The “M-word”

Posted: March 27th, 2013

There was a time when I didn’t think being mar­ried was a big deal. It’s the “M-word.” It’s just a word.

I would call les­bians and gays who wanted to be mar­ried “assim­i­la­tion­sts.”  There wasn’t any good rea­son to imi­tate straight peo­ple. Being gay was dif­fer­ent, I thought.

If my broth­ers and sis­ters wanted the M-word, I thought they should have that right. The right was denied to us by Pres. Bill Clin­ton. Instead of actual equal­ity, he came out for gays in the mil­i­tary. “Huh?” I said. It didn’t work, and he set­tled for that awful rule called “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell.” Under DADT, les­bian and gay sol­diers kept get­ting thrown out. Bill Clin­ton — the man I sup­ported — signed DADT into law. I didn’t just sup­port him, I was an eager staff mem­ber who worked my butt off for his elec­tion. Then… awful got added to hideous. Clin­ton came out in favor of the fed­eral Defense of Mar­riage Act (DOMA). Pres Bubba said he was in favor of the law. He didn’t think peo­ple like me should get mar­ried. DOMA was the law of the land, and that fam­ily con­nec­tion is why I was a total sup­porter of Barack Obama. I wasn’t going to lift a fin­ger to help Clinton’s wife. Maybe that was wrong on my part, but it is how I felt. It is how I still feel to a cer­tain extent.

There were gays and les­bians in the Oval Office, and they were hop­ping mad at Clin­ton. Here’s the hate­ful phrase that pres­i­dent used for them: “Where else are you going to go?”

Betrayal is the sad­dest word ever defined.

So now, Clin­ton is all smiles when he says DOMA was a bad idea. He thinks me get­ting mar­ried would be fine. I don’t buy it. He wants us to for­get that he signed the law. More recently, we’re sup­posed to for­get that he sug­gested John Kerry come out strongly against mar­riage equal­ity (Kerry has always been for LGBT equality).

Clinton’s wife now says that gays and les­bians should be able to get mar­ried. I don’t buy that either.

Guilt by asso­ci­a­tion for Mrs. Clin­ton. Yup. It’s prob­a­bly wrong, but that is my hon­est feel­ings on the family.

Rick and I have been together for 20 years. He’s the love of my life.

Then some­thing weird hap­pened. We got married.

It was in the Dis­trict of Colum­bia. Same-gender cou­ples don’t even get a dou­ble take in the nation’s cap­i­tal. It hap­pens all the time. He and I went before a judge, and then we got a piece of paper.

The mag­i­cal thing hap­pened on our way home. We took the train from Wash­ing­ton to Chicago and then to Dallas.

Wow. I saw wheat grow­ing, and they really looked like those amber waves of grain. Beautiful.

For the first time in my life, I felt ordi­nary. I love ordinary.

That judge in Wash­ing­ton told me (not in so many words) that our life together had merit.

I can’t find the exact words to tell you how I felt on the train, except that my life with Rick was some­how hap­pier and richer.


Those who want to deny this M-word to gay cou­ples have no idea how caus­tic their mar­riage apartheid is. They say that boy-girl cou­ples can get mar­ried, but I can’t. When I was in the mid­dle of that mind­set, I had no idea of the spir­i­tual and emo­tional dam­age that soci­ety was doing. Once free from those sticky chains, I could look back and see the tragedy. I cried to think of my gay broth­ers and sis­ters who have never known mar­riage. I felt the hor­ror of all those young men and women who killed them­selves over society’s con­stant drub­bing. I felt angry at the hate-filled politi­cians in my home state of Texas.

The goody-two-shoes say “No mar­riage for queers.” In the same breath they berate les­bians and gays for being promis­cu­ous. They don’t see (or ignore the fact) that being mar­ried is society’s way of encour­ag­ing a healthy and lov­ing atmos­phere. There was a time when I’d see a gor­geous actor on TV and dream of rip­ping off his clothes and hav­ing wild sex with him. There’s one gay actor on prime time TV that used to be a reg­u­lar in my fan­tasy world. But he’s mar­ried. He and his hus­band have adopted chil­dren. Since Rick and I got offi­cially mar­ried, I love see­ing that actor on TV. He is still one of the most adorable peo­ple I’ve ever seen, but my heart soars for his mar­riage. How lucky those kids are to wake up every day to such a lovely father. I’m told that they live their lives out of the Hol­ly­wood spot­light. They’re just a reg­u­lar fam­ily. Until Rick and I were mar­ried, I couldn’t be happy for the actor and his hus­band. I wanted to be promis­cu­ous. The change wasn’t forced on me. I didn’t decide to stop think­ing about rip­ping his clothes off. It just hap­pened. I smile when his show comes on, and I am so happy for him.

I need to have hope and char­ity for every­one. The self-styled “reli­gious” right is included in the group of things I am sup­posed to love. I’m sup­posed to forgive.

To tell you the truth, I’m not there yet. I don’t like what the rightwing has done to Chris­tian­ity. That minor­ity of mon­sters have turned the reli­gion of love into some­thing with buzz saw blades. It’s like the Inqui­si­tion and the Witch Hunts all over.

What I love about Amer­ica is that it remains edgy and exper­i­men­tal. That’s the way the coun­try was started, and I hope — maybe even trust or expect — that the Con­sti­tu­tion will keep evolving.

I believe there will be a time when my mar­riage to the man I love will be rec­og­nized by my home state (Texas) and by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. That won’t come from any change in Texas pol­i­tics. It will only hap­pen when a higher and more pow­er­ful author­ity tells the rightwing to sit down.

Upstream from me: Gov Rick Perry, Rep Pete Ses­sions, Sen John Cornyn, and Sen Ted Cruz. I’m the gay bug. They’re the tea party wind­shield. The only thing that has my back is the US Con­sti­tu­tion. I look to the Supreme Court for cover. There is so much religion-wrapped hatred in Texas. I pray the court gets engaged with the destruc­tion of DOMA. Some states let les­bians and gays marry, while Texas politi­cians don’t even want to know that I kiss and hug my husband.

My polit­i­cal over­seers want to deny me lib­erty. They don’t see any rea­son to let me pur­sue happiness.

Texas will see mar­riage equal­ity one day. We aren’t there yet. I may not live long enough to see it, but I am con­fi­dent in the tra­jec­tory of Amer­i­can society.

What I can do in the mean­time is to release the hate­ful rightwing from ani­mos­ity. I want to keep a char­i­ta­ble atti­tude toward the hate-mongers because–

  • I am mar­ried to the love of my life, and noth­ing any­body says or does can change that; and,
  • the Lords of Karma are much bet­ter at lev­el­ing the field than I could ever be.

One other note. Rick will con­firm this. That actor? If he calls my cell phone, I have told Rick that I may not be around for a cou­ple of days. Mmmm.…

Rick and Wynn Wagner

Rick and Wynn Wagner

Lion King equality

Lion King equality

Grumpy Kitty equality

Grumpy Kitty equality

True Blood equality

True Blood equality

Bacon equality

Bacon equal­ity

Smirnoff equality

Smirnoff equal­ity

Paula Dean equality, y'all

Paula Dean equal­ity, y’all

Matzah equality

Passover equal­ity

Star Wars equality

Star Wars equality

Peanut equality

Peanut equal­ity



The Elephant Sneaks into My Wheelhouse

Posted: March 25th, 2013

I’m not a “one issue” per­son. No, really. Some (read: most) of my friends will chuckle at that. They’d tell you that I’m all over LGBT equal­ity, and that I’ve been that way since the GAY LIB days of the 1960s.

That part is true, but I have lots of things on my agenda. I worry about the bro­ken health care sys­tem in the US. I am con­cerned that Uncle Sam flexes his mil­i­tary fist way too quickly. I fear that too many peo­ple remain unem­ployed even though there are pot­holes in the streets that are large enough to swal­low small children.

Those are all crit­i­cally impor­tant issues, and I’m con­cerned about each.

But (and this is often a show-stopper)… you don’t get to talk to me about all those other things until we get past LGBT equal­ity. It is my sine qua non issue.

That’s why the recent switch of Sen. Rob Port­man on mar­riage equal­ity is so inter­est­ing to me.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)

Sen. Rob Port­man (R-OH)

Mr. Port­man is a Repub­li­can from Ohio. He and I will most likely have a short con­ver­sa­tion because I am def­i­nitely not a Repub­li­can, and Ohio is far too cold for my ten­der bones. But he is the only elected Repub­li­can who doesn’t think my life is a waste of space. He thinks my love for my hus­band has merit, and that (by my own def­i­n­i­tion) lets me hear what he has to say on a whole agenda of topics.

My par­ents started out like most Repub­li­cans. They used words like F*g. It was incon­ve­nient for them because I was never “in” the closet. I was out my entire life. They knew my boyfriends in high school and col­lege, and they main­tained an uneasy silence. They knew I’d react noisily.

When I was out on my own, invi­ta­tions to fam­ily events would come in addressed to me but not my lover. I’d always ignore those kinds of invi­ta­tions. When mother asked about that, I told her why. It was an uneasy truce: no ver­bal bar­rages, but no real peace.

They finally came around. Before they died, they both accepted my lover/husband as part of the fam­ily. I started going to fam­ily out­ings again. My rel­a­tives (adopted fam­ily, no blood) didn’t like the arrange­ment, but nobody ever said any­thing. I can’t ask for more than that. What you think of me isn’t any con­cern of mine. I don’t care what you or any­one else thinks. You can talk behind my back, and that’s just ducky. We’ll only have prob­lems if you say some­thing impo­lite within earshot. That usu­ally includes say­ing things about gay kids who aren’t strong enough to stand up on their own.

My rel­a­tives (adopted) finally fig­ured all that out. Peace was at hand.

I think I’m still a Yella-Dog Demo­c­rat. That term goes back to when Rep Sam Ray­burn (D-TX) was Speaker of the House. When some­body asked him if he’d ever vote for a Repub­li­can, Mr Ray­burn said he’d rather vote for an old Yella-Dog.

Will and Sen. Rob Portman

Will and Sen. Rob Portman

I think I’m still one of those, but now I will eagerly give Sen Port­man a listen.

What’s more, I am so happy to see what came from Will Portman’s com­ing out. Will is the senator’s son. He’s a stu­dent at Yale Uni­ver­sity. After Will told his father that he’s gay, it started a two year process of evolv­ing into believ­ing that mar­riage equal­ity ought to be the law of the land.

So, thank you Will. Thanks for being hon­est about who you are. And thanks to your father for hav­ing the guts to go against what has been a rightwing lock on the social poli­cies of the Repub­li­can party.



We the People: Equal Justice under Law

Posted: March 25th, 2013
"Equal Justice Under Law" (SCOTUS)

Supreme Court build­ing, Wash­ing­ton DC

Jus­tice Anthony Kennedy wrote that big deci­sions shouldn’t be made by nine unelected Supreme Court jus­tices. [Wash­ing­ton Post arti­cle cov­er­ing a Sacra­mento, CA speech]

I am not a lawyer, but I dis­agree with that. We have a fed­eral con­sti­tu­tion whose Arti­cle Three spends a great deal of ink say­ing the Amer­i­can court sys­tem is in place to keep the major­ity from being a bully.

We the Peo­ple of the United States, in Order to form a more per­fect Union, estab­lish Jus­tice, insure domes­tic Tran­quil­ity, pro­vide for the com­mon defence, pro­mote the gen­eral Wel­fare, and secure the Bless­ings of Lib­erty to our­selves and our Pos­ter­ity, do ordain and estab­lish this Con­sti­tu­tion for the United States of America.

With­out fed­eral courts, the insan­ity that per­me­ates poli­cies in the state of Texas would have no check, no bal­ance. The Con­sti­tu­tion is in place as a social con­tract. It has the abil­ity and duty to tell the hate-mongers to sit down. We have a Con­sti­tu­tion that makes it unnec­es­sary for any­one to vote on the basic rights of any­one. Mar­riage is one of the fun­da­men­tal of being American.

LGBT Amer­i­cans want… expect… to be treated equally. Noth­ing more. But cer­tainly noth­ing less.


Bill Clinton: where we went

Posted: March 8th, 2013
Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure

Seri­ously Pho­to­shopped pic­ture that made the rounds in the 1991 pres­i­den­tial election.

For­mer pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton wrote a piece pub­lished in the Wash­ing­ton Post in which he says it is time for mar­riage equal­ity. That’s nice, but please par­don me if I don’t jump up and down breathlessly.

Bill Clin­ton is the pres­i­dent that got us into this mess. He signed the Defense of Mar­riage Act (DOMA). Dur­ing his reelec­tion bid, he even ran radio adver­tis­ing tout­ing how much he sup­ported so-called “tra­di­tional” marriage.

Clin­ton also insti­tuted Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), that awful mil­i­tary law that caused hun­dreds of LGBT sol­diers out of their cho­sen line of work. Back then, Clin­ton met with sev­eral LGBT activists. When they expressed their dis­plea­sure over DADT, the pres­i­dent just shrugged and said we had to accept things.

Where else are you going to go?” he asked.

I still remem­ber DADT and DOMA. I’m still hurt that a politi­cian who actively sought gay sup­port would be so hate­ful in the laws he sup­ported. I am still hurt that he would do radio com­mer­cials brag­ging about how he stuck it to us.

I know for a fact that his wife lost LGBT sup­port because of the hurt of his pres­i­den­tial actions. Maybe we’d have our first female pres­i­dent already if Mr. Clin­ton hadn’t pushed DOMA and DADT. Maybe Hillary would be pres­i­dent if her hus­band hadn’t gone on radio to explain how anti-gay he was at heart.

Where else are you going to go?”

Barack Obama, Mr. Clin­ton. I went with some­one who did what he promised and didn’t change his tune to match what he con­sid­ered expedient.

And if Bill Clin­ton really thinks the Supreme Court ought to strike down DOMA, an op-ed piece in the Wash­ing­ton Post is the wrong forum. The news­pa­per gets a larger read­er­ship. It gets Clin­ton pub­lic­ity about how he has changed.

He could have (and should have) done some­thing more on-the-record. He could have been part of an ami­cus brief, filed offi­cially with the Supreme Court. That would have been some­thing of sub­stance, not merely some­thing with sizzle.

Regard­less of the forum, what Bill Clin­ton said this week is miss­ing two impor­tant words. With­out those two words, his grand­stand­ing efforts in print are just so much hooey.

The two words Bill Clin­ton has shame­fully failed to use: I’M SORRY.


The National Debt

Posted: January 5th, 2013
14 Amendment (original)National Archives

14 Amend­ment (orig­i­nal)
National Archives

I don’t under­stand why the Con­gress talks about the “debt limit.” When they do some­thing like start two wars, they also say the US will pay for them. Maybe they could read the Four­teenth Amend­ment to the Constitution:

Sec­tion 4. The valid­ity of the pub­lic debt of the United States, autho­rized by law, includ­ing debts incurred for pay­ment of pen­sions and boun­ties for ser­vices in sup­press­ing insur­rec­tion or rebel­lion, shall not be ques­tioned. But nei­ther the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or oblig­a­tion incurred in aid of insur­rec­tion or rebel­lion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or eman­ci­pa­tion of any slave; but all such debts, oblig­a­tions and claims shall be held ille­gal and void.”

What I think needs to hap­pen (short term) is for Mr. Obama to pay what the Con­gress has spent and ignore any debt limit. Isn’t that what he’s required to do by the Amend­ment?


Words Together for the First Time

Posted: December 1st, 2012
West Point chapel

Chapel, West Point, New York state

It’s been a great era for the LGBT com­mu­nity in the USA. Nothing’s per­fect, but the changes have been amazing.

The chapel at West Point — the US Army col­lege in New York state — is hav­ing a wed­ding of two lesbians.

Pres­i­dent Obama, who said that he’d end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” did just that. The Amer­i­can mil­i­tary didn’t implode. Reen­list­ment by non-gay sol­diers didn’t cave like some homo­phobes predicted.

More states have approved mar­riage equal­ity. Hate laws are still on the books in some states, but it is an improv­ing sit­u­a­tion. Every­thing could change in a flash, but it’s good right now.

The big news didn’t make any news­cast. I was watch­ing a TV show (Per­son of Inter­est on CBS). There was an extor­tion attempt against one of the episode’s char­ac­ters: some­one threat­ened to kill “her wife” unless the char­ac­ter did some­thing. Les­bians on prime time tele­vi­sion. It’s hap­pened, even in the tightly puck­ered world of US tele­vi­sion plots. This time was different.

Her wife” was men­tioned with­out com­ment. The fact that the char­ac­ters were LGBT was just an accepted inci­den­tal. There was no sub­plot relat­ing to their gay­ness. Noth­ing in the sto­ry­line was aug­mented or dimin­ished because we had a les­bian cou­ple. That’s just who they were.

I noticed because it was so matter-of-fact. Words that are put together today are com­bi­na­tions I never thought I’d see –

  • her wife
  • his hus­band
  • mil­i­tary same-sex wedding

There’s lots more work to do, of course:

“I think that gay mar­riage is some­thing that should be between a man and a woman.”
— Repub­li­can Arnold Schwarzeneg­ger, August 27, 2003 (Fox News interview)




Las Vegas: Only breeders there.

Posted: November 30th, 2012

A fed­eral judge in Nevada upholds that state’s anti-gay mar­riage law.

Dis­ap­point­ing but not a shock: he’s Mor­mon and was appointed by “W”. The rea­son is weird. The judge says gays can’t marry because we can’t “cre­ate” chil­dren. So this guy — who has polygamy in his fam­ily tree — says mar­riage is only for one woman and one man and only because they can make babies. Pro­duc­tive sex is more impor­tant than rais­ing chil­dren. Good to know.

I guess elderly straight cou­ples are next to be hit.

The judge also says that if gays can marry in Nevada, then boy/girl cou­ples would stop tak­ing mar­riage seri­ously. Seriously!





Posted: November 7th, 2012

The 2012 elec­tion is over. I’d be hard-pressed to come up with results I like more, if you pre­tend Texas doesn’t exist.

Gov. Mitt Rom­ney gave a gra­cious con­ces­sion speech. If he had talked like a states­man dur­ing the elec­tion, he might have been elected. Some of his more vir­u­lent sup­port­ers are (nat­u­rally) foam­ing with talk of rev­o­lu­tion and impeachment.

I’m not a pun­dit or any­body spe­cial. I just have a set of sen­si­tive feel­ings and expertly honed viewpoints.

Two points and then I’ll shut up about pol­i­tics for awhile (that’s a lie, of course, because I never shut up about pol­i­tics).

  • I was hav­ing a fairly calm con­ver­sa­tion with a guy who prob­a­bly voted a straight Repub­li­can ticket. I didn’t ask; he didn’t tell. I waxed a bit about one of my heroes, for­mer Sen­a­tor George McGov­ern. He died a few days before the elec­tion, and he would have been so happy about the results of the 2012 vote. Back in 1972, I worked my butt off for that man as he tried to keep Richard Nixon from being a two-term pres­i­dent. McGov­ern lost. Nixon kept him­self from serv­ing two com­plete terms because he was a crook and had to resign in dis­grace. The point is that the guy I was chat­ting with said some­thing shock­ing about George McGov­ern: “Who?” Oy.
  • The other point I want to make has to do with voter sup­pres­sion and rigged vot­ing machines. Repub­li­cans sup­pos­edly tried to keep minor­ity vot­ing to a min­i­mum. When they “allowed” vot­ing, it was allegedly on rigged elec­tronic vot­ing machines. If all that’s true, they need to get a new batch of hooli­gans and pro­gram­mers. Their rigged vot­ing machines didn’t rig the vote.



Prop 8 — Mormon Connection Documented

Posted: November 1st, 2012

8” (doc­u­men­tary)

We watched “8″ last night on the doc­u­men­tary chan­nel. It’s about how the MORMON church pres­sured its adher­ents into donat­ing huge sums of money to the Cal­i­for­nia state bal­lot that removed rights from its LGBT cit­i­zens. There was a time when gay cou­ples could get mar­ried, but Propo­si­tion 8 changed all that.

It isn’t easy to watch. I kept think­ing the IRS ought to declare the Mor­mon church a cult and tax the heck out of them. That kind of neg­a­tive wish is out of char­ac­ter for me, but it’s how I feel.

The doc­u­men­tary dates to 2010, and it’s still hard to watch. Prop 8 has been resoundly rejected by the courts and is headed to the US Supreme Court.

Prop 8 took hun­dreds of LGBT cou­ples who were legally mar­ried and stripped them of that sta­tus. It’s never hap­pened any­where in the US before.

The doc­u­men­tary shows how the Mor­mons secretly orga­nized a mas­sive amount of money to send into Cal­i­for­nia. Church doc­u­ments show the mil­lions of dol­lars being col­lected from adher­ents. Other church doc­u­ments lay out an exotic plan of decep­tion: to make it seem like the church had noth­ing to do with the effort. They came up with a dol­lar amount for each Mor­mon fam­ily, and they strong-armed each head of house­hold to donate that amount… or else.

They threat­ened peo­ple. They lied to the IRS so egre­giously that the US gov­ern­ment had to con­front them about report­ing polit­i­cal activ­ity. The church amended its report on the con­tri­bu­tions, but the num­bers are far from credible.

These guys can’t be trusted, and watch­ing “8” under­scored that to me in indeli­ble ink. They lie. They blud­geon gay kids (caught on sur­veil­lance tape),

Mormon Temple in Utah

Mor­mon Tem­ple in Utah

Church muckety-mucks say gay kids would be bet­ter off dead. And the state of Utah (kind of the Mormon’s ver­sion of a Vat­i­can) has the largest inci­dence of teenage sui­cides in the coun­try. Most of those kids who off them­selves are LGBT. They kids get harangued by their church, and the par­ents usu­ally side with the church (mainly because of strong warn­ings of reprisals both here and in the Mor­mon afterlife.

What is it about this money machine that is a church?  Their choir sings pretty hymns (rak­ing in more money of course).

They do “sub­stan­tial” activ­ity in polit­i­cal cam­paigns (money, bully pul­pit, social net­work­ing), and that is some­thing that the US’s IRS is strictly for­bid­den. The church knows this, so they try to con­ceal their work: sub­terfuge with a sedi­tion chaser.

Shame on them for lying and cov­er­ing up their polit­i­cal activ­ity. Shem on their mem­bers for being the sedi­tion. Triple shame on the IRS for call­ing these lying hate-mongers the tax­able entity they really are (based on their doc­u­mented and sub­stan­tial actions).

I’ve never been so bla­tant about a so-called reli­gion because I really believe in Live and Let Live. But this morn­ing church is — in many ways — about the “Got hates Fags” loons.




Care and Feeding of a Retired Archbishop

Posted: October 27th, 2012
Abp Wynn Wagner (ret) on a Rhine River boat (Germany, 2012)

Abp Wynn Wag­ner (ret)
Rhine River boat (Ger­many, 2012)

Unless you are a pub­lic fig­ure (or Mark Raven), I am prob­a­bly going to be slow to anger. That’s my goal, but I am def­i­nitely a work-in-progress.

[WTF]Oth­ers don’t take the same tact. I still have 30+ “friends” on Face­book who report they “like” Mitt Rom­ney. That’s down from about 300. I still feel like I have 30+ “friends” who don’t have enough in com­mon to start any kind of con­ver­sa­tion. They seem to want to stick around, and I don’t know how.

It’s none of my busi­ness who fol­lows me on Face­book. You can “like” whomever and what­ever you want. But.…..

My goal here is to avoid trou­ble “down the line.” I usu­ally don’t do a flame­war in pub­lic (the excep­tion being if you pub­licly bully some­body). But just so you know–


  • I write spir­i­tual books and gay romance nov­els. I even have one tarot book. Yes, that’s all over the pub­lish­ing map. No, I don’t use pen names to keep my romance fic­tion from inter­min­gling with my litur­gi­cal books. Maybe I should, but I don’t.
  • Some authors have sep­a­rate pro­files for their books. It’s a nice divi­sion: per­sonal vs shame­less pro­mo­tions. (shrug) Maybe I’m too stu­pid to do that kind of social pars­ing, but I have one page where every­thing gets thrown together like a tossed salad. My two pub­lish­ers — Mys­ticWays Books (MWB) and Dream­spin­ner Press — have Face­book pages. MWB has pages for Wynn Wag­ner Books and Brent: the Heart Reader. Brent gets its own page because it’s an inductee into the Gay Book Hall of Fame, and MWB says that is a huge deal. I don’t run or edit all those pages: just my per­sonal page. The point is that I still get homo­phobes on Face­book who swear they want to be my “friend.” (scratch­ing head)


  • My pol­i­tics is way out on the left where the busses don’t even run. I’m lib­eral (rad­i­cal?), and I don’t mind say­ing so in public.
  • I’ll usu­ally react when my Annoy­ance Meter goes over about 40% on polit­i­cal matters.


  • My reli­gion is Old Catholic. That means I like really tra­di­tional litur­gies and very pro­gres­sive spir­i­tual teach­ings. Yes, it’s Catholic. No, it isn’t Roman Catholic. If you’re curi­ous about that, I have some awe­some books to suggest!
  • I am a retired arch­bishop of the Old Catholic Church, and I’m fairly sure that the Church would appre­ci­ate my stress­ing that I don’t speak (or write) for any­body but me.
  • When orga­nized reli­gion crosses what I con­sider a theo­cratic line of proper behav­ior, I will stand up and wag my fin­ger and scream about it as loudly as I can. In many cases, reli­gion (mainly Chris­t­ian and Mus­lim) ought to be ashamed of their bul­ly­ing. It’s fine for them to order their adher­ents to do such-and-such or believe a cer­tain way. It’s a whole other mat­ter if they want me to do or believe what they preach. And I think it’s almost crim­i­nal for a reli­gion to try to insert their dogma into civil law.
  • You don’t have to be Old Catholic for me to pay atten­tion to you. I won’t even sug­gest you “con­vert” but will try to get you pointed in the right direc­tion if you ask.
  • I honor your spir­i­tual pathway.
  • I’ll usu­ally react if you cross the line and demand every­one fol­low your path. Reli­gious fire­fights get nasty quickly, and I really don’t like it when that hap­pens. [cf., Billy Jack]
  • If you really want a philo­soph­i­cal fight, I will usu­ally try to give you a head start. I have a cou­ple of advanced degrees in phi­los­o­phy and the­ol­ogy, so I have the home field advan­tage and I’m not too proud to use it (if push and shove come to play)


  • I’m gay, but I never-ever came “out of the closet.” That would have been dumb because I’ve never been in the closet (except to get fresh clothes each Spring).
  • Since I retired from my day job and from my duties in the Old Catholic Church, I don’t have any kind of tether (or net) to keep me quiet around homophobes.
  • Pick­ing on any LGBTQ per­son in my earshot usu­ally doesn’t end peace­fully. (Just sayin’)


  • I don’t think it’s a big deal. It isn’t my defin­ing moment, but you hang around me on foot­ball, you will prob­a­bly see me screammg about sports teams (espe­cially Amer­i­can foot­ball). In advance… sorry ’bout that.

The Red Line

  • Finally (and this is the real rea­son for this blog post), I take threats of death and injury seri­ously. Please don’t do it. The “Unfriend” but­ton is fairly sim­ple to use on Face­book, even for a right-winger or homo­phobe. I won’t mind if you use that but­ton. I won’t even mind of you decide to block my posts. Promise.