’s for that matter).

• I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

• Oh, and I write an op-ed column for a website specializing in sexy commentary and reviews of adult toys. The horror. Some folks have called it porn. PORN!

I’m also a businesswoman. I own my own online strategies consulting firm and am endlessly delighted that I am well compensated to do what I love for a living. When I consider business relationships and potential clients, I have to ask: how will we work together? Will we “click?” (whoops – almost wrote “cock” there – thank peanut butter for spell check!). I look at potential Presidential candidates with the same criteria: how will you represent this nation I love to the world beyond our borders?

In other words: could my leader kick someone’s ass in a cage fight? McCain was a total loss for me. Flipper arms. No way could he defend an attack to the head. Obama? Arms that work, an “outside voice…” A bit of a rough side. A smoker. While a deplorable habit, I could see him snuffing-out a butt on Bin Laden’s bomb-wielding noggin given the proper motivation.

Dear Redhead reader, I present to you the Republican Party’s portrait of the ideal candidate (to-date). Holy fucking shit – the Presidential front-runner wears hot pants? Slap me and call me Sally – I should have stayed on the pole. I could have been a contenda. I could totally take her in a cage fight.

Palin’s Got Great Tits, but Marketing is Key

But it doesn’t mean I see her running the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Rather, I see her doing keg stands at a frat party. I’ve got great tits, too, but they only come out in social situations via a tad of cleaving, not on the cover of national magazines. Hell, if I were looking at the sweater kittens popping into a national rag, I’d sell ‘em to Penthouse or Playboy. Redheads have real estate value…Palin? Hell. I’m climbing up the cage walls and pouncing on her Cross My Heart. If you’re going to use sex as a weapon, load the guns and take some motherfuckers out in the process. Don’t cry foul…more on that later.

Celebrity Versus Cogency

I have to agree with Ron Hart: Palin’s more suited to win a swimsuit competition than she is a political debate. I need a leader with cogency, not celebrity. Someone well liked, not an icon. I need the person who is willing to be the asshole, not the emerging ingénue only looking for her next blockbuster.

What I don’t need is a national figurehead who resigned the political office to which she was elected (some say “selflessly”) to pursue a gig with a broadcast cable news outlet to further her ambitions for a higher political office. From her God-knows-why bestselling book to speaking engagements to station on FOX News, I’d prefer my Presidential candidate to be honing his or her skills for the 4 years between races doing…oh, I dunno…serving our nation? She had a gig doing just that and she gave it up for pancake makeup, studio lighting and a teleprompter. Fuck knows, it sure beats writing on your hand, right?

When I sit down and think of a leader to represent my nation, I think of a person smart enough to not pose for a ridiculous cover shot for a national magazine like Newsweek. And here’s another beef: Palin claims she thought it was destined for Runner’s World…seriously. It simply makes no sense. Runner’s World has a monthly circulation of 640,000. Newsweek, a circulation of 1.5 million per month. She’s showing more leg than is allowable in most public schools in the United States – the distribution channel doesn’t matter. Jesusgodinheaven, I thought mixing Everclear with two cups of Hawaiian Punch was better than mixing it with just one (when I was 15). I was wrong – it fucked me up right and proper BOTH ways. Much like Palin.

I also think about someone smart enough to not bash domestic health care reform and then claim her family sought medical care in Canada. Convenience is the mother of choosing sides: when courting an audience, it’s key to show you relate. However, read the entirety of that article. In 2007, she told people her family traveled by ferry to Juneau, Alaska for treatment. Now, I’m a product of the public school system, but methinks Juneau is still part of America (fuck, yeah). Bueller? Bueller?

While she’s parading around like a ring girl, I’m sneaking up behind her and pulling her hair in a not-so-nice way and pinning her to the mat. And I’m going to look hot when I do it.

Three (Seven) Faces of Eve

I’m a governor. I’m a Vice Presidential candidate. I’m a sex symbol. I’m a TV journalist (for FOX, term used loosely). I’m a potential reality show subject. I wanna be the President!

If I told my clients that I have as many diversions as Sarah Palin, I’d be hard-up for work. If you’re in HR, would you hire the candidate who explains how they have to be office at 5pm sharp to go walk their dogs and ride their bike so they can be home in time for House or the candidate who demonstrates that yes – they have a healthy work-life balance but they’re intrigued with future possibilities with the company?

She’s looking in way too many directions at once. I’m seeing a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the kidneys accompanied by the UFC-sanctioned bitch slap.

Doesn’t Matter Who They Like – They Don’t Like YOU

It’s not just me. A “majority” of Americans polled in a recent Washington Post/ABC survey indicated that they feel Sarah Palin is unfit to serve as President (read the compilation from the Huffington Post here). While I don’t feel 1,004 random Americans constitutes a majority in all fairness, public sentiment is down, folks. It doesn’t matter who you hate in Washington – no one likes anyone else any more.

If you’re going to climb into the ring, you want folks to either love you or hate you. It’s the same with any effort you put forth in life: indifference is deadly. Whatever Palin’s doing, apparently the current administration is doing the same thing. When an audience dislikes both folks in ring the equally, they’re going to choose sides and fast. It may not go in your favor, so watch what you do before you get into the ring.

While Palin’s busy deciding what to bash next, I’m thinking it’s time to flash my boobs and gains some audience favor. She’s waaaay to worried about public perception of HER instead of the public’s perception of how she’s an advocate for THEM. I’m going for a titty-twister and…if I know Palin, that should take her down for the count. (Lord only knows it would me!)

Wrapping-Up

Cage fights are necessarily what kind of brawn you bring into the ring – they’re about focus. Distractions. If you give-up training to go get your hair done, all you’re going to do is look good when you go down and that’s really of no use to anyone other than a porn star. I’m not anti-Palin because she’s not Hillary or because she’s a woman. I’m against her from a tactical and brand image standpoint. She has horrific brand management and apparently feels she should be America’s darling regardless. I think it’s pretty telling when your own party’s pundits come out against you.

I’ll leave you with the words of Paul Mulshine, conservative newspaper columnist, who dubs Palin “Just Another Whiny Liberal Claiming Victimization.”

“Palin is motivated not by a coherent political philosophy so much as by a set of inchoate urges. She has never given any indication that she has an identifiable political philosophy, conservative or liberal. She is not so much a political figure as a sort of national fertility symbol.”

I’ll take on Palin, but I’m staying out of the ring with Mulshine.

Now, tell me readers: what cage fighting moves have I missed? Give me your issue with Palin and the appropriate cage fight tactic. I’m honing my skillz, yo.

Post from: Toy With Me

I Could Totally Take Sarah Palin in a Cage Fight

Related posts:

1. Dear Redhead: Sarah Palin Is A Waste Of A Good Set Of Tits
2. The Redhead Healthcare Manifesto
3. The End Is Near For Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

(and do I have to move to Canada to scream it?)

I read the news sparingly. Reason? There’s enough doom and gloom in this world without my days being thrown out of whack by some plasticized TV journalist’s skewed view on all the happenings fit to broadcast. I don’t need to see a young luger’s tragic crash. I don’t need to see a killer whale indulge in a Sea World Staff Snack. My Google Readers suits me fine and I can click or skip as I please on a per-headline basis.

Hot out of the frying pan and into the brimstone and damnation fire this week is the current Presidential administration’s recent meeting with nonreligious advocacy groups on Washington’s sacred soil. White House Aides welcomed the Secular Coalition for America, a group comprised of “atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheistic Americans,” to discuss the specific issues of child medical neglect, military proselytizing and faith-based initiatives. This is a Presidential administration’s first-ever meeting with a group of “nonbelievers.” Not surprising since such groups were mentioned in his inaugural address.

I started some click-digging across the interwebz, intrigued to learn more about the matter. I stumbled across a well-written article from my hometown publishing behemoth (The Houston Chronicle). Brief and concise, I found myself at the end of the article and face-first into the comments section.

Holy shit. And even shit that isn’t holy.

Texas is a Red State. I grew up there and the majority of my family still lives there. It’s three notches in the Bible Belt whereas every other state can only claim one. Here’s some of the intellectual input from readers on the above article:

Go figure this fake and useless president would meet with a bunch of fake and useless sinners on their way to Hell.

oslama the muslum (sic) lover meets with other atheists

It is my understanding that next week Obama meets with Lassie.

Why not meet with everyone? I mean he’s met with Republicans and they’ve proven themselves to be idiotic. He may as well meet with the rest.

What a waste of a Presidency this is turning into.

I can’t deny that there were some well thought-out retorts to the epic fucktardery above. What amazes me most, however, is that one’s religious preferences dictate patriotism.

It’s a not-so-slippery slope if you look at the matter from other behavioral practices:

• If I am a man and have sex with other men, I am engaging in homosexual behavior.

• If I am a woman and have sex with other women, I am engaging in lesbian behavior.

• If I live in America and I don’t believe in the Christian ideal of God, then I am a bad American.

Sing with me, kids – “One of these things is not like the other…”

What is it with the evangelical Christian sect that feels the need to decimate, denigrate and otherwise demean those who don’t subscribe to their thought process?

Defining Religion

Not trusting myself to offer you a definition myself, the interwebz saved me again via Dictionary.com:

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Let’s pay particular attention to numbers 2 and 6…If we consider that atheists and nontheists are dedicated to following a life that needs no deity as a guide and that there are a number of persona who agree upon living their lives in the same manner, would that not mean that we could assert that both atheists and nontheists are practicing a religion?

A recent hullabaloo in Illinois got me thinking. This Republican dude (William J. Kelly – candidate for Comptroller) in Chicago got himself a personal escort off the grounds of the Illinois state capital building back in December for removing a sign posted on its lawn by an atheist group.  Incidentally, the group had gone through the proper petition procedures to have its sign placed on the capitol lawn adjacent to a nativity scene and this is the second year the sign has been lawfully displayed.

The exact verbiage on the sign reads: “At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Kelly states that the sign is “”hate speech,” saying it’s not right for a sign that “mocks” religion to be placed next to a Christmas tree and nativity scene.

Funny. He didn’t say anything about the aluminum Festivus pole also on display nearby on the Illinois State Capitol lawn.

I guess Mr. Kelly is against multiple ideologies being on display in one place. I’m betting he’d have a shit time at The Smithsonian.

All Sides Have Their Evangelists and I Don’t Like Penetration Toys

The hate (and ignorance) spewed in the quoted comments from the Houston Chronicle along with Mr. Kelly’s actions reinforce something I always knew: all sides have their evangelists. We’ve met the man-hating lesbian. The queen who can’t stand straight dudes. The Christian with the un-Christian lack of tolerance for other faiths. The Democrat who would skewer a Republican and vice-versa. We can’t even agree that sex is good on a universal scale because of the not-so-thin veil of shame afforded the issue by religion. I will say one thing, however:

You don’t see atheists and nontheists bombing abortion clinics and driving wars that last decades…centuries. And I’m not asserting that religion is bad. I’m stating that evangelism is one thing – the promotion and support of an idea set. However, zealotry is something else entirely. It’s driven by hate and fear. And it’s the zealots who speak the loudest (or at least get the most airtime due to their fanatical behaviors). I think it’s quite intriguing as well that here’s even news that’s linking atheism with IQ. Perhaps science has its place in the moral/sexual landscape more than the fundies would be comfortable believing.

What the current administration has done by meeting with nontheist and atheist groups is offer a different, more inclusive view of patriotism.

As we’re a nation filled with people with unlimited potential and the framework for people from many ways of life to ultimately succeed, the Obama administration has opened the doors of the nation’s capitol and offered a refuge for those who live well but don’t subscribe to the Christian ideal. Across all faiths (and lacks thereof) there are people who are infinitely comfortable in their own skin. It’s the lack of security in one’s own beliefs that drives people to lash-out at others for holding contradictory thought. I mean, hell – I’m not a fan of penetration toys but do I damn those who are to hell? (Straight to hell, no batteries included.)

Americans are Americans

Free speech – it’s protected. Whether you like the speech or not has no bearing on how protected it might be. As with the sign on the Illinois lawn, it’s bitch-slapping time: not everyone believes what you do. Thank. Fucking. God. And it has no bearing on how “American” we are. I asked my Twitter community: how do you feel patriotism and religion are intertwined?

“Personally, my beliefs or lack thereof have no bearing on my patriotism. I am a former United States Marine, proudly and honorably serving for 6 years during the Gulf War. (1989-2005) I served because I am a proud American, and I defended our rights as Americans to worship as we choose (or not) and to speak our minds freely.” – Tammy Colson @TLColson

“Well, we are a country founded on people who were fleeing religious persecution. Yet, we’ve become a nation of religious persecutors. Our laws are very similar to the Ten Commandments (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t be a fucktard…). However, there is the whole separation of Church and State. Yet, the Pledge of Allegiance and all of our currency has “God” all over it. I think we are the best country to be a religious nut in, because you basically have the entire government backing you up. To be a religious nut, you are basically allowed to say, “God is responsible for man.” We send a guy to the electric chair with the idea that God will give him the real punishment. To be an atheist and say that “Man is responsible for man” would give the believers a fucking conniption.”  – Dave Pennington

“The only way my atheism affects my patriotism is how the vocal minority tells me I’m un-American for not being Christian. This has less to do with atheism and much more to do with Christian evangelists shunning not only non-believers, but different believers as well.”  – Grant Beery/@voteforgrant

I don’t feel that patriotism is aligned with Christianity or religious beliefs at all. There’s a beauty to the diverse beliefs that make this world a wonderful place and there’s a respect that comes along with both the right to believe and the right to not.

But it has me asking…

If There is No God, What Should I Yell Out During Sex?

Let’s recap what we’ve got so far:

1. America is, currently (and on currency) “One Nation, Under God” as that’s the dude in which we trust.

2. Those who don’t believe apparently have no place next to those who do according to some folks.

3. Some equate a lack of faith in the Christian ideal with the labels “fake” and “useless” and have something against Lassie.

4. Spelling is not protected under the U.S. Constitution, especially for those who feel that hate is an appropriate weapon to use against their fellow Americans who don’t believe as they do.

I’m not big into blasphemy and frequently use phrases like “goddammit” and “Jesus Fucking Christ” (strung together as one word in heated rage or moments of utter frustration). It’s simply because I don’t believe in the myth of Christianity and place little value on names. But since the zealots think that not following Christian faith is immediate cause for revocation of my American Card, I wonder where I can hold my beliefs and work towards living a good life without the ever-present influence of “you’re going to hell” looming over my red head. Canada, perhaps?

And since yelling, “Oh, dear GOD!” is apparently right out, what would we yell out into the pillow when our head is pressed down into it and we’re this close to (oh, you know)?

I offer some suggestions:

“Ohhhhh, James Madison!” (via Martin Burns)

“Ohhhh, Flying Spaghetti Monster!” (via Dave Pennington)

“<bark> Oh, Dog!”

“Did you register to vote, lovah?!”

“Holy shit, if you’re Republican, I’m switching parties!”

But they just don’t have the impact of, “Oh, dear GOD!” do they?

If I can be tolerant enough to recognize that beauty comes in many forms and that every religion and mindset brings something of value to the table, why can’t others? We’re surrounded by intelligence and enlightenment from those who believe and chose not to and it has no affect on how they perceive their dedication to the place they call home. My other half was raised Catholic and still wears a St. Christopher medal around his neck with a scapular from his grandmother. Does it change the fact I love him? Not in the slightest. But he gets to see me at the rare moments I find religion.

End Note (and brilliantly stated)

“I’m not anti-religion, personally, but I do get leery when people go on and on about how they believe in a giant man who grants wishes – to me, it’s the equivalent of people who think the Easter Bunny really does drop those Easter Baskets off.

I think of it as a lack of faith in each other – we refuse to believe that people can do great good on their own, and ignore history. Thing’s aren’t perfect, but I’d much rather be alive today than say the Dark Ages.” Martin Burns/@WriterMoe

Special thanks to @darkheath who contributed his thoughts to this week’s column as well.

Post from: Toy With Me

If There is No God, What Do I Scream During Sex?

Related posts:

1. God Loves You. So Does BDSM

It’s the basis for my career. I call it like I see it and have no tolerance for bullshit. However, there is a distinct difference between “bullshit” and “differing viewpoints.” Some don’t see it that way, however.

There’s a talent that comes with stating your opinion, offering substantiating information and creating a dialogue.

Today’s column has issue with two things: media bullshit and misogynistic bullshit. We’ll get to both in due time, but let’s start with the media fucktardery…

Two weeks ago, we chatted about the hullabaloo on the CBS/Tim Tebow ad. Quite a bit of debate and a lively comments section – thanks to all who chimed-in. This week, I’m following it up by calling bullshit on all the hype. Why? Because what the media sold me and what was delivered were two entirely different things.

Where the hell is the ad that was depicted in the numerous news stories pre-Super Bowl? Here’s what I was responding to, as were the others who came out in either opposition or defense of the FOTF/Tebow spot:

• Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad: Anti-Abortion Commercial to Air – ABCnews.com
• Super Bowl ad featuring quarterback Tebow, mother riles abortion rights groups – Washington Post

I was unfond (new word – JUST made it up!) of having my evening nacho-and-football celebration interrupted by what was touted as an “anti-abortion” ad. I was non unfond of the ad existing (and I won’t rehash arguments here except to correct that it was funded NOT directly by FOTF (Focus On The Family) but by contributors TO them specifically for this cause…wondering where my $2.5M friends are…holler?) If you didn’t see it last Sunday, here’s what aired.

Yup. That’s what we call “innocuous,” folks. It’s certainly not worth $2.5-3M, but hey – to each their own, right?

A Brilliant Execution Of Bait And Switch

I’m offering a serious hat tip to Focus on the Family (still advising them to focus on their own damn family and keep their nose out of mine) for masterminding the biggest bait-and-switch, false journalism lead in the name of publicity since the Balloon Boy incident of ’09. I’m calling bullshit on the lack of journalistic integrity displayed by the entire mediascape on this now non-issue. As the Washington Post so eloquently stated:

“No matter its content, the ad’s existence is about what it’s always about — a nation split not only over the concepts of abortion and choice, but over all sorts of choices: the red and the blue, Coke and Pepsi, McDonald’s and Taco Bell. By announcing its ad-buy in advance, Focus on the Family is reaping the benefit of manufactured controversy and free publicity.”

Manufactured. Key word, there. Right along with free.

As I previously stated in my original piece on the issue, you have to look at Focus on the Family for what it is and no more: they’re a group committed to an agenda.

Like Republicans, Democrats, GLBT advocacy groups, NOW, the Klu Klux Klan…

I’m sitting here straight pissed that something went awry between journalistic integrity and whatever firm was handling the PR for FOTF. A set of facts doesn’t get as straight fucked as this without something being very well planned. I have two dogs, one of which likes to sneak off and shit in the basement.

I can smell shit a mile away.

All of the scuffle about the Tebow ad did one thing and one thing only: it made people on both sides of the issue stand up and firmly state their opinions.

Those on the pro-life side of the fence cried foul, saying their story should be heard.

Those on the pro-choice (not pro-abortion) side of the fence cried foul, saying the anti-abortion message was out of context, unwelcomed and speaking against the current legality of abortion.

Erick Erickson, The Schoolyard Bully

And on Sunday this week, Erick Erickson (Editor-in-Chief of Redstate.com) crawled out of the woodwork (once again). This time, to run around like the schoolyard bully who had just tripped the class nerd and sent him face-first into a steaming dog turd:

Now, I read Mr. Erickson’s bio and all tweets aside, there’s some serious education to contend with there. But here’s where I’ll ask (and DID): does the conservative community need one of their own spewing sentiments such as these?

Some insights:

“I find people like Mr. Erickson to be the comic relief of the Republican Party, a bit like Ann Coulter without the Barbie looks.” @themomjob (Republican)

“He has one point, I think the pro-choice (anti-abortion whatever you want to call it, I think it’s a highly personal choice and I rarely fight the battle as I make mine and let you make yours) faction overplayed their hand, and it appears he may have overplayed his.” @mesorrentino (Republican)

“Seems Erickson really dislikes ugly women, and because you are ugly, your opinions are thus invalid or stupid. I don’t see how that ends the credibility of ‘pro-abortion groups.’ They were responding to FOTF’s initial release of what the ad would be about versus the actual ad that aired. Ultimately, it’s a misleading bait-and-switch tactic. Again, perhaps ugly women who have opinions need to get back into the kitchen, perhaps to keep his wife company while she cranks out sandwiches for him.” @nickpepito (unaffiliated politically, but identifies himself as Republican/Libertarian)

“I am speechless! From what moronic brain did this misogynistic crap spew? And, for the record, since when did what anyone looks like have anything to do with supporting women’s rights? Oh wait … the answer to that would be NEVER. Mr. Erickson, you are an asshat.” @ShellyKramer (not a Republican, but a fabulous woman with an intellect and the ability to use “asshat” in proper context)

Note: I did offer Mr. Erickson the opportunity for an interview. I emailed him at 9:40am MST yesterday and informed him of my deadline of 5pm MST and sent him an @ on Twitter. As he had plenty of time to respond to other users and not my request, I stated that he was ignoring me around 1:37pm. Others RT’d me. He got pissed at 4:05pm and declined the interview. Them’s the breaks, folks.

Mr. Erickson, You’re An Asshat

Mr. Erickson, with the little respect due to you after such vile comments, I agree with Shelly: you’re an asshat. And you’re not an asshat for making the misogy-licious comments above. You’re an asshat for placing the conservative political community for whom you speak in a negative light. Some of my best friends (bless their hearts) are gun-toting Republicans and we share off-color humor on a regular basis. What I have never heard, for all their ranting, is that “ugly feminists should return to their kitchens” or that the reason for MY viewpoints differing from theirs is that I’m “too ugly to get a date.”

Republicans Have Played With My Tits

I’ve got nice tits. I’ve been on lots of dates. I now go on dates with the same guy on a regular basis and he likes playing with my tits. (On a side note, Republicans have played with my tits as well.) I believe what I believe because I was given a gift as a young woman: the ability to explore the political landscape and figure out what was important to ME. My parents? Staunch Republicans. My sister? An ordained Lutheran minister. My brother? A libertarian atheist. We ran the gamut and I’m delighted to be part of a family where our holiday dinner conversations are lively and involve the throwing of Pillsbury crescent rolls at one another like Nerf balls.

Misogynistic Bullshit

We all had the same news stories going into the Super Bowl abortion debate – so why it is that those who are advocates for women’s rights (as afforded to us by federal law – please see Roe v. Wade, mkaythx) are labeled with such misogynistic terms? What I need is everyone without a uterus to get the hell out of the pool and stop throwing labels on women. I think Ann Coulter is a perfectly good waste of tits (and she likely thinks the same of me – IF she thinks of me…maybe she thinks about me naked. That would be WEIRD!) but I think she’s entitled to her opinion. You, however…Mister Erickson…wow. You’ve got the ability to spin a story like no one I’ve ever seen.

Oh wait – you can spin one like Focus on the Family. Nevermind.

Women who use the facts they’re given to compose an argument aren’t “feminazis,” while I’ll conceded that the recent debate brought out extreme statements from BOTH sides of the agenda.

Pot, Kettle, Black

Those women are intelligent. Using the resources you’re given to build an argument, organize people to support a cause and rise to the occasion to bring about change – isn’t that what you’re doing over at Redstate.com? And I think you’d refer to your readership as intelligent. That’s exactly what the groups against the Tebow ad were doing – working with the information given. Albeit, it was information hyped-up by spinning PR pros that manipulated the mainstream media for some manufactured hype and free publicity, but hey – who’s keeping track, right? Consider turning the issue around. If an ad ran from the ACLU in support of free borders or lessened border restrictions, wouldn’t you be up in arms about it until you found out it was more along the lines of bringing a family together? For fuck sake, man – put on your law school smart person hat! I began today by applauding FOTF for hoodwinking a nation and its media community and this recent post (note to readers, Erickson is NOT the author) on your site struts about the schoolyard with a braggadocio rarely seen outside of World of Warcraft circles.

Women Who Stood Against The Ad Are Not “Feminazis”

Hindsight is much closer to 20/15 than 20/20 and it’s terrible to gloat. Can you not accept the situation for what it is rather than what you’ve twisted it into? The WOMEN who stood against the FOTF Super Bowl ad are not “feminazis.” The conservative community that stood its ground in defense of letting the ad run is not a collection of right extremist morons. Each side was working with a faulty base of information – one which, if it had been portrayed accurately, would have presented no hullabaloo at all.

Would You Like A  Misogy-licious Sammich?

So, yes – I’ll call you an asshat, Mr. Erickson. And I would have even sent you a picture of me standing in my kitchen, sans shoes, making you a misogy-licious sammich. However, I’ve been working from home all day today (because I’m a business owner and thriving in what people depict as a depressed economy, not because I’m sick). I haven’t put any makeup on or done my hair, so I’m one of those Uglies you were talking about. I’ll just stay here in my kitchen and waggle my frying pan at you in shame. I think it’s hideous that you find it AOK to make statements like you do on Twitter while a leading representative of the conservative right. All leaders have an obligation to their community – are you really doing yours justice with your misogyny buffet?

Kindly Exit My Uterus

So here’s the bottom line: Whoever you are, whatever you believe – kindly exit my uterus. And stop it with the schoolyard bully tactics shouting “Ha ha!” each time you feel your side of an argument emerges victorious. The recent bullshit with the Tebow ad? Inexcusable. We could have all spent our energies more effectively had it been presented in an honest light. I can speak as a successful businesswoman with a college education that none of you have any business, elected official/spokesperson for a movement/otherwise, for weaseling your way into my bits and pieces. Stop the shenanigans and be who you are, say what you mean to say – and do it without the derogatory words. Stop yelling, start listening and quit trying to shove your beliefs in my face. The only thing I want shoved in my hoo-ha each month is a tampon – not a piece of legislation. Stop hating and start conversing. You might be intrigued with the dialogue of which you unexpectedly become a part.

Opening up a dialogue like I do here each week (and a heartfelt thanks to those who continue to join the conversation) while stating a specific stance on a story isn’t hate: it’s opinion, feelings and the heart of what we purport to be the core of this country – spirit. Hate kills spirit, but dialogue? Oh, how it lets spirit thrive.

Post from: Toy With Me

CBS Abortion Ad A Classic Bait And Switch

Related posts:

1. Focus on the Fuckery: CBS Aborts Good Judgment

I sent out a call over Twitter and HARO.com for former servicemen and women (gay or straight) to share their views on the potential repeal of DADT. While many of the quotes you read in today’s column will be anonymous, their points of view are no less valid.

“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

The Oath of Enlistment for all U.S. Military Members

The oath above is one of the biggest reasons I’ve always had a stick in my craw about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (henceforth to be referred to as DADT). Raised by veterans of the U.S. Air Force, I learned to say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the National Anthem with my right hand over my heart, hat off… looking at the flag with a patriotic reverence. I took my right to vote seriously and won’t deny that in 1992, I voted for Bill Clinton.

In 1993, I doubted that decision wholeheartedly when DADT was instituted.

DADT – to me – seemed like a cop-out. A false panacea to kowtow to the moral right and appease the left-leaning hippies. Having an inarguable history as being a shitty secret-keeper, I had no delusions about the policy being effective. Or for that matter, plausible.

My belief is that one’s sexual orientation has fuckall to do with their patriotism. While many may disagree with me, those of the Keep Them Fuckin’ Queers Away From Me school of thought…a school of thought more perverse to me than the practice of a homosexual or transgender lifestyle, there are many who don’t. If you read my take on the whole Prop 8 issue, I think the heterosexual “norm” is pretty bleak and breeds more screwed-up kids than any gay couple I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.

Obama put the Commander-in-Chief smackdown on the military and Congress during his State of the Union address to actively take steps towards ending DADT. Since 1993, my nation’s government has discharged over 13,500 servicemen and women under the policy. That’s 13,500 job dismissals based on sexual orientation.

According to Nolo.com, “Twenty states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. (In addition, a handful of states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only.)

So lemme get this straight (pun intended): private employers can’t discriminate based on gender, but the federal government CAN?

Straight fucked. Gay fucked, even.

As one of my interviewees states:

”Doesn’t it seem odd that queers have to hide who they are to serve in an institution that claims to protect our individual and institutional freedoms?” @orenkiwi– Dayna Downing, discharged in 1994 for “homosexual conduct”

It does, indeed. Especially since bullets and bombs don’t know the difference between a queen and a redneck backwoods cocksucker (last I checked).

And now…the other side of the sexual orientation story from a currently enlisted straight female who has nine years of service under her belt:

” Obviously sexual preference doesn’t affect one’s ability to do any job, and the military is no different. A military that represents and protects a nation founded on liberty and religious freedom that attempts to remain close-minded and bigoted is at risk to destroy unit cohesion and strength, not vice versa.” Sarah (@lizfits)

Since I decided to write this article, I’ve received responses from numerous former and current military, each with stories from “the workplace” more remarkable than mine (and at last count, I’ve had 23 jobs). Lesbian, transgendered, gay and straight – whatever the bent, I got the perspective. Several former servicemen called collective bullshit on the whole “showering with gay folk” issue.

The case? “I don’t want some fucking faggot checking me out in the shower” Yeah, because he wants to see YOUR fat, white trash body all lathered up nice and gooey. *hurl* (anonymous)

The snark? As a member of 24 Hour Fitness, I see several clothed people (sexual orientation indeterminate) that I do not want to see lathered-up next to me. Ever. *hurl* is right.

Here’s the shit folks: it’s fear and I simply don’t get it. If you hate homos so much, why would you deny them the opportunity to catch a bullet in your place? You’ve got no problem telling the fat chick at the bar “no thanks” when she hits on you and starts drooling after three PBR tall boys. And ladies – stop acting like you haven’t tongued-down your best girlfriend after three shots of Patron because you thought it would make your boyfriend hot (and if you have not done this, you should – women are great kissers).

Enough of the hypocrisy. Seriously. Sexual harassment is a threat in each and every workplace and should be dealt with accordingly, regardless of sexual orientation.

I loved this one thought shared by two separate former servicemembers:

“Somebody flaunting their lifestyle and ‘camping it up’ in the presence of people who are known or make it known to be uncomfortable also need to be answerable to the same discipline and regulations as everyone else. Sexual harassment comes in many forms and it needs to be known that it will not be tolerated from anyone to anyone no matter any individual’s preferences.”
-Jay (@JayJM)

”If there are gay or lesbian soldiers, marines, sailors, or airmen sexually harassing fellow servicemen, they should be punished in exactly the same way any heterosexual serviceman would be punished for such behavior.”
-Peter (@cololawcompass)

Right – but then again, we ARE talking about the federal government here. Remember? They’re the ones who can still discriminate based on sexual orientation. Legally. Military intelligence takes on a whole new meaning.

But I will concede this: the repeal of DADT is going to be a shit storm. It was the same in the military when blacks were permitted to enlist (Tuskegee Airmen fame) women were allowed to enlist in non-combat roles and then allowed to cross-over into pilot roles and such in fighter jets. The military is a huge testosterone fest and thank fucking Christ they are. I need boys and girls with guns to go out and do a job that I cannot do myself. People are built for different roles – the military is the largest proponent of that: job specialization. Infantrymen don’t fly planes and pilots don’t drive tanks.

Another source offered this with regards to the potential repeal of DADT:

” We need to recognize the mistake and subsequently recognize the contributions and valor of those openly gay service members who have served with distinction.”
-(anonymous)

Do what it is that you do best, U.S. military folk – keep on keepin’ on with the specialization of labor and let servicemembers be servicemembers – they all serve and swear to protect the same way.

Now, some of you might think I’m a fag hag, what with this being the second post in three weeks on gay rights issues. Truth is – I don’t see gender.

Yes, I’ve slept with another woman.

Yes, I’ve been married twice.

No, I’m not divorced because I’m gay/bi/confused/a bitch.

I like men and am a straight female.

When I look at people, I see people. Shining personalities, skills I don’t have, adventures I admire, relationships that suck, partnerships I’d kill to emulate, children I’d love to have and above all…spirit. It’s the spirit of a human – something that every Presidential candidate preaches yet few politicians understand – that makes this life worth living. Do I pity those who feel that lifestyles different from their own pose a very threat to their ability to live a wholly fulfilling life? Indeed. Those are the kind of people who spend more time worrying about what others think than tending to their own backyard. A colossal waste of time, but hey – the world needs zealots, too.

It’s about time that the U.S. military starts acting like a more progressive nation – the nation it strives to be: inclusive, encouraging, supporting and an incubator for human potential seen in no other nation. And y’know what? That little bundle of testosterone Colin Powell even agrees with me.

So here’s the bottom line: with as brilliant as the U.S. military is with training and programming and their ability to turn Joe Punk into Joe America in 13 weeks of basic training, how about a little educational overhaul? Add tolerance training to the bill. Hell, if you’re able to overcome a little punk’s disdain for his mother’s authority and turn him into a leader, can’t you overcome the backwoods and unfounded fear that they gay guy with a machine gun standing next to you is going to bend you over and fuck you in the ass? Gay servicemembers stand next to straight ones, ready and willing to defend this country of ours. Same oath, same uniforms, same guns, same training. I thank each and every servicemember for who they are and what they do. I see people who protect my country.

I don’t see gender, sexual preference or religion.

Again, I see people. People who need to be thanked. And I can only imagine the next impending shit storm that will ensue: when gay marriage is finally legalized and the federal government is faced with extending benefits to gay servicemembers.

There will be a blog post about that issue as well. I can hardly wait.

What say you, ToyWithMes…where are the challenges with the potential, seemingly impending repeal of DADT? Anonymous comments welcome – those reeking of hate are not. Fire away…

End note: I tried desperately to get anyone on Twitter (out of HOW many million users?) who was AGAINST the repeal of DADT to offer a quote and even messaged using the #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) tag. No takers. Huh. Guess everyone’s changed their mind or are too pussy to put a face with their thoughts.

Post from: Toy With Me

The End Is Near For Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

No related posts.

Mr. Pugno ~

Erika Napoletano here – no relation to Janet or the other plethora of political Napoletanos running around out there. See, I got the name in the divorce. (Yes, the D-Word.) It was fancy, had a ring to it. While I didn’t want the relationship that went with the ring, I kept the snazzy name. I can already tell I’m your worst nightmare. I build broken homes.

I’ve been following your shenanigans for a while now and I have to say that I’m disappointed you played the “for the children” card. While I’m legally twenty years past being included with the children, I can remember what it was like growing up in a home with heterosexual parents.

They were divorced. Damn them and their selfishness, refusing to stay together for the children. My mother worked and went to school, my dad held a civil engineering job. My brother, sister and I were latchkey kids, microwaving after school snacks and learning to cook on nights mom got home late. We spent every other weekend at Dad’s, playing with model trains and running around his tiny little apartment until he told us to simmer down since people lived below him. Christ – kids really can’t run quietly. It was a bit of a buzzkill, but hey – those were the rules.

I’m not going to give you a story about wanting love, needing love or yearning for an intact household that my parents, who couldn’t find a way to live together, so unjustly deprived us. My brother, sister and I all graduated Summa Cum Laude from Nimitz High School in Houston, Texas (with little sis eeking out a class rank of 7^th ahead of my brother’s and my kindred score of 9^th in our class years…the pipsqueak) and equal honors from college. I went off to college on a full scholarship. My brother is currently pursing his Masters in Psychology and my sister a Masters in Library Science (in addition to being an ordained Lutheran Children’s Minister). They’re awesome kids – people I’m proud to call my brother and sister.

And my parents – my divorced parents – are pretty damn awesome as well.

See, children don’t need an intact, heterosexual household to succeed. They need love. Fellow blogger Sinclair Sexsmith (@MrSexsmith) took the words right out of my mouth when she so eloquently said:

“Children are best raised by folks who love them, care for them, provide their basic needs, nurture their creativity and strength, support them and believe in them. Though there is one dominant narrative for how families “should” look – the nuclear two-parent heterosexual household – there have been plenty of studies supporting family units that look different from that are just as valuable for the child. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, step-parents, foster parents – the structure doesn’t matter so much as the content.”

Content, my dear Mr. Pugno. Not context.

If I had been raised in the context of heterosexual parents who so obviously despised one another, who would I be today? Would I be an outspoken social media consultant and blogger-for-hire…write a weekly column for a website about sex toys and exploring sexuality…climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro…discovered a love for cycling…be wrapped in the daily embrace of friendships I’m proud to have earned and am learning to nurture more and more each day.

Would I?

My parents, heterosexual in their own right, gave me love and support as they knew how. The context of a single parent home gave me the opportunity to become self-sufficient and embrace the fact I had two parents who loved me – they just lived in different places. The content? Love. Love, love, love.

Mr. Pugno, Fuck You

But Mr. Pugno – fuck you and every one of your Protect Marriage supporters for saying that my childhood is worth less because I didn’t come from an intact heterosexual home. And double fuck you for condemning those who choose to live a life that doesn’t fit your “ideal” of a “marriage.”

I’m twice-divorced. Why? Well, it’s not because I’m a lesbian or that I don’t believe in marriage. I’m a die-hard romantic, believing strongly that, as the person I’ve come to be, I have a better set of tools today to build a successful marriage than I did when I was young, ignorant and stupid and decided to walk down the aisle with two men I truly loved and initiate unions that would ultimately not last.

Marriage didn’t fail me: it was the failure of the human relationship.

What you’re telling me is that a heterosexual relationship has more value than a same-sex relationship. That one version of love is more important than another. Actually, I’m willing to entertain that notion, but here’s the rub:

A Challenge

If you can tell me that heterosexual couples are able to feel and live with love more deeply than two people of the same sex (and substantiate your case) – I’ll suck your dick on national television. Now, before you get all hot about the blowjob, I get to counter you arguments. I will introduce you to Amy and Cindiman, Cheryl and Kate, Elisa and Megan. These are six women I’m very lucky to have in my life – and they’re lesbians.

And they all visibly experience a love for their partners – their wives, if you will – that makes my heart skip a beat each time I see them. And once you meet these beautiful women, then we’ll go on a field trip to Walmart. There, I’ll show you some really awesome heterosexual couples with children. If we’re lucky, we’ll get some, Shut the fuck ups and I’m gonna beat yer asses while we’re there.

It’s the Content, Not the Context

Then I’ll take you to an egg donor agency (Gifted Journeys in Studio City, CA), one run by my best friend, who actively and openly works with same-sex couples. See, they’re in the Building a Family business. On a daily basis, they see people who want children more than many people who end up with them the old fashioned way. Many of their recipient parents are gay, lesbian or transgendered. They understand that it is the content of the family, not the context, which creates supportive and loving households. For the children.

The Facts

I was fortunate enough to be provided a link by a social media acquaintance and (gasp) lesbian Mari Kurisato. It’s a pretty kickass study performed by the Australian Psychological Society (2007). Not only does it indicate that same-sex parenting relationships typically share the child-rearing burden more evenly, but that even gay male couples exhibit more active parenting roles than their heterosexual counterparts. (Wanna dig, Pugno? It’s on pages 17 and 18 of the study. Though since the study is all “gay,” I’m sure you wouldn’t dare bring it up in a browser window for fear of your computer catching the Gay Virus.)

Heather Cornwell was also gracious enough to share with me her thoughts on the beauty of an intact heterosexual home: she’s the product of one.

“Regarding the argument that children are best served by an intact male/female marriage, I would just point out that environment is only a partial determiner in the outcome of a childhood.  If we extrapolate that theory, then I should be a perfectly balanced, straight, Christian female.  Instead, I am a balanced, gay, agnostic female. My parents are still married, and demonstrated a great deal of affection towards each other, and to my siblings and myself.  I am a happy lesbian, my sister is a single, divorced mother and my brother is a single, divorced father.  Whether or not my parents were in an intact heterosexual relationship had little to no bearing on how my siblings and I have developed into adults.”

Your organization purports the following:

“Traditional marriage is the foundation of society and has served our state well for centuries. California’s constitutional marriage amendment exists to strengthen society, encourage monogamous and loving marriages and to provide the optimal environment to ensure the well being of children.”

Ensure the well-being of children. How noble. I’ll start heading towards a close with some interesting examples, all of which blow your reasoning more effectively than a $20 hooker:

• Edward Albee (gay) – Adopted by a heterosexual couple. Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright (and one of my professors in college)

• Patricia Cornwell (bisexual) – Product of a broken home, adopted. Best-selling author and former Medical Examiner for the State of Virginia.

• Truman Capote (gay) – Abandoned by his parents (along with the rest of his siblings). Literary icon.

• Dalai Lamas (celibate) – Once recognized, boys are removed from the home of their birth parents to be trained for their future station. While they do not lose contact with their birth family, they are not raised by them.

• President Barack Obama (married, heterosexual) – Parents divorced when he was two. Last I checked, he holds the highest political office in the United States (much to your chagrin, I’m sure).

• Menendez Brother (killed their parents) – heterosexual married parents.

• John Wayne Gacy (serial killer) – heterosexual married parents.

Your rules fail you, Mr. Pugno. If heterosexuality is the stepping stone to familial and developmental perfection, you need to get to work on doctoring the history books ASAP.

Legislating Morality Makes Me Queasy

Mr. Pugno, the thought that your group of a mere 100-some-odd thousand folks who feel that they can drive to legislate morality makes me queasy. Considering the pro-Proposition 8 campaign raised $39.9 million in 2008 and continues to spend taxpayer dollars by tying up the court system tells me that there are a lot of people, while entitled to their beliefs, aren’t secure in them enough to nose the everloving fuck out of everyone else’s business and tend to their own families. And Heather, whom we met earlier, backs that up:

“In my opinion, this country was founded on NOT allowing the government to make our choices for us. Granted, the pilgrims were fleeing religious oppression, but I think that any oppression goes against the founding principles of our nation. If I choose to marry my partner, have children or not have children, the government should not be given a say in that decision. More to the point, the government should not DEMAND a say in that decision.”

The way I see it is this: you’re telling me there was almost $40 million available (in addition to the $43 million raised by anti-Prop 8 forces in 2008) in our economy to support the persecution people for being who they are instead of helping people become who they want to be? I’m speechless. And I’m sure the State of California, in its dismal financial state, is appalled as well. We’re a country that sings the hymn of human potential yet you fail to realize that this song is comprised of varying voices.

Stay the Fuck Out Of My Bedroom

In closing, I don’t think everything you and Protect Marriage are doing is bad. You’ve done one amazing thing that few others have been able to achieve: showing the world what is possible when an overzealous herd gets a little cash and begins substituting the word “government” for “religion.” I’m not on board with that. I’ll kindly have the government stay out of my bedroom, out of my vagina and out of the affairs of people with whom you wouldn’t deign to share a dinner table. “The children,” as you say, need protecting from people and organizations like you and yours, not from same-sex couples. Close-mindedness is a blight on the development of mankind. And the children – the future of this nation, the reminder that anything is possible and the glimmer of hope that winks over the horizon with each sunrise and sunset we’re blessed with witnessing.

Sincerely,

Erika Napoletano aka @DearRedhead/@RedheadWriting
Writer, Disruptive Presence, Devil’s Advocate…

PS: the offer for the blowjob still stands. Line up your case studies and I’ll line-up mine. If it’s a tie, we’ll have a kiss-off to determine the winner.

End note: The Executive Board of The American Anthropological Association, the world’s largest organization of anthropologists, released the following statement on February 26, 2004 in response to President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization:

“The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.”

Yeah. Suck it.

Special thanks to the following people who shared their insights with me:

Sinclair Sexsmith (Sugarbutch Chronicles and Radical Masculinity)

Natalie Hjelsvold

Heather Cornwell

Mari Kurisato

Post from: Toy With Me

Proposition H8: An Open Letter to Andy Pugno

Related posts:

1. Open Letter to All The Men Who Maybe Want to Sleep With Me
2. An Open Letter To Blackberry – Quit Being Such Stuck Up Prudes
3. A Letter To My Younger Self