Am I an American?

I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free - to not marry a man should I ever fall in love.

And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me - except the gay ones who are forced to hide who they really are for fear of being kicked out of the military.

I've been thinking a lot about that song "Proud to be an American" today. Actually, the first moment the lyrics popped into my head today was right after I found out that the republicans (aka, the party of no) led by the Grand Old Flip Flopper John McCain (who said during his campaign for the presidency in 2008 that he would gladly review the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell should military leaders come forward with their support for a repeal) did in fact block the efforts today to repeal that 17-year-old stain on America's history.

Of course, as I sang the lyrics to myself, they were laced with sarcasm. I must be completely honest: right now, I really am not proud to be an American. I'm not saying that I want to move to Canada or anything, and I fully appreciate the freedom that I take advantage of (often taking it for granted) on a daily basis.

Yet, as a gay man, I don't exactly have all the freedoms of everyone else, do I? If I was lucky enough to be dating a guy and falling in love with him, there really would be no hope on the immediate horizon that I could publicly declare my love for him in a marriage ceremony. When you are being treated like a second-class citizen, it is sometimes difficult to think of yourself as a citizen at all.

As I have thought about the vote that was made today, I think back on all the stories I have heard lately about the gay soldiers forced to leave the military because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In many of those cases, they were asked, or someone told on them. How exactly does that follow the not-so-apparent guidelines?

Today, I am really not proud to be an American. I am saddened by the state of America and by the political players who are so full of hate, homophobia and lies (and bullshit) that they will do everything they can to make lives miserable for 10% of the Americans they are supposed to be working for.

Interpretation

Last week was the first week of school and as the morning portion of my route wasn't running yet, I had the opportunity to cover the morning portion of a sick driver's route. Towards the middle of the week, they had a new driver ride along with me because he will be driving the route next week, and they wanted to give him an idea about how the route works.

Anyway, there was a portion of the route where we had about 45 minutes of downtime and we did a little bit of chatting. I had told him that I am gay in conversation (no, it wasn't something I just threw out there, hoping he is, too). He told me that he is a very religious person and he believes that being gay is wrong and his argument, as is so often the case, was that in Romans it says "And I quote" (he actually said that) "that a man shall not lie with another man and a woman shall not lie with another woman." Unfortunately, I didn't have a Bible with me so I couldn't prove him wrong, but I told him "Actually it doesn't say that." He didn't believe me, but I looked it up later and I was right.

Here is what it does say in Romans 1:26-27: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Now, it doesn't take a Biblical expert to see that nowhere in those verses does it say what that new driver claimed. As I read it, I just see a description of what was done and an assertion that such actions are shameful. Any guy who has ever masturbated (and maybe some women, too) will tell you that they felt ashamed after doing it. Does that make it wrong?

I have a feeling that when people call being gay "unnatural" they are probably referring to these verses. The word "natural" appears three times, twice in a positive way and once as a negative. But there are documented cases in nature where animals have gay sex - and let's be honest, there are some instances where gay sex often looks like a couple of animals going at it... But I digress...

It doesn't even say that the women had sex with other women! It just says they gave up "natural relations" for "unnatural relations" but it doesn't specifically say that the latter ones were with other women. Maybe they fell in love with unicorns. And then all the people went out and slaughtered them and that's why we don't have unicorns any more.

Now I will admit that the case of gay men in the passage appears pretty damning. It calls what they did "indecent" but frankly, isn't that just a judgment call? It doesn't even say in there that God was pissed they were doing it. It just says that what they were doing was indecent, shameful and unnatural. But those three words are human concepts. Those are human emotions, written by a human; specifically written by a man. I'm sure many women out there would agree with me that men make mistakes.

I also find it interesting that there is a footnote in the Bible where I found this passage. The Bible I used is the NIV study Bible that I got in college. 3/4 of the page is actual Biblical text and the other 1/4 is filled with interpretations by the publishers.

Here is what the publishers say about those two verses: "Homosexual practice is sinful in God's eyes. The Old Testament also condemns the practice (see Leviticus 18:22)." I'm not even going to go into the whole Leviticus debate because it's been done over and over. We've all heard the verses that condemn touching pigskin (so no football), wearing clothing of mixed fabric (so no cotton/polyester blends) and shellfish (NO MORE SHRIMP!) many times over. Aside from that, Christians believe that when Jesus died on the cross, he was throwing away those Old Testament laws (except for the 10 commandments) which is why the rules of Leviticus don't apply to Christians (except, I guess, for the practice of homosexuality).

But I take issue with the footnote interpretation that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God. They claim that these verses prove that God hates fags, but I just don't see the evidence! It doesn't say that in the text. It doesn't even say that in the verses that follow. Oddly, it says in the beginning that God gave them over to shameful lusts, which might be proof that God actually made us gay... I'm just saying.

Those footnotes are an interpretation and nothing more! They are the views the the publishers of the NIV study Bible came away with while reading the texts. Does that make them right? Does that make them gospel truth?

Do you remember the movie Goonies? I am probably the only person in the world who will ever compare the Bible to the movie Goonies, but yeah, what the hell; I'm going there. At the beginning of the movie, Mikey's mom comes home with that Hispanic woman and tells the kids that she is going to help them pack up. Then she asks Mouth (the Corey Feldman character) to interpret her instructions in Spanish for the Hispanic woman. As they goes through the house, Mouth misinterprets the instructions for his own shits and giggles. None of the other characters even know he is doing it - just the audience is in on the joke thanks to the humorous subtitles.

My point is that Mouth had an agenda and he purposely misinterpreted what was said for the Hispanic woman and that poor woman came away with some very frightening perceptions of what went on in that household.

I think the same thing is true with the Bible. Certain people interpret the texts and put their texts right there on the page, quite possibly in an attempt to fool people into thinking that those interpretations are also the words of God when in reality they are the product of an agenda. It's the same thing that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin always do - they throw out their interpretations of social issues in a way that makes it look like what they are saying is the Fundamental Truth. Don't believe me? Glenn Beck has the balls to claim that he is the voice of God. I kid you not! He actually claims to be the vessel through which God apparently wants to voice ignorance and hatred and fear.

I just wish that we could have subtitles when people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are speaking, just so that the people who actually listen to them would be able to see what they are really saying.

Same-sex marriage

The big news to hit this week, at least for gay rights, was the news that Proposition 8 in California was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Not surprisingly, the Family Research Council jumped into the fight, regurgitating their banal claims that same-sex marriage harms children and hetero-sexual marriages and society in general. They spew out numbers and "facts" that they claim support their theories, but it often appears as though something is missing. Watch how in the following video, David Boies, one of the leading attorneys responsible for getting Prop 8 overturned, exposes Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, for the misinformed liar that he is

Ha ha ha... Wait... What did he just say?

I was extremely excited last night. I am a member of the Crescent Club at the new Snoqualmie Casino in, you guessed it, Snoqualmie and with that membership come some amazing perks. Each month I get sent a mailer with coupons good for cash - actual cash - that they hope I'll put right into their slot machines.

Along with those coupons (usually on the back) is a calendar of coming events. Imagine my surprise when I noticed that the comedian Gallagher was going to be doing a show at the casino and that I was eligible for two complimentary tickets. Oh, did I forget to mention that perk, too? Yeah, they also include the option to get free tickets to select shows. How cool is that?!

When I saw the offer for the Gallagher show I immediately called and claimed my tickets. I had always enjoyed Gallagher's shows when I was younger. While the smashing of food is always thrilling, I remember his shows also being filled with interesting observations on life. An example would be along the lines of questioning why we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway. He has always been good at bringing things up that you don't really think about until he mentions them.

The night of the show finally arrived! I offered my extra ticket to a co-worker and former roommate (yes, the very one I sometimes complained about on this blog, don't judge me; he has a car and I needed a ride). We went to the box office to get our tickets, I went to the cashier to exchange my coupon for $10 cold hard cash, and then we hit the buffet.

I'm not sure if I have described the buffet at the Snoqualmie Casino. It's good. The chocolate fountain, though; the sweet cascading richness of heavenly joy? That, my friends, is to die for. I was a little worried that my building up of the chocolate fountain was a little much, but when my former roommate took his first bite, he agreed that it is very tasty.

We had left our jackets in the car and my friend decided that we should probably have them since the show was out doors. Sure, it's summer here and everyone in the country seems to be living with triple digit forecasts, but this is the Seattle area and it was overcast with a little breeze. Since our tickets were in the general seating section, I offered to go get the best seats I could find while my friend went to the car.

Shortly after I had found great seats, I noticed that a group of guys were posing for pictures. I figured that they were just taking future Facebook profile pictures and deciding on captions like "Me and the boys at the Gallagher show!" However, one of them left the others and started down the aisle in front of me. As I looked at the man, I suddenly realized that I had seen him somewhere. But where? He had long hair in the back and was bald on top. He looked like he was somewhere in his 60s. Man! Where had I seen him before.

He was almost past me when I realized that Gallagher was walking right past my seat! He smiled down at me as he passed and turned back when he realized I was staring at him. I asked if I could get a picture with him and he said, "Only if you're not going to give a camera to someone who has no idea how to use it and takes forever to get the picture." I held up my cell phone and said, "No, I can just hold it out in my arm and take it that way." I think the picture above turned out nicely!

He then signed my ticket stub and I thanked him profusely and returned to my seat where I sent the picture via text messages to my friends and family. I also called my friend and told him to forget about the jackets in the car and hurry to the stage area if he wanted a chance to meet Gallagher.

Up until he went on stage, he was posing for pictures, signing autographs and talking to his fans. I have NEVER seen a comedian do that before! The lady sitting next to me commented that it's just good PR and I agree, but I was very impressed that he was out connecting with his fans right before his show.

My awe didn't last too long, unfortunately. Gallagher hit the stage and chastised us for not giving him a big enough welcome. To be fair, he kinda just walked out without a big announcement or anything, so the audience was a little taken by surprise. We tried cheering again and his critique was "Well, that was a little better." What followed was the most interesting comedy routine I have ever witnessed.

I am used to shocking comedy. I'm a huge fan of Kathy Griffin who is no stranger to controversial comedy. I have a sick and twisted sense of humor that made me a fan of Kevin Smith's movies. But as I sat in the audience watching Gallagher perform, I was questioning many of his comments and jokes.

He had barely started the show when he noticed a guy in the audience heading toward his seat. "Hey, faggot," Gallagher called, "I notice you've got your hat on backwards. Is that because you aren't sure which way to go?" Within ten minutes, he pointed out two other guys and commented on their "faggy" attire. Later in the show, he called a guy up on stage who had on a "faggy pink shirt". When the guy got on stage and corrected Gallagher, saying the color was "salmon" Gallagher's response was "Call it whatever faggy color you want, it's still a faggy color."

The gay "jokes" didn't end there. He noted that there are two kinds of lesbians: The ugly ones and the pretty ones. Incidentally, Ellen DeGeneres is the ugly one. As for gay men, hell they're all prettier than your wife which makes no sense because they don't even face each other during sex. Later still, while making a "pie" that he would later smash with the Sledge-o-matic he said "I got a pie for the fags, too. This here is a fruit cocktail and it says right here on the can how do to it: cock, tail.... In a sweet syrup." He then mixed the fruit cocktail with Chinese food "for the orientals who should just be mixed in with the gays."

Gallagher also had some things to say about President Obama. "The man ain't black! He's got a white mom just like I do! If he wants to act like a black man then why doesn't he have a white wife? Obama is a latte. There is definite whole milk in there." While staying away from Obama's middle name, he did note that "There's even the word 'bomb" in his name!" He even brought up the birther conspiracy idea: "You ever met a black man that was born in Hawaii before? Nah, me either! So where exactly was he born?"

The racial jokes weren't limited to our black president, either. Mexicans, Chinese, Greeks and the French were also poked fun at by the comedian. As if to offset what he was saying, every time he heard groans or displeasure from the audience, he would grab a small American flag, wave it over his head and yell "FREE SPEECH! That's what makes this country so great!" Honestly, I half expected him to add, "Except for all the damn foreigners that are here" but he never did. Before long, though, I seriously started feeling like I was attending a Tea Party rally - especially when he'd start waving that American flag.

I don't want to make it sound like I didn't enjoy the show. I actually did, but this Gallagher was not the same watermelon-smashing comedian I remembered from the 80s and 90s. I remember social commentary in his act, but never stuff like this. Sure, Kathy Griffin has made a career making fun of people, but when she does it's at the people in Hollywood that she thinks do stupid things. She doesn't stoop to the lowest form of comedy: racial slurs.

After the show I sent a text to my brother: "Do you remember Gallagher being homophobic and racist before?" He responded that he didn't and added that he was probably to young to notice if he did.

The point of Gallagher's show was to teach us how to think for ourselves, to not follow the "norms" of society. He preached that message several times. That's a message I can support, but does he mean that in doing so we should yell out racial slurs because that's not the socially accepted thing to do? If so, well, I take issue with that.

I think what I witnessed last night was an old man who is just plain angry about everything. The point of a comedy show is to entertain, and for the most part, his show was entertaining, but why try to find laughter using the lowest form of comedy? To me, that's just lazy. Anyone can try to get a laugh by making racial judgments or picking on gay people. And saying "If it's true, it's funny!" doesn't make what you say any less racist.

This doesn't mean that I went home angry, ripping up the autographed ticket stub or deleting the picture I took with him. I'm just a little disappointed that a comedian I once thought was really funny, appears to be on the decline.

Since I don't want to end this blog entry on a Debbie Downer note, I'm going to include a video that was shared with me today. This video is extremely sweet and cute and it represents what I believe to be the best kind of comedy.

The Fire Under my Butt

I am really struggling right now. I have a co-worker and friend named Liz. She was the first person that I came out to at work. Okay, honestly I didn't officially come out to her. She actually opened my closet door and asked if I was at all interested in coming out.

This happened a few months after we first met and started the process of becoming friends. I was sitting in my car killing time before it was time to clock in for work. I had just visited one of my favorite places in the entire world (the library) where I had just checked out a 6 CD set called "A Musical History of Disneyland" and I was playing one of the CD's while flipping through the historical book. I believe I was also giggling with glee but that is beside the point.

I was interrupted by a gentle tapping on my window. When I turned toward the source, I saw red-headed Liz standing outside my car with a concerned look on her face. I rolled down my window and said, "Hi."

I'm sure there was small talk that I don't remember, but eventually Liz addressed whatever was concerning her: "Peter, don't take this the wrong way... but... are you gay? If you are that is TOTALLY cool! I'm just curious..."

My natural and rehearsed response was to emphatically deny any ties with the GLBT community. Had this been an event to be later recorded in the Bible, I'm sure she would have asked me three times, each of which would have been denied and then we would have suddenly heard a rooster crowing in the middle of the afternoon.

After denying my true self I panicked and asked, "Why do you ask? Are people talking? Does everyone at work think that I'm gay?"

She immediately tried to sooth my worries by saying, "Oh no, not everyone..."

She eventually went for a smoke and I eventually clocked in for work, did my route and went home. Later that night I thought about how easily I had lied to her and guilt began settling upon me. I was in my late twenties by this time. Why was it so important to remain closeted. Telling a few select people that I trusted didn't mean I had to jump up on top of a school bus and yell across the lot that I was a flaming queen and just thought everyone should know!

The next day after my morning route I found Liz and asked her if she wanted to take a walk. The moment we had left the work building I asked her if she remembered the question she had asked me the day before. Of course she did.

"Well, I just wanted to say... what I mean is... that is, you should know... the answer actually is yes..."

Liz immediately began jumping up and down yelling "I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!" Ignoring her breasts which were bouncing all around and were completely wasted on me, I said "Okay, but HOW did you know?!"

"Well, you love musicals, you LOVE Disney, you hate sports..." All those were gross stereotypes (that just happened to be completely true) and when I told her that she added, "In all the time that I've known you, you've never stared at my tits. Unlike all the other male drivers at work, when you talk to me, you actually make eye contact."

"Well, sure," I responded. "I'm just not that interested in them. No offense."

I also addressed my other concern: who else at work pegged me for a queer. It turned out that only a small group of people in Liz's circle of friends "suspected" and I would eventually come out to all of them and find tolerance and acceptance; mostly because many of them were lesbians.

Liz and I became closer friends, though not without obstacles. Her husband was convinced that I was a straight man playing the gay angle in an effort to steal his wife away from him. While I appreciated his confidence that I was even capable of such a deed, I just didn't (and still to this day don't) like Liz in "that way". Nevertheless, Liz told me that he didn't want us hanging around together outside of work until he had a chance to meet me.

"Once he meets you, he'll realize that you truly are gay and we'll be able to hang out!" Liz assured me.

"I'm not sure I want to meet him," I told her. "If he's going to be so childish, then I don't even want to meet him!" All that was missing was "Nanny Nanny Poo Poo!" Liz rolled her eyes in that same way she often does in reference to me.

I did eventually meet her husband at one of Liz's birthday parties. I was actually very nervous. I had no idea what he was suspecting. Should I shake his hand and then offer to give him a blow job?

"Does he like getting blow jobs?" I asked Liz shortly before meeting him. It was my understanding that most men, gay or straight, did enjoy getting them.

"Of course he does! I just hate giving them." Suddenly, I found a way to prove my homosexual desires to her husband. I offered to give him a blow job so she wouldn't have to. As far as I was concerned, it was win, win, win. He liked them, I loved giving them and she hated giving them. To my surprise, she declined my offer. I kept it out there, of course, for later consideration.

I finally met Liz's husband and I gotta say, he really doesn't much take after Brad Pitt, as she described him, but then, I've never really considered Brad Pitt my "type"... Shocking, I know. Don't get me wrong, I totally would have given him a blow job had Liz reconsidered my offer.

The following Monday, after the big meeting, Liz, grinning ear to ear, found me and declared that we could now officially "hang out" outside of work with her husband's blessing.

"He was actually very impressed that you're not a flaming gay guy," she informed me. I'll be honest, this surprised me. This man had, after all, assumed I was trying to steal his gal away. Didn't he want me to be an obviously gay guy as proof of my cock-sucking desires?

Over the years, Liz and I have maintained our friendship, though not without bumps. She is, after all, an Obama-hating-capitalism-loving-gun-toting-Republican and I am very much not. We rarely (if ever) agree politically. Liz often declares our time together a "no political zone" since any political discussions end with her suggesting we "agree to disagree" and me suggesting "okay, just as long as you realize that I am right and you are wrong".

Lately a new disagreement has fallen between us and, oddly, it isn't about the new Tea Party movement, though Liz unfortunately agrees with them on several issues.

Liz has recently started "writing a book." Liz is always trying new things. In the time that I have known her, she has tried getting a real estate license, trained to enter a triathlon and looked into the possibilities of becoming a personal trainer. While I admire Liz's propensity to try new things, she often loses interest in them, so when she declared that she was writing a book, I smiled, congratulated her and went on with my life.

For the next week Liz could be found lying on her stomach, penning her bestseller on the floor in a remote corner of our break room. By the end of the week she had written several pages in her notebook which she let me read when I finally asked. Despite changing from past to present tense many times, what she had written was pretty good and I told her so. She smiled and jumped around clapping her hands and I once again ignored her bouncing titties.

The following Monday, Liz came running at me with more excitement than usual.

"I may have a literary agent!" During the weekend she had found Writerdigest.com and had sent emails to a handful of literary agents seeking representation. One of them had responded with interest.

"That's great!" I told her. "Did you happen to mention your friend who also likes to write?"

She blinked a couple times and then said, "Uh, no, I didn't mention you to her."

"Well can I at least get her information from you?"

"Oh sure! No problem."

Later, through Facebook I got a message from Liz saying that she wanted to hold off giving me the literary agent's information and she would explain the next day. I already figured out why she wasn't sharing the information and when I finally asked her about it she confirmed that she didn't want any competition. She figured that if we both submitted our books to this woman that she might choose one of us over the other and Liz just didn't want to chance that mine would be picked over hers. I tried to explain that literary agents are only going to take on authors they think they can publish and since my book's genre is VERY different from Liz's we really aren't in "competition". Liz, however, still refused to pass on the literary agent's information to me and she was honestly surprised that this bothered me.

Now, Liz has informed me that the literary agent has submitted the synopsis of her book to a publisher and they want to publish it. I want to be excited for Liz, but frankly, I'm jealous! I have a book of my own that I have been working on since last November when I entered the annual Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) competition. I have a first draft of the book and I am now working on the revision of it. Granted, I didn't do the work of finding potential agents on my own like Liz did, but couldn't she at least throw me a bone? She did try to explain how she found her agent in the first place, but when I tried to follow her instructions for finding the agent on the website, I couldn't find any information.

Liz wants me to be happy for her and I am, but I'm pissed off at myself. Why am I finding it so difficult to finish my book? Why has Liz managed to find an agent even though she's only written like three or so chapters? Why do all the agents I seem to find demand a finished product? Why do all the agents I find seem suspiciously like frauds?

As she usually does, Liz has lit a fire under my butt to get me motivated. I'm revising like mad, trying to get a finished product that I can start shopping out. At the same time, seeking an agent terrifies me! I'm starting to feel like George McFly in Back to the Future: What if they tell me I'm not good enough, what if they tell me to quit and give up my dream of being a writer?

Then again, George McFly did end up writing that science fiction book, but hell, he had a kid to go back in time and give him that confidence. All I have is a redhead with bouncing tits lighting a fire under my butt.

Maybe that's all I need?

Lady Gaga Today Show Performance, July 9, 2010

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Vulgar vs Violent

Today, my friend Neil brought up an interesting point. He was watching the movie Hot Fuzz on Comedy Central and there is a scene where the peak of a building smashes a guy's head. He sent a text to me commenting that Comedy Central has to censor the curse words but is aloud to show that shot of pretty horrific violence.

It's a pretty interesting observation! Neil's assessment was that violence is much more damaging to the youth of America than foul language and I agree with him 100%. What makes a word offensive? Let's say I was watching one of my favorite movies of all time with my friend from work Liz and we get to the scene where Jay asks Justice if he can call her "Boo Boo Kitty Fuck." I would laugh because I get Kevin Smith's humor and I think that line his hilarious. My friend Liz, however, might not get the joke and would think that Jay is degrading women - especially when he starts proclaiming himself as "the Master of the Clit!"

For me, what it boils down to is that those infamous words that George Carlin so brilliantly talked about as the words you can't say on TV are just words. The only way those words gain the power to be offensive is when people hearing them choose to find them offensive.

Violence transcends that, though. Later in Dogma, there is a shot of Ben Affleck's head exploding. Even people who can't stand Ben Affleck would have to agree that seeing that is pretty horrific. When someone's head gets chopped off in a movie, most everyone watching it would have the unified opinion that what they just saw was really awful.

As my friend Neil put it, "We make vulgar words vulgar, but we don't make violence violent."