Connect with us

Why I’m Hanging Up My Bilerico Hat For Good

Published

on

When I first started writing “The New Civil Rights Movement,” this blog on marriage equality, politics, and civil rights, I had a deep desire to make a positive impact for my community. Prop 8 had passed literally days before, and this blog was my response to the deep voice inside me that said at any and all costs, I can no longer stand by and do little to nothing to help achieve equality. Like so many, I was compelled to take action, and I did so in the best way I knew how: creating a blog and writing, all day, every day. All told, I think I’ve helped strengthen and educate our community.

Along the way, I’ve met many wonderful writers and activists, I’ve learned, been inspired, and hopefully have given back at least as much as I’ve received. There have been some small victories and successes, including my creation, and, along with a great many people, our establishment of “The Great Nationwide Kiss-In,” a fifty-five city event that we held last August, and FireFoxx, our Facebook group dedicated at first to replacing Rep. Virginia Foxx, now dedicated to replacing all anti-gay politicians.

I will confess, too, when I began writing I secretly hoped that one day, a blog I admired and read often, would someday notice my work and invite me to join.

That day happened almost a year ago. I was asked to do a guest post, then another, and finally, after writing “LGBTQ Leadership: Going The Way Of America’s Automakers,” and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Has The Promise Of Obama Been Broken For Now, Or Forever?,” Bil Browning, the founder of the iconic “The Bilerico Project,” invited me to join, as he put it, “the Bilerico family” as a regular contributor.

Anyone who has interviewed for a job at the company of their dreams — and gets an offer to join — knows how I felt. Ecstatic!

Along the way, I wrote a dozen more pieces for Bilerico. Some well-received, some controversial, but from each post I learned a great deal. I hope others did as well.

But also along the way, I noticed the tone of the content at Bilerico started to change. In my mind, and, perhaps ignorantly, I had viewed The Bilerico Project as a big “think tank” that generated ideas, discussion, passion, and worked to help us gain equality, educate, and improve how LGBTQs are perceived, both within and outside our community.

(Those of you who have read my writing know that to me, perception is very important, as it is one part of helping us achieve our goals. I’m fully expecting cries of “assimilationist!” from some, and that’s fine, if you choose to see it that way. I, by the way, do not.)

I recognize the need to “pay the bills,” and sadly, I understand that “Prince William’s penis pictures,” “First all Israeli gay porn movie,” and even “Top 10 Stores to Pick Up Gay Men” (three of the top-ten most popular posts on The Bilerico Project) may serve that purpose, but as a journalist, I have to believe that these are the easy way out, and, just as I wouldn’t expect to see that type of content coming from a think tank, or mainstream journalism site, I don’t expect to see it coming from what I thought Bilerico was. And perhaps that was my mistake.

I also recognize that other LGBTQ sites do offer pornography-as-content, but others do not. Via Twitter and a poll on this blog Wednesday night, I asked what folks thought of pornography-as-content. I’d say most were against it, but many were fine with it. It’s a personal choice, neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong.

My writing and my activism is my work. My work is to help the LGBTQ community achieve full equality, both under the law and in the hearts and minds of our neighbors, family-members, friends, co-workers, and society in general. And so I view Bilerico and my own blog as my place of work. And, after twenty-five years of working in corporate America, I don’t believe pornography has a place in the workplace.

I’ve had this conversation, and others, with Bil. I understand his point. And most importantly, Bilerico is his home, and his business. Bilerico is an amazing institution, one that has taught me more than I expected, and one that has contributed a great deal to the LGBTQ community. I know Bil and all the Bilerico contributors will continue to do that fine work, to help open doors for our community, and help move the national conversation forward.

All that said, however, I have to add that Wednesday was the end of the line for me. The post, “Hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating,” in which Bil writes,

“I bring you pictures of hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating. They’re from the porn site Mormonboyz.com, but I’ve deliberately used ones where you can only see their cocks through their magical Mormon underwear…”

was just too much for me. I am not especially prude. That content has its place on the Internet, but to my mind, not on a site — not in a think tank — that is working to achieve equality. (And, given our community’s current challenges with the LDS Church, I feel it was an especially short-sighted choice.)

I do not see my work and pornography as compatible or even being able to share the same home. And I do not think that that type of content here helps us in our battle to win the hearts and minds of those who might choose to help us.

(Yes, our civil rights are “unalienable,” but, as I’ve learned, we still have to win hearts and minds to win at the ballot box, in the legislatures, and even in the courts. Our rights should never be put up to a vote, but, sadly, we have let it come to that.)

Adding insult to injury, Bil wrote, “you can’t be a proper Bilerico unless you’re both political and perverted.” Well, once more, and with all due respect to Bil, I think comments like that do not serve our community well. Am I “political?” Absolutely. Am I “perverted?” Absolutely not. And so I guess that means that I can’t be a “proper Bilerico.”

Like I said, Bilerico is Bil’s home and business, and I respect his right to run it in any fashion he chooses. I have the utmost respect for Bil and all he’s accomplished. Last year, during the Ronald Gold debacle, I gained even more respect for Bil, not from his editorial decision to run, “‘No’ to the notion of transgender,” but for how he handled the response the piece generated. Bil put his writers and readers first, and was on top of the situation quickly and competently. I went from debating to resign in protest over Bil’s decision to run the piece, to writing, “No To The Notion Of Irresponsibility. Yes To Embracing Our Past And Our Future,” in response against the piece but also in support of Bil and all he’s worked so hard to achieve.

So, it’s not the the intellectual content at Bilerico, but the lapse of it that forces me to say goodbye there.

I will continue fighting for our equality, for marriage, for civil rights, and work to educate here at The New Civil Rights Movement, and along any other avenue I find is compatible with my personal and professional beliefs.

I want to thank Bil, the entire Bilerico family, and all Bilerico readers for the support they have given me. I know they will all continue working to make our community stronger and the lives of our members better. I thank them for giving me the chance to contribute there to that goal.

Again, I am fully committed to The New Civil Rights Movement, and have many ideas on how I’d like to see it grow, so, I am not going away! I hope you’ll continue to visit here daily.

I welcome your thoughts, too. How do you feel about pornography-as-content?

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

59 mins ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

18 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.