I called that bullshit. Scott Brown wants to deny me the right to be married. He wants to deny women the right to choose. He wants to deny health insurance to those who need it. That’s bullshit. But what’s worse, are the comments that came back. Apparently Martha Coakley is denying people human rights . . . because she can’t finish a sentence. That was someone’s response. And that’s bullshit.

And now they’re all patting themselves on the back for their wit. It’s still going on. I actually deleted the person as a Facebook friend, because I was over the responses. I learned, as Barney Frank has pointed out, it was like talking to a table.

Bullshit it bullshit, but there’s also something else going on here. Hurt. That’s why I was over the responses. Because it hurt. Because, to these people, I am not a full citizen. My rights don’t matter. Some imaginary tea-bag bullshit matters more. Lower taxes matter more. The DVD or the knock-off bag they buy matters more. The shit they picked up on Fox News matters more. Knowing which Sex and the City character they are matters more.

That hurts.

And it literally hurts me when a state passes anti-gay legislation. I mean literally: socially, physically, emotionally. It personally hurts me when people who claim to be my friends vote for candidates that don’t recognize me as a full citizen of the United States. It hurts me when people choose tax cuts over my civil rights.

A friend chimed into the Facebook war, and explained that anyone who votes for Scott Brown isn’t really his friend. Hell broke loose. He was accused of denying someone their opinion. That’s not what he was doing. He was questioning the friendship of someone who would deny him his civil rights. Because it’s bullshit, and because it’s personal.

Politics is personal.  Politics is activism.

It really sucks when you like gay people, but you’re a republican.

But guess what?

You have to make the decision. And if you like your republicanism more than your gay friends, than you’ve made a decision.

And your gay friends are going to start to make theirs.

I love my friends. But if they don’t stand with my civil rights, than they are not my friends.

If tax cuts mean more than I do, you are not my friend.

In A Christmas Carol, Scrooge chooses his life of wealth over the love of his fiance. Scrooge chooses, and loses Belle. And she recognizes this, because she (like most of Dickens’ characters) has lived a difficult life. She knows that money comes and money goes, and what’s left when it goes is love.

And frankly, if my friends vote for Scott Brown, or any other anti-gay candidate, I know that generally they’re voting for something else. Often it’s tax cuts, because, let’s be honest, that’s what middle class Americans who are republicans are voting for. (Or it’s because they’re ignorant, and that’s a whole other story.) And who wouldn’t want more money in their pocket? Well, let’s not get into where Republican (or Democratic) tax cuts go, in this country. Let’s consider that it’s a choice.

You can have five hundred bucks more. That’s a lot of money. I want five hundred bucks. Or you can vote for your friend, who is being denied the same rights you have.

Scrooge chose, Belle chose, Dickens chose, I chose, you choose.

That’s tough, but that’s your call. That’s your decision.

Am I denying you your opinion? No. You are still entitled to your opinion.

But you have demonstrated that you do not love me. And you are not a true friend.

Social network is a phenomenal tool. It has brought me together with people I never imagined I would come into contact with, again. It has brought joy, and laughter into my life, and been a constant source of distraction when I should be doing other things.  But it is also a tool that can separate people. And I’ve seen that tonight. We all have a voice, and we all have an opinion. And we all have a choice. That’s part of social networking, politics, and it’s also part of being a grown up. You have the choice to vote against my rights. Just understand, that when you make that choice, you lose my friendship. That’s not a threat, it’s a consequence. It’s like choosing to spend your money on surround sound instead of an electric bill. You lose your electricity. Them’s the breaks, kid.

My love is more important than tax cuts for the wealthy.

Disagree? You’ve made your choice

And if you choose tax cuts over me, than, to quote Dickens, “You may —  the memory of what is past half makes me hope you will — have pain in this. A very, very brief time, and you will dismiss the recollection of it, gladly, as an unprofitable dream, from which it happened well that you awoke. May you be happy in the life you have chosen.”

Belle, and Dickens, knew what I’m coming to lean in life, and what Scrooge had to come to learn. Love is more than money. And when you choose something over love, well, then you lose love.

I might have been right. There are more important issues in the world than whether or not faggots and dykes can get married.

When President Obama selected Rick Warren to give the invocation as the inauguration, I said fine, if he’s selected an anti-gay right-wing Christian to say a prayer at the inauguration, that’s fine–he’s demonstrating that everyone gets a seat at the table. There are larger issues at work in the country now, anyway.

When President Obama spent the first six months of his time in office ignoring the progressives who got him selected I said, gay marriage is such a non-issue now, let’s get healthcare reform, let’s worry about all the American soldiers dying overseas. Gay marriage can wait.

Superman and Congress saved capitalism, by shoveling unimaginable amounts of money at the giant corporations who started this mess–which isn’t over (talk of a new stimulus plan. Marvelous.)  Then came healthcare (a bill that is about to screw  poor people, and give Republicans and insurance companies exactly what they want–while, simultaneously, allowing Republicans to say “we didn’t want this” once everyone realizes what a train wreck it is…. And if this passes, than during the midterms they’ll be able to point to pictures of a celebratory President Obama, saying “it’s something.”) The Global Warming conference, more troops in Afghanistan . . . etc . . . Is this starting to sound like a Billy Joel song? (And let’s not blame it all on the limp dems who’s thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another response to republicans is to blame for our currently sad state of affairs . . . they inherited this problem, they’re just bungling the solutions left and right.)

Meanwhile state after state keeps taking my rights away. Well I was wrong. Gay marriage is in issue, and devoting our time and attention to is will not detract from healthcare, global warming, or Iraq of Afghanistan–especially since our President and Congresspeople (all apparent closet republicans) don’t seem to be making any headway on any of those issues, anyway.

Gay marriage is an issue, and anyone who doesn’t support it is bad. There, I said it. Gay marriage matters, and here’s why:

(Ripped off from NPR. Click picture to read story.)

Ripped off from Lies.com. Click the picture to read the blog.

We’re better than them, folks. It’s as simple as that. Who’s side are you on?

Yesterday I posted a Frederick Douglass quote on my Facebook page:

“Agitate, Agitate, agitate.”

I did this, because of course, I’m seeing daily my rights as a human being nullified by the voters and state legislatures of the land of the free. Agitation is the wave-making that is necessary for these rights to be reclaimed. Douglass gave this advice to a young African American man, and, more than a hundred years later I feel as though he was giving the advice to me. Agitate, agitate, agitate. It’s how progress is made.

As I posted this, I thought Frederick Douglass would support gay marriage.

Of course that’s probably not true.

In 1865 it’s unlikely (though not necessarily  impossible) that Douglass, Lincoln, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or anybody else would have considered the idea of same-sex marriage practical or desirable. Abolitionists and feminists were progressives, but, at the same time, these progressives were largely Christians, and drew their justification from the Bible (much as pro-slavery activists drew their justification from the Bible—choosing to ignore the central metaphor of the flight of the Jewish people, apparently). Homosexuals weren’t on their radar screens, but if we had been, no doubt it would have been a blip everyone would have ignored.

(And, as a sidebar, I’m drawn to ask: at what point did the change occur? When did Christians go from being progressives—as Jesus surely was—to being hateful, judgmental, dictators? Would that the days of Christian Progressive Freedom Fighters would return.)

When Thomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People  to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its   foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

there’s little doubt that he wasn’t talking about queers.

Whenever any icon or martyr of intolerance and proponent of freedom wrote any of the quotes that we progressives hold on to so dearly—whether it be Jesus, Gandhi, Anne Frank, or Dr. King—we have to know, in the deepest parts of our being, that there probably weren’t talking about gays.

Yet we use their words anyway. And, ultimately, how can we not?

It is in the heart and soul of these leaders, it is in the very fabric of the Declaration of Independence, that we find the core of progressive, tolerant thought. And if Douglass or Lincoln or Jefferson or any other progressive would have drawn the line—and, it’s also entirely possible that they wouldn’t have—with gays, we can chalk it up to the time in which they lived. And still, these freedom fighters, for better or worse, laid our groundwork. And whether or not they are rolling in their graves at our appropriation of their words, we have to cannibalize because it’s one of the very few weapons we have.

Douglass, late in life, married a white feminist, Helen Pitts. Her parents, abolitionists both, were unhappy with the match. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, feminist and genius, wrote to them:

In defense of the right to…marry whom we please—we might quote some of the basic principles of our government [and] suggest that in some things individual rights to tastes should control….If a good man from Maryland sees fit to marry a disenfranchised woman from New York, there should be no  legal impediments to the union.

How can a modern progressive not see in Stanton’s note of congratulations just cause for our own modern progress? How do we not appropriate her words? How can we not imagine Stanton not writing today “if a good man from Maryland sees fit to marry a disenfranchised man from New York, there should be no legal impediments to the union”?

Stanton, in writing to Douglass and Pitts, reaches through time and says “we might quote some of the basic principles of our government [and] suggest that in some things individual rights to taste should control…” She reaches through time to us now, and back to Jefferson—who invented America—who wrote “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Stanton and Jefferson weren’t talking about queers, and yet they can’t not have been, if what they’re saying is true, and if America is really the country it was founded to be. Jefferson is saying to us that government exists to protect these unalienable rights. This is the very essence of government! It is not to deny those rights! And somehow, through some act of God, he did not—and nor did the framers of the Constitution—explicitly exclude faggots and dykes.

Douglass and Stanton and Jefferson were not talking about gays. But they laid for us the groundwork and left their work open enough while demanding that the government of the United States recognize it’s central tenet—all men [re: humans] are created equal.

We must cannibalize, we must appropriate, for better or for worse—because the Bible may have been taken away from us (the Right doesn’t believe the supposed Word of God belongs to all people)—the words of progressives of days gone by, even if we know for a fact they would be repulsed by our actions.

And frankly I truly believe that they wouldn’t be repulsed.

Because if Douglass, if Stanton, if Jefferson, if Ghandi, if King were a live today, if Jesus were a live today, these live-and-let-live progressives would I feel strongly have said “get over it, America.”

They would have.

Though they almost certainly would be more elegant.

And so, when I quote Douglass and I say “agitate, agitate, agitate,” and I smugly decide that Douglass would have fought for us, I’m not necessarily wrong. Though me might not be here to fight with us, he left us his wisdom—and there are many beautiful quotes—including the quote above. “Agitate, agitate, agitate.” It’s so astoundingly simple, and so profound . . . and while it might remind one of the real estate adage  “location, location, location,” Douglass is far more poetic than ReMax.

“Agitate, agitate, agitate.”

So I cannibalize his advice, and I decide that, against his will or no, Douglass has joined our fight. And I add: “cannibalize, cannibalize, cannibalize.” Know your progressive thinkers and plagiarize the fuck out of their words.

Finally, though, we cannot just quote, we cannot just appropriate, we cannot just cannibalize…

No. We must follow Douglass’ advice.

We must agitate, agitate, agitate.

In the last two hundred years slaves were freed, African Americans and women have made boundless (if not final) progress. And it’s because they followed Douglass’ advice.

Fellow humans who find yourself attracted to those of your gender, and fellow humans who don’t but who are sympathetic to the cause: Agitate, agitate, agitate.

If Jesus came back, he would stay about from the Christian right, because the first time he spoke in public, Sarah Palin would write about it on Facebook. Then Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glen Beck, and every fundamentalist would look at this man and they would call him a socialist. They would call him a fascist, because that sounds sorta like communist—then they’d call him a communist. They would call him a liar. They would post his home address on the internet. Because Jesus came from the Middle East, they would plant the seed that he’s secret a terrorist—they wouldn’t come out and say it, but they’d wink and everyone would know what they meant. Because Jesus was Jewish, they would call him cheap and greedy—then, ignoring that Jesus was Jewish, they would call him Hitler.

Because Jesus would probably be the generally good guy he was the first time around, he’d smile and slough it off. He would tell stories that illustrated how one is to live. He would talk about tolerance, as he did the first time around; he would talk about universal healthcare, because that’s the sort of stuff he was into—taking care of one another and whatnot; and he would talk about things like forgiveness and love and peace. He would talk about these things to adults, and, just as he did the first time around, he’d chat with children, too. Then, right-wing parents all over the country would keep their kids home from school to prevent this crazy socialist from indoctrinating their kids into some disgusting cult of acceptance and civility.

Jesus would stay away from the Christian Right, because they wouldn’t recognize him, and they would treat him terribly. They would torture him. They would believe they were right to treat him this way, because the “real” Jesus wouldn’t act the way this new guy is. Even though the real Jesus taught tolerance, acceptance, communitarianism, volunteerism, etc., the Christian Right believe that—should Jesus come back—he would shoot up abortion doctors, and hang outside the funerals of dead gay people with signs saying, “God hates fags.” The Christian Right believe that, if Jesus came back today, he would probably love rich people—and totally stand up for big insurance and drug companies, he would totally dig war and nation building, and he’d totally be all about hatred and divisiveness. He didn’t preach any of those things the first time around, OK; but, hey, times have changed. Jesus would understand that times have changed, they believe. He would understand why leaders of the Christian Right need fancy cars and multiple houses, and he would understand why most of the money they do donate goes, not to charity, but to PACs that help elect other Christian Right leaders. He would understand why foreign aid needs to be conditional—given only to groups that refuse to talk about condoms. The real Jesus would hate condoms, they believe, but they would love big business.

Jesus—who would be nothing like that—would keep spreading his message of peace, love, tolerance and universal healthcare. Then, some right-wing Christian would shoot him in the back, probably in the middle of a church.

If Jesus were ever to come back, he would stay away from the Christian Right, because he would be terrified of them. He should be, because they’re terrifying. We should all be afraid of the Christian Right, because they’re not really Christians at all. They are politicians. They are zealot-svengalis, they are Pied Pipers. They are manipulators who recognize the vulnerability of all people when it comes to considering what will happen to them when they die. They recognize the vulnerability of the faithful, because to be faithful is to be vulnerable, which is very human. The leaders of the Christian Right take advantage of Christians, and then turn them into right-wing Christians, and what they want to do is take those right-wing Christians and turn them into a militia. They are very good at the former, and are dangerously close to the latter. Jesus would stay away from this noise, because it is deadly. Jesus would stay away from them because he spread a message of love; the Christian Right want nothing more than to spread hate. Hate divides. Lincoln (one of the least religious-minded Presidents in American history) recognized that a house divided against itself cannot stand; the Christian Right recognize this, too. Lincoln wanted to pull the country together; the Christian Right want to pull it apart. If the country falls apart, then one has to pick sides. And what side do you want to be on—the one that’s going to Heaven, or the one that’s going to Hell?

If Jesus ever came back, he would stay as far away from the Christian Right as possible, because they would endanger him. Our government would be wise to do the same, because they are endangered, also. The Right stands in the way of real progress, but they are also inciting mobs, feeding off people’s fear and ignorance (and ignorance isn’t always a bad thing, it’s just a precarious thing—we’re all ignorant of something or other at one time or another). If we wind up with death panels in this country, it will not be because of healthcare reform. It will be because of the Christian Right. If we wind up with death panels in this country, it will not be Grandma standing in front of it, it will be women who have had abortions, gay people, the staff of The Nation, and progressives of all stripes. The Christian Right don’t care about tolerance, they care about winning, they care about heterosexual white people celebrating homogeny and silencing dissent. This is dangerous. Jesus was a dissenter. Progressives are dissenters. The Christian Right doesn’t like that. In fact, the only thing more dangerous than the Christian Right (assuming we take climate change, population acceleration, and other issues that the Christian Right say don’t exist, out of the equation) is silence. The silence of Christians who understand what is going on and who say nothing, and the silence of non-Christians who understand what is going on and say nothing. The Christian Right have a right to spread hate, they have a right to say horrible things, they have a right to support big business, they have a right to feel the way they do. Progressives have the same rights, and they need to be exercised.

Progressive can exercise that right the same way Jesus did: they can tell stories that illustrate their points; they can refuse to be silent; they can know they are right because they believe in a country for all people, not just people who agree with them. On an old episode of The West Wing, one character said to Toby “You’re preaching to the choir.” Toby responded, “Cause that’s how you get ‘em to sing.” Progressives can exercise that right the same way Jesus did: they can get the choir to sing.

The song the choir needs to sing goes like this: the Christian Right does not have a monopoly on morality; they have a monopoly on hate. You can not like someone’s lifestyle, and still not wish him or her harm. You can make mistakes, and not be sent to hell. You can be human, you can love other humans, you can desire another human and enjoy it when he or she desires you. The song the choir needs to sing goes like this: lies are lies, and truth is truth. Calling a truth a lie doesn’t make it a lie; calling a lie a truth doesn’t make it the truth. The song the choir needs to sing goes like this: universal health care helps our neighbors, and Jesus would have liked that; God doesn’t hate fags, or anybody else—including the people who spread hate and who hate fags and who hate everybody else. The song we need to sing goes like this: If Jesus came back to today he would stay away from the Christian Right, and the government of the United States can only benefit from doing the same, and the progressives of the United States do have a voice and that voice is one of tolerance and acceptance and of helping one another and of accepting that we all have a voice not just conservatives; and once we start using that voice collectively than the hatred, selfishness, and divisiveness of people who call themselves Christians but actually aren’t will be hushed, and progress can occur, and then we can take a breath and pause to celebrate the concepts that Jesus really taught, because we know if Jesus came back he would stay the hell away from the Christian Right.