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?

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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

Susan Collins Doesn’t Regret Kavanaugh Vote After Roe Repeal: ‘Didn’t Impact Maine’

Published

on

Republican Sen. Susan Collins said she does not regret her tie-breaking vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, even after the Supreme Court voted to reverse Roe v. Wade, ending the right to an abortion at the federal level. She said that the decision did not affect her state.

Speaking to reporter Randy Billings fo the Portland Press Herald, Collins said that she disagreed with the Roe decision, but pointed out that she also supported Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who all dissented from the decision.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed in that decision, which turned abortion issues back to the states. It has not had an impact on the state of Maine in that name actually expanded its law,” Collins said, according to WCSH-TV.

READ MORE: ‘She Knew What Brett Kavanaugh Was Going to Do’: Morning Joe Calls Out Susan Collins Over Abortion Ruling

In explaining her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, she said “When I look at a justice, I look at their qualifications, their integrity, their background, their experience in reaching a decision.” During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, he dodged questions from senators on whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade calling it “settled law.”

“One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” Kavanaugh said at the time.

When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over a 2003 email he wrote where he said he was “not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level,” Kavanaugh said he was merely referring to the positions of such scholars.

“But the broader point was simply that I think it was overstating something about legal scholars. And I am always concerned with accuracy, and I thought that was not quite accurate description of legal, all legal scholars because it referred to ‘all,'” he said. “To your point, your broader point, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times… That makes Casey precedent on precedent. It has been relied on. Casey itself has been cited as authority in subsequent cases such as Glucksberg and other cases. So that precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about stare decisis in this context.”

Following the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe, Collins admitted that the decision was “completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing also hinged on accusations of sexual assault. Christine Blasey Ford testified before Congress that Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her while they were in high school, allegations Kavanaugh denies. During the hearings, sexual assault survivors met with Republican senators Collins and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, urging them not to confirm, according to Time magazine.

Murkowski ultimately was the lone Republican vote against confirming Kavanaugh.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Josh Hawley Slams Baseball League for Punishing Players Over Anti-Pride Night Demonstration

Published

on

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) accused Major League Baseball of a “pattern of discrimination” after the league punished three players for their protest during a recent Pride Night celebration.

Hawley released the letter Tuesday afternoon following MLB issuing three San Francisco Giants pitchers for writing references to the Bible on their hats, a special Pride Night variant of the standard Giants hat featuring a rainbow version of the team logo.

“I write with grave concern over your reported decision to issue a formal warning to three Major League Baseball (MLB) players for publicly expressing their Christian faith. This follows a high-profile undercover investigation that revealed at least one MLB team discriminated against a player based on his Catholic faith. You must answer for what appears to be a pattern of discrimination within MLB against baseball players who profess their Christian faith,” Hawley wrote.

READ MORE: Baseball Commissioner Says Pride Jerseys Make Some Players ‘Uncomfortable’

Hawley was not the only Republican politician to condemn the MLB. Vice President JD Vance tweeted “Trump won we don’t have to do this anymore,” alongside a retweet of Sports Illustrated’s coverage of the warning. Rep. Nancy Mace from South Carolina wrote “So it’s okay when they’re forced into wearing pride hats for social propaganda, but Bible verses are an issue?” Mace made a name for herself attacking the first transgender representative Sarah McBride (D-DE), and recently came in fifth in her district’s primary election.

Pitcher Landen Roupp wrote Gen 9:12-16 on his cap next to the rainbow logo. Two relief pitchers, JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker, wrote similar references to the same Bible verse on their hats. The verse refers to the rainbow symbolizing the covenant between God and all creatures that he would not flood the earth again, however many anti-LGBTQ Christians have used the verse to accuse the queer community of co-opting the rainbow symbol.

MLB says that the warning came not over the content or meaning of the messages, but instead was a violation of the league’s rules about uniform integrity.

“To be clear, this routine verbal warning not to wear the hat in future games is not disciplinary and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message,” the league said in a follow. “We respect players’ right to free expression. However, writing of any kind, with any message, is prohibited per Major League Baseball’s uniform regulations which provides in part that, ‘(a) player may not write, attach, affix, embroider or otherwise display nicknames or messages on apparel or playing equipment,'” MLB said in a statement, according to the New York Times, adding that similar warnings had been issued to players who wrote the names of family members on uniforms.

Another relief pitcher, Sam Hentges, wore the standard version of the Giants hat. He did not receive any warning from MLB.

The Giants have a long history of supporting the LGBTQ community. It was the first team to wear rainbow versions of its logo during Pride games. It was also the first team to raise money for HIV/AIDS research in 1994.

The team apologized for the pitchers’ protest, sending a statement to the San Francisco Standard, that  it was “proud to support Pride Night and the LGBTQ+ community.”

“Baseball should be a place where everyone feels welcome, respected, and valued. We also respect that individuals may make personal choices about participating in team activations. We understand that the choices by individual players have caused pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community and we are sorry for that.  Those choices do not change our organization’s commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all. We remain grateful to our fans, partners, employees, players, and coaches who help make Pride Night a meaningful celebration.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

White House Retweets McDonald’s Advertisement, Appears to Take Credit for Bringing Back Apple Pie

Published

on

Trump McDonalds

The White House used its X account to repost a McDonald’s advertisement alongside a photo of President Donald Trump with three bags of fast food.

On Tuesday, shortly after noon on the East Coast, the official White House X account retweeted a post from the fast food giant advertising that it was bringing back the fried apple pie next week. The White House attached the photo of Trump posing in the Oval Office with bags of food.

Making America Great Again for real,” it tweeted, alongside the eyes “looking” emoji, appearing as if the president was taking credit for the product’s return. 

While Trump has frequently shared his affinity for McDonald’s products, this is perhaps the closest the White House has come to an actual commercial endorsement for the brand. Recently he had McDonald’s food delivered to the White House by DoorDash as another photo opportunity, but it was officially to promote his “no tax on tips” policy, rather than the companies themselves.

READ MORE: McDonald’s Tweets to Donald Trump: ‘You Are Actually a Disgusting Excuse of a President’

Previous presidents have refrained from using the position to promote a product like this. Trump is an exception; while most of the time his product promotions have been for his own branded products like the Trump Bible, he has occasionally expanded his presidential endorsement to other products.

His daughter Ivanka posed with Goya black beans after the company’s CEO praised Trump in 2020. Trump himself then took a photo posted to Instagram of himself posing with various Goya products in the Oval Office.

Last year, Trump promoted Elon Musk’s car company Tesla by staging a photo op with a number of Teslas parked on the South Lawn of the White House. CNN’s Brianna Keller pointed out at the time that former President Joe Biden similarly had automobiles parked on the White House lawn for a photo op. In that case, however, it was as part of an “Electric Vehicle Summit,” and featured executives from multiple car manufacturers, rather than an endorsement of a single company.

Legally, those holding public office are barred from endorsing products, services or enterprise. Presidents prior to Trump were expected to divest themselves of their businesses; former president Jimmy Carter famously divested himself from his peanut farm upon taking office.

Carter put his farm into a blind trust, where the trustees have full discretion and beneficiaries have no control over the trust nor receive any reports. However, during his first term, Trump put his assets in a trust controlled by his sons and an additional executive, according to the Washington Post. After being elected to a second term, he has again put his assets in a similar arrangement, according to the Hill.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.