The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that administering the death penalty by lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment. With a 7-2 verdict from SCOTUS on Baze v. Rees, which challenged Kentucky’s lethal injection program as unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, that pretty much clears the way–for the first time since last September when SCOTUS took up the case and began a moratorium–for death penalty states to move forward on a number of death row cases–and boy are they. It feels like there’s a bunch of DAs running around with poison-filled needles yelling, “Oh, yeah, baby, it’s been 7 months since I got my last fix. Who’s next? C’mon, bitch, you’re on my list!”

But I’ve made my feelings about the death penalty clear on previous occasions. Not in favor. Ever.

Also on the SCOTUS plate, a case involving the death penalty for child rapists. Since 1977, the death penalty hasn’t traditionally been invoked when rape victims survive the attack - meaning the death penalty was only used in cases that resulted in the loss of life. A handful of states are trying to put people to death for raping children, even if that child survives. The specific case in question involves a 6-year-old. Hey, no one here is saying hooray for child rapists, let’s throw them a parade… but the death penalty? Rape is always disgusting, child rape more so, and even then you can see examples of child rape that is so beyond the scope of human decency as to make any sane person ill… but I can’t be the only one who sees what a dangerous road this is to go down. I can understand the emotions and desire for revenge that people who have experienced or seen child rape in their family can feel. But imagine the slippery slope if, instead of prison and counselling for child rapists, we simply prefer to start executing them.

Two words: Catholic priests.

I’m just saying.

Posted: April 17th, 2008 under news, politics.
Comments: none

Today is World AIDS Day.

I could quote statistics or tell deeply personal stories about how AIDS impacts us all, but I’d rather do something else. This year, I’m going to make one simple request.

Last year President Bush promised to fix the problems with allowing HIV+ people into the country. Currently, only 13 countries deny admission to HIV-positive people: the United States, Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Moldova, Russia, Armenia, and South Korea. Instead of fixing the actual problem (the ban itself) the Department of Homeland Security has written new rules around the application for a waiver in the ban (which is needed if you’re a foreign national changing planes in New York on a London-Toronto trip). The new rules have been denounced by many AIDS activists as being even more draconian and further stigmatizes people with HIV. Rather than allowing case-by-case evaluation, the new rules try to force applicants meet certain requirements and pledge not transmit infection while here. They also cause problems for asylum-seekers who are HIV-positive.

To help change the law, please take a few minutes to call your Congressional representatives and voice your opinion. The Congressional Switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Or you can call your representative’s local office.

The call will only take a few moments as the staff only wants to hear your position, not a well-reasoned argument. A typical call goes something like this: “Hello, I’m a constituent and I want to register my opinion. Please tell _________ that I oppose any immigration restrictions based on HIV status, I oppose the new Department of Homeland Security rules for a waiver on the ban, and I want the ban on HIV-positive visitors or immigrants to the United States ended.” The staff is doing their job properly if they ask for your name and address.

Until December 6, you can submit comments to the Department of Homeland Security about the new regulations online at www.regulations.gov, or by mail sent to: Border Security Regulations Branch, Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (MintAnnex), Washington, DC 20229

Posted: December 1st, 2007 under news.
Comments: none

So earlier this month, I submitted an op-ed piece titled “How I Came to Oppose Barney Frank” to a few LGBT media outlets I had connections with. QVegas and QSaltLake, the two for whom I used to work, picked it up in slightly different forms (though essentially the same). You can read it on the new QSaltLake site here. You can download the PDF of the November QVegas here(I’m on the last page in the “Quid Pro Quo” column that I created back when I was the editor in 2005).

I realize that my blog tends to drift toward the personal diary, although I try to pepper it with actual news and opinions as often as I can. Since setting up my Google Reader, I’ve become uncomfortable aware of how often the blogosphere is an echo chamber, repeating the same news over and over. Really, how many times do you want to read the same snippet of news about Washington state representative Curtis and his gay prostitute?

That said, I do want to point you toward an excellent opinion shared by Autumn Sandeen on Pam’s House Blend related to the Curtis scandal.

But, I’m more concerned about the media focusing on what Principal Schum and Senator Curtis were wearing. It’s apparently not enough for we, the public, to know that the alleged criminal and alleged blackmail victim were cross-dressed and looking for gay sex, we apparently aren’t satisfied unless we know what the individuals were wearing — and we seem to laugh harder if what they’re wearing seems a bit kinky. And, because the clothing that these two individuals were allegedly wearing did seem a bit kinky, we get to feel superior and laugh at them as pitiful freaks.Of course, how much have any of us thought about how our salacious curiosity and sense of superiority is probably holding back LGBT civil rights legislation…

When Congress flinches at the idea of covering gender identity or expression in ENDA or hate crimes legislation, are they thinking about how much discrimination of straights, gays, and lesbians is tied to gender non-conformity — such as how a large number of people associate effeminate male behavior with being gay and emasculate female behavior with being lesbian? Are they thinking about how transgender business professionals are being discriminated against — such as Susan Stanton or Julie Nemecek?

No, they’re likely thinking about how the media portrays people like Curtis and Schum as gay freaks and/or transgender freaks, how the public seems to lap the freak aspect of the stories up — and then they likely think about how freaks like Curtis and Schum may be gaining job protections under ENDA. And then, likely thinking about the freaks, they flinch.

I couldn’t agree more. I have to admit that even I initially talked about the fishnets and the sequins when gossiping with my buddies about the latest conservative sex scandals, but Autumn rightfully reminds me that by doing so, I’m reinforcing the cisgenderism that pervades even the queer community. As I said in the essay I wrote for QSL and QVegas, I’ve made mistakes in my efforts to be trans-inclusive, and I’m still learning, so to any of my friends who heard me joke about the costumes, the “Freak” factor, please accept my apology.

The real issue here is not what these men were wearing, but that once again we have hypocrites engaging in illegal sexual acts rather than coming out as members of the queer community and finding healthy, safe, and legal outlets for their kink. Hell, I don’t even have a problem with the concept of prostitution (I did grow up in Vegas after all), nor do I care if you want to dress up like Jessica Rabbit while you get poked by rough-looking stud, but the hypocrisy is and remains the primary issue in these various conservative sex scandals.

Posted: November 2nd, 2007 under news, queer rights.
Comments: none