« April 27, 2008 - May 3, 2008 || Return to today's G-A-Y posts || May 11, 2008 - May 17, 2008 »
05/09/2008
Lesbian mothers should probably pray elsewhere
This is an email that the the oddly gay-focused Rev. Ken Hutcherson has sent to his congregation letting them know what to expect during Sunday services:
Geez, Hutch. You can't even take a day off to just celebrate motherly love? You have to double-bill the materfamilias exaltation with teachings that increase the likelihood that those mothers will have a strained bond with their kid if the child happens to be gay? Why that's even more of a matriarchal disservice than buying your mama all of the ingredients for breakfast in bed, then telling her to cook the French toast herself!
But if you think this is bad, just wait until you see Hutch's Father's Day plans. We're hearing that all of the unwanted ties that the dads receive will be distributed amongst the congregation, which they'll then use to flog an effigial representation of Ellen Degeneres that will be hanging from the rafters.
Services May 11, 2008 [AB Church]
**We think we're kidding about that last part. But it's a little scary how non-phased we would be if it turned out to be true.
Same-sex kissing not a 'Greek' myth
There must be something queer in the airwaves this month, as dudes on TV are coming out, locking lips, and pledging commitments all up and down the programming schedule. First there was the Noah/Luke kiss on "As The World Turns." Then there was the proposal leading to the upcoming "Brothers and Sisters" wedding. Earlier this week, there was the gay character coming out on "Gossip Girl." Last night there was both a gay soldier plot line on "Grey's Anatomy" and a brief "gay bomb" plot line on "30 Rock." And now, our pop culture-focused buddies at AfterElton are letting us know that Calvin and Michael, two characters on the ABC Family dramedy "Greek," will share an on-screen kiss during the May 26 episode:
Exclusive: "Greek" to feature its first gay kiss on May 26 [AfterElton]
Apparently the lesbian characters are mostly on cruises this time of the year; but here's hoping some of our Sapphic sisters will get some affection from a lady-loving pilot in the fall.
Wrong Penn used in AFA's picture
We knew that the American Family Association's One News Now site twisted the news, but we did think they at least tried to stay up to date on the developments that they proceed to misrepresent! Though judging by this new report, we might have given the outlet too much credit:
5/9/2008
A constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage is one step closer to getting on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
Pro-family activists in Pennsylvania are working feverishly to get a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage through both legislative bodies in that state. By a vote of 18 to 8, the Senate Appropriations Committee sent a marriage protection amendment to the full Senate. S.B. 1250 would define marriage as only between a man and a woman in Pennsylvania.
Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, says the amendment now heads to the full Senate where it is expected to pass. It will then go to the House, where she says it will be a tough fight.
...
Pro-family forces have until the end of June to get the amendment through both legislative bodies. Then the entire process must be repeated next year for the measure to appear on the ballot in November 2009.
Only problem for ONN? The amendment was already shelved by the Senate. Two days ago. And at this point, it's highly unlikely bordering on impossible that the measure could return this legislative session. It's not one step closer to passage -- it's one step closer to being thrown into the dustbin of Keystone state history where it belongs!
Come on, One News Now. You are really starting to make it too easy!
The future of marriage in Penn. [ONN]
Video: Rockin' the gay bomb
"Grey's Anatomy" wasn't the only Thursday night show to feature gayness. The end of last night's "30 Rock" season finale made humorous usage of the real life "gay bomb" story. And not only that -- it left us with the cliffhanger possibility that Alec Baldwin and guest Matthew Broderick's characters are about to engage in some same-sex lovin!
Full episode after jump:
Is Wash. U giving gay rights the Schlaft?
Should a person who has fought her entire adult life against full equality for not only gays and lesbians but also women be honored with an honorary degree? No, says PFLAG. Which is exactly why the group is asking St. Louis, Missouri's Washington University to reconsider their decision to honor to Phyllis Schlafly, the doyenne of social conservatism who, despite herself having a gay son, has been making life tougher for gay people longer than most of us have been alive:
PFLAG Decries Honorary Doctorate for Schlafly [Advocate]
Now, the university defends itself by saying that they are merely honoring people "who have become a part of the broad public discourse on vital issues of the times -- whether or not the majority of those within its community agree with the views expressed by those individuals." Which only highlights the main problem of the gay part of this so-called "culture war": It's commonly viewed as a two-sided conversation in which both sides have equal merit, rather than the actuality, which is that it's an unwarranted attack that social conservatives have waged against a group of people who've done nothing more to solicit the fighting than to simply live their lives in truth. Not all national conversations feature equally merited points and counterpoints.
Are we saying social conservatives bad people? Of course not! Are we saying all on the pro-gay side are golden roses? No way! We are talking only about the socio-political movements that are trying to either embolden or damage actual human lives. It's unfair to suggest that those who've taken it upon themselves to shape society to fit their faith-based whims are fostering the same sort of peaceful society as those who are encouraging fairness for all. They are not.
It's still not easy for us to dig the Duggars' views
This morning on "The Today Show," the program once again featured the very large Duggar family and their 17 children (with one more on the way). And since the story was once again presented as a cute little kicker story from which no potential controversy could be mined, we thought we would take an opportunity to remind folks that behind these multiple births are some teachings and views that are not so easy for gay people to digest. Here's what we posted back in September of last year:
Video: Seattle Graced with Gays' Anatomy
We haven't seen last night's episode of "Grey's Anatomy" yet, because Thursday is the night we meet with our fellow gay militants to (a) brainstorm the most effective ways to destroy society and indoctrinate children, and (b) play strip Boggle. But even though he's one of our movement's most trusted foot soldiers, our pal Andy Towle had to miss the meeting last night, which in turn allowed him to catch a sweet/enraging gay plotline and steamy gay kiss (brace yourself, Don Wildmon!) that was featured on last night's episode. And what do you know? Andy's been kind enough to share a clip with the world:
05/08/2008
Osteen's getting Bakked
We really liked Jay Bakker, son of Jim and the late Tammy Faye, when we saw him on his Sundance Channel reality show a few years back. So we were really glad to see that the sensible Jay is still on his mission to make Christianity more gay-inclusive.
The bespectacled Christian punk's latest? Well, he's currently working with the peaceful and passionate Soulforce group to encourage megachurch pastors to sit down and have a conversation with the LGBT families that they have either demonized or ignored. Especially megachurch superstar Joel Osteen:
Gay group reaches out to Lakewood [Houston Chronicle]
So far Osteen has declined the invitations that have been extended, and a spokesperson for his Lakewood church is quoted as saying he thinks that "Soulforce wants to use Lakewood to further their agenda." Because, of course, if you completely write off a rich and vibrant population sect as outside of God's plan, it's merely an attempt to further faith, but if you encourage evangelicals to stop and consider that maybe God's world schematic has a place for all of us, then you're "furthering an agenda." Funny how that works, no?
Audio: Seriously, someone get these folks a new script
Back in November of last year, we let you hear a radio ad that the so-called National Organization For Marriage was distributing in New Jersey:
An ad that was very similar to a TV spot that had tarnished Wisconisn airwaves in 2006:
Kid-isgusting, right? Well now, following the old edict that if the logic is 100% broke still don't fix it, the NOM group has rebranded the same script so that it can be used to scare Rhode Islanders. Oh but this time, it gets even more unapologetically fear-mongery. To signal the "red alert" threat that we gays pose to society, they've actually gone so far as to insert "fear beeps":
Video: There is, in fact, a gay Gene
Openly gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson was on "Today" this morning, putting a human face on just how threatened a gay person can feel if they dare to take a righteous, public stand for their life and love. Check it out:
Wow, a bulletproof vest? That must've been to protect him from his fellow "militant" gays, right? [::writer rolls eyes at the flawed yet widely accepted idea that it is the pro-equality side who is filled with hostility::]
Despite death threats, gay bishop plans civil union
It's their world, we just get taxed in it
Hey social conservatives: GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT AN ENTITY OUSIDE THE UMBRELLA OF "TAXPAYERS"!
Why are shouting this? Well, because in reaction to yesterday's ruling saying that public employers in Michigan cannot provide domestic partner benefits because of the state's ban on gay marriage, Peter LaBarbera says the following:
"The fact is government should be promoting real marriage -- and when you give benefits to extramarital relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual, you are undermining marriage. So we think this is a good thing," LaBarbera explains.
LaBarbera is pleased to see judges deferring to the expressed will of the people in this case. "It was clear that, in Michigan, taxpayers did not want to fund extramarital relationships, and we're glad that the Supreme Court has not imposed a false will on the people," he says.
Wait, taxpayers don't wanna fund any and every recognition of our unions? Well that's funny, since we gay taxpayers don't remember being asked if we would like to fund the rights, benefits, and situational realities that come with heterosexual couplings! But we do. We all do. Because we are all part of the realm of tax-paying individuals, not individual sects who get to stand in the way of any and every bit of fairness on account of our individualized tax-paying wants and needs. Every aspect of our rights and protections should not be put up to a public referendum!
Sure, a majority of Michigan residents went to the polls and chose to embrace the cruel constitutional ban. But the line used to sell the ban was that it was all about "protecting marriage." And its intent was not presented as being meant to deny the minority voice their every possible form of recognition.The "pro-family" community's defense of the ban's usage to deny other types of benefits speaks to the improprieties of their every anti-gay campaign. It's not about protecting anything -- it's about denying gays of every possible step towards leveling the playing field!
Folks like Peter are just oh so smug about heterosexuals' larger numbers. Their communities are made up of gays and the "general public," so they don't see any fault with using a blanket term like "taxpayers" to refer to the opposition. Minority rights be damned -- the will of the majority is their concern. This callous disregard for the full gamut of the populace is in many ways the most offensive of all of their short-sighted views. If they want to condemn our immortal souls to a lake of fire, then they have every right to do so. But their repeated attempts to deny our mortal roles as tariff-paying citizens who are deserved to equality and fairness should be eye-opening to any group who has in the past or might in the future be in a place where tyrannical disenfranchisement is a possibility.
Extramarital partners remain uninsurable [ONN]
I'm wrong? I'M WRONG?! Well you're gay, you gay-mo!!!
When you're gay, simple confrontations are often compounded because of your sexual orientation. Incidents that might be uncomfortable for heterosexuals are sometimes turned into personal attacks for 'mosexuals, since many people of this world still think that one's gayness is a characteristic that can and should be used against one in the course of confrontation.
We've certainly experienced this. Not too long ago, while this writer and his partner were trying to park their car, a lady in a mini van cut us off and stole the space. When we challenged her rude and reckless driving, she didn't try and defend her motor skills. Instead she let out some sort of convoluted attack against our sexuality.
And that's just one small example. "I think you've wronged me -- let's discuss it" can very quickly turn into, "Whatdya gonna do about it, f*ggot?" For queer people, it's often a case of not only having to decide if life's common run-ins are worth the headache, but also if speaking up and saying something will make you vulnerable to homo-hostile insults (or worse).
Which leads us to this incident in New Jersey. A gay couple is currently in court seeking justice for what they perceive as inaction stemming from an 2004 incident in which they confronted a group of firefighters' noisy party, and were (allegedly) met with resistance that included threats against their gay lives. In fact, they claim that the harassment was so real and frightening, it prompted them to flee the city of Secaucus. And despite the threats they felt, they claim not nearly enough was done by local authorities to allay their fears. Read more at The Star-Ledger:
Gay couple say they lived in fear after threats [Star-Ledger]
Now, we're not going to weigh in on the merits of the case or the men's deservedness to the damages they seek. That's for the lawyers and judge to sort out. But what we are saying is that we get it. As a gay person, you just do. And if a blind eye was truly turned to this pervasive problem in a way that forced the men out of town, we certainly want to see that remedied.
We should be free to bitch about life's injustices without fearing a followup that targets our sex lives. For all of us, the weak form of discourse serves as a constant reminder that our lives and loves are still not embraced. For some of us, it serves as a sobering mindf*k that numbs us to the corel.
Video: What, was digitally inserting the 'Cloverfield' monster too difficult?
Sometimes we on the pro-gay side have to work really hard to show how absurd our opponents' rhetoric can be. Other times, the parody is self-imposed:
Wow. Ominous music. Scare quotes. Lakes of fire. How frickin' frightening are we?! It's truly a wonder that we queers are still free to walk freely among the rest of society!
Here's just hoping we don't destroy the world by summer. There's an animal sanctuary that this gay writer's been really excited to visit, and it'd be a shame if I didn't get to play with a happy piggy before the fiery, Earth-destroying meteor turns us all into bacon.
Gay Marriage is an ABOMINATION [YouTube]
But must New Yorkers recognize out-of-state bias?
In regards to the news that New York state will continue to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states, Focus on the Family's Bruce Hausknecht has a few thoughts. Unfortunately, "YAY! Fairness prevails! Mazel tov, gays!" is not the theme of his reaction:
“Inexplicably, the high court is letting stand a ruling that says that New York essentially has no public policy regarding same-sex 'marriages' performed elsewhere,” he said. “It's ridiculous legal reasoning to insist that a state could recognize a type of ‘marriage’ from outside that it will not permit within the state. Yet that's exactly what the Court of Appeals has now done.”
Hmm. You know what we find inexplicable? The fact that Mr. Hasknecht and friends ignore the facts in order to advance their bias! And you know what we find to be "ridiculous legal reasoning"? That the opposition would try and apply a different standard to same-sex couples than they do to heterosexual ones!
The truth? There is no state law preventing the recognition of out-of-state marriages. Not opposite-sex nuptials and not same-sex ones. The state has a history of recognizing marriages from other states, even when the couple wouldn't be eligible to get married under New York law (such as a marriage between two close relatives). And so by applying the century old "marriage recognition rule" to the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, NY state is not employing some cockamamie legal gymnastics. Instead, they are simply staying consistent with current policy.
The Empire State very well may pass marriage equality in the coming years. They're certainly very close. But the point here is that the state has NOT passed legislation specifically barring this out-of-state recognition. It's one thing for a court to say that it's up to the legislature to open up marriage to same-sex couples (as the state's highest court has indicated). It's quite another for a court to say that in the absence of a DOMA law or other measure that specifically hinders out-of-state recognition, the state must employ the same fairness for straight couples as they do gay ones. The former ruling does not invalidate the latter, no matter how dutifully (and duplicitously) our opposition attempts to muddy the waters of this situation.
New York Will Recognize Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ Performed Out of State [CitizenLink]
**SEE ALSO: The Pride Agenda is looking into one New Yorkers bizarre ideas on marriage "sanctity."
05/07/2008
Gay high schooler able to earn respect of peers? Kan. teen can!
You know all those teen movies about the girl who triumphs over adversity (usually in the form of glasses and unkempt hair) and goes on to become homecoming royalty? Yea, well, isn't about time we heard a charming story about a young gay boy who triumphs over bias, captures the hearts and minds of his stereotypically conservative high school, and eventually becomes homecoming king?
Kansas City's The Pitch thinks so. Check out the charming, airy, inspiring tale of Matthew Pope:
The Shawnee Mission East class of '08 loves its gay homecoming king [The Pitch]
Facebook? iPhones? Wikipedia rather than that musty old set of Encyclopedia Britannicas that your mother bought at the supermarket three decades earlier? And now the ability to be both openly gay and elected to something other than "punching bag"? Damn this 1970's birthdate! I wanna redo high school in the Myspace generation!
He's really just a sensitive 1960's teenager
And now in a G-A-Y exclusive: We have been given a special message that a Mr. J. Christ would like to deliver to those members of the religious right who think they hold ownership of his existence and teachings. Take it away, J:
(Note: Lip syncing issues are apparently due to the distance of the satellite feed)
We scored a nice "get," right? But that's not all: Be sure to look for future exclusive video feeds, where we're expecting J's father to do a bitchin' rendition of the Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil"!
Take that, CNN!
**NOTE: We have a sneaking suspicion that J. has given us this exclusive as a backdoor way to audition for the inevitable Broadway musical version of The First Wives Club. Then he can really show the Great White Way what a Jesus Christ Superstar looks like!
American parents keep priorities straight (and only straight)
Reckless gun play. Bullying. Foul language. Unsafe sex. Destroying the environment. Playing kickball in the middle of a busy street. Condemning others for being born a certain way.
It would be perfectly understandable if the encouragement of any of the above topics led a children's book to be deemed controversial. However, none of the above themes are found in the book that has, for the second year in a row, topped the American Library Association's list of the most "challenged" book in public schools and libraries. No, no -- it is instead the encouragement of gay acceptance that this nation's parents view most worthy of scorn:
Penguin tale tops list of `challenged' books [AP via Google]
In a related story: We hear gay penguins would sooner die than read about narrow-minded Americans with out-of-whack values systems. So hey, at least the feeling is mutual
MI: Marriage ban comes with no benefits!
You know how social conservatives make all sorts of protestations about constitutional marriage bans, saying they're designed only to "protect traditional marriage." Yea, well guess what? They're blowing more smoke up voters' arses than an enema bag filled with lit cigarettes!
This from the Detroit Free Press:
An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.
The court majority found that language in the amendment prohibiting recognition of other unions “for any purpose” included the extension of benefits to gay and lesbian partners of public employees.
Yes, that's right -- due to the state's constrictive ban on marriage equality, the court has ruled Michigan's public employers are also prevented from respecting their gay employees' partnerships in the way that they see fit. It doesn't matter if a tenured professor of forty years wants insurance for her domestic partner of thirty six years. Because of this stupid, narrow-minded, backwards, un-American ban, that employee's coupling MUST be treated with less respect than a just-hired teacher who entered into a drunken Vegas wedding with a girl he met the night before. Un-f**fng-real!
Kids, these gay marriage opponents -- and it should be noted that the AFA of Michigan's Gary Glenn led the opposition on this -- want us unrecognized in every sense of the word. Ultimately they want our existences marginalized so much that we can't help but buckle under the weight of the resistance. This is not and has never been about "protecting marriage." Yet either because (a) they've been duped, (b) it's easier for them to reconcile their stances if they tell themselves they are acting decently, or (c) they know it's the most effective strategy for passing their discrimination, loads of people have bought into the falsely compassionate idea that these bans are not against anyone, but rather for "traditional values." They have washed their hands clean of the sweeping damages and unnecessary heartbreak that they bring to same-sex couples. They have justified their mean-spirited stances within themselves so as to not lose any sleep at night, all the while creating for many gay couples a degree of worry so great, they lie awake worrying how they will protect the one they love. It's just plain cruel!
We must do better. We have to call this situation out for what it is, and connect the dots for the public. We are being written off by our social conservative opponents, yet only negligibly defended by our supposedly progressive allies. This must change. Our troops should be made up of not only gays and other supporters of same-sex marriage rights, but also those who support American values, those who detest opportunistic lies, those who believe that all taxpaying citizens are deserving of equal representation, and anyone who believes in the concept of freedom. But we are not a rallied army who is stepping up and fighting this pervasive strain of faith-based intolerance. We are losing because they're campaigns are rabid and focused, while our ragtag bunch of would-be defenders still has not fully recognized how great and far-reaching the threat truly is. This must change and it must change now. If you think they're goal ends at "protecting marriage," then you simply aren't paying attention.
Gay marriage ban affects partner benefits, court rules [Detroit Free Press]
File this under 'Really? In 2008? The first? Geez!'
Our pals at the Victory Fund are always quick to point out the historical milestones that are achieved by openly gay candidates. And seeing as how we have more than just a passing interest in queer progress, we are always appreciative for the heads up.
The latest groundbreaking electoral step for the rainbow set? Openly gay Lawrence Webb has won a seat on the city council of Falls Church, VA, marking the first time in the state's history that an openly LGBT African-American has been elected to public office:
Webb becomes Virginia’s first openly LGBT African-American elected official [Gay Politics]
So the skin color-sexual orientation barrier has finally been shattered in the Old Dominion State? Well that's just Afro-queer-tastic!
You know, we thought in the sense of fairness, we should contact local racist homophobes to gauge their reactions. But then we decided we should just turn a deaf ear to them in the same way that society is finally wising up and doing.
Penn Sen avoids horrible blunder
You know the proposed bill that would put a gay marriage ban in the Pennsylvania constitution? Yea, well, Keystone State gays can rest easy for now. The state Senate yesterday put the kibosh on that potential historical misstep, as they realized that the discriminatory pile of legislative cow caca would've never had a chance in the House:
State Senate tables bill against gay marriage [Post-Gazette]
We'll have to wait and see if and when the someday-to-be-recognized-as-cruel-and-unjust bill will again rear its biased head. But for now, let's celebrate the fact that the state's historical archivists will not have to inscribe into the record an obvious mistake for which the local government will inevitably have to offer a red-faced apology.
Don't have a cow: 'Milk' production finally releases still
We've had our own ideas about what Sean Penn's first official photo from Milk would look like:
However, as you will see in this new exclusive from Entertainment Weekly, we were a little off base:
First Look: Sean Penn in 'Milk' [EW]
(H/t: Towle)
**EARLIER MILKINESS: Good As You: Harvey Milk Archive
Lying, however, might get you fired
In a newly issued Action Alert, those artisans of bullshitake at the American Family Association make a buttload of flawed assertions about ENDA (The Employment Non-Discrimination Act). This one really annoyed us:
ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.
So why did this one rub is in a particularly wrong way? Well, because it's less truthful than even Pinocchio on April Fool's Day! And we're not just saying that on a level of pro-gay opinion -- we're saying it on a level of universal fact!
Ya see, sexual orientations are not limited to gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Heterosexuals are also part of that spectrum. And under ENDA, they would also be protected. Say we're talking about a wholly gay operated company called No Breeders Inc.. If a straight man were denied employment on the sole basis of his 'rosexuality, then he would most definitely have a case to make. And his legal footing would be much more concrete under this measure.
Under a perfect version of the bill, ALL people would be protected regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and not because of those characteristics. That's the point our opposition cannot or at least will not see: That the only thing being singled out under an inclusive ENDA is unfair bias. The only "special consideration" is to the idea that NOBODY deserves to have their biological desire used against them in the court of H.R.! It's certainly a more convenient strategy for the AFA to make it sound like gay folks would be getting bestowed with some sort of special power. However, unless heterosexuals are all planning on ripping their own capacity for attraction, love, and sex from their hearts and minds, then they will also be fully wrapped in ENDA's shroud of job protections!
It's one thing to hold discriminatory opinions. It's another to be downright untruthful. Unfortunately for their followers, the AFA is guilty of both.
ENDA: Work place is the Wrong Place for Sexual Politics [AFA]
05/06/2008
Pot to Kettle: 'You're militant, rich, and political!'
Oh why can't our opposition ever stop and say to themselves, "Wait a minute -- aren't we doing the very thing that we're accusing the gays of doing?"
We ask this after seeing the following blurb over on Focus on the Family's CitizenLink site:
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a gay-activist group, is ramping up its efforts ahead of the election.
As part of the "Year to Win" initiative, HRC plans to train thousands of people in 13 cities.
"Their main purpose for existence is to influence public policy and politics, and to get people elected to office who are going to push their militant homosexual agenda," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America.
Brad Miller, director of the Family Policy Council department at Focus on the Family Action, said family advocates could face an uphill battle. HRC has an annual budget of more than $50 million.
He said grassroots groups and churches must get involved in the political process.
Audio: Visiting the repair shop, realizing you were never broken
Wanna listen to something light, fun, and airy on this lovely spring afternoon? Well go sit around a campfire and sing your peacenick songs, you dirty hippy!
Wanna listen to a former Mormon's depressing yet engaging tale of going through so-called "reparative therapy"? Well then go listen to all fourteen parts of this podcast that's been recorded by a gent named Chris Tyler:
NY puts kibosh on unappealing appeal
Our pals at the Empire State Pride Agenda have just handed us some fab news that we think you'll enjoy. You know that decision from a few months back that said New York-based same-sex couples who were married elsewhere deserve the right to have those unions recognized in their home state? Well, the New York State Court of Appeals (the highest court here in NY) has decided to NOT hear a case challenging that recognition.
Just in time for Mothers' Day
We gays and lesbians are having kids like never before. Not destroying or molesting kids, as our opposition would have you believe, but rather creating, loving, raising, nurturing, and rearing them. Our uniquely homologous maternal and paternal instincts are coming alive as the stench of bias ever so slowly lessens.
Some of us are adopting, while others are employing surrogacy methods. In this AFP piece, you can read about two New York men who employed the latter:
Surrogate mothers fulfilling gay men's parenthood dreams [AFP via Yahoo!]
Now of course the "pro-family" types would surely write off these parental options as immoral and outside of God's plan. But fortunately for everyone, their self-appointed role as Heaven's hall monitor doesn't give them ownership to morality. And those of us who know the love that gay and lesbian couples have to give also know that a family's righteousness cannot and should be defined by the ease of conception.
So if you're felling the parental itch, gays, don't let anyone tell you that lil' ones are outside of your life plan. The spectrum of "normalcy" is not only big enough to accommodate all families -- it's actually emboldened by the diversity.