There was an excellent column I read the other day – I think it was on Slate? – about how Jason Collins’ faith is being ignored by the right-wing, but Tebow’s is celebrated in some kind of martydom fantasy. The article was discussing the racial implications, which we can sort of see here too, I think. These nutjobs are crazy about Tebow, but the idea of an openly gay black man who pointedly discussed his faith in his coming out goes against the narrative. Therefore, he is to be ignored.

As usual, these fools have not even bothered to read the U.S. Constitution that they proclaim to so dearly love, specifically the supremacy clause of Article VI:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

My partner just had a epidural steroid injection for this. So I know what you’re going through to some degree. We’re sending you good vibes from NJ, Pam!

Oddly enough, most federal contractors, at least the large ones, are light years ahead of the President and Congress on this issue. Most of them have include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies and many of them either have or are coming around to including the transgender community. Of course, this isn’t legal protection.

I kind of wish I hadn’t read this. Because as a dog owner it has made me physically ill.

I definitely wish someone in jail beats the absolute living sh*t out of this woman until she’s clinging to life in some understaffed infirmary.

I can’t wait for him to explain how a law that prohibits a harmful practice is going to violate ethics rules. “First do no harm”, anyone?

It is one of those moments you can recall as clear as day. I was sitting in my cube at a tech company outside Dulles airport. We couldn’t get CNN to load, or anything else for that matter, so we all went down to the gym and watched on TV. It was pure shock to see the towers come down on TV.

My dad worked (still does) on the National Mall, and I remember my mom calling me in utter panic because she couldn’t get him on the phone. As CPT_Doom said, there were so many rumors about what was going on in the city; nobody knew what to believe or think. I finally managed to get in touch with him and then call my mom back.

My partner had started a brand new job the day before, and his day started late. Since he’s one of those people who doesn’t listen to the news, he had no idea what was going on until he called me on his way to work. We all went home early. I fell asleep in front of the TV that afternoon, I think from the sheer emotional exhaustion. I can’t even imagine what it was like for those directly affected.

That was disingenuous statement from Chick-Fil-A if ever I read one. I would read it exactly as written – that Chick-Fil-A the restaurant will leave that debate in the political sphere. The problem isn’t money from Chick-Fil-A, the restaurant company. The problem is the money from the WinShape foundation that Chick-Fil-A’s leadership launders their profit through for purposes of working toward theocracy in the political sphere.

I’m glad to see the guy with the most money wins again.

/snark

Congratulations to Trevor on running a good race and acting with class, though.

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family attempt to isolate their children from reality, with spiritual adviserscharlatans and at the appropriate time and in the right setting, even though they already know more about these issues than their parents thanks to the wealth of information on the internet,” Mazzuca said. “We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society, so we prefer to be as regressive as possible instead of accepting reality. After all, there is no merit badge for reality.”

There, fixed it for ‘em.

I lived within walking distance of the WNDU station while at school. And I’m almost in tears laughing over this one.

I think whether it is shaving or waxing depends on the individual guy.

I mentioned in a comment in a related post that William Saletan took Regnerus’ study apart pretty neatly. What I hadn’t read yet was the column Regnerus himself penned on DoubleXX. From the column:

Let me be clear: I’m not claiming that sexual orientation is at fault here, or that I know about kids who are presently being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Their parents may be forging more stable relationships in an era that is more accepting and supportive of gay and lesbian couples.

FWIW, I’m not endorsing Regnerus at all with this comment, and I whole-heartedly agree with Saletan’s conclusions about just how bad the study is. I just wanted to point out that at least Regnerus also admits that his study is not a commentary on gays and lesbians as parents.

That being said, I’m not exactly surprised the way the study is being used.

That second comment sounds similar to something I was reading about racism in the gay male community recently, too. Can’t for the life of me remember where the article was though. Might have been HuffPo.

That’s comment at Shakesville is pretty depressing, but I can kind of see how it would be true. It’s sad.

Not sure where my comment fits in in the context of the various questions in your post Pam, but I’ll share a few thoughts.

First, I’m so happy that I’ve been a partnered gay man for the last 12 years since my partner and I met when I was 26 and in great shape. (I was still in the Army and worked out every day.) I have gotten out of shape since then and I simply cannot imagine trying to compete in a gay-male environment that is ever more focused on one’s body. I think it’s gotten worse with the advent of apps like Grindr and the gay social sites that really just serve as hook-up centers. Bars were bad enough, especially for someone that didn’t like them to begin with, but it must be awful with the instant-gratification image culture we’re engendering.

Second, I agree with the comment about the “bear” community. I’m a bear, I’d rather not be a bear, I’m working on not being a bear, but I do find the bear community to be simply friendlier.

Third, I can only speak from my own experience that my concern with my being fat (about 80lbs over weight at my peak) was my health. I mean, I really felt that weight and it’s impact on my health. I’ve never been a hard-body, always been built a little heavy, but I was really out of shape and it was impacting my health and wellness. For me, I simply feel better when I’m in shape.

That being said, I agree there probably plenty of people who are overweight but actually healthy. It would be nice if we could get everyone out of the extreme that fat is both unattractive and unhealthy. But culturally, the fat = ugly paradigm is really something we’ve been sold by the advertising media. I think we’re conditioned into it, and I think we’re frequently lying to ourselves that it’s really about our health. We’re an image-driven culture. And while the medical evidence is pretty clear that generally being overweight is unhealthy, but like one of my doctors told me once – “one size fits all” medical guidance doesn’t really. But we still want to be thin. (Well, most people I guess.)

FWIW, William Saletan had an excellent piece on Slate yesterday that takes this study apart, too: Found here. (Should open in a new window.)

It must continue to be protected in law and practice if the family is to survive

The family sounds like a rather weak institution if it requires legal protection to “survive”. Not that I expect anything less disingenuous from that idiot.

It’s especially important for parents to teach their children spiritual truths while they’re still young. That’s because three out of five Christians make a decision to follow Christ by the age of 18.

Translation: It is critical that we brainwash your children early, or in the future 3/5 of our donations could dry up.

Interesting question though – is it wrong, or just illegal? Possibly (probably) the latter, but I’m not so sure the former. In terms of an exercise of free speech, what’s the difference between what the hackers did in this case versus, say, drowning them out loudly at a rally? In both cases, the opposition is interfering with their ability to transmit the message, but not necessarily on their right to try and get it out there?

But I see your point. Just making a bit of a devil’s advocate argument. :-)