Atlanta Braves Ptiching Coach Hating on Homosexuals

From the research I did a few weeks ago, I assumed the sporting industry was taking serious steps to prevent further anti-homosexual slander during sporting events, as well as keep their respective stadiums "clean," so to speak. Unfortunately, my assumption may prove to be incorrect before long. On April 26, Atlanta Braves pitching coach Roger McDowell issued a statement of apology to the public for rude behavior he displayed against a group of male fans watching a game in San Francisco.

According to this TMZ report, McDowell did quite a bit more than the "heckling" he apologized for. He approached the three male fans, asking them questions like, "Are you a homo couple or a threesome," and "Are you three giving it to each other in the ass?" As if this lovely response wasn't enough for anyone to take, he simulated gay sex with a bat, shown in this picture. To make matters even more awesome, McDowell did this in front of a family of four, including two 9-year-old girls. The father of the two girls tried to step in and stop McDowell, who then heckled the man, saying "Kids don't fucking belong at the baseball park," and threatening to knock his teeth out with the same baseball bat he used to simulate gay sex. The family demanded an apology, which McDowell later gave.

To me, simply apologizing for his vile behavior is not enough for Roger McDowell. He needs to be punished some more. This is not me being bloodthirsty, but rather me wanting McDowell to learn that he can't get away with making homophobic slurs, threatening to physically harm someone, and doing said actions in front of children. Sometimes people in highly respected positions like McDowell's think they can somehow get away with saying and doing anything they want, because they're famous. This is not so.

Fortunately, the Atlanta Braves agree with me. Roger McDowell was placed on what they call "administrative leave." Fredi Gonzales, manager of the Braves, says he hopes McDowell won't lose his job over this. He fully admits that McDowell will have to do some serious apologizing and hoop-jumping, but that he should retain his job in the end.

GLAAD reached out to the Braves Administration in an effort to express the gay community's outrage against the slurs McDowell spouted off last Tuesday, but I think it was largely unnecessary. The minute the story hit the press, I'm sure the Braves were trying to do damage control. It doesn't take a genius to see that what McDowell did and said put him and the Braves in a tight spot. This isn't the '50s, where someone can heckle a homosexual person and expect no repercussions. The gay community across the United States now has a voice, and it's growing larger every day. Frank Wren, general manager of the Atlanta Braves, made the comment that the Braves ave reputation to uphold, and that the actions of one member of the Braves staff does not reflect the opinion of  the Braves administration as a whole. I find it interesting that the first thinking Wren says is that the Braves will uphold their reputation. Shouldn't he be worried about the things McDowell said, as opposed to the potential damages his words will cause the team? Is the real problem being addressed, or will this turn into another incident of someone trying to sweep embarrassing behavior under the rug and hoping people will forget about it? I won't forget about it, that's for sure. I hoped that the strides being taken in major league sports to prevent homosexual hate would take effect everywhere. Apparently, I have a while to wait.

Day of Silence: Good or Bad?

April 15th marked the 15th anniversary of the Day of Silence. The Day of Silence, so called that because those who participate in it take a vow of silence for a day, is to raise awareness of LGBT bullying. The Day of Silence got its start in 1996 at the University of Virginia. Over 150 students participated, and the creators decided to go public with their campaign. In 2001, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) became the official sponsor of the Day of Silence. With the help of the GLSEN, this demonstration has been allowed to grow by leaps and bounds. GLSEN provides team organizers, volunteers, and different types of support to local organizers in the hope that the quest to stop LGBT bullying will grow and gain even more support. It seems to be working, if this year's participation in the Day of Silence can be used as a tool of measurement. The number of participants has grown from 150 in 1996 to hundreds of  thousands of people all over the world. Not being able to talk, many participants took to Twitter in an effort to portray their thoughts and feelings about the Day of Silence and the reactions they received. A brief history about the Day of Silence and how it has grown can be found here.

To try to put a stop to the Day of Silence, some schools and school districts have tried to limit the rights of students participating in the Day of Silence, or make the national event illegal to participate in all together while on school grounds. Lambda Legal has published a brief answering questions about the legality of participating in the Day of Silence. For the most part, schools can't do a damn thing to stop those who wish to participate in it, because refusing to speak is not technically disrupting a classroom. Despite this, 30 students were sent to an administrator's office and asked to leave campus in one school district. The prompt shown on the right is a card many participants of the Day of Silence have carried around to explain the reason for their silence. It carries a dual purpose: to explain why this person has chosen to remain silent and extend awareness of LGBT bullying.

Per a recent survey done by the National Center of Transgender Equality, a shocking 31 percent of transgender or gender non-conforming students reported abuse, 5 percent reported physical assault, and 3 percent reported sexual assault by their teachers or staff at their respective schools. Teachers and staff, not fellow students. In another survey done, summarized here, 84.6 percent of all LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 40.1 percent reported being physically harassed, and 18.8 percent reported being physically assaulted. 63.7 percent reported being verbally harassed, 27.2 reported being physically harassed, and 12.5 percent reported being physically assaulted because of their possible transgendered nature. 61.1 percent of all LGBT students reported feeling unsafe in their school, and 39.9 percent of all possible transgender students reported feeling unsafe as well.

 Some have spoken out against the day of silence. Organizations such as The American Family Association, The Liberty Council, and Focus on the Family have come out in open opposition to the Day of Silence being allowed in schools. Focus on the Family has even organized a rival event dubbed the "Day of Dialogue," which encourages students to come t school ready to talk about why being gay is wrong, even going so far as to draw of prompts for students to read from. The Family Research Council came out with the opinion that many gay teens are led to suicide because they know subconsciously that the lifestyle they "choose" to lead is abnormal. The American Family Association places some of the blame for gay teen suicides of adults who "pressure" students to come out before they understand what they are doing. Regardless of whether or not being gay is morally sound, no one should be bullied.

Bullying in any form should be a punishable crime. As a victim of bullying, I can personally attest to the damaging effects it has on people, especially those in elementary and junior high. I can't even begin to count the many times I've seen things in the news about a 13-year-old killing himself or herself because of bullying. Some say that children killing themselves because of being bullied just means they had weak characters, and were looking for an excuse to kill themselves. I say shut the fuck up. When you're being constantly bullied, day in and day out, you don't think it's ever going to end. You think it will go on forever and ever, or until you can put a stop to it by putting a bullet into your brain, slitting your wrists, overdosing on pills, or killing the ones that bully you. I'm not saying that everyone whose ever been bullied feels this way, but don't write off bullying as a trivial matter. Bullying is a serious issue.

Having given my opinion on bullying, let me ask this question: is the Day of Silence really achieving what everyone wants it to? I totally understand the unifying act of remaining silence to raise awareness, but is remaining silent raising awareness for anything? More often than not, students don't notice or don't care that their peers are remaining silent for a day. Some people are under the impression that the Day of Silence is to promote Gay Rights, not stop LGBT bullying. A friend of mine has remarked on several occasions that the premise of the Day of Silence is stupid. "If I ever die because I'm gay," he said, "I want there to be a Day of Screaming. I want EVERYONE to know that I died because I'm gay and people can't accept me for who I am." I'm inclined to believe him, but I'm torn between his belief and the belief that the Day of Silence is doing good. What do you think? I've given you the facts and you've had a chance to think about it. Is the Day of Silence effective? Is the message getting through?

Stopping the Hate in Professional Sports

From the few professional sports games I've been to, it seems to be a national pastime to shout out homophobic slurs at members of opposing teams, as well as fans of opposing teams and referees who make unsavory calls. While I understand this is part of the tensions that arise during something as supercharged as a professional game, whether it be baseball, basketball, football, or any other sport, it doesn't excuse the fact that these slurs and taunts are hurtful and damaging.

The most recent of these incidents happened earlier this week with Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers. Bryant, incensed by a technical foul placed on him by a referee, called him a "fucking faggot" on live television. In this video, it's easy to read Bryant's lips as the camera zooms in on him after he sits on the bench.

GLAAD and the HRC commended NBA Commissioner David Stern for fining the Lakers superstar a grand total of $100,000 for his homophobic slur against the referee. GLAAD President Jarret Barrios said, "Discriminatory slurs have no place on or off the court. Professional sports players need to set a better example for young people who use words like this on the playground and in our schools, creating a climate of intolerance and hostility. The LA Lakers have a responsibility to educate their fans about why this word is unacceptable."

Bryant quickly apologized for his words,earning a comendation from HRC President Joe Solmonese. As much as I wish I could say this incident was isolated, it isn't GLAAD has worked with several other organizations and teams. Among these are the New York Yankees, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), and the Hershey Bears hockey team.

The Yankees Stadium has cracked down on punishing those who engage in homophobic slurs. In this video, Yankees fans are surrounding a few Red Sox fans, singing a highly offensive parody of The Village People's YMCA, yelling instead "Why Are You Gay?" Yankees spokesperson Alice McGillion spoke out against the behavior of the Yankees fans, reaffirming GLAAD that the Yankees have a zero-tolerance policy on this kind of behavior. Guards are now supposed to patrol the crowds, ejecting anyone who partakes in behavior like the behavior seen in the video above.

WWE has pledged to work wit GLAAD to prevent further behavior like the behavior displayed by wrestler John Cena. Cena, in productions of the show WWE Raw, which is shown on USA, made fun of fellow wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's film career, feminizing him. In another production of the show, Cena made cracks about another fellow wrestler known as "The Miz," insinuating that he and his wrestling partner were secretly dating one another.

GLAAD contacted WWE about the behavior displayed by Cena, worried about the message his behavior sends to the people who watch WWE Raw, which is rated PG and is targeted for a younger audience. WWE released this statement after GLAAD's contact with them,
saying “WWE takes this issue very seriously, and has already spoken with our talent about these incidents. We are taking steps and working with GLAAD to ensure that our fans know that WWE is against bullying or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We strongly value our fans in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, and apologize to them for these incidents.”

This article briefly describes a similar incident with the Hershey Bears, and has roughly the same outcome. With all my previous experience concerning professional sports games and their exuberant fans, this news brings joy to my heart. It's nice to see professional teams like the Yankees, which is recognized all over the US and garners much respect from fans, take a stand against homophobic taunts and slurs. My respect for GLAAD grows more and more every time I see an article detailing their work to put an end to discrimination. Stopping taunts like these has only produced a ripple in the pond of discrimination, but it signifies a change in the overall tone of sports, and I can't wait for these ripples to turn into waves.

Spotlight: GLAAD

The news surrounding Gay Rights has been depressing as of late. I don't know about anyone else, but writing depressing things wears me down after a bit, so this week I decided to blog about an organization called GLAAD. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is, simply put, a media outlet for the voices of the LGBT community all over the country. In GLAAD's mission statement, the organization states that they promote understanding, increase acceptance, and advance equality. Strong words from an organization, especially an organization that openly supports and promotes the advancement of Gay Rights in this turbulent time.

Every year, GLAAD does this thing called the Media Awards. These awards are given to people to "recognize and honor media for their fair, accurate and inclusive representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and the issues that affect their lives." This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Media Awards, and the list of recipients is pretty impressive. The awards still aren't over yet, but in the past Jane Lynch and Chris Colfer from the wildly popular TV show, Glee, have received awards from GLAAD.

An interesting back story accompanying this year's Media awards comes from MSN TV and Gay Black Male (GBM) News. Earlier this week, MSN put up a countdown on the Wonderwall feature of their website of the 15 Most Powerful Gay Celebrities, which included Jane Lynch, Rosie O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, and the always fabulous Ellen DeGeneres. Surprisingly enough, no people of color were mentioned. In response to MSN's "All-White Wonderwall Feature," GBM News came out with a list of the 15 Most Powerful Gay Celebrities of Color. If you read nothing else on this blog, read the article on the 15 Most Powerful Gay Celebrities of Color. My mind was completely blown. Things I take for granted have been fought for and won by these extremely courageous people. I'm not taking anything away from MSN's list, because it's just as fabulous. But if  you want an eye-opening experience, read the list of gay people of color.

How does this tie into GLAAD? GLAAD posted an article praising GBM News for the attention they drew to the All-White cast MSN posted. Is there an award for Outstanding News Station? Because I think GBM News deserves it this year.

April 1st Marks Anniversary of World's First Married Lesbian Couple

Yesterday, Helene Faasen and Anne-Marie Thus, from the Netherlands, celebrated their 10 year anniversary. On April 1, 2001 they were wed alongside three pairs of grooms with former mayor Job Cohen presiding over the ceremony. Anne-Marie, shown on the right side of this picture, says "We married for love, not politics," yet their marriage cause political ripple throughout the world. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize gay marriage, followed by Belgium two years later. Now, the Netherlands is one of 10 countries to have gay marriage legalized in the past decade, but I give them props for being first in line to battle marriage inequality. Now, 20 percent of all gay couples in the country are married, making up about 2 percent of the total marriages in the last decade and putting the number of gay marriages around 15,000. Faasen and Thus now live in the souter part of the Netherlands with their two children Nathan, 10, and Myrthle, 9. As heartwarming as this tale is, there is still much work to be done on the road to equality.

Boris Dittrich, director of the LGBT Rights Program at Human Rights Watch says, “The fact that same-sex marriage has been legalized on three continents demonstrates progress in equality.  However, while the right to same-sex marriage may be viewed as the last step in ending discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, legalization does not end discrimination, either by officials or other people.” In the Netherlands alone, 428 homophobic acts were committed, almost one fifth of them involving physical violence. Seven in ten homosexual individuals have encountered physical or verbal abuse in their lifetimes. Nearly half of the Dutch polled in a recent study say they find two men kissing in public offensive.

Thus and Faasen have some thoughts on the prejudices placed on gay couples. Faasen says, "As a homosexual person, the whole world concerns itself with your private life, even though you are not into anything weird or freaky or scary for the children. Those are, of course, the prejudices." Thus reflects on the difficulty gay couples have getting married in other countries, saying "We were lucky that others had taken up the fight and made it possible for us to get married. If other people need us now, especially in countries where it is not yet legal, we want to be there for them."

"Kill The Gays" Bill is Shelved in Uganda

Today, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda was shelved. The bill, introduced on October 14, 2009, would broaden the spectrum of punishment for being homosexual in Uganda by making it a crime punishable by death. People with former convictions for being homosexual, anyone HIV-positive, or anyone engaging in same-sex sexual endeavors under the age of 18 would be subject to this new Bill, had it passed. There is also a section in the Bill stating that any Ugandan citizen engaging in any aspect of homosexuality outside of Uganda would be extradited back to the country for sentencing. This includes businesses and non-government organizations that support LGBT rights.

David Bahati, shown above, is the Member of Parliament (MP) that introduced this bill. Interestingly enough, news organizations in Uganda claim that the inspiration came from American evangelical Christians, who claimed that homosexuality was a direct threat to African families. Coincidentally, the bill was proposed a month after a two day conference was held in Uganda by three American Christians. Hmmm...sounds like the teachings of Jesus to me. I personally find it hilarious that the bill was influenced by Christians, and AMERICAN Christians at that. It's hilarious because the Christian faith prides itself on the teachings of tolerance they are supposed to follow, and it's hilarious because the fact that they were American Christians had to specified, like American Christians are a special breed of Christians.

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni formed a committee to investigate the ramifications of passing the bill, which was quickly dubbed the "Kill The Gays" Bill, and in May of 2010 was advised to shut the bill down. Now, almost a year later, the bill has been shelved, despite protests from Bahati, who is unwilling to stop pushing for the passage of the bill. According to Information Minister Masiko Kabakumba, shown here on the left, the bill is redundant because homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda. In this video shown here, the Uganda government further explains its decision to shelve the bill.

Though it isn't mentioned, it's possible the Yoweri Administration was pressured into shelving the bill by the United Nations. The UN, led by the United States, passed a vote yesterday to condemn any violence committed against LGBT people around  the world. The U.S. took a closer look at the bill after LGBT activist David Kato was killed in Uganda on January 26, 2011. Kato's killer or killers have yet to be arrested, and though the Ugandan government circulated a baseless story claiming Kat was killed in a robbery-murder type deal, a separate story circulating claims that Kato's death was spurred by the hate message spread through Uganda by the American evangelists I mentioned above.

I applaud the UN and the U.S. for taking a stand against the blatant hate displayed by the Ugandan Government. Uganda is one of 83 countries who have declared homosexuality illegal, but it is the first to try and seek the death penalty for someone simply being gay. Uganda has shelved the bill for now, but I don't expect it to go away, especially not if Bahati keeps adamantly defending it. Strangely enough, my outrage doesn't stem from the "Kill The Gays" bill, or even the death of David Kato. The one thing I find the most appalling about this story is the small but important fact that this bill and Kato's death have both been linked to American Christian evangelists. I am fully aware of the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I am also fully aware of the fact that Jesus teaches tolerance and acceptance. The words of the three evangelists not only fueled the brutal murder of David Kato via steel hammer, but prompted a legislative motion to make it legal to KILL gay people. I'm pretty sure that murder goes against one of the Ten Commandments, as well as the teachings of Jesus. If these are the kind of people who create the image of American Christians to the world, I want no part of it.

Can an LGBT Group open the door for other extremist groups?

Baylor University Professor Francis Beckwith, shown on the right, has a few things to say about denying the students of Baylor the right to form a group dedicated to discussing LGBT issues. The group, called the Sexual Identity Forum, was denied last week, but still continues to fight Baylor's decision. In an email sent to SIF president Samantha Jones, Beckwith states:

"Baylor is not the government. So, its policy on the proper use of our sexual powers is no more impeding your right to speech or assembly as it is impeding the rights of Klansmen and Skinheads to speak and assemble on campus."
Beckwith goes on to say that using words like "LGBT suicide," "hate crimes," and "homophobia" are words used to "intimidate and marginalize many of my brothers and sisters in Christ who as a matter of conscience cannot cooperate with the approval of homosexual conduct." Of course these words are offensive to those who don't believe in Gay Rights! These words turn the tables on those who oppose Gay Rights, and force them to see that aren't the only ones with a defensible opinion.

The one thing I keep seeing as I read through the arguments people against Baylor supporting SIF is the constant restating that homosexuality is a sin. No one is disputing the fact that the Bible says this. A comment left on the SIF website by a student at Baylor says this:

"What we do want is for Baylor to recognize that there are students on campus who identify as other than straight and for Baylor to recognize that there are specific issues that come with the struggles many people are going through involving their sexuality including hate crimes and suicide. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we as followers of God cannot discuss controversial issues."

Karla Rodriguez, mother of a Baylor University student, wrote a response to Baylor's refusal to allow SIF the right to form, saying "this group is trying to advocate acceptance, education and understanding." The local news channel in Waco picked up the story, and a short video on SIF's fight can be found here on their website.

Baylor University spokesperson Lori Fogleman says "the university does not believe that a student organization is the most viable medium in which to have this kind of dialogue on difficult decisions." Who is capable of organizing a discussion group focused on student problems, if students aren't? If Baylor decides to provide a forum in which the topics SIF is trying to discuss, will it be managed by someone who has an open mind, or will it be a way for Baylor to further shove its beliefs down the student body's throats?

Change.org has started a petition for those who want to join SIF's fight for the rights to meet on campus.

Baylor University denies LGBT Group Right to Form on Campus

You'd think that a Christian university like Baylor University would promote tolerance, no matter what the issue. Isn't that what the teachings of Jesus are about? Not so at Baylor University. Baylor actually has a statement on human sexuality on their website, stating that Baylor students "will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching."

The Sexual Identity Forum (SIF), an LGBT group, was denied the right to organize under Baylor University's name. Understandable, considering what their official statement on human sexuality says. But riddle me this: if Baylor is so against the "advocacy groups" that will promote understanding (a key principle in the teachings of Jesus, mind you) why is the following statement also in Baylor's statement on human sexuality?

"Baylor University welcomes all students into a safe and supportive environment in which to discuss and learn about a variety of issues, including those of human sexuality."

 Am I the only one getting whiplash from Baylor's policy? Does this not seem weird to anyone else? The story of SIF's fight for acceptance caught the eye of John Wright, a writer for Dallas Voice, the "premier media voice for LGBT Texas." When the group was denied its charter from Baylor, Wright was there again with up-to-date news.

Before the Dallas Voice picked the story up, Baylor's newspaper, The Baylor Lariat did a story on SIF's attempt to gain official recognition from Baylor. Samantha Jones, SIF's president, stated that the campus itself was welcoming, but the administration was unwilling to admit that Baylor has it's fair share of gay people on campus.

Baylor student Gabby Garrett, on the other hand, had an opposing view. She said "I think if you want to have discussions you can make that group on your own. I don’t see why it has to have the Baylor-affiliated name to be recognized by Baylor, because Baylor does not recognize homosexuality as an OK lifestyle." Jones countered back, saying "I think, as a Christian school, we should be showing love, compassion and tolerance to everyone, including LGBT students or even just students who want to talk about sexuality."

In an article on change.org, Michael Jones gives evidence that it is in fact okay to be a religious university and still support an LGBT group. Belmont University and Seattle Pacific University have both allowed LGBT groups to form under their school name, so why won't Baylor?

Being a native Texan, I believe it's because Texas is simply too ass-backwards to accept gay students as individuals with voices. I don't mean the whole of Texas, just most of it. I come from a city just outside Houston, arguably one of the most liberal cities in Texas. The high school I went to wasn't very welcoming of gay people. My sister, who is transgendered, was pushed into lockers and spit on, called a faggot and had ice cold water poured over her head. I get that people have a right to their own opinions, but that's my sister, and fucking NO ONE gets to treat her that way. She's a human being too, not an animal to be kicked around.

Baylor's refusal to give SIF the right to form under their name is just another example in a long list of blatant homophobia and gay rights oppression. Texas, the big, glittery belt buckled in the Bible Belt, has to set an example for all the other God-fearing states that surround it. Why, if they let everyone speak their minds, especially the gay community, there might be an uprising of unholy thoughts and unholy deeds. People might get infected with the gay, and we certainly can't have that, can we? I mean, adultery, murder, theft, and other violations of The Holy Bible are offenses we can deal with. So are things like shaving and eating shellfish. But homosexuality? The freedom to be who you were born to be? Not acceptable.

Wake up Baylor. The tide is changing, and you can jump on the bandwagon and embrace this change or you can stay the same and promote your message of hate. The choice is up to you, but I suggest you do the former. Embrace equal rights for everyone, not just who you think deserves them. Welcome to the new world.

Boehner Continues to defend DOMA

You'd think that the president of the United States declaring a law unconstitutional would effectively put a stop to defense of said law. Not so, in John Boehner's case. He said the following during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network:

"I really am disappointed in the president in his actions.  But if the president won’t defend DOMA, then you’ll see the House of Representatives defend our actions in passing a bill that frankly passed overwhelmingly."

Majority Leader Eric Cantor said that Congress's decision on further defense of DOMA will be reached sometime this week. Boehner seems to believe that the decision to keep defending DOMA is in the bag. It probably is, too. Republicans hold the majority of the House of Representatives, and I won't be surprised if later this week a statement is put out affirming the decision to keep defending DOMA.

What strikes me as...oh, I don't know...CRAZY, is that Boehner is using his new position of power to more or less push his religion on everyone. Rachel Maddow blogged about it earlier today. In his first speech as House Speaker, he called the national debt a "moral threat" to society. He blames Obama solely for the current $14.1 trillion debt, conveniently forgetting to mention that under President Bush's 8-year-term, the debt tripled. TRIPLED. His first speech as House Speaker was also given to the National Religious Broadcasters convention. He continually mentions God, but I thought we had a lovely little thing called separation of church and state. He claims that we have a religious obligation to stop the mounting debt of this country. What about those who don't believe in Christianity? Or those that don't believe in religion at all? What is their obligation to the national debt? Do they not have a say, or does their opinion matter at all?

Though he's not talking about gay rights in this speech, the fact that it was given at a religious convention bothers me. If Boehner continues in this vein, it's only a matter of time before he turns his pulpit toward the "sin" of homosexuality. I personally am worried about what will come in the future. How can our nation be governed fairly if one set of views is slanted to win every time? Do the people of America really have a say in how these matters are handled?

The full text of Boehner's speech can be found here.

Rick Santorum calls for Boehner to defend DOMA

It's strange to me that instead of focusing on things like unemployment, the economy, and countless other things, Rick Santorum wants Speaker of the House John Boehner to focus on defending DOMA. Not only defend DOMA, it seems, but use taxpayer money to do it! I'm glad Santorum has his priorities in order. I mean, who in their right mind would rather try to boost the economy and provide affordable health care to Americans when something as important as the definition of marriage is at stake?

Santorum tweeted his opinion for the world to see earlier this morning. Though he isn't the only one opposed to Obama's sudden decision to drop DOMA and its defense, Santorum is certainly the loudest. The potential presidential candidate's call-to-arms is mirrored by hate groups. These groups include the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, and many more. Their arguments are funny, but I think my favorite one is NOM's argument. Not only is it full of grammatical errors and invented words, the syntax of it is strange and confusing, which takes away from the argument being presented.

In fact, NOM's been catching some tough breaks lately. States are passing laws to allow civil unions among gay couples. Their signature issue is being glossed over or not discussed at all. And, worst of all, they can't find a candidate for the 2012 presidency. NOM is now facing the possibility that they won't have a nut-bag candidate to "run the country" the way they see fit. None of the Republicans they are considering seem to be crazy enough. Oh no! That coupled with the fact that Boehner has declared that there are more important things to discuss besides DOMA, NOM's future looks grim.

Judge Napolitano On DOMA

At first glance, former New Jersey superior court Judge Andrew Napolitano is all for Obama's decision to stop defending DOMA in court. Upon further inspection, however, Napolitano is trying to cover his ass. Though he "is all for" repealing laws that are unconstitutional, I don't think he believes DOMA is unconstitutional. Listen to his remarks in the video above. He's agreeing, but not agreeing at the same time.

Obama Administration Drops DOMA Defense

Today, President Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court. DOMA, which denies over 1,000 rights to gay couples, was passed in 1996 and has been kept alive ever since. Attorney General Eric Holden sent a letter to congress earlier today, detailing the Obama Administration's updated stance on DOMA.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese says "As the President has stated previously, DOMA unfairly discriminates against Americans and we applaud him for fulfilling his oath to defend critical constitutional principles." HRC has been promoting an abandonment of this law for years, writing letters to the President directly in an effort to effect change, and encouraging HRC members to do the same.

"Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law," Solmonese further explains. "The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize. Instead, Congress should take this opportunity to wipe the stain of marriage discrimination from our laws." DOMA will remain in effect until Congress repeals it, or a Federal court strikes it down.

All I can say is: FINALLY! I personally think DOMA is a disgrace to this country. It's not the government's place to tell anyone who they have the right to love, and denying rights to homosexual couples simply because they aren't straight is reprehensible. Congress still has to repeal the law, but with Obama's refusal to support DOMA's defense it's only a mater of time. Gay Rights, 1; Discrimination, 0.