adamfoxie*blog International: June 2010

July 18, 2010

Dating Boot Camp Get a Date, Seal The Deal and Make Your Love Last

Being gay in the dating world can leave you in the trenches. Take back your dating life with this dating boot camp filled with the tips and tools you need to get a date, seal the deal and make your relationship last. Each day, a new tip will post to help you on your way to a better dating life.

Tip #1: A Man Won't Cure The Loneliness	Tip #2: Use Your Dating Time Wisely	Tip #3: Find New Love By Closing Old Wounds	Tip #4: The 3rd Law of Attraction
Tip #5: Training Your Dating Muscles	Tip #6: Discovering Your Sexual Compatibility	Tip #7: Don't Let The Bed Bugs Bite	Tip #8: Freeing Your Self-Esteem
Tip #9: Don't Leave Money On The Table	Tip #10: Recession Proof Your Dating Life

Tip #1: Cosmic Loneliness
A Man Won't Cure The Loneliness
by Ramon Johnson

In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neale Hurston asks, "Did marriage end the cosmic
loneliness of the unmated?"

The quick answer is no. As is the theme of Hurston’s classic, any one person’s wholeness is
affected by, but not fulfilled through, a relationship. Many of us are of the notion that finding
a relationship will complete us. However, despite what our math teacher taught, a half plus a
half doesn’t always equal a whole. It takes two complete people to produce the sum of a healthy
partnership (or each person needs to be as complete as possible).

They say you must first love yourself before you can be loved or love another. Part of loving
yourself is being able to tolerate and enjoy spending time with yourself. Entering into a
relationship as a remedy for loneliness or any other need puts undo pressure on your partner
and your relationship when it’s you that must actively work to resolve your needs.
The relationship may solve your immediate wants, but the issues surrounding your longings
will only resurface until you resolve them.

Should we all be content living alone? Of course not. Companionship is a wonderful addition
to our lives. We’re human after all. The ideal situation, however, is to allow companionship to
compliment our lives and not become a substitute for what’s missing

Stop Changing The Gay Marriage Goal Posts

Marriage equality has seen more ups and downs — but mostly downs — than a soccer game, because America's right wing keeps changing the goalposts.

Time was, marriage equality, or "gay marriage" wasn't even a thought, not even a possibility.

Then, in 1993 (seventeen years ago!) Hawaii's State Supreme Court ruled a state statute that limited marriage to one man-one woman was "presumed" to be unconstitutional.

But of course that wasn't the end, just the beginning, and in 1996, we got saddled with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law prohibiting the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Then state courts began to rule as unconstitutional limits on marriage as an "opposite-sex"-only institution.

In 2003, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled that state must allow same-sex marriage, giving us our first state to offer marriage equality. Similarly, in 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage must be offered. Iowa followed in 2009.

Then, amid cries of "activist judges," we were told that judicial decisions on same-sex marriage weren't good enough, and it was up to the legislatures to create laws to "allow" "gay marriage."

And so the state legislatures started to vote on marriage equality legislation.

We won a few, and lost a few.

But when the elected representatives of the people voted for marriage equality, especially in places like Washington, D.C., we were told we were denying the people their "right" to vote on marriage. (Nowhere does it say the people have a right to vote directly on marriage.)

Now, back to Hawaii. In perhaps the clearest example of political cowardice, earlier this month Governor Linda Lingle waited until the last day possible to veto a civil unions bill that she felt was too close to marriage, saying, "I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such societal importance that it deserves to be decided by all the people of Hawaii." (She also compared civil unions to incest.)

But in an amazing exhibit of right-wing talking points, Lingle said, "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

The Governor, claiming "all the people of Hawaii" should decide on same-sex civil unions, apparently did not read the polls, as there was "broad support" for civil unions.

Lingle, who was informed on a call-in radio program that, in fact, cousins can marry in her state, also apparently was unaware that her state legislature does have the right to afford civil unions or marriage to same-sex couples if it wanted to, as it did.

Compare Lingle's statement to the National Organizations for Marriage's Brian Brown's statement upon last week's decision that part of DOMA is, in fact, unconstitutional.

"A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States."

NOM's Maggie Gallagher called this the "judicial takeover of marriage."

America's right wing has teamed up with the Republican party (which prides itself on exhibiting every chance it gets that government is evil), to decree marriage equality cannot be decided by the judicial branches of government, nor by the legislative branches of government, nor by the executive branches of government.

So, the motto of America's first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people," isn't good enough when it comes to decisions on civil rights, regardless of the fact that the Republican party was founded by civil rights activists in the first place.

My, how times change!

Ironically, Republicans hate progress, and hate change. But thanks to Republicans, it seems, the gay marriage goalposts, like time itself, will continue to change.

Photo credit: alex-s

David Badash is a writer and civil rights activist who covers politics in general and gay rights in particular. He is the founder of The New Civil Rights Movement.

Update: "Rachel Maddow Not Girly Enough for Senator" David Vitter

Remember Louisiana Senator David Vitter, the one who doesn't believe that abortion is a women's issue? Well, asMichael A. Jones over at the Gay Rights blog points out, he's back at his exasperating ways. This time his target is MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow. Last Saturday, on Rush Radio 99.5 in New Orleans, Vitter commented that Maddow only looked like a woman "a long time ago," much to the delight of the conservative talk radio hosts.

I have so many immediate responses to that remark, so let's take them one at a time. First, what has Rachel Maddow's looks have to do with anything? I mean, really? We're talking about a Senator currently under fire for having the audacity toappoint a guy who stabbed his ex-girlfriend with a knife to be his point man on women's issues, and yet he's spending his time addressing an old yearbook photo of an MSNBC anchor. This may have been evident long ago — starting when the conservative GOP'er was caught cheating on his wife with a prostitute — but can we officially declare Senator Vitter to be a man devoid of a proper sense of judgement and focus?

Secondly, since when is there a standard definition of what a woman looks like and what, exactly, did Maddow do wrong in Vitter's eyes? My first (and maybe last) guess is that she dared to be a lesbian. Plus, she has short hair. I'm sure as far as Vitter is concerned, case closed. That womanhood is more than long, flowing locks and lusting after Prince Charming is probably lost on the senator. If you told him that women come in all shapes and sizes and colors and styles, he'd probably faint dead away. The sad thing is, too many Americans agree with him.

Finally, why is it that the knee-jerk reaction for so many people, when confronted with a strong, powerful woman, to criticize her looks? Haven't we all gotten the memo on how pathetically sexist that is by now? Senator Vitter saw a liberal woman in a position of power, so he pokes fun at her appearance. Classy. I can think of several female cable news anchors who have been attacked for their looks (Candy Crowley, Greta Van Susteren), but I am drawing a blank coming up with equivalent examples for their male counterparts. Anyone? Bueller?

If you want to hear Vitter's comments straight from the horse's mouth, just go here. Honestly, I am sick of Vitter and his anti-woman ways. How much clearer can he make it that he doesn't respect women, everyone from news anchors to victims of domestic violence to his own wife? Senator Vitter is up for re-election currently, and one can only hope that the good people of Louisiana are sick of him, too.

Photo credit: dsb_nola