I made a few comments on this article which I am sure will do nothing to increase my already tenuous acceptance by the so-called “gay community.” I’m constantly annoyed by the demands of those who claim they stand for my rights. The Catholic church has NO obligation to recognize same-sex marriage. They are a private, religious institution.

blakeflint at 6:47 AM February 14, 2011

This is repugnant and this woman ought to be ashamed of herself. I am a gay man, and I am all too often embarassed by those who purport to support “my cause.”

At 78 years old she ought to have the wisdom to see that the Catholic Church has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to support her children’s lifestyles. Should the church capitulate to the whims of its members? Wouldn’t that undermine their authority as a religious body? Of course it would.

“Gay rights” DOES NOT equal “Gay Marriage.”

“Gay rights” DOES NOT equal “Gay Marriage.”

I cannot say that often enough.
I apologize to the members of the Holy Name Catholic Church on the behalf of Helen Moshak, she means well, but is obviously too stupid to know any better.

Ugh. How embarassing.

Cheers, Blake


blakeflint at 3:12 PM February 14, 2011


The fact is that gay couples do have the same rights as straight people would *in an identical situation.*
If Bob and Gary decide to live together and raise a chld togther, they can adopt that child. They can even declare themselves each other’s heirs under the law. In IL they can get a civil union. The law doesn’t care if they are straight or gay. They could just be good friends. It doesn’t matter.
Similarly, if a gay man decides to get “married”, then he is deciding to marry a woman, because the thing we call “marriage” is something that can happen only between couples of an opposite sex. Same-sex “marriage” is simply not possible – without dismantling the definition of what a “marriage” is. *Gay men and women already have the same rights as straights.*
We do! Straight people under the law can only marry the opposite gender, and we gays have the same restrictions! True *legal* equality is already achieved.
Picketers of the church are not truly seeking *legal* equality. They want religious (& social) approval, and since we are all painfully aware of the need to separate church and state, this is ridiculous, tasteless, and frankly offensive to the church, without cause.
The protesters only create spectacle, and achieve nothing of value.
Cheers, Blake



Merry Christmas


For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:6

First, read the article. Then the comments.

Here’s my response:

As a conservative man who happens to be gay, I am a bit confused by some of the comments here. I had started reading the comments on this very reasonable article out of curiosity, since I actually didn’t support the repeal of DADT (as I think it is merely a move to gain political traction with many gays and leftists.)However, reading through some of these comments has really kind of angered me. Yes, statistically, gay men do have a higher percentage of drug abusers, mental problems, etc. Higher rates of HIV infection. Some are flamboyant and some cross-dress. Not all do. Since joining the army is voluntary, do any of you really think that a six-foot-four flaming, lisping she-male who dresses in drag and calls himself Susan is going to join the military? Seriously?! Is the coke-head party boy going to give up his glitter-drenched life on the dance party circuit for olive drabs and a pre-sunrise reverie? Really?! No, the only gay men who will join the military (and make it through basic training) are going to be the all-American, patriotic, and could-kick-anyone’s-butt (happens-to-be-attracted-to-men) type of guy. Despite what you know from movies, television, and “pride” parades, there are normal, every-day sort of men (who happen to be gay) with minimal issues who we would be lucky to have protecting our country. Will there be some total idiot examples of gay men trying to join up to make some political point of some such? Probably.  Are there more important laws that congress could have been passing? Oh heck yeah (although this congress really ought to have done everyone a favor and gone on long recesses.) Will any of it matter in the long run? Probably not.

Do gay men have a PR problem, or what? Granted, I’m not the biggest fan of our so-called gay community (actually I completely distance myself from it) but some of those comments were quite goading.



This is fascinating to watch the “lame duck” congress attempt to push through last minute legislative travesties. From black reparations in the form of Pigford, to last minute rewrites of drug sentencing under the pretense of “fair sentencing” (aka “racist sentencing”) you name it, the damnable lame ducks are doing it. Also to note are the brand new introduced bills…including one gem proposed by an Indiana representative that suggests declaring a special holiday to honor Muslim servicemen. I suppose mentioning Ft. Hood would not be apropros? Quack, lame ducks, quack. The People are watching you.

"It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us,
we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to Heaven,
we were all going direct the other way--
in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
-A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens
It’s chilling how the opening to a novel written in 1859 can still reach across the cold pages of eras and seize us with relevance. The constant, of course, is human nature. For all our supposed progress, and technological advances, and social upheaval - the same old stories, and the same old fears that have defined our humanity for generations still captivate, encapsulate, and enthrall.
It would seem, on this eve of Thanksgiving, a holiday these days as much associated with pilgrims and turkeys and gratitude as it is (to the self-proclaimed "educated" elite) with genocide and imperialism, that there remains so little reason, in such a topsy-turvy world, to be actually thankful.
Now, I’ve been called many things, and am no stranger to being labeled a cynic, but truly, this Thanksgiving, I believe we do have many reasons to give thanks.
I’ve compiled a short list, a counting-of-blessings, if you will, and I hope you, Dear Readers, will also find it in your hearts to pause from the bustle of turkeys and stuffings and family and travels, to find our own personal blessings, and thank your Creator heartily.
Here’s mine (in no order whatsoever):
1) Despite the hardships of the times, I still have (some) work.
2) Ann Coulter. Her acerbic style makes me grin like nothing else.
3) My wonderful family, though we have our differences.
4) My faithful boyfriend (and best friend) of four years, and for all of his love and support, even when life isn’t rosy. 
5) After the November 2010 elections, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country...because we don’t take tyranny lying down! (Okay, so I’ve been proud of my country before, just couldn’t pass by a chance to have a jab at our first lady.)
6) Sarah Palin. I love how she disarms her detractors with kindness and humor.
7) Sarah 2012 (I’m thankful in advance.)
8) Pelosi, Reid, and Obama - for showing America so plainly the true colors and the evil face of the Left.
9) My health.
10) Last, I am most thankful for the life experiences and hardships and people and events that shaped me into the clear-headed, intelligent, and reasonably sane individual I am today.
Happy Thanksgiving!

Dan Savage is always an interesting read, and I can admire the strength of his convictions.

However, this time he is way off base, and as a gay man, I’m ashamed to have him on my side.

In one of his recent columns, he excoriates a reader who gently takes offense to the idea that Christians are somehow magically responsible for the suicides of gay teens that have peppered the news as of late. His statement :

Gay kids are dying. So let’s try to keep things in perspective: fuck your feelings.

My immediate criticism is his choice of the word "dying." Dying implies a helplessness, and an inevitability. It also isn’t true. These kids aren’t "dying" – they are killing themselves.

He then goes on :

The kids of people who see gay people as sinful or damaged or disordered and unworthy of full civil equality — even if those people strive to express their bigotry in the politest possible way (at least when they happen to be addressing a gay person) — learn to see gay people as sinful, damaged, disordered, and unworthy.

Here’s where I really find his argument flawed. I was raised in just such an environment. My parents always made their stance on homosexuality clear – they believed it was wrong. Never once did I develop a hatred or feelings of superiority towards gay people. My parents’ views did not make me fearful either. They didn’t attack me for being gay. They never made me feel unloved. We simply disagree about some things. And I sure didn’t grow into a vicious bully that attacked gays in school. I don’t regret, reject, or fear my Christian up-bringing.

But Dan isn’t satisfied with his attack. Not yet :

The dehumanizing bigotries that fall from the lips of "faithful Christians" and the lies about us vomited out from the pulpits of churches that "faithful Christians" drag their kids to on Sundays give your children license to verbally abuse, humiliate, and condemn the gay children they encounter at school. And many of your children—having listened to mom and dad talk about how gay marriage is a threat to family and how gay sex makes their magic sky friend Jesus cry—feel justified in physically abusing the LGBT children they encounter in their schools.

Really Dan? What church have you gone to?! I attended a conservative Protestant church every Sunday for the first twenty-some years of my life and never once heard these "vomited lies." Really? You think our churches are out creating little Jesus-soldiers of terror out to crush their homosexual peers with violent words?!

What church is this?

Is there a correlation between religion and gay teens being bullied? If that were true, it seems we should see a rash of suicides at Christian schools and colleges. Why don’t we?

This article suggests that gay bashing, rather than a product of a conservative Christian up-bringing, is more about a perceived attack on masculinity. Perhaps that is closer to the truth.

Dan Savage, I understand you are angry, but pointing fingers and targeting Christians without a shred of evidence is just bigoted. I think you can do better. Until then, Dan Savage, take your hateful words and go fuck yourself.

In these tumultuous times it is often en vogue to blame the supposedly fickle forces of free markets and capitalism. Sadly, papers are sold on cheap scapegoats and false blame.

Our own president sets the national tone as he points his fingers far more often than he offers real solutions, and as a nation, we find easy comfort in faulting Systems versus Individuals.

Many theories on economics exist, some of them tried, many failed, but few have brought forth real growth. Too often, failed theories don’t account for human fallibility, relying instead on high ideals, which are ideals that humans inevitably fail to attain. It is always a matter of time.

People are greedy, and they are selfish. The disadvantaged are often leveraged to the advantage of others. These are facets of the human condition, and as a society, it does no good to pretend that depravity simply does not exist.

Capitalism, in its pure form, does not deny the failings of humanity, but does not expect high ideals. No matter how distasteful it may seem, avarice can be harnessed for the overall good. Selfishness can build strong economies.

A simple example: the unscrupulous baker provides an inferior product, but is in competition with other bakers too. The public will inevitably eschew the inferior for the superior, or perhaps they will trade quality for cost. Whatever the choices – the selfish choices – each consumer may make, they will help balance and refine the overall economy.

Greed becomes determination, cheapness – discerning character, and hard work is rewarded.

The usual complaint about capitalism is its perceived "unfairness." Some people are richer than others. Some people don’t work as hard, others very hard for less gain. But this only mirrors life. Should we cripple the natural athlete? Scar the natural beauty? Bankrupt the "lucky" business-person? Or shall we simply accept that life is unfair, and though some are blessed with a slight head-start, all are still able to run in the race of this life?

Even the weak become strong with determination and training.