This is How They Roll

I found an interesting video showcasing how opponents of gay rights actually got Referendum 71 on the ballot. Is it really all that surprising that it was through deception and lies? I'm guessing this is why they didn't want the names on the petition to be released. They said it was for protection from hate crimes (HAHAHA, I still can't get over that one!) but in reality, they didn't want anyone to be able to check up on how truthful these people were in getting their signatures. I'm wondering exactly how many of the people who signed this petition actually knew what they were signing...?

Anti-Gay Signature Fraud Caught on Tape

Day 75

Today was an exciting day. We are in Washington state. There is a push by the anti-gay forces in the state to repeal the Domestic Partnership legislation recently passed by the Washington legislature. Anti-gay organizations are trying to collect enough signatures to bring Referendum 71 to the ballot. This referendum seeks to repeal the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009, passed by the legislature, that gives registered domestic partners wherever they live in Washington many of the rights and protections already enjoyed by legally married couples.

If the backers of Referendum 71 collect enough signatures to get it on the November ballot, then the question on the ballot will be: Should this bill be approve or rejected?

The anti-gay organizations are using paid signature gatherers in attempt to collect the required number of signatures needed to put the referendum on the ballot. The signatures are due this Saturday.

While in Port Angeles, Washington, we stopped at WalMart for a quick minute. (Interesting Fact: Port Angeles, WA is where the book and film “Twilight” takes place.) As I was walking into WalMart, I was stopped by a signature gatherer who asked my opinion on same-sex marriage. I told him that I am gay and we had a long conversation about equal rights.

After I bought some medicine at the pharmacy, I came back out to the van and grabbed my camera. I filmed the man collecting signatures for a bit, then I went over to talk with him. He was friendly and let me film him for a while.

We talked about his personal beliefs about same-sex marriage. He is in favor of equal marriage rights and would vote against the referendum if it gets on the ballot. He went on for a while about how gays deserve the same rights and that the church is wrong for trying to take those rights away. It was an interesting conversation.

Then it got even more interesting. He approached a woman and asked her if she supports same-sex marriage. When she said yes, he handed her the clipboard to sign the referendum. She though she was signing in favor of equal marriage. He tricked her, right in front of me, on camera. I called him out on it.

He said to her:

“Did you get a chance to sign our petition? We’re giving you an opportunity to decided whether or not you are in favor of giving homosexual couples legal marriage licenses. Not just the same rights as married people, but a marriage license too. Do you have an opinion on that? Yes? No? Or don’t Care?”

The woman said yes, that she will sign, and he handed her the clipboard. It was obvious to me that she was signing what she thought was a petition in favor or giving same-sex couples marriage licenses. So I asked her if she supports same-sex marriage. She said that she did.

That is not it. The bigger deal is that, to collect signatures, he is telling people that the referendum is to stop same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses. That is not true. He is telling folks that same-sex couples would still receive all the rights of marriage with Domestic Partnerships, when in fact, the referendum they are signing has nothing to do with marriage; it would repeal the Domestic Partnership law.

Unfortunately, at the time, I had no idea that he was lying about Referendum 71 being about marriage, not domestic partnerships. I just got into the state and knew nothing about the petition. I believed him when he said it was about marriage. It wasn’t until the next day, when I showed the footage to Equal Rights Washington that I learned he was even lying about the goals of the referendum.

I called my friend Josh, who is the Advocacy Director at Equal Rights Washington and told him about the footage. He was excited about it and asked me if he could use it on the campaign against the referendum. I am giving him a copy of the footage to expose the fraudulent signature gathering.

There is a lot more I could say about this interaction, but just watch the video. It is incredible.

Here is the video

My new Hero

I saw this on Facebook today and was in awe! I read part of this man's book The Sins of Scripture several weeks ago and was struck by what he wrote. Once again, he blows me away with his words.


Bishop John Shelby Spong -- A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant."

I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement.

I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves.

I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.

I will particularly ignore those members of my own Episcopal Church who seek to break away from this body to form a "new church," claiming that this new and bigoted instrument alone now represents the Anglican Communion. Such a new ecclesiastical body is designed to allow these pathetic human beings, who are so deeply locked into a world that no longer exists, to form a community in which they can continue to hate gay people, distort gay people with their hopeless rhetoric and to be part of a religious fellowship in which they can continue to feel justified in their homophobic prejudices for the rest of their tortured lives. Church unity can never be a virtue that is preserved by allowing injustice, oppression and psychological tyranny to go unchallenged.

In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.

I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with embarrassing ineptitude.

I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population.

I see no way that ignorance and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it. I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even tolerable.

I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over. The victory has been won.

There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be.

· Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us.
· Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church.
· "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dismantled as the policy of our armed forces.

We will and we must learn that equality of citizenship is not something that should ever be submitted to a referendum. Equality under and before the law is a solemn promise conveyed to all our citizens in the Constitution itself. Can any of us imagine having a public referendum on whether slavery should continue, whether segregation should be dismantled, whether voting privileges should be offered to women?

The time has come for politicians to stop hiding behind unjust laws that they themselves helped to enact, and to abandon that convenient shield of demanding a vote on the rights of full citizenship because they do not understand the difference between a constitutional democracy, which this nation has, and a "mobocracy," which this nation rejected when it adopted its constitution. We do not put the civil rights of a minority to the vote of a plebiscite.

I will also no longer act as if I need a majority vote of some ecclesiastical body in order to bless, ordain, recognize and celebrate the lives and gifts of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. No one should ever again be forced to submit the privilege of citizenship in this nation or membership in the Christian Church to the will of a majority vote.

The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the "Flat Earth Society" either. I do not debate with people who think we should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions, feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union.

I am tired of being embarrassed by so much of my church's participation in causes that are quite unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics, as well as gay and lesbian people.

Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a century ago: "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth." I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for that mentality has simply gone forever.

This is my manifesto and my creed. I proclaim it today. I invite others to join me in this public declaration. I believe that such a public outpouring will help cleanse both the church and this nation of its own distorting past. It will restore integrity and honor to both church and state. It will signal that a new day has dawned and we are ready not just to embrace it, but also to rejoice in it and to celebrate it.

- John Shelby Spong

The Confusing Right, Part 2

There has been a lot of recent buzz in the state of Washington. On the November ballot this year is the hot topic of gay rights. Here is the wording for Referendum 71, so there will be no confusion about what I am about to discuss.


This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

Okay, I think that is quite clear! All same-sex partners are asking for is the equal rights of married couples. Call it a Civil Union, call it a Contract Agreement, call it the end of civilization as we know it...whatever! But I think the wording at the very end of the last sentence says it all: a domestic partnership is NOT a marriage. Have the people against gay marriage even read what Referendum 71 says??

You would think that opponents of gay marriage rights who have for years now been trying to "protect the sanctity of marriage" would be okay with this. Right? I mean we're not trying to pervert the highly successful marriage rate that is never ruined by the concept of divorce, cheating spouses or reality shows (I'm talking about you, John and Kate - because there is a perfect example of a happily sanctified marriage!).

Today as I was driving my bus route, I saw a sign in the back window of a car. It looked like it had been printed off a website, but the gist of it was to reject Referendum 71 to protect marriage and the following website was conveniently displayed in large bold letters so I could look it up when I got home.

http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/

Wow. Seriously? This is still an issue for people? One would think that people who are trying to protect the definition of a word would back off considering that the referendum CLEARLY states that domestic partnerships are NOT defined as a marriage. Exactly what leg do these people have left to stand on?

Seeing this defense still being used makes me wonder if this really is about their precious marriage definition. Perhaps this is really about fear. Lord knows the far right loves to spread hate through scare tactics. They fear what they do not understand so they rush to judgment and preach thinly veiled defenses for their agenda.

What other conclusion can I draw? It's right there on the front of their website:

Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and families?

Senator Val Stevens leads off her article on the front page of their website with that question. Well, Val - may I call you Val? -- the answer to your question is "NO!". Homosexuals, by asking for the same rights of married couples, are not trying to push our "depraved lifestyle" on your children and families. In fact, we promise we won't even invite you to the commitment ceremony, though we all know you'll be there anyway with pickets and cries of injustice. That's just your way.

If you want our tax money, then the least you can do is give us the same rights of married couples - a right we deserve no matter what your errant, fallible Bible says.

Senator Val Stevens continues: Amidst harassment and even death threats by the homosexual radicals pushing this into our faces, just enough signatures were gathered to give you the final say on the upcoming ballot.

I love when the far right takes their argument here. I jump up and down, giddy and clapping my hands. Is she seriously going to make this statement? Okay, clearly she is and has. I have yet to hear any of these claims proven in news reports. One would think that such claims, were they true, would be newsworthy. Last Spring police raided a gay bar and severely beat a gay man. We all know the story of Matthew Shepherd. Those stories were ALL over the news. Why have I not seen news reports backing up the claims of Senator Val?

There have been claims that people who signed the petition to get the issue of gay domestic partner rights on the 2009 November ballot are too scared to make themselves known because they worry about death threats and harassment. Well, there's that fear again! But seriously, are they that afraid that their own tactics will be used against them? I guess they are. I once heard someone say that people who stoop to criminal activity are often wary of having it done against them.

I had a conversation about this issue with a co-worker last week. I have been hearing an anti-referendum-71 commercial on local radio station Star 101.5 the past several weeks. The gist of the commercial is that Washington's politicians are "out of touch with the issues" and should be focusing on more important things like our wounded economy and the current war and the housing crisis. Frankly, this sounds like a recycled commercial script from past right-wing propaganda. It appears as though someone copied and pasted the script from previous editions and didn't really think to proofread his work. The commercial has no direction or purpose - well other than to promote fear and get people to reject Referendum 71. Oh, and by the way, it wasn't Washington state politicians who pushed to get this on the November ballot. It was, in fact, the right-wing conservatives. Senator Val herself admitted that.

Anyway, I was mentioning this commercial to my co-worker - a right-wing conservative Christian. He immediately shared with me something he heard on the radio -- a conservative DJ (I'm guessing Rush Limbaugh or that other idiot Glenn Beck) who said that the problem with Democrats is that they want everyone to not be concerned with the bedroom, but want to control every other room in the house. They want to suggest which light bulb we should use and which car we should drive.

I laughed and said to my coworker, "But can you see the difference between how Democrats face an issue and how Republicans do? If a Democrat doesn't like the light bulb you use, they aren't going to beat you within an inch of your life and leave you to die in the middle of nowhere tied to a fence. If a Democrat doesn't like that you drive an SUV or a Hummer, they're not going to declare for you eternal damnation because the Bible says so."

His response was to share with me reports of vandalism to SUV's and Hummers in the downtown area. Apparently, environmentalists have launched a campaign to inflict damage to vehicles parked in the Seattle area in the way of broken windshields, slashed tired and broken head and tail lights. My mouth must have dropped open because my co-worker stared at me and said, "What?"

I said, "Are you seriously comparing the beating of a human homosexual to the distruction of an SUV or a Hummer?" He tried to backpeddle, but still insisted that the distruction of private property is clearly wrong.

How about the distruction of the human spirit? How about the distruction of human rights? How about the distruction of souls? Well, I guess if they belong to perverted homosexuals, then they don't count.

The Audacity of Dope

My cousin was over for game night and, as usual, we had lots of giggles. I'm not sure how it came up, but at one point she asked me if I had heard the rumor that Matt Dallas, the really cute blue-eyed guy with the gorgeous smile from the ABC Family show Kyle XY is gay. I hadn't, but was very intrigued because, well...the guy is hot!

Naturally, I put a halt on our current game and ran to my computer to confirm this juicy bit of gossip. Unfortunately, every single website I found that was willingly spreading the rumor pointed to Prez Hilton as the source of the rumor.

I am NOT a fan of Prez Hilton at all. Sure we all love a bit of gossip, but Prez Hilton has made it his ... hobby? career? sadistic goal in life? to out closeted gay actors and I think it's a really shitty business.

When I was still trying to come out years ago, I was friends with a lesbian co-worker who is in her 50's. She doesn't hide who she is at all and frequently talks about her partner. I think it is great that she can be so comfortable about who she is. At the time, I was wishing I could be more like her, but it took all I could for me to just come out to her. Once we were sitting in the computer break room at work and in front of several people she asked me how my "date with the guy I liked" had gone. All heads turned to me and I gave an embarrassed chuckle and said "Hey, guess what...? I'm gay..."

Later I confronted her and asked her to keep questions like that for a time when there weren't other people around. Her response was something along the lines of it was time for me to come out and maybe she was right, but I really have a problem with out gays and lesbians who think that busting open the door of timid homosexuals and pushing them into the limelight. Let them come out on their own time!

This is what Prez Hilton does. He takes it upon himself to ruin the public life of celebrities for his own shits and giggles and I think it's disgusting.

Now I will admit that when my cousin told me about the Matt Dallas rumor I was thrilled. Frankly, he was the only reason I really ever watched Kyle XY. So yes, like a school girl I shamelessly flocked to find out more about this juicy rumor. But when I hear that it was started by someone like Prez Hilton, all the magic sputters out of the moment like air from a deflating balloon.

I guess this makes me a hypocrite. I was so willing to want to hear more about the rumor until I discovered that it was started by Prez, a bastard I'm not fond of because he outs closeted celebrities. Of course, I'm also contributing to the life of the rumor by talking about it here on my blog... What really bugs me is that he sites no reason for the rumor on his site. He just announces that "sources tell" him it's true. Ergo...it must be! Who needs proof when you're potentially ruining a man's career, right?

Okay, sure... Neil Patrick Harris has risen above his outting by the blog queen, so Matt Dallas has a chance to as well, but Dallas' show Kyle XY was cancelled and right now he's on the new show Eastwick as the boyfriend of one of the witches. He is SOO adorable, by the way! But his character is expendable and it wouldn't take much for ABC to decide that his character is no longer believable so they should just write him off the show. Then the poor guy is off looking for work again.

So, if there is truth to the rumor, well, welcome to the family, Matt. From what I've seen of you in interviews, you are a really sweet guy and don't deserve to be kicked from your safe haven by a bitchy blog queen. If it turns out that Prez is full of shit, I wouldn't be too upset if you beat him up to get even. Either way, I still think you're awesome!

The God I Know

Last spring a coworker and I were talking about views that people tend to have on life based on what they interpreted from the Bible. He lent me a book called Sins of Scripture by John Shelby Spong and told me that I would probably enjoy it. I didn't get around to reading it until last week and only then because my co-worker has started asking for his book back.

I only read the section of the book where Spong talks about homosexuality, but after doing so I placed a request on the book from the library because now I want to read the whole thing. For the topic of homosexuality, Spong addressed the verses most commonly used to promote homophobia and verse by verse explains how such views of them are groundless. While these ideas have been written about and debated before, I really enjoyed Spong's take on the verses and his commentary.

I was also struck by his views of the Bible. In the section I read, Spong goes to great lengths to explain how and why those verses might have been written. The book of Leviticus was written for an exiled Jewish community as a guide for how to keep themselves separate from the Babylonians with whom they lived at the time, hence all the diatery and other laws that Christians (who so frequently point to Levitical laws on homosexuality) don't themselves follow.

He also addressed the story of Sodom but, unlike the Christians who often point to that as a reason why God hates fags, he shows the entire story in context. He explains the practices of ALL cities at the time regarding visitors to a city who aren't immediately taken into a home for shelter (there weren't hotels at the time because traveling was so dangerous) and how the people of that town would proceed to humiliate them sexually. He also questions why an all-knowing God would need to send scouts to a city in the first place to determine if there are enough righteous souls worthy of saving that city from destruction. Wouldn't He already know? Furthermore, he questions why Lot, who offered up his virgin daughters for gang-rape in place of the angel scouts was considered a righteous man and spared from the later destruction of the city. Why were his daughters, who later slept with their father to bear children were spared as righteous. Far more questions are raised than answered when the FULL story is examined rather than just a small part.

Finally, Spong looks at "homophobic Paul." I had heard the theory before that Paul was a closeted homosexual, but to this notion, Spong also suggests that Paul was a fundamentalist and fanatic follower of Scripture and his reason for including his verses on homosexuality were because he was wrestling with his own homosexual feelings and what he had always believed he had been taught through Scripture. He would have been well aware of the Leviticus laws and would have been horrified to see this in himself, so the only way he could deal with it was by condeming it. To me, this is like a senator condeming gays and fighting hard against gay rights and then being found seeking gay sex in an airport bathroom. Or a mayor fighting hard against gay rights and then finding himself in a controversy where he offered governmental positions to young men in exchange for sex with them. Just how credible are their condemnations of homosexuality now?

Shortly after reading this section of Spong's book, I was watching The Colbert Report and learned about Conservative Bible Project, a recent project of some conservative Christians hoping to change the Bible as we know it. Their goals are to remove all the Liberal propoganda put into current translations of the Bible. I once heard a woman on Montel Williams rave about something similar. She kept praising her black Bible which told her that white people are the enemy and are hated by God.

These two things have really gotten my thinking about the God I grew up worshiping. I have said before (and frankly, it's kind of obvious) that I was a Christian before I knew I was gay. Oh sure, there were signs I should have noticed very early on in my life. But the one thing I always knew from the moment I was baptized was the existence of God and his Son and their work in my life.

I have always believed that God exists because I see the miracles all around me and they are enough to convince me. Lately, though, I have found myself not going to church. I have found my talks with God to occur less and less. In wondering why this is happening, I have blamed this on my prolonged struggle with my sexuality. I keep hearing about the tyrant God who seems to hate everyone! This God of Love that I sung about in Sunday School is starting to be described by sign-weilding fanatics as a monster who throws a tantrum if He doesn't get His way. If I continue to be gay, then He will send me to the fiery depths of Hell.

This God that the Right-wing Christians love to speak for is not the God I grew up loving. The God I have always known saved my mother from meninjitis and, the year before that, from a very nasty spider bite. He is the God whose loving touch created things like puppy dogs and spectacular sunsets. The God I grew up loving doesn't hate.

Frankly, I don't think that the right-wing Christians who claim to be the spokespeople for God are what they claim at all. I think they are completely missing God's mission of Love. As they march around with their WWJD bracelets, they do exactly what Jesus would never do. Would Jesus kill doctors who perform abortions? Would Jesus have rudely picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard or soldiers who died fighting in a war? They are so driven by their hate that they are blinded to the real Message. They remind me of certain terrorists who took over planes and flew them into towers and the Pentagon eight years ago.

Thankfully, I know that not all Christians are this way. I have found many churches that don't agree with this picture of a hateful God. They are accepting of everyone and more in tune with God's Message. Those are the kinds of people I want to be hanging out with!

I just need to get my lazy ass to their church on Sundays!

*Sigh*

Pathetic

Today, I had an all day chorus rehearsal and for lunch, a friend, Jeff, and I walked to Westlake Center for lunch. On our trip back, we passed by a group of four or five people holding up poster-sized pictures of President Obama on which they had stenciled mustaches resembling Hitler's. As we passed by them, I was quietly commenting to my friend that those people were very disturbing and then I turned around and added "...and pathetic!" so they could hear.

Now, I don't think it is a big surprise that I was not a fan of George W. Bush. I think he did a fantastic job of ruining this country and I think that the Republicans are trying to put that blame on our current president. Never, in the four years of that terrible presidency, did I have a desire to stand on a street corner holding a picture of him with a Hitler-like mustache. It would just be too pathetic.

I saw many people protesting Bush's decision to take us into a war, but not once did I see anything as offensive as what I saw today. The man was made fun of because he said really crazy things. Jokes were made about him questioning his intelligence and status as an effective president. But I honestly don't remember ever seeing anything as disturbing as what I saw today and I have marched in a gay pride parade past closed-minded bigots with signs declaring that there is a place for me in Hell because God hates me. I think that what I saw today was way more disturbing than "God Hates Fags!" signs. Those people are foolishly claiming to be the Voice of God by holding up those signs and I fully believe they will have to answer for that after they die (if they even make it to Heaven) and they are doing their best to ruin a fabulous parade. But we fags can march right past those pathetic morons and pretend that they aren't even there.

But how can you walk past pathetic cretins who are holding up signs that pictorially depict the President of the United States as one of the worst criminals, murderers and bigots in the history of the world? I mean seriously! What in the name of everything good and holy in this world can justify comparing Obama to Hitler? How is that comparison even seriously considered? Is the creation of an unpopular health care plan REALLY up there with the murder of millions of Jews and an attempt at world domination? Okay, so President Obama called Kanye West a jackass. Kanye West IS a jackass! Does that make President Obama Hitler? Seriously, I really want to know what makes these pathetic morons compare our President with Hitler. 'Cause I just do not see the connection!

Those people I saw today are pathetic. Yeah, yeah...freedom of speech, yadda yadda... But no doubt about it, those people are pathetic.

Matchmaker, Matchmaker...please take your time...

This week, I had the mother of all Fiddler on the Roof moments. Remember that part in the show where the two sisters dream of the Matchmaker Yenta bringing them a handsome husband? The first part of that song is all about the dreamy men they are sure will be matched with them.

That was me on Monday. My friend from work Liz came to me, buzzing with excitement. There is a new guy at work who is gay and he had ridden along on her route. Our district does that with new drivers. It gives them a chance to understand how routes work and helps them build experience of driving a bus with children. As she did with me, Liz asked him if he was gay and then proceeded to tell him all about me. ALL ABOUT ME - including my many faults!

I had gone to a special needs training class at the beginning of the school year where I had met this new guy and he remembered who I was (and claimed that I had been shamelessly flirting with him during that meeting). He told Liz that I am "his type" and so the gears in Liz's head began formulating a plan to get him doing a ride-along on my bus. That afternoon I was told that he would be riding on my route Tuesday morning. Damn, Liz is good!

All I could think about Monday night was the potential. I went to the SMC rehearsal and told everyone who would listen about the "date". I was really nervous and excited about the next day. That night I worked on what I was going to wear and how early I'd need to get up to get ready.

Back to Fiddler on the Roof. As the Matchmaker song continues, the older sister enters and suddenly brings harsh reality to the dreams of her sisters. With glee she dons an old scarf and describes two very unattractive men that Matchmaker Yenta could find for them. Suddenly, the attitude of her sisters change and they sing about how they'll be happy to wait for their turn at Matchmaker Roulette.

When I arrived at work and met T, the very first thing he did was (barely) look up from his cell phone and say "You're late." I was actually three minutes early, but whatever. For the next 2 hours, I was treated to every criticism that bitchy queen wanted to throw at me.

He didn't like the way I drive. He didn't like the route I took when picking up the students or driving back from the school. He told me that since I'm a writer I'm probably unorganized and messy and that would drive him crazy (since he makes Monica from Friends look like a slob!). He would NEVER set foot in my apartment because I have pet rats. He thinks I am paying too much for rent and should move somewhere cheaper (or better yet, have better financial stability to buy my own house). He couldn't believe I don't have a car. He thought I should dress better. I don't carry myself very well. I should work harder and make more money. When I told him what car I used to drive he scoffed and told me there was no way he ever would have ridden in my car. The criticisms went on and on.

On top of it all, he kept telling me that I should have more confidence in myself... Despite all the criticisms he kept throwing at me.

At one point he had asked me my shoe size and was amazed when I told him I wear a size 13. When I parked my bus, he asked to see my hand, did a bit of measuring against his own and then smiled at me and said "You're well hung."

Despite all of that, I still approached the subject of dating with him. He told me it wouldn't happen because we work together now. I'm guessing a lot of his other criticisms factored into that as well. The more I thought about it as the day went on, the more glad I was that he said that. Dating him would have been disastrous and a relationship with him would be impossible. We left things with the open possibility for friendship.

Once again I find myself thinking it's impossible for me to ever find love. My experiences in searching for a relationship have been met with more and more guys like the one mentioned above. I think gay guys (myself included) are too critical. Somehow there are some who make it work and I applaud them, but I have no clue how they managed to not only find someone for a relationship, but figured out how to keep in that relationship.

As for me, I find myself taking one more step closer to becoming that bitter cynic who hates the candy and Hallmark-pushed Valentine's Day. I can't help but see myself becoming a bitter old queen sitting in the back of a movie theater loudly complaining about plot holes and unbelievably every time I see a romantic comedy.

Maybe I've just been single too long that the concept of having romance in my life is now just too scary. Maybe there wasn't even anything wrong with the guy I met yesterday. Maybe I was the one being too critical of him.

If I remember correctly, even the two sisters from Fiddler on the Roof eventually found love. Sheesh, how boringly predictable!