In the following video, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart has some fun at the expense of wingnut warrior Elaine Donnelly. Donnelly, rabidly anti-gay, recently testified before a congressional committee reviewing the merits of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gay service members.

Needless to say, Donnelly's brash banter is garden variety bigotry...or in this case one might call her a cockeyed crackpot. I'm always amazed by the virtual obsession that is displayed by religious ideologues with regard to all things sexual. Perhaps if we offered them free counseling, they might eventually realize that they suffer from an inordinate focus on the naughty parts.

Unfortunately, the fact that many of these Christian crusaders view sex as sin undoubtedly exacerbates the problem. In the end, me thinks the lady doth protest too much. I fear Donnelly is unaware of the alternate meaning of DADT...the one that explains her pitiful performance..."Dumb Ass...Do Tell?!"

While I think it's fair to frown upon scapegoating and stereotyping in commercial advertising campaigns, I'm not all that incensed by such depictions. However, when they are apt to promote already existent anger and animosity...and/or endorse or encourage more inappropriate outbursts and behavior, I think it warrants commentary.

To that end, Snickers and Nike have released new campaigns that may do just that. Snickers' first foray into this practice took place during the Super Bowl when two men inadvertently found themselves locked lip to lip...which was followed by outward signs of repulsion...including the wielding of a tire iron in one version of the ad. In the new Snickers ad (see video below), Mr. T., perched in the back of a muscle truck with a Gatling gun, is annoyed by a man "wogging" down the sidewalk (insinuating he's a sissy), and he commences to pummel him with Snickers shells.

The problem with the ad is that it is a tacit endorsement of violence against gays. Yes, I acknowledge that it's virtually impossible to craft an ad that doesn't serve as a trigger for some sort of bad behavior in a certain segment of society. At the same time, I would venture to say that very few people are unaware of gay bashing...which means that the ad agency can't feign surprise when it is accused of fostering that mind set.

As to Nike, the image found in its latest offering (see below), of two men playing basketball, suggests when one man's face inadvertently ends up in another man's crotch, it is wrong and humiliating. Again, the problem with this ad rests in the already evident homophobia that has been demonstrated by numerous sports figures. Hence the ad is seemingly an endorsement of these hateful outbursts and a stealth message to children that sports and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. Frankly, many of these abrasive sports figures already believe they are beyond reproach. I simply don't see any merit in Nike's reinforcement of that notion. Here's the take from one of ESPN's senior writers.

And when it comes to using basketball to humilate your opponent, there is a certain scale. Shooting a jumper over someone is maybe a one. Beating someone to the hoop for a layup might be a two. Dribbling through your legs as you do so could make that worth three, dribbling through their legs as you do might get you up to six. Sevens are garden variety dunks and blocks, while there is a special carve out somewhere around eight or nine for using your crossover to make the defender actually fall over.

But up at the top of the humiliation hierarchy, right there with doing many of the above things with the game on the line, is an explosively humiliating move whose handy shorthand might not belong on this family-friendly website.

We can call it the I'm-jumping-so-high-as-I-dunk-over-you-that-my-crotch-is-in-your-face move.

Man, I have a whole jumble of thoughts. For instance:

Homophobia is real, it is common, and it is damaging. All that is true in general in society, but especially around sports. There's a reason no current NBA player has ever come out of the closet. People should be aware of that and act accordingly. It's not funny.

These are kick-ass ads, that have meaning and make basketball sense without injecting any homophobia into the conversation. Getting humiliated like that is "just wrong," in a basketball sense, without the male on male interpretation. Pretend the genders were scrambled in that ad -- a woman defender, or a woman dunker, or both. The same headline can work without the implication that the man on man contact is the gross part.

Knowing that there is a lot of homophobia out there, is advertising that might stoke those fires in poor taste?

I can't wait to live in a world where this ad would not be commonly interpreted as homophobic, but I'm not sure I do live there now. And in that setting, I guess this counts as ethically sloppy in my book. Or maybe intended to stoke some fires to draw some attention to itself. If I ran Wieden + Kennedy, or Nike, I wouldn't have green-lighted that headline with that image. But I'm not at all surprised that others did, and maybe the conversation that ensues makes us all a little more aware.

Generally speaking, I appreciate ESPN's treatment of the issue...with one glaring exception. The writer, Henry Abbott, fails to see that the implied humiliation, while meaningful to those who play the game and those who watch it, is simply a manifestation of a society that attaches the very same meaning to it. They're inseparable, which is the fundamental problem. It also makes Abbott's wish an absurdity. Were we in a world where this ad "would not be commonly interpreted as homophobic", the ad would have never been made.

You see, the reason no one is making an ad where a man's face inadvertently ends up in a woman's crotch...designed to appeal to the gay community...and its judgmental heterophobia...is because we don't feel humiliated by it...due to the fact that we don't judge it negatively and we willingly acknowledge that it's acceptable behavior (ergo, societally supported heterophobia doesn't exist to enable the humiliation or the ad).

With that said, my primary beef with this type of advertising has more to do with the absence of advertising that is either neutral towards gays or provides a favorable depiction. In fact, when such ads are released, the uproar from religious ideologues often results in the cancellation of the campaign. That's simply an unacceptable double standard and it does little more than foster prejudice. The most recent instance involved an ad in the UK for Heinz Deli Mayo, in which two men share a harmless peck on the lips. In short order, the loons were up in arms and the ad was immediately canned.

I find myself wanting to stuff my Snickers bar in Nikes face. Unfortunately, they'd likely take a bite without giving a second thought to the double entendre. Perhaps that sheds some light on the problem, eh?

Having to jump up and down for attention must be pure torture for James Dobson. Faced with the prospect of being irrelevant in the 2008 election has led the leader of Focus on the Family to announce that he may rescind his prior refusal to vote for John McCain.

In the following video, a few of the faithful explain the dilemma confronting their dear leader. They want us to know that their leader is a man of principle...and that supporting John McCain would only happen out of his concern for the unborn and the protection of the family. [Shed tears now]

What the folks at FOF don't want us to conclude is that Dobson's ginormous ego has emerged and that his need to be the center of attention has led him to reconsider. In other words, when no one followed him over the political cliff, he climbed back up, dusted himself off, and crafted a new message...one that says he'd have to do whatever it takes to save the children and defeat the homos.

I guess the man that felt it was important to teach the GOP a lesson (translated as I demand to be more important and I'm happy to throw the election to do so) for failing to follow through on the issues that are important to evangelicals has decided his stint on the sidelines could spell the end of the Dobson dynasty. Hence, he's rolled up his sleeves and he's ready to lead. [Send checks now]

Alas, the curtain is removed! What Dobson really fears is that his irrelevance could also mean an end to the cash FOF has been able to generate by portraying itself as one of the most influential organizations on the religious right. That brings us back to principles...and there's no doubt that Dobson knows it takes a lot of "principal" (cash) to garner significant "interest" (income). Welcome back James Dobson...we missed you!

Christians are notorious for crafting simplified representations of their faith as well as the less than scientific doctrines they embrace (think creationism and peanut butter).

In the first of the following videos, Grandpa John uses an ordinary pickle to demonstrate the power of Christianity. To do this, grandpa zaps the pickle with a dose of electricity and suggests that the infusion of this external power source is the same as having God in one's life.

Unfortunately, things take a turn for the worst near the end of the video. When Grandpa John turns the lights back on, we get to see what the electricity is actually doing to the pickle. In the light of day, when the darkness of mysticism is removed, we realize that the electricity is boiling the pickle in its own juices...with steam pouring out of both ends. Now I don't know about you, but based upon what I saw, I'm gonna have to say no to Grandpa John.

In the second video, Lewis & Lewis, a Christian gospel music duo, offer us another little diddy about the pickle...metaphorically speaking, that is. Simply stated, the song is intended to tell the listener that being gay isn't ok...because the plumbing just doesn't work. Lewis & Lewis use a farm setting to tell us that farm animals aren't gay. Last time I checked the literature, science may not agree with Lewis & Lewis.

Anyway, the bottom line seems to be that Christians are obsessed with pickles. If they're not puttin' the juice to their own, they're worried about where the neighbor and the farm animals might be puttin' theirs.

I'm thinking one of these folks needs to see what can be learned from puttin' one's pickle in a jar of peanut butter. Then again, given the lessons we've already learned, and the level of interest in both, I have no way to confirm that they haven't already done so.

If you don't understand that last comment, you'll need to take a look at the video found in the first link.

It's always refreshing to witness a scholarly and informed discussion of religion...one that is able to step away from rigid dogma in order to provide some context and insight beyond the Bible.

In the following Fora.tv video, Peter Gomes, a Baptist minister and author of the book, The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, attempts to draw the distinction between what Jesus taught and what the Bible states. Gomes posits that Jesus was a teacher...but not of the Bible...which therefore means that the Bible shouldn't receive the credence it is often given. In fact, Gomes suggests that the Bible is merely a number of different individual's attempting to explain the teachings of Jesus...each having their own unique perspective.

Gomes covers a number of topics in this hour long segment, including an instructive analysis of Jeremiah Wright's controversial statements (starts at 18:20)...his thoughts on what Jesus would have to say about race (starts at 26:30)and gay marriage (starts at 31:00).

Gomes sees the resolution of racial strife as a complicated issue. He suggests that dialogue between the races may not offer any real solutions and he makes reference to those who believe the best course may be for families of color to discuss race within their own homes rather than attempting a dialogue with those who have perpetrated racism. The point he's making is that change isn't apt to be a negotiated solution but a calculated transformation effected by those who have been the object of racism.

With regard to Jesus' view of same-sex marriage, Gomes offers a rather practical answer...stating that Jesus would likely find no fault with anything that promotes fidelity and loyalty...concluding it is a good thing. He also suggests that Jesus would criticize the number of failed marriages and recommend that people spend their excess energy addressing that dilemma.

Anyone interested in a rational take on religion...absent the venom and vitriol that frequently hijacks such discussions...will enjoy this excellent presentation. Gomes is far more than a minister. His grasp of history, culture, and human nature...and his ability to connect each with the evolution of religion is remarkable.

The Family Research Council is a never ending source of amusement. Unfortunately they are also rabidly anti-gay and a constant supporter of measures to deny homosexuals equal rights. To that end, FRC is a major player in the battle to pass a constitutional amendment (Prop. 8) to ban same-sex marriage in California.

The following image and hyperbole were included in a recent FRC Action Update designed to inform and incite the faithful.

Homosexual Activists Fight Free Speech

The California marriage amendment cleared its final hurdle yesterday when the same court that imposed same-sex "marriage" on the state agreed to let voters decide whether or not to overturn its ruling. In one swift, unanimous motion, the California Supreme Court refused even to hear the lawsuit brought by homosexual groups which claimed Proposition 8 was "legally flawed." Meanwhile, thousands of same-sex couples are scurrying to "marry" before voters determine the fate of those unions this fall. Local business owners-turned family advocates are doing all they can to ensure the honeymoon with counterfeit marriage is short-lived-and homosexual activists are attacking their right to speak out. Doug Manchester, a devout Catholic who donated to the ballot initiative, is the new target of Californians Against Hate. In a fundraising letter, Hate head Fred Karger called for a boycott of Manchester's Grand Hyatt and Grand Del Mar hotels. Robert Hoehn's gift to preserve marriage not only landed his Carlsbad car dealership on the boycott list but drew protests at his lots. We applaud these men for refusing to be intimidated and encourage Californians not to back down in the face of those who refuse to accept democratic rule.

The alert contains the standard fare offered by FRC. The gist of the message is that mean and nasty militant homosexuals are attempting to shove same-sex marriage down the throats of Californians and their tactics include every effort to silence upstanding Christians while flaunting their unholy marriages...which will undoubtedly lead to the demise of our society...yada, yada.

Suffice it to say that this is boiler plate pabulum used to rile the flock and separate them from some of their cash. In fact, I'm of the opinion that many of these people take great comfort in the cookie cutter mentality they adopt. It allows them to paint the "enemy" with a broad brush and it helps them avoid the confusion that comes from a realization that the human condition is far more gray than it is black and white. In other words, their beliefs are fixed and regularly communicated to them in action updates.

Rather than reiterate more of my disdain for FRC, I decided to create the following graphic to poke fun at the block headed, seemingly androgynous character found in the FRC graphic. I have no idea if the image has some larger meaning or if it was included for expediency. Regardless, as my graphic posits, it's an example of the blank slate, lock step, mind set that is so often adopted en masse by the faithful.

On the other hand, is there any doubt that the Pillsbury dough boy and the Michelin man make a cute couple? Then again, I could be wrong about their orientations. At the very least, unlike the composite "FRC he/she", they still have their own identities.

Have you ever wondered who makes up that small segment of American society that believes everything is hunky dory? According to the latest surveys, less than 20 percent of Americans believe the nation is headed in the right direction. In the following Daily Show offering, Jason Jones sets out to find some of the people who comprise this constituency.

It doesn't take Jones long to find J.P. "Gus" Godsey, author of How To Be Happy Everyday, and the man Jones believes is driving the "short bus". As it turns out, Godsey is convinced that everything in America is glorious...and then Godsey proceeds to prove the contention of Jones' second interviewee, Deepak Chopra, who contends that happiness can easily be the result of ignorance or denial.

Godsey then offers some of the suggestions from his book that are sure to make us happy. They include chasing an ice cream truck, buying a pen, and sweeping the front porch. Next, he offers one of his real world solutions. Godsey's goals is to take back the word "gay" and restore gaiety to the countless heterosexuals who remember it fondly from their childhood...but are no longer able to use the word to describe the utter joy they feel about the world.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that we'd be better off if the occupants of the short bus were transported to a special school for those who have lost touch with reality. In fact, it would make me very happy (I'm already gay) to drive them there myself.

As we approach the November election, the effort to utilize the wedge issue of same-sex marriage to sway voters is in full bloom. It's also an opportunity for fundy groups to implore their followers to cut loose some of their cash to support the cause. One thing is for sure, these folks intend to ride the same-sex is sinful gravy train until it falls off the rails.

On of the items garnering the attention of the religious right is a report that the state of Massachusetts may consider repealing a 1913 law that prevents the marriage of gay couples from out of state.

From The Boston Globe:

State lawmakers are expected to vote next week on repealing a 1913 law that prevents out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Massachusetts, reigniting a divisive debate on an issue that has stirred passions and put the state in the national spotlight.

The Senate is expected to take up the legislation Tuesday, and the House will follow shortly afterward, according to several lawmakers. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray favor the repeal, but their support on such a hot-button social issue does not guarantee that rank-and-file lawmakers will follow.

Advocates of same-sex marriage rights said they are hopeful the repeal will pass, given the support from the legislative leadership and from Governor Deval Patrick, whose position is much more sympathetic than that of Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican who was a staunch opponent of gay marriage.

"This is extraordinarily significant," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "If we get the 1913 law repealed, it brings us one very important step closer to full equality."

The 1913 statute prevents Massachusetts from sanctioning marriages that are not legal in the state where the couple lives. The law was enacted in part to prevent interracial couples from evading their own state's ban by traveling to Massachusetts to marry. It was a little-used and rarely enforced law until opponents used it to prevent out-of-state gay couples from getting married in Massachusetts after the state legalized same-sex marriage in 2004.

The following video, from Focus on the Family, is their attempt to highlight the potential repeal in Massachusetts, and to make their followers aware of the importance of battling the proponents of same-sex equality in the upcoming election. In other words, the repeal of an antiquated law, designed to address interracial marriage, is being portrayed as part and parcel of the homosexual agenda.

Another tactic employed by these rabidly anti-gay groups includes the commissioning of polling designed to build momentum amongst those who are inclined to oppose measures granting marriage equality to gays. Yes, polling involves a level of statistical rigor, but the manner in which questions are asked can be geared to elicit a preferred response.

This week, the Family Research Council released data from their latest survey. Let me be clear. While I realize that a majority of Americans are likely opposed to same-sex marriage, I don't believe it is a litmus test issue for a majority of voters. The FRC survey asked the following question.

As you may know, several states have measures on the November ballot that would amend their state constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Would you be more or less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports those amendments?

As with most wedge issues, I suspect there is a segment of the population that would make this, as well as other issues, a determining factor in the ballot box. However, I suspect that the number of voters who see same-sex marriage as non-negotiable is far short of a majority. Clearly, there will always be single issue voters. However, I suspect that 2008 will find most voters concerned about a number of issues.

In order to determine which issues will hold the most swing, one would need to look at which issues are of greatest import to voters in any given election cycle. A poll by Franklin & Marshall College provides some relevant insight into the 2008 election...and the survey points out that social issues, while important to a significant number of voters, are not the primary factors influencing voter sentiment.

From Yahoo News:

McCain is cleaning up more than 3 to 1 among voters who think the country is headed in the right direction, he's ahead 20 points among voters whose personal finances are better off compared to last year, he's clobbering Obama 4 to 1 among voters who think family values are the top issue of the campaign, he's hammering him by 25 points among voters who say foreign policy is the biggest issue, he's beating him 5 to 1 among voters who list illegal immigration as the top issue, and he's winning by more than 20 points among voters who rank taxes as the most important issue.

Good news for McCain? Maybe not! Winning only matters if what you're winning matters too. And in McCain's case, it largely doesn't. In fact as the Franklin & Marshall College Poll also reveals, despite losing on a wide range of usually salient issues, Barack Obama leads John McCain nationally by six percentage points.

McCain is winning the issue battles but losing the electoral war, because the issues he is winning are not the issues most voters care about. Family values, immigration, foreign policy, country on the right track, and better off finances--count McCain a winner. But on the issues voters say are most important to their vote choice this year--the economy, Iraq, and health care--McCain is a big loser.

n sharp contrast, the issues McCain is losing, he is losing big: the economy (20 points), Iraq (24 points), and health care (45 points). Worse for him, these three are the critical issues of the campaign--two of every three voters list one of them as the most important issue this year. And McCain is losing all three of them to Obama.

In the political algebra of 2008 presidential politics, McCain is winning where it matters least while losing where it matters most.

While we're still months from the election, there are many reasons to believe that these kitchen table issues will continue to be the dominant concerns for a significant majority of voters concerns. In fact, there are indications that the economy may become an even larger determinant as we approach November. Gas prices aren't apt to decline any time soon, unemployment is likely to rise, the stock market continues to struggle, and the government may soon find itself in the mortgage business to the tune of 5 trillion dollars if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail.

As I see it, there just aren't that many Americans who have the luxury to weight same-sex marriage above their own economic self-interest. Besides, the last time I checked, groups like FOF and FRC were asking for money from the flock; not offering to fill their tanks with gas or put food on their table.

I suspect we're approaching the point at which many of these holy heterosexual families will have to face the reality that the economic well-being of their family has very little to do with the same-sex couple down the block. Perhaps they'll finally be forced to focus on their own families for a change.

UPDATE:

Not to be outdone, American Family Association's Don Wildmon is chiming in on the evils of same-sex marriage.

Dr. Donald Wildmon is founder of the American Family Association and an organizer of the Arlington Group. He says passage of the California marriage amendment is critical.

"If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I'm afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost," says Wildmon, a 30-year veteran of the culture war. "I've never said that publicly until now -- but that's just the reality of the fact.

"If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then the culture war is over and we've lost -- and gradually, secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society," he adds.

The vote in California, Wildmon explains, will affect the entire nation. "California is a big dam, holding back the flood -- and if you take down the dam in California, it's going to flood 49 other states," he illustrates. "It will destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years, and with that the cultural decline that normally would follow."

Well there you have it...if California allows gay marriage to proceed, we can all put on our best duds, pack our bags, and prepare for the rapture party. Does anyone know if there will be an after hours party? I'm thinking that's the place to be. After all, by then all the wingnuts should be standing at the pearly gates waiting to see if their admission pass gets validated.

Sacha Baron Cohen, aka Ali G, Borat, and Bruno, is apparently in full flim-flam mode...this time as a cage match wrestler in Arkansas. Cohen's next movie will feature Bruno, the flamboyant Austrian homosexual. Bruno has been known to travel to less than welcoming venues to stir things up...and he apparently succeeded by duping wrestling fans into witnessing what might be better described as a round of pin the tail...of your wrestling partner.

The unsuspecting audience who turned up for the Blue Collar Brawlin' event, lured by the promise of $1 beer, expected a night of old fashioned fisticuffs.

What they got was two men stripping down to their underwear, kissing and "rubbing one another", according to local police.

The men - believed to be actors - were then forced to run for their lives as the 1,600-strong crowd pelted them with beer and chairs.

A spokesman for Baron Cohen declined to say whether he was behind the prank.

But the comedy star is currently in the US filming undercover as his latest creation, Bruno, a camp Austrian fashion reporter. A Bruno film is due in cinemas later this year.

Posters for Blue Collar Brawlin' promised: "Hot Chicks, Cold Beer, Hardcore Fights" and were accompanied by pictures of a scantily clad woman.

Organisers of the event had invited police to attend and tipped them off that a character named "Straight Dave" would goad a planted audience member into the ring for a fight, only to end up in a "romantic embrace" similar to the one between Baron Cohen and Will Ferrell in the film Talladega Nights.

The man-on-man display "went right up to the line" of the city's morality laws, Sgt Holland said.

Bruno also duped a former Mossad agent and a Palestinian academic into a spoof interview on the Middle East conflict, asking them to explain the difference between Hamas and hummus.

If you'd like to see Bruno in action, you can link to video clips of him interviewing a pastor who offers reparative therapy to gays here, cheerleading at a football game and interviewing one of the players in Alabama here, at a barn dance in Georgia here, and talking about music with Christians here.

I've included a copy of the poster used to advertise the event below. As I looked at the image, I couldn't help but think that the "positioning" of the two wrestlers was intentional and funny to those who were in on the gag...but not obvious enough, to the unsuspecting wrestling fan, to give away the scam.

Since the 4th. of July is a day for celebrating all things American, it only seems appropriate to post the following video. After all, expressing one's patriotism, like expressing one's love for a spouse, shouldn't be restricted on the basis of one's sexual preference. With that in mind...I'm happy to say on this Independence Day that I, too, am "totally gay for America". Now where the hell is my hot dog!?