The DOMA mess....Americablog, among other political blogs, has expressed outrage at the brief filed in support ot the Defense of Marriage Act by the US Justice Departmant in Smelt v. USA. The government chose to defend DOMA (against the plaintiff couple's claim that it's an unfair federal law) on the grounds that some unions are already denied recognition across state lines--including the marriage of first cousins or that of an uncle to his niece or marriage to a 16-year old. Gay anger has been the understandable result, citing the insulting analogies mentioned above, and the snotty cites the DOJ supplies alleging that "anyone, including homosexuals, {can} marry the individual of his or her choice" and "...gay and lesbian individuals who unite in matrimony...remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand." The two jibes suggest that gay people make a marriage contract with a heterosexual friend to get the perks. Strategies of gay response to the brief have ranged from denying money to the fund-raiser for President Obama's DNC, scheduled for the end of the month, to a more legislative plan--holding local lawmakers' feet to the fire on the issue. Some blog comments cite this second necessity, decrying the lack of leadership on the issue that is apparently in the genes of those who must answer to a constituency that still largely loathes gay people. There are still some questions, strangely unanswered questions, that arise about the voice of the Obama administration and the voice of the DOJ: They leave a whiff in the air of "what we say and what we do and what is the difference between the two?"

Special thanks to Jim Burroway's www.boxturtlebulletin.com for his extensive research and great good sense about this mess.

Muzzling those who cause trouble...Fred Phelps and his God-Hates-Fags family were barred from entering the UK about two weeks ago.  The British government had determined that Phelps was "inciting hatred" and "provok[ing] others to violence".  Phelps had planned to come to England to picket--doubtless in his typically coarse and vicious manner--the production of  The Laramie Project, a play about the murder of gay student Matthew Shepard in the American town of Laramie, Wyoming.  Two weeks after the Phelps heave-ho, on the other side of the globe, speeches made during the Oscar ceremony by Dustin Lance Black and Sean Penn wee censored for millions of Asian viewers by an Asian satellite network.  Black and Penn were memorializing gay leader Harvey Milk, murdered 30 years ago.  Censoring the Oscars was roundly decried as an offensive, fascistic action, while the Phelps dust-up was greeted largely with agreement and satisfaction.  Why would muzzling the Oscars be condemned while muzzling Phelps and his clan be acceptable?  The answer may lie in the brand of speech employed by the Phelps family, speech which reviles and denies gay people any element of respect as human beings, speech which provides an alibi for violence against gay people--a sense of entitlement to do violence.  While merely saying "Shut up" to those whose speech offends us is obviously not the way to resolve antagonisms, those who want to speak should also bear some responsibility to rationally articulate and defend their views.  The Oscar winners would be probably quite willing and able to do so; Phelps and his family do not explain much--they berate and employ gutter terms of hatred.  Snarling is a step down from speech.  As such, his level of discourse won't be much missed.

What, again?...Is the Christian megachurch lifestyle showing us yet another unhappy instance of  repression and misery with the arrest of Reverend T. D. Jakes' son last week in a Dallas park, charged with indecent exposure? Whether he's gay or not, won't therapy and the 3 R's (repentance, recanting and rehab) await Jermaine Jakes in Dallas?  Finding those gaping chinks in the Christian fundamentalist armour is no longer as dramatic as it has been in recent years.  We've seen this all before and should accept it matter-of-factly as sadly trite.