Facebook® POST (RE: R. Starner Jones, MD)

"CULTURE CRISIS" vs. "HEALTH CARE CRISIS"
Late, on the evening of September 20, 2010, I confirmed a Facebook® FRIEND Request from Matthew A. Elliott, a random acquaintance made via cyberspace connections to current Facebook® FRIENDS: Brandon Broehl-Phifer, and candidate for San Francisco District 8 City Supervisor, Raphael Mandelman. Out of plain & simple curiosity, I chose to indulge in exploring this new FRIEND'S Facebook® PROFILE, where I was shocked to find the following WALL Post, originating from one Richard Meckstroth, but re-posted recently to his own WALL by Mr. Elliott, himself:

Pictured is a young physician by the name of Dr. Roger Starner Jones. His short two-paragraph letter to the White House accurately puts the blame on a "Culture Crisis" instead of a "Health Care Crisis"...

It's worth a quick read:

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD

If you agree... Pass it on!
FACEBOOK WALL POST
By: Richard Meckstroth

The COMMENT(S) I shared on Mr. Elliott's Facebook® WALL were an abbreviated version of what I am now publishing to my own social media space on the Web. I'm altogether willing & ready to acknowledge that I had intended for this entire article to be shared with Mr. Elliot and his FRIENDS; although, I did do my best to condense my COMMENT(S) in a way that preserved the overall "positively progressive" tone of my extemporaneous opinion essay.  Here's what I wrote at length, without any omissions:

Does he have a point, really? 

Let me counter the argument extemporaneously,...

I've suffered from a disabling HIV/AIDS diagnosis since leaving The College of William & Mary (Williamsburg, VA) two months before graduation, in 2002. Conceivably (depending on your point of view and/or level of intimate experience living a closeted college life on the campus of an elite, albeit very conservative, small public "Southern Ivy" university), I was all but forced to leave.

Traipsing cross country in search of the solace of acceptance & understanding from like-minded, health-conscious homos, I chose to make San Francisco my home. Only upon arriving, without a penny in my pocket and desperately in need of support, did I sign on as a client with Bay Area Young Positives, Inc. (BAY Positives) & Larkin Street Youth Services (LSYS).

Both agencies offered much needed assistance, but what they offered that proved most invaluable to me was the means and wherewithal (i.e., advocacy, linkages & coordination of services) with which to apply and be accepted immediately for Supplemental Security Income & Medicaid.

I freely and shamelessly admit that, back then, I was little aware and in no position to be convinced of what good fortune I had run into; what, with access to universal health care and all. In spite of the care, guidance & supportive services I was receiving on a daily basis, I let my once promising life degrade into a dangerously absurd cacophony of unmitigated drug dependency/abuse and unmonitored, unmedicated manic depression & HIV/AIDS disease.

It was only after having recovered from a six month messianic schizoid-delusional borderline personality psychosis and AIDS-related PCP pneumonia that I was coaxed into pursuing employment by the gentleman who was then Prevention Outreach Coordinator and is now Executive Director of BAY Positives: my very dear friend/provider/colleague, Curtis Moore, MPH.  In January 2006, with a great turn of luck, I was hired on by FOLSOM STREET EVENTS® (FSE) as their Administrative Coordinator.

During a single year of employment in the charitable nonprofit events planning & fundraising sector, I was able/invited to catch a quick but fleeting glimpse of true independence. Since arriving to San Francisco, my time with FSE was the only time ever in the last nine years that I’ve been able to afford simple mundane luxuries, such as the immense pleasure of going on spontaneous shopping sprees to buy new clothes or amenities & accouterments for my TenderNob/CathedraLoin studio apartment.

In early 2007, after my employment with FSE came to an abrupt and untimely end, my life immediately reverted into a state of perpetual degradation. I freely (although, this time quite shamefully) admit that, at that point, I was still very much unable to accept or acknowledge the very fortunate position in which I had been.

Consequently, I once again allowed myself to turn down the dismally dark, dreary & dangerous path of the "party scene." Of the nearly $30,000USD worth of Unemployment Insurance Benefits I received from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) throughout 2007, I spent a total of $22,758.00USD solely on illicit substances & paraphernalia. Again, unmitigated drug dependency/abuse & unmonitored, unmedicated HIV/AIDS disease lead to what turned out to be my most cataclysmic & death-defying demise.

On October 7, 2007, I was discovered alone, lying unconscious & half-dead in my own bed, drenched in my own blood, vomit & defecation. My face was blackened with necrosis; nearly all my teeth had fallen out. For a second time already in my short, young life, I suffered from an AIDS-related PCP Pneumonia; although, this particular instance of the disease was drastically & dangerously compounded by an unrelenting, out-of-control necrotizing poly-microbial bacterial infection of the face.

Sirens blaring; the SFFD rushed me to the hospital, where I stayed in forced comatose sedation for eight (8) weeks. During that time, only San Francisco's best diagnosticians, doctors & surgeons fought to subdue, control & obliterate the pneumonia. At that, they were successful; however, they sadly sorely failed at doing the same with the bacterial infection that had devastated & destroyed my face. In order to save my sorry specimen of a warped & wasted life, they were forced to amputate my entire upper jaw, mouth and nearly two thirds of my nose.

The only good fortune I can boast of having during this tragic period in my sorry life is that, thankfully, the many millions of dollars that I have incurred in medical costs since late 2007 – when I literally lost all face to the devastation of illness & injury – have been fully covered by the federal & state public health insurance systems (i.e., Medicare & Medicaid).

I have had 11 surgical reconstructions since doctors first debrided the necrotic skin & bone of my face, in late 2007; I still have what will end up most likely being more than 12 facial reconstructions left on the books. As you might assume (what with the direction this article/essay has taken up 'til now!), I expect all of these costs to be covered by a public health care & insurance system.

Don't imagine for a single instance, however, that I haven't been intensely jarred, jawed and jogged into sublime, unadulterated consciousness (maybe, okay probably, for the first time ever in my young, short life) by the terribly unconscionable tragedies that have befallen me, recently. In fact, my life is on an upstart path toward resoundingly resolute redemption!

Despite the ubiquity of my bitterly unbecoming and brutish ugliness, I am on a path towards elaborate beautification and self-betterment. Since clearing the myriad mile-high hurdles of disease, depression, drug dependency and disfigurement, I have discovered a more righteous path toward self-acceptance, sobriety, sanctity and salvation.

In turn, I’ve finally allowed the potency of my profoundly pertinent story of and perspective on survival to turn me no longer in the direction of dependency (i.e., neither on State, on System, nor on DRUGS!!), but along a more promising path of fulfillment through autonomy & altruism (i.e., enough independence to be of worthwhile service to others).

Rest assured!! No matter what direction my writing has taken presently, I am as resolutely committed to living sane, safe and sober, as I am devoutly determined to do so without being reliant upon the System for sustenance & support.

Yet, as for this moment of my life in particular, I am desperately in need of immediate, enduring supportive services & care from a government which practices, as it preaches, in policies protecting our universal rights to progress & peace...

No matter what those other sad, sorry specimens of mankind choose to do with their lives in any given instance, I resolutely & astutely believe that we’ve also a universal right to be hoped for & hoped upon, as well as to have the realization of our purely plebeian potential for salvation through redemption shamelessly, solemnly sanctified, supported & assured by a government founded on what I call “fore-fathered philosophies of happily helped & unhampered human fulfillment.”

Without Medicare & Medicaid, I would have been nothing but left for dead. Now, if anything, I can boast of having not only a marred & mangled, most misfortunate, Tina-torn & AIDS-quilted tapestry of scars, skin-grafts, and flaps of flesh festooning my funny, freakish face, but also a very potent & powerful determination to survive beyond all odds, to beat the odds, and become one hell of a stand-up, admirable, fabulously fagged-out & fortunate Fog City fellow, who’s done something smart with his story of sheer, shamefully scary stupidity & selfishness.

Who knows!? Maybe in writing this comment here on the “WALL” of some random new Facebook® FRIEND of mine, I have effectively furthered my first few footsteps of foray down the path of right direction (although, albeit skewed way to the far left of some people’s fancy!!).

Maybe in writing this comment, I have effectively initiated my endeavor to affect truly positive change in the world; otherwise, I don’t imagine that the giant PLUS SIGN (+) plastered on every last page of my medical record would prove to amount to much of any sort of inspiration for my own (or anyone else, for that matter!) piety, pedantry, and purely pulchritudinous progress in the World. Let’s hope the best for us!! For, if not, nothing’s left but the worst of us…

Most respectfully, and…
Sincerely submitted,

Matt(e)o | QHereKidSF
Matthew D. Blanchard
San Francisco, CA USA
[20100921T011437PST]

http://bit.ly/qherekidsf
http://twitter.com/QHereKidSF
http://facebook.com/mblanchard79

What do you think, after reading this?? Whose side do you favor; that of the conservative interpretation of "CULTURE CRISIS" (How very "TEAPARTY," n'est-ce pas?) or that of the progressive's point of view: the ulterior acceptance and mainstream, status quo point of view of "HEALTH CARE CRISIS"?

What I can say in defense of the conservative interpretation is that "CHANGE" in my life has been slow in coming; but when it did finally come, it came in heaps & heaps, loads & loads, bounds & bounds, and tons & tons of tough-knuckled know-how, not begot happiness, self-betterment, beatitude & beautification!

I'm not sure if "CHANGE" is meant to come at the same pace for everyone on this Earth; however, as for myself, I am oh-so-glad that change has arrived and is in the works for me. Still, I mean/t every word I have herein writ. So, in closing, I will gladly reiterate: "Let's hope the best for us!! For, if not, nothing's left but the worst of us..."

Beliefnet.com : The Rick Warren Interview

Rick Warren, the megalithic media phenomenon, much-acclaimed pastor of Sattleback Church and financial supporter of Porposition 8 in California: the Constitutional Amendment banning Same-Sex Marriage on November 4, 2008, remarks on Gay Marriage & Divorce in a Beliefnet.com video interview, going so far in his opposition to Gay Marriage as to equate it with the legalization of marriage based on incest, pedophilia and polygamy.


In further investigating the Rick Warren matter on weblogs and in online news journals, I came across a political commentary posted by one Kathryn Kolbert on the CNN.com Politics website, entitled: "Commentary: Choosing Rick Warren was a Mistake." Her comments were extremely revealing to me, as I am sure they were to many curious readers.

Kolbert succinctly argued against President-elect Barack Obama's choice to have Pastor Rick Warren give the pivotal, very significant and solemn inspirational invocation at his inauguration on January 20, 2009, by demonstrating in a very matter of fact manner all the ways in which Warren (a self-reputed "moderate" and "bridge-builder") exemplifies the anti-freedom & anti-gay values of the Evangelical Religious Right.

She contends with the anger & disappointment of the Nation's "progressive activists who worked so hard to elect Barack Obama" by admitting first that some people might be a bit confused by such attestations & discouragements from the extreme political left. She goes on to elucidate the whys & wherefores for the injustice and damned near disgrace of choosing Warren as invocateur for the inauguration.

Mrs. Kolbert says with regards to Warren's opposition to Marriage Equality in California that "it's not just his support for Prop. 8 that is so galling to equality activists. It's that Warren, in an interview with Beliefnet.com, has since equated allowing loving same-sex couples to get married with redefining marriage to permit incest and pedophilia."

Curious as I was, I set out to find this Beliefnet.com video interview with Pastor Rick Warren, and easily found it with a keyword search on their website. I was shocked, appalled and disgusted! Here was a man, a prominent moderate Evangelical leader, justifying anti-equality bigotry and hate-speech by actually agreeing with the interviewer that Gay Marriage is equivalent to incest, pedophilia & polygamy and by always referring back to the self-assured crux of the conversation: that it's not any matter iof whether or not Warren is opposed to Gay Marriage or Civil Unions; what is truly significant is that he opposes a redefinition of Traditional Marriage—as if to hide the bigotry, prejudice and hate behind a vapid veil of more solemn faith in a five thousand year old tradition!

The following is a dictation of the final segment of the Beliefnet.com Rick Warren Interview: On Gay Marriage & Divorce. But better yet for the full dramatic effect, just follow the previous link to view the video for yourself. The text of the interview:

RICK WARREN: "I fully support equal rights for all Americans [...] The issue for me is: I'm not opposed to [Civil Unions] as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a five thousand year old definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother & a sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marring a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

STEVEN WALDMAN: "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

RICK WARREN: "Oh, I do! For five thousand years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion...this is not a Christian issue—Buddhists, Muslims, Jews. Historically, Marriage is a man and a woman, so I'm opposed to that.

"And the reason I supported Prop. 8 really was a free speech issue, because if...first, the court over-read the will of the people, but second, there were all kinds of threats that if it did not pass, any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships. And that would be hate speech. Well, to me, we should have freedom of speech, ok...Can we do this in a civil way?

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Sattleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of the portraiture of people getting AIDS through gay relationships, so they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage."

(S. Waldman, "Rick Warren Interview: On Gay Marriage & Divorce,"
Beliefnet.com Interviews Rick Warren | The Rick Warren Interview,
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 at 11:20AM.)

Like I've written already, I find this rhetoric appalling, shocking and disgraceful!! Funny though, how Pastor Warren speaks as though this is a global, worldly issue by including Buddhists, Muslims & Jews in his argument for Traditional Marriage, when "historically" speaking, many world religions have once (or still do) give credence and legitimacy to incestuous, polygamist, pedophile relationships between men and women; thus, invalidating his entire overture right from the start.

After seeing this video interview, I realize ever more so that I am extremely disappointed and angry with Obama's pick for his inaugural invocation. Giving such a significant role in such a major event in our Nation's history to a man who blatantly and guiltlessly promotes hate-speech and homophobia (YES! HOMOPHOBIA, Rick Warren! I'd call him a homophobe, wouldn't you?) is a bold, shameless affront to all the just and fair-minded equality activists that supported Barack Obama's Campaign for President.

I am personally offended and ultimately very disappointed that I have put so much faith in Barack Obama as a proponent of Change and as a stalwart advocate for equality, only to be let down by his choice here.

I wrote in an entry in this blog, entitled "Rev. Rick Warren: An Anti-Gay Invocation," that I could understand Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, because, as the President-elect himself argues, he has been trying to promote a dialogue between conflicting political and social camps by bringing together a diverse array of people to participate in this monumental occasion. He says that is what his campaign was all about, and I agreed with him, wholeheartedly!

But, as a gay man who dreams one day of escaping the aesthetic judgments and prejudices of the average homosexual, passing beyond my disfigurement and finding a relationship with a man that can develop openly, honestly and lovingly into a committed union: a Marriage, I can not and will not support Barack Obama's choice to have Rick Warren, a bigoted & hate-mongering Evangelical, give the opening invocation at the 2009 Presidential Inauguration. It's just not right!

As Kathryn Kolbert remarks in her CNN.com Politics Commentary:

There is no shortage of religioius leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good: Rev. Joseph Lewery, who has been selected to give the benediction, is a life-long advocate for justice. There are others like him, and in our increasingly diverse nation, they aren't all Christian.

Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books & media appearances and has every right to promote his religious views. But he doesn't need or deserve a position of honor at the inauguration of a President who has given hope to so many Americans by rejecting the politics of division and emphasizing his commitment to constitutional values.

(K. Kolbert, "Commentary: Choosing Rick Warren was a Mistake,"
CNN.com Politics, December 19, 2008 at 9:41AM.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 at 7:04AM.)

Mrs. Kolbert is right in her conclusions: there are plenty of other American religious leaders that uphold the values that Barack Obama fought for in his Campaign for President and that he could have just as well chosen for the invocation. The socio-political implications of the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the 2009 Presidential Inauguration are grave and divisive, opening the door to so many other arguments against an Obama Presidency, because of Rick Warren's other illicit values concerning as such a women's right to chose, amongst other things (as explained in the Kolbert Commentary).

I in no way can consider myself an allegiant equality activist, for I have had no frontline experience fighting for Marriage Equality and other equal rights for all under the law. I have only begun to voice my opinion on this blog and on comments I've posted to other blogs or news feeds I've read concerning these issues.

I've also associated myself via Facebook™ with ENGAGE to End Discrimination: The Marriage Equality Project, a fledgling, soon to be incorporated nonprofit organization based out of San Francisco, CA and founded by my Facebook™ Friend, Michael Friedman. I haven't been active in their Marriage Equality rallies & protests, but I have subscribed to their RSS feed on Blogger® and Google™ Reader and stay informed of developments within the organization by those means. I can't say that I am an allegiant equality activist, no! But, I can't say that, as a gay man living in California, I am just as equally disappointed and angered by Obama's choice as the best of them. In fact, ...

I can't stand this! I'm irate! Aren't you? Please, give me some feedback! Let me know if I'm letting my easily affected emotions become unhinged by something of little importance; or otherwise, affirm my disappointment & anger and join me in opposing this choice. I eagerly anticipate any feedback or thoughts I receive from my blog followers. This is a dialogue I'd very much like to have; if not, just to calm my nerve!

Maybe the choice of Inauguration Invocation Speaker should have followed more of the effect of decisions on Commencement Speakers for the College of William & Mary (speaking from experience), where candidates are selected based on writing samples and formal public speaking skills, as opposed to on popularity or stature within a particular community. What on Earth is Barack Obama trying to evoke with this choice? I can't find any good in it! Please help!

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

In closing, I must say: Peace Out! And Plenitudes of Pumpernickel & Plum-Pudding Pastries, as well as Cheer, Bliss & Merriment for you this Holiday Season! May you all experience the joy of giving & gratitude and the blessings of good tidings this wintry season. I know that I am grateful to have so many dear friends and family who care so deeply for me. And I'm thankful for the ungodly AWESOME gift that my William & Mary Theatre Assoc. friends purchased for me for Christmas—as some sort of recompense for all the tragedy I have experienced in the last year & a half. I'm eternally grateful to you all. You know who you are! :-) Happy Holidays!!

Rev. Rick Warren : An Anti-Gay Invocation

I am prompted to write this blog entry in reaction to a couple of online CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog articles I read when linked to them after reading The Gay Opinion Blog, a blog of news journal editorials related to GLBT issues that I just began following a week ago.

The Gay Opinion Blog is ripe with commentary and valuable information on the current shifts and balances (or lack there of) in the scales of justice for the GAY RIGHTS movement. The CBS News articles I read online were entitled:

• Obama And The Gay Community
  written by Marc Ambinder, CBS News Chief Political Consultant
  
• Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration
  posted by Kevin Hechtkopf, CBS News Politcal Hotsheet.

Personally, as a stalwart Obama supporter—someone who is energized and exultant in anticipation of his inauguration in less than a month—I have to say that I understand president-elect Barack Obama's choice to have the "New Evangelical" pastor, Right-Wing religious juggernaut celebrity and zealous opponent to Marriage Equality, Rev. Rick Warren give a solemn, meaningful and influential inspirational invocation at the inauguration on January 20, 2009. But I do not appreciate the choice.

As Obama is cited as saying in the second of the two CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog entries I've mentioned, his inauguration is meant to symbolize a connection or "dialogue" between ardently opposed ideologies—political discord previously hinged on decisive, contradictory viewpoints and values—signifying a unification of good will, mutual understanding and respect between conflicting political parties, religious institutions and social groups:

The president-elect stressed that he is a "fierce advocate for equality for gay & lesbian Americans," but said that it was also important for Americans to come together despite disagreements on social issues.

Mr. Obama said the inauguration would include people with a wide variety of view points represented and "that's how it should be."

He also pointed out that he was invited by Warren a few years ago to speak at his church, despite his disagreements with Warren on [Gay Rights issues]. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign has been about," he added."

(K. Hechtkopf, "Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 12:50AM).

This idea of "dialogue" was a distinctive element of Obama's campaign for President; no wonder it should be a motif echoed in the character and style of the ceremonies of his Official Oath of Office. "United We Stand!" "Yes We Can!" "The Change We Need!" All are political slogans of a nation's unifying force that brought 53 million people of ever race, ethnicity and creed to the polls on November 4, 2008 to vote for an Obama Presidency.

My support for Obama's tactics as a campaigning, regime-changing politician is strong. Albiet, Obama (like all other major Democratic Candidates for President) may have been a "fierce advocate for equality" for all, but he never had the political gumption or cahones to full-out support Marriage Equality. He (like his adversaries) only supported civil unions, presumingly afraid that full support of Gay Marriage Rights would significantly impede upon his chances of winning the Presidency, causing him to seem far too liberal than he already is. In my opinion, support for civil unions (just and only civil unions) for GLBT Americans falls short of "fierce advocacy of equal rights," for the mere fact that civil unions are not equality under the law.

Supporting civil unions is as far as Obama will go in hailing the call for equal rights of all GLBT Americans, as if it's just enough to be said so as not to offend the more moderate or right-wing of his multitudes of supporters. In choosing such a slanted, half-of-nothing stance on the "issue," Obama saves his own ass, but in doing so, he offends and betrays his strigently loyal gay followers. This is why the choice of Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration is wrong. The choice is a disgracing affront to all GLBT Americans, especially to all those toiling in the trenches for Marriage Equality, and it fully demonstrates the inherent weakness in Obama's strategy for inclusion and unity: that such "dialogue" is at it's best awfully subjective and terribly biased and is likely to offend or betray at least one class of citizens (in this case, the Gays & Lesbians).

That said, I stick with my aforementioned support of the president-elect, and rightfully, I can not say that I am fully in line with the vehement opposition to the Rick Warren choice protrayed in citations from the same second CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog article:

In The Nation, Sarah Posner wrote the following: "Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics."

"Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful," she added. (Read the full column.)

(K. Hechtkopf, "Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 12:50AM).

In response to the first aforementioned CBS News Poltical Hotsheet Blog article, "Obama And The Gay Community" written by Marc Ambinder (the complete text of which you will find below), I have to say that Ambinder hits the nail on the head. In 1992, the GLBT community was elated that a queer political ally (i.e., Bill Clinton) was entering the Presidency and expected therefore great sweaping changes in favor of our causes, but what we got instead were disappointments and let downs:

One reason the Rick Warren thing is a big deal is because, after Bill Clinton, the gay community is unusually sensitive to getting the shorter angle of presidential triangulation. It is hard to overstate the optimism and excitement that gays and lesbians felt in 1992. But the optimism deflated spectacularly after "Don't Ask, Don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention President Clinton's sneaky 1996 ad boasting about DOMA, which aired only on Christian radio.

Clinton was willing to say the word "gay" in public and appear in black tie at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, but, in the eyes of the gay political community, his commitment to gay rights vanished both times it counted most.

Relative to other minority groups, the LGBT community is disproportion- ately dependent on the goodwill of the president, because almost all of their big-ticket agenda items are federal laws (the military, DOMA repeal, hate crimes, ENDA, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, etc.). And relative to other minorities, gays still want and need basic reassurance that they are an ordinary part of American life and politics. So everyone is peering anxiously at Obama wondering if he is going to let them down like Clinton did.

(M. Ambinder, "Obama And The Gay Community."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 1:36AM)

The GLBT community IS "disproportionately dependent on the goodwill of the president" for all its grandiose, meaningful, trend-breaking agenda items, but do we need "reassurance that [we] are an ordinary part of American life and politics?" You're damn right, we do! Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals & Transgendered People continue to exist on the extreme periphery of the liberal political agenda and are seen as mere harbingers of doom and ill-fortune by the right-wing Evangelicals. Where do we stand? What force do we have to affect change in our own lives? Or are we just short of powerless, impotent in the political arena?

As a "fierce advocate for equality," Obama should be expecting the scrutiny and judgement of the entire GLBT community in America in his practice to make real the changes we are fighting for. Selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration was not an intelligent or appropriate choice by Obama; it was a let down: the first of let's hope is not many! We'll just have to wait and see how the Obama Administration responds to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention the myriad of concerns of those millions of Americans living with HIV/AIDS, many of whom are important proponents in the fight for Gay Rights.

It's a real shame that The Gay Opinion Blog omitted the final paragraph of the Ambinder article when citing it in their blog entry. That paragraph is an inciteful, intelligent discombobulation of the drastic complexities of the GLBT political identity and ideologies.

Although, I have to say, it's quite obvious this was the view of a politically savvy, heterosexual man, for I don't think that a homosexual, in writing such an article, would so denigrate and ashame the GLBT community with such judgements. A queer author would have striven for a more sympathetic, empowering tone, leaning in favor of the aptitudes and intrinsic equalities of Gays & Lesbians. But that's just my two sense on this whole issue... What do you think?