A Gay Man on the Path and Trying to Be True

Omigawd, Omigawd, Omigawd!

kc_risenphoenix — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:07:20 GMT

I love this show so much and have looked forward to as much excitement as trepidation for this movie. Have you see this show? I've seen it at least three times, two of them the official Broadway touring cast, I've seen the special anniversary edition and listened to the soundtrack hundreds of times. I am so excited I can hardly believe it. Omigawd, omigawd, omigawd, I can't wait! It looks like it just might work!

And at the very end of the video I suddenly and completely understand why Anne decided to reinterpret one of my favorite songs from the musical. I was nervous. Very.

But omigawd, omigawd, omigawd..!

Sarah Jane is at the Vet's and I am a Big Old Mess

kc_risenphoenix — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:48:59 GMT

So the itty bitty teeny tiny little woman is at the vets and I am a complete mess.

She started acting funny yesterday later afternoon/early evening. I wish I could explain more than that and I will try, but "funny" is the word. When you know someone, even an "animal," like I do Sarah Jane, you just know when something is off.

First she wasn't acting her enthusiastic self, all excitement and joy and love and happiness. Almost everyone who meets her comments that she is about the happiest dog they've ever met. Second she was walking with her head bowed, like she thought she was a bad girl or something. She didn't even want to hop up and have some raw chicken that I was starting to cook, and she loves her some chicken. When I picked her up later she didn't lick my face like she always does.

I mentioned it to Raymond and he saw it too and so I agreed to keep a close eye on her since she pretty much sticks to my side anyway.

Right after Raymond went to bed I picked her up and instead of her tucking her head under my chin or licking the top six layers of skin off my face like she usually does, she laid her head on my shoulder and whimpered. I don't know if I have ever heard her whimper before. I got Raymond up and we checked her over again, checked her feet and legs and pressed gently all over her to no effect. We walked her and she pottied, so she wasn't constipated.

I went over everything. She hasn't been in the basement so she couldn't have gotten to anything poison. She hasn't had anything like chocolate. I did give her a small pork chop bone, which she loves. There is a big disagreement over pork bones, if they are good or not... She adores then so. I worried that she might have swallowed a piece that was too big.

I called one of the three emergency animal hospitals and they suggested some kind of back or neck injury which is common with dachshunds and she is half dachshund. I kept her with me for a couple hours to just watch her and she barely moved. When I picked her up to take her to bed she cried and yipped. I was a f*cking mess.

Took her to bed and laid her between us. Then instead of doing what she always does, lay there maybe five minutes, lick me, and then crawl over Raymond and sleep on his side, she just lay there all night long. I woke up numerous times and turned on the light, afraid she wasn't breathing, but she was.

This morning she seemed a lot better.

But still... Off. She went under a chair surrounded by clothes and that denning instinct scared the shit out of me and I called a vet. They wondered too about her back.

So I took her in even though they had no appointments until this afternoon. The idea was that the doc could do a quick check and then they would keep her for observation. They might do x-rays which will be expensive but worth it.

I started to cry a little and asked the nurse -- why did I feel she was worth the cost of expensive x-rays when I had never felt that way about animals before. Why was she different. Why were all the animals I've had in my life, even my beloved Sheltie Ramses, just animals but she was sooooo different.

She explained that Sarah was probably my soul dog. I've read about that. Ususally only one of those a life time. I am starting to cry again and can't see teh secreen. Please offer doggie prayers or whatver you belive in. I, so oworried and trying not too.

They will call me this afternnon. The quick check did show they don't think there is anyythng wrong with her back. She has been thre for two or three hours and there is no word.

She hs got to be okay. She is the LIGHT of my life...

Skyler Stone And Mike Smith, Two Straight Men, Kiss At Chick-Fil-A To Support Gay Marriage

kc_risenphoenix — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:09:01 GMT

This is fun, sexy, cool and more. Skyler Stone, thank you! And Mike Smith, may I be your second gay kiss please?

Watch this! And please please please help it go viral by watching it (even if for only seconds) at YouTube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BnYko9rns

Skyler Stone And Mike Smith, Two Straight Men,
Kiss At Chick-Fil-A To Support Gay Marriage

If you're not feeling Chick-fil-A burn out by now, you're stronger than most folks.

Ever since the fast food chain's President and COO Dan Cathy confirmed that he is against gay marriage last month -- and records of the company's charitable arm's anti-gay donations were re-exposed -- a controversy has relentlessly raged pitting LGBT advocates and allies against those who support Chick-fil-A.

Everyone from the mayor of Boston to Sarah Palin to the Jim Henson Company, which voided a relationship with Chick-fil-A after Cathy's comments, has spoken out on the issue.

And just when we thought we'd seen everything, a new viral video has appeared on YouTube featuring two straight men who kiss -- to put it mildly -- at a Chick-fil-A in Hollywood to show their support for gay people.

In the video, entitled "Chicken With A Side Of Hate," the men, comedian and actor Skyler Stone and his friend, comedian Mike Smith, freshen up on what seems like a ridiculous amount of toothpaste, mouthwash and breath mints, ask for advice on male-on-male kissing from two gay men and then advance hand in hand over to the Chick-fil-A on Sunset and Highland in Hollywood.

To see what happens once they get there watch the video above.

Though some may argue that Stone and Smith missed the point of LGBT people's problem with Chick-fil-A -- that not only is Cathy against marriage equality but the company has also donated millions of dollars to anti-gay causes (the comedians make purchases from the restaurant) -- their hearts seems to be in the right place.

What do you think?

Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggest

kc_risenphoenix — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:16:29 GMT

Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests
By: Natalie Wolchover
Published: 06/12/2012 12:59 PM EDT on Lifes Little Mysteries

While female sexuality appears to be more fluid, research suggests that male gayness is an inborn, unalterable, strongly genetically influenced trait. But considering that the trait discourages the type of sex that leads to procreation — that is, sex with women — and would therefore seem to thwart its own chances of being genetically passed on to the next generation, why are there gay men at all?

Put differently, why haven't gay man genes driven themselves extinct?

This longstanding question is finally being answered by new and ongoing research. For several years, studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. The results show strong support for the "balancing selection hypothesis," which is fast becoming the accepted theory of the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

The theory holds that the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males' female maternal relatives. Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives' "gay man genes," though they aren't expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay.

While no one knows which genes, exactly, these might be, at least one of them appears to be located on the X chromosome, according to genetic modeling by Camperio Ciani and his colleagues. Males inherit only one X chromosome — the one from their mother — and if it includes the gene that promotes gayness in males and fecundity in females, he is likely to be gay while his mom and her female relatives are likely to have lots of kids. If a daughter inherits that same X-linked gene, she herself may not be gay, but she can pass it on to her sons.

But how might the "gay man gene" make females more reproductively successful? A new study by Camperio Ciani and his team addresses the question for the first time. Previously, the Italian researchers suggested that the "gay man gene" might simply increase androphilia, or attraction to men, thereby making the males who possess the gene homosexual and the females who possess it more promiscuous. But after investigating the characteristics of 161 female maternal relatives of homosexual and heterosexual men, the researchers have adjusted their hypothesis. Rather than making women more attracted to men, the "gay man gene" appears to make these women more attractive to men.

"High fecundity, that means having more babies, is not about pleasure in sex, nor is it about promiscuity. The androphilic pattern that we found is about females who increase their reproductive value to attract the best males," Camperio Ciani told Life's Little Mysteries.

Turns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.

The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Of course, no single factor can account for the varied array of sexual orientations that exist, in men as well as in women. "It is quite possible that there are several influences on forming a homosexual orientation," said Gerulf Rieger, a sexual orientation researcher at Cornell University. He noted that environmental factors — including the level of exposure to certain hormones in the womb — also play a role in molding male sexuality. But as for why genetic factors would exist that make men gay, it appears that these genes make women, as well as gay men, alluring to other men.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Senior Anglican Clergy: “Church Should Rejoice” Over Equal Marriage

kc_risenphoenix — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:11:28 GMT

Senior Anglican Clergy: “Church Should Rejoice” Over Equal Marriage
by Edmund Broch
21 April 2012, 12:59pm

A group of leading clergymen of the Anglican Church have, in a letter to the Times, said that equal marriage is a cause to celebrate, and that the Church of England has “nothing to fear” on account of extending marriage to same-sex couples.

In the letter, several prominent figures, including five former bishops, have written that recent statements by “church leaders past and present” may give people the wrong impression that the Church as a whole is against equal marriage. “Marriage is a robust institution,” the letter continues, “which has adopted much over the centuries. It has moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightenment times. While the Prayer Book states that marriage was ordained first for “the procreation of children” the modern marriage service begins by emphasising the quality of relationship between marriage partners “that they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind”.

“That there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church,” the letter adds.

A leading signatory of the letter is Dr Jeffrey John, the openly gay dean of St Albans, whose appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003 had to be withdrawn due to protest from conservative factions within the Church. Other signatories include Canon Giles Goddard of the General Synod, the suffragan bishop of Buckingham, and the deans of Norwich, Guildford and Portsmouth.

"We believe the Church has nothing to fear from… civil marriage for same-sex couples,” the letter continues, saying it ”will be for the churches to then decide how they respond pastorally.” It also welcomed recent statements by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral calling on the Church to support equal marriage for same-sex couples.

The government consultation to extend civil marriages to same-sex couples by 2015 has drawn considerable criticism from traditional factions within the Catholic Church, some Tory MPs, and Muslim leaders in Scotland. However, it has also drawn criticism from pro-equality members of religious groups, as it proposes to exclude same-sex couples from any religious wedding ceremonies. The consultation will officially end in June.

We reproduce the entire letter for our readers below:

Sir,

A number of recent statements by church leaders past and present may have given the mistaken impression that the Church is universally opposed to the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples. We believe that does not adequately reflect the range of opinion which exists within the Church of England.

Marriage is a robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries. It has moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightenment times.

While the Prayer Book states that marriage was ordained first for ‘the procreation of children’ the modern marriage service begins by emphasising the quality of relationship between marriage partners ‘that they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind.’

The Church calls marriage holy or sacramental because the covenant relationship of committed, faithful love between the couple reflects the covenanted love and commitment between God and his Church. Growing in this kind of love means we are growing in the image of God. So the fact that there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church.

We welcome current moves by the House of Bishops to consider again its view of civil partnerships and human sexuality. We hope this will lead to a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships and call on the Church to engage in theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage.

We also welcome recent reported statements by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral calling on the Church to affirm same-sex couples who want to take on the commitment of marriage.

It is our belief that the Church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples. It will be for the churches to then decide how they should respond pastorally to such a change in the law.

Sincerely

Canon Giles Goddard, General Synod, Southwark
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans

The Rt Rev Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham
The Rt Rev Michael Doe
The Rt Rev John Gladwin
The Rt Rev Lord Harries of Pentregarth
The Rt Rev Peter Selby
The Rt Rev David Stancliffe

The Very Rev David Brindley, Dean of Portsmouth
The Very Rev Graham Smith, Dean of Norwich
The Very Rev Victor Stock, Dean of Guildford

Mrs April Alexander, General Synod, Southwark
The Rev Stephen Coles, General Synod, London
The Rev Clair Herbert, General Synod, London
Mr John Ward LLB, General Synod, London

Thank you to essayel for pointing this out!

This is Remarkable and I Hope You Have a Moment to Check it Out

kc_risenphoenix — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:17:10 GMT

So I posted a song the other day and was sad I only got one comment on it, but that is okay. It isn't a comment-whore thing, it is just that I thought it was rather remarkable and that people got a chance to see it. I also understand that while viewing one's friend's list, it is common to skip videos to save time...

That said, I do hope you will check this out... I BLEW me away what these people do in this video...

Also that it is a damned good song, a damned good cover of a song I guess. I hope this goes viral and this group gets known. They are remarkable. They are called
Walk Off the Earth and they are doing a cover of the song called "Somebody that I Used to Know" and I am going to be looking out for them. Maybe they will come to Kansas City!

Special, special thanks to wrjones for pointing this out to me!

Have a great day!
Namasté
Ben

HELP!

kc_risenphoenix — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:04:42 GMT

LOL... Okay I need some help...

1) Worst Date: Tell me a story of a really bad one...

(maybe a date that today you can finally look back and laugh but it sure wasn't funny at the time? Or not)

2) You've just had a BAD evening and you want a cocktail or shot or something that will help you deal with it immediately. What would you have?

Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense Economically

kc_risenphoenix — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:24:24 GMT

Here is an interesting little article I found and wanted to share. What do you think? And not just emotionally. I think the writer makes some really interesting points.

Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense Economically

By Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers

The national discussion about same- sex marriage is heating up. Just last week, North Carolina voted to prohibit the practice, and, for the first time, President Barack Obama clearly came out in favor of it.

The debate, which has focused on our evolving views on sexuality, also mirrors a deeper generational shift in how we view and experience marriage.

For our grandparents’ generation, marriage was about separate roles, separate spheres and specialization. Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago, won the Nobel Prize partly for describing the family as an economic institution -- a bit like a small firm that employs people with different skills to produce both income and a well-run household. (To Read More...)

Obama Backs Gay Marriage

kc_risenphoenix — Thu, 10 May 2012 04:40:29 GMT

Obama Backs Gay Marriage
Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- In a nod to a dramatic shift in public opinion, Barack Obama on Wednesday became the first sitting president to announce his support for same-sex marriage.

In a sit-down interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, Obama completed what has been a markedly long and oft-mocked evolution on the matter.

"I've always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally," Obama told Roberts, in an interview that will air in full on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he said.

The statement constitutes an act of political bravery on the president's behalf, as well as a major victory for the gay rights community, which has been pushing him to declare his support for marriage equality for several years. With the issue back in the news this week, the pressure intensified.

On Sunday, Vice President Joseph Biden told NBC's "Meet The Press" that he was personally comfortable with same-sex marriage, which was followed the next day by Education Secretary Arne Duncan saying the same.

The White House insisted that there was no daylight between the vice president's position and the president's, noting that Biden clarified his statement as being in reference to civil rights for gay couples. But the explanation was largely dismissed by both supporters and critics as a convenient way for the president to signal support for marriage equality without having to declare it himself.

On Tuesday evening, the state of North Carolina passed an amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The president expressed his disappointment with the measure, but it remained difficult to square his opposition to a measure outlawing same-sex marriage with his opposition to same-sex marriage itself.

As the political pressure continued to mount, the president finally chose to speak out Wednesday, with the White House hastily scheduling a sit-down interview.

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president said. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

The president's support of same-sex marriage will have little political impact, from a practical standpoint, as much of the activity on the issue is currently occurring in the states and the courts. Already the Obama administration's Department of Justice has stopped defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Legislation to overturn DOMA outright would likely be blocked by congressional Republicans.

The more promising path for same-sex marriage advocates remains a friendly hearing by the United States Supreme Court.

Still, the symbolism of Obama's remarks is hard to ignore. In becoming the first president to publicly support marriage equality, he sets the bar for its political acceptance. He also has the ability to shape public opinion further on the matter.

Of course, there may be drawbacks to such a strong expression of support. While recent polls show that popular support for marriage equality is gaining widespread acceptance, some pivotal swing states remain largely opposed to the concept. And one of them, North Carolina, remains a major target for the president's reelection campaign.

"The question is, is there a risk?" a prominent Democratic Party official who requested anonymity told The Huffington Post after Biden's remarks. "It is not nationwide [polling] we are talking about. We are talking about Virginia, North Carolina and other swing states. And we are talking about, would Karl Rove and his team stoop to using horribly grotesque and hateful tactics ... and would that peel off 10,000 votes?"

As of Wednesday, that question was hypothetical. Now, it's a critical component of the 2012 election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html

Obama Same-Sex Marriage Position: Why He Made His Decision
Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama came to the decision that he personally supported same sex marriage early in 2012, top administration officials told reporters shortly after the president announced that support.

The plan had been to announce his position before the Democratic National Convention. But after Vice President Joseph Biden declared his support for marriage equality on Sunday, the issue touched off a political firestorm and the timeframe for Obama's announcement was expedited.

Those top officials, speaking on condition that they not be named or quoted, said that the president was not agitated about Biden's appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." Instead, he decided that he had to make his position known sooner rather than later. The administration had knowledge of Biden's remarks after he taped his interview last Friday. By Tuesday morning, aides began putting a plan in motion.

The president would conduct an interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, during which he would explain how he had come to take the final step in an 18-month-long evolution of his stance on marriage equality.

The White House had wanted to break the news in such a setting from the get-go. Now, however, it had to be done rapidly and with some secrecy. On Monday, Press Secretary Jay Carney was peppered with an estimated 50 questions on Biden's statement, the most he had received on any one topic during a single briefing since the beginning of his tenure. By Tuesday, the White House had notified ABC that Obama wanted to do a sit-down. Aides were instructed not to tell a single outside stakeholder in the gay rights debate about the forthcoming announcement.

Speaking just minutes after portions of that interview were broadcast, senior administration officials took pains to stress that the president had made a personal and not a political decision to speak out. He had been moved, they said, by a fundraising trip he had made to New York shortly after that state legalized gay marriage, during which he thought to himself how he would have voted on the issue as a state legislator. He also marveled at the fact that his daughters, who had friends with gay parents, could never conceive of gay marriage being controversial.

Taking counsel from a small group of advisers -- six to seven people in total -- Obama outlined how, exactly, he would break the news.

The senior administration officials declined to say whether the president would now push for gay marriage to be part of the Democratic Party's platform at the convention. They also said they were not changing positions on an Executive Order that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against federal contractors. The president has said he would not sign that order.

As for the politics of the matter, the senior administration officials cautioned that it was too early to read into the electoral fallout. They noted that public opinion had changed faster on this issue than on any other they had followed in their own political careers. And they noted that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's viewpoint –- that the Constitution should contain an amendment asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman -- was quite unpopular.

There were, however, reasons why even party officials were insisting, not all that long ago, that the president needed to put this off until after the election. There is concern that support for gay marriage will drive away voters in some conservative-leaning swing states. There is even more concern that Republican operatives can and will use the issue to go after the president.

"The question is, is there a risk?" a prominent Democratic Party official who requested anonymity told The Huffington Post just days ago. "It is not nationwide [polling] we are talking about. We are talking about Virginia, North Carolina and other swing states. And we are talking about, would Karl Rove and his team stoop to using horribly grotesque and hateful tactics ... and would that peel off 10,000 votes?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-same-sex-marriage-position_n_1504067.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D159410

Who Would Have Thunk It? I Didn't Know.... (ultimately not work safe)

kc_risenphoenix — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:32:51 GMT

Who would have thunk it?

Certainly not me.

Who would have thought that this little part of the anatomy, of the muscular structure, had its very own name?

I have always loved this feature. It is sort of like a different kind of happy trail.

Twin trails to glory, you know?

Yes, this part of the anatomy has its very own name.

Do you know?

CLICK HERE if you know what it is called and tell me before you see the answer, if you can.

If you know what it is called and if you can click and type without seeing the answer.

So I am reading this book called Summer Fever by Catt Ford, a very hot book I might add, and the two main characters are making love and one's special button is his nipples and for the other one, it is this spot I have "circled." And it mentions the name of this part of a man and I had NO clue what Catt was talking about.

Imagine my surprise when I Google it and find out!

I love it when I read something and come across a new word or phrase.

All right. Did anyone get it?

The answer is...(click here)

By the way, check out that link on Ms. Ford's book. I loved it!

Box Office: 'Avengers' has top U.S. debut ever with $200.3 million

kc_risenphoenix — Mon, 07 May 2012 09:03:31 GMT

So yesterday pretty much whopped my ass. With getting up and going to church, then lunch, then getting to go see the Avengers, I was done in. At a hot dog on the way home and pretty much crashed the rest of the day. Getting Raymond and Jayli to the theater early was a joke (shrug) so when we got there, the place was filling up fast. And that was a Sunday afternoon. Early afternoon! I don't know when was the last time I went to that theater and it was full, esp on a Sunday. So no handycapped seating for me. No putting up the leg.

But it was well worth it. The Avengers is a very good film. The ONLY spoilerish thing I will say is that all the characters got their full share of air time. AND that there was lots of characterization. No one was cheated, not even Black Widow.

Don't miss this movie on the big screen. It adds totally to the magic. Hope you go. Hope you went. Let me know!

Excelsior!
'Nuff said,
Ben

'The Avengers' are Box Office Superheroes, with $200.3 Million
The opening in the U.S. and Canada is the biggest for any film in Hollywood history. And worldwide? Pow!
By Amy Kaufman and Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times
May 7, 2012

It was a weekend that made Hollywood stand back and marvel. "The Avengers," from Walt Disney's Marvel Studios, didn't just break the record for the best opening weekend in Hollywood history — the film smashed through it Hulk style, grabbing up big green fistfuls of money.

The Joss Whedon-directed movie, riding stellar reviews and a tsunami of Twitter love, piled up $200.3 million at theaters in the U.S. and Canada, according to an estimate from Disney. That total, which beat the $169.2-million record set during the opening weekend of 2011's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows -- Part 2," was turbocharged by pricier IMAX and 3-D tickets. About 52% of those who saw the movie opted to shell out a few extra bucks to watch it in 3-D. IMAX theaters even ran out of seats to sell to moviegoers.

The North American box office total added to an already unfolding global success story; playing in 52 international markets, the movie collected $151.5 million this weekend, raising its tally abroad to $441.5 million. That means that after just two weeks in release, "The Avengers" already has sold $641.8-million worth of tickets, jumping past "The Hunger Games" on the ranking of top-grossing 2012 releases worldwide.

PHOTOS: All-time box-office leaders

Headlined by a slew of A-list stars, including Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson, "The Avengers" has grossed more worldwide than any of Marvel's previous pictures, including "Iron Man 2," which sold $623.9-million worth of tickets in 2010. The movie, which brings together an international peacekeeping agency of superheroes to help protect the world from otherworldly invaders, also has earned the best reviews since 2008's "Iron Man," notching a 94% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

A number of critics have singled out Whedon's guiding vision as vital to the film's success. Yet with a handful of characters such as Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the Hulk all jockeying for screen time in "The Avengers," the filmmaker initially worried that the movie might collapse under the weight of so many super-personas. In fact, last year, on the New Mexico set of the film, no one was more acutely aware of that danger than the Hollywood writer known for pitch-perfect comedy and group dialogue.

"Coming in, I was worried about Robert Downey Jr.," Whedon said, as he watched the actor prepare for a fight scene decked out in his Iron Man armor. "There's that reputation, that he wants to rewrite everything. ... I've been the master of the universe on the sets I've walked on, but I'm not on this one."

"The Avengers" represents a career hallmark for Whedon, who co-wrote the screenplay with Zak Penn. Despite an ardent fan base and plenty of critical acclaim and industry respect, the creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" had yet to have a breakout hit film — though he did receive an Oscar nomination as a screenwriter on Pixar's "Toy Story."

PHOTOS: The billion-dollar box-office club

Comic book fans had waited ages to see this grouping of characters on the screen, and Marvel had plotted to bring the heroes together over four separate movie franchises, dating to "Iron Man." That same year, "The Incredible Hulk" struggled to find equal success — that film's green monster, Edward Norton, has since been replaced by Mark Ruffalo — but last summer's "Thor" and "Captain America: The First Avenger" were bigger box office hits.

"You have to step back and appreciate how you get to a place like this — and a lot of the credit goes to the years of work that it took to create traction for these characters," said Dave Hollis, Disney's executive vice president of distribution. "Through each of the characters' films, a string of equity was built, and that ultimately paid off with this culmination."

Disney's decision to open the film overseas before it hit U.S. theaters helped to turn the movie's debut into a worldwide event. Indeed, many Hollywood studios are increasingly beginning to open movies abroad first to capitalize on international ticket sales, which often account for the majority of the overall gross on big-budget event films.

"We had 70% of the international business open a week ago, and coming out of that space with such strong grosses signaled that this was not just a fan movie — not just a guy movie — but a movie for everyone," said Hollis.

Heading into the weekend, pre-release audience surveys indicated the 3-D film would have a massive domestic opening of at least $150 million, giving it one of the top five highest U.S. debuts ever. Instead, the movie soared, raking in more money in its first three days than strong performers such as "The Dark Knight," "The Hunger Games" and "Spider-Man 3," all of which collected more than $150 million on their debuts.

The movie appealed to a wide swath of moviegoers; half the audience was younger than 25, and 60% of the crowd was male.

As if the news weren't already positive enough for Marvel and parent company Disney, moviegoers loved the film, assigning it a perfect average grade of A+, according to market research firm CinemaScore. That score indicates that the movie will generate excellent word of mouth in the weeks to come, helping to propel the movie into the billion-dollar club at the worldwide box office — an elite group comprising just 11 films, led by James Cameron's "Avatar" and "Titanic."

Word of mouth helped bring out more than a few moviegoers who were waiting for Sunday afternoon screenings of "The Avengers" at Regal Cinemas L.A. Live. Stadium 14. "Everyone was posting on Facebook, and everything saying that it was soooo good. And then, there was Scarlett Johansson," Juan Rodriguez, 21, of Los Angeles said of why he decided to check out the film.

"All of my friends said it was good, and I heard it was good, so I came to see it," echoed 13-year-old Marvin Jacobs, also of Los Angeles, before his mother, Michelle Jacobs, 47, clarified, "And I brought him because I don't let him go to the movies alone!"

"It was good action, and it was age-appropriate for a 13-year-old," she added.

"The Avengers" is the first Marvel film being marketed and released by Disney, which in 2010 bought the rights to Marvel's remaining two movie projects in its six-picture distribution deal with Paramount Pictures. Paramount had been earning only a distribution fee on the Marvel titles, whereas Disney retains the majority of the films' profits.

Marvel and Disney spent roughly $220 million to produce "The Avengers." That's by far the biggest budget for the famously thrifty Marvel, whose most expensive project had been 2010's "Iron Man 2," which was made for about $170 million. "The Avengers" cost more to produce because it had a star-studded cast whose characters — one of them a digitally created green giant, another wearing a high-tech suit of armor — required a variety of special effects.

Marvel is about to start shooting "Iron Man 3," while "Thor 2" is ramping up and Marvel's president, Kevin Feige, seems reengaged with director Edgar Wright's "Ant-Man" project.

While speculation swirls around whether Whedon will direct an "Avengers" sequel, the filmmaker, who co-scripted and produced the recent horror film "The Cabin in the Woods," is set to release a version of "Much Ado About Nothing" this year.

No word on whether the Hulk will have a cameo.

Times staff writer Jevon Phillips contributed to this report.

amy.kaufman@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-boxoffice-20120507,0,2730797.story

'The Avengers' Box Office: Hulk And Friends Score Second-Higheset Single Day Gross Of All Time

kc_risenphoenix — Sun, 06 May 2012 12:58:10 GMT

'The Avengers' Box Office: Hulk And Friends Score Second-Higheset Single Day Gross Of All Time

Move over "Star Wars," "Twilight," "Dark Knight," "Hunger Games," "Transformers," and "Shrek." "Marvel's The Avengers" has barreled its way to the second-highest single day gross in movie history, sweeping up $80.5 million domestically from 4,349 theaters.

That number places it behind only "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2," which rang up $91 million, according to Box Office Mojo.

A strong Friday is obviously a good omen for a movie vying for a record opening weekend. THR notes "Deathly Hallows Part 2" went on to score the highest opening weekend of all time by earning $169.2 million. Many believe "The Avengers" may bring in over $170 million, which would make the first Marvel movie marketed by Disney the new king of the domestic box office.

The film collected $18.7 million from midnight showings alone, the highest midnight open for a superhero movie.

"Avengers" has also been killing it at the international box office, having already raked in over $300 million. The film has already passed all other Marvel movies' lifetime grosses except "Iron Man," and is expected to pass that film by Saturday at the latest.

It's worth noting that "The Avengers" is available in 3-D, and thus benefits from a higher average per-ticket gross.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/05/the-avengers-box-office-records-single-day-gross_n_1483837.html

I am so excited by this, words just cannot say enough. I've waited a lifetime for this movie, a movie about comic book characters that I dare say a hell of a lot of people haven't even heard of, including a superteam called The Avengers in the first place (the British series doesn't count here). I grew up with these guys. I saw a bunch of Marvel heroes done wrong. Then Marvel Comics started making the movies themselves, beginning with Iron Man. Finally they are being done right.

Oh, I wanted to go Thursday, but of course I couldn't. I am getting around surprisingly well, including stairs. I am still quite swollen, but I think this is a reward for myself. If I can go, I am going today!

Wish me luck!

Namasté,
Ben

Can THE AVENGERS Beat HARRY POTTER’s Box Office Record?

As you’re aware, Marvel’s The Avengers is an enormous success. Disney’s massive marketing campaign looks to have paid off in spades, and the film is enjoying the rare enthusiastically positive reaction from both critics and audiences. Joss Whedon’s all-star superhero pic currently stands at a very fresh 93% on Rotten Tomatoes and a respectable 69 on the more nuanced Metacritic scale. Moreover, the film scored a coveted “A+” rating from Cinemascore which measures audience reaction. The film earned $80.5 million on opening day, making it second only to the $91 million take scored by last year’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2.

That franchise closer currently holds the number one spot on the All-Time weekend chart, but does The Avengers have a shot at dethroning The Boy Who Lived?

Before we get into the All-Time weekend race, let’s briefly discuss the international box office for The Avengers. The film opened early in many overseas markets, and it’s clear that the superhero movie has substantial worldwide appeal. The pic debuted to a $178.4 million international opening weekend, and the current international gross stands at $334.3 million. The worldwide total now looks to land around at least $575 million by Monday, and repeat business in the coming weeks should keep that number moving higher and higher.

It’s important to note that The Avengers is benefiting from 3D ticket prices, so the film has a great advantage heading into the record-breaking race. 2008’s The Dark Knight currently holds the #2 position on the opening weekend chart with $158 million, while this year’s other record-breaker The Hunger Games stands at #3 with $152 million, narrowly edging out Spider-Man 3’s $151. That said, none of these titles had the ticket price uptick of 3D, and only one film stands in the way of The Avengers taking the crown.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 opened to $169 million last summer. Not only did the film enjoy 3D ticket prices, but it had the benefit of being the closing chapter in the highest grossing film franchise of all time. The Avengers also has a built-in audience, 3D, and stellar reviews, but it doesn’t come with the finality that Harry Potter had (that aspect should make The Dark Knight Rises a contender later this summer).

The Friday take of The Avengers is $10 million shy of Harry Potter, which some would assume means it’ll fall short of the All-Time opening weekend title. However, everyone knew what they were getting with Harry Potter. Though The Avengers has a huge built-in audience and a fair amount of general appeal, a lot of people didn’t expect it to be such a great movie. Whedon’s pic should enjoy enthusiastically positive word of mouth this weekend—not to mention repeat business—so we could see an uptick in Saturday and Sunday’s audience.

Estimates have the film earning anywhere between $165 and $175 million this weekend, so the jury’s still out on whether it’ll topple Harry Potter. If I had to guess, I’d say the word of mouth will result in The Avengers narrowly edging out Harry Potter and taking the All-Time opening weekend title. Until The Dark Knight Rises comes to challenge the throne in July, that is.

It’s important to remember that this is all conjecture at this point; no one knows exactly how well the film will do today and tomorrow. What is known is that The Avengers is an incredibly well-liked movie that is playing like gangbusters across the globe. Whether it breaks the All-Time weekend record or not, Disney and Marvel have a colossal success on their hands. This can only mean good things for the superhero genre, and hopefully studios will understand that the movie is a blockbuster not just because it features people in funny costumes and explosions, but because Joss Whedon wrote and directed a quality film that delivers on entertainment, character, and humor.

http://collider.com/the-avengers-box-office-record-harry-potter/164318/

FRINGE!!

kc_risenphoenix — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:29:24 GMT

Thank you wrjones for posting this first!

I am so excited.......

Fox’s ‘Fringe’ Renewed For Fifth And Final Season With 13-Episode Order
By NELLIE ANDREEVA

Low ratings be damned — cult favorite Fringe will finish its multi-universe journey with a 13-episode final season. As expected, Fox has closed a deal to renew the sci-fi drama for a fifth season. While a dismal ratings performer in live viewing, Fringe has been a big DVR gainer and a favorite of critics as well as Fox brass. “Fringe has been a point of pride for me, I share the fans’ passion for the show,” Fox entertainment president Kevin Reilly said in January at TCA, where he also made it clear that a renewal hinged on renegotiating the deal with producing studio Warner Bros TV and J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot at a lower license fee. “We lose a lot of money on the show,” Reilly said. “We are not in the business of losing money, so we’re trying to figure out if there a number at which we can continue with the series.” After lengthy negotiations over the past couple of months, the two sides came to an agreement, giving the show and its fans a proper ending. “We are thrilled and beyond grateful that Fox – and our fans – have made the impossible possible: Fringe will continue into a fifth season that will allow the series to conclude in a wild and thrilling way,” series co-creator/executive producer JJ Abrams said.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-fringe-renewed-fifth-final-season-13-episode-231117947.html

Some Thoughts for Today

kc_risenphoenix — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:07:26 GMT

"Laugh at yourself, but don't ever aim your doubt at yourself. Be bold. When you embark for strange places, don't leave any of yourself safely on shore. Have the nerve to go into unexplored territory."
~Alan Alda

Whatever you are, be a good one.
~ Abraham Lincoln

Home Again

kc_risenphoenix — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:50:15 GMT

Special Note: I tried to post this last night and the Internet was not cooperating and I was too tired and hurt too much to go down to the basement and try to fix the connection…

Ahhhhhhh... Home again.

You know the feeling, right? You cry when you have to leave and you in many ways aren’t ready but oh oh oh it is so nice to be home.

I miss my new DSP family terribly already and who knows when I will see them again? But I am with Raymond, my love, and my sweet little Sarah Jane!

So somehow, even though it was around 2:00 AM before I got to bed last night, I got up at seven am Monday morning and headed into the city. Now figuring it out, and also knowing who to ask, I got to 34th street pretty damned fast, even with Monday morning rush-hour traffic. Came up out of the subway, looked one way, looked the other...

and

oh

my

gosh

The Empire State Building...

There really are no words.

I did it all. Spent the works and got the map and the audio thingie and went to the 80th, 86th and 102nd floors. I am so glad I did.

My fear of falling hit good on the observation deck. There were times I was okay and times I had to shut my eyes and clench my teeth. VERY windy and I just couldn’t believe the people sticking their arms through the fencing so they could take better pictures. It was very hard for me to approach the fence. I would freeze now and again and that wasn’t even counting how cold and windy it was up there. It felt like I could fall and that is what does it. At one point the audio tour has you turn around and look up at the tower/antenna and there was no way I was doing that. I knew I would fall down. I had to sit on the ground and look up and even sitting my weird reverse vertigo HIT me like a house a blazing. It felt like I was falling up. And this guard starts insisting I stand up and I was trying to tell him I couldn’t get up and he wasn’t listening. I finally sorta leaned squatted and he let me alone.

I wanted to stick my arms through to get better pictures but it was so windy and what if I dropped my camera???

The 102nd floor though is very different and very sealed in and small and tight and I felt very secure and not at all afraid and was able to really look.

I think I took a billion pictures. Gorgeous. So unbelievable it doesn’t even seem real. Unreal. Surreal.

I really took my time too.

Then I came down and had a big lunch in one of the restaurants that is a part of the building. I also got my mailing tube for the gorgeous print Paul Richmond gave me. Have I talked about meeting Paul? What a sweet wonderful man. We even got to celebrate his birthday. On the 1 to a 100 scale of straight-acting with 100 meaning a gay man could pass and fool everyone, Paul is about a negative 75. LOL! And I just loved him. What a sweet man!

After lunch I realized I had a few hours and so keeping in mind where I needed to be and trying not to get lost, I wandered around and fell in love with NYC. Last night I was so tired and cranky when I got back to the hotel, and not a little bit scared about wrong buses and such, I almost didn’t go into the city. I was thinking, Nope. I guess I am not going to be one of those "I <3 New York people" after all and felt sad about it.</i>

But after today?

I <3 New York!

I don’t know that I could live there, but what a powerful gigantic astounding astonishing remarkable amazing magick city! It really is like some giant rumbling beast. A gigantic whale of a hive mind being. Alive!

I took hundreds of pictures.

And I found the New York Public Library and investigated it as well. There was a Shelly exhibit as well, including original hand-written poems and such. Awesome. Simply awesome.

Did I mention that the other day Matt and I went to Rockefeller Center? GORGEOUS! And I got Raymond a Dr. Who shirt at the NBC Store. There were about six to choose from and the one I got him said “You Never Forget Your First Doctor.” That was the one! Because Raymond’s favorite Dr is the first one. And I mean the REAL first one. The one from several decades ago.

I made it back to the hotel in time for a trip to the airport where I wound up having to take a shuttle to another terminal but I got there on time and aboard on time and we pulled out on time and then sat for I don’t know how long when LaGuardia suddenly decides (you could hear that the pilot was frustrated as we were when he spoke to us) to put 22 planes ahead of us. TWENTY-TWO! We would have been in KC 20 minutes early and got there nearly an hour late.

But it was okay and Raymond was there and Sarah licked off nine layers of skin from my face and we ate a Minsky’s Pizza (the best pizza I have ever ever ever ever had) and got home and I am writing this and trying not to fall asleep.

I did on the airplane and the awful tight upright seats mean I started snoring loud every time I drifted off and woke myself up! It was humiliating and embarrassing.

But if that is the worst thing that happened, then all is well.

I have a publisher willing to look at four novels from me! She trusts me.

She is my friend.

I got to crying as I left everyone this morning.

But oh what a day.

And now?

Time for bed.

So tired and stiff and sore.

But what a trip.

I will never forget it.

This was a very big deal weekend.

If I can make it there I’ll make it anywhere
It’s up to ME New York New York!

Namasté and goodnight,
Ben

Late, LATE, Sunday Night!

kc_risenphoenix — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:29:33 GMT

I am worn out! But oh how wonderfully worn out.

I need to just go to bed!

I had breakfast, a very fast one, with everyone this morning and then shot out because I was crying. These people went from friends to deep family very fast.

I got on the right bus and was helped my very nice mutual tourists, one who was quite hunky. And nervous around me. HA!

Then took the right train but in the wrong direction. No one told me you had to get on the train going in the right direction. NO ONE!! I did figure it out quickly though. Asked and was told to get off and go up and over and I was going in the right direction.

I couldn’t call Brak666 because there is no connection in the bowels of New York. Thankfully nothing Clive-Barkerian either.

Lucki8ly Matt was late but we connected within about twenty minutes. And what a sexy bear! Woof! I know bears and bear lovers in KC who would eat him up!

We hugged and I kissed him right there in front of the NYC Port Authority and the New York Times. OMG – what a building! WOW!

Then it was on to Times Square to see what show we were going to see. Yes, it appeared at least that Book of Mormon was sold out, or at least they didn’t need to offer discount tickets. I do not want to hear one single “I told you so.” Be warned.

We thought we were about to get spectacular tickets to Evita! with Ricky Martin (who I really want to have sex with) but then suddenly – alas – there were no Sunday shows.

So we “settled” on Cole Porter’s Anything Goes and it was simply spectacular. I started to cry. I was witnessing a NYC musical. The closing number for act one was right out of the movie-musical De-Lovely and I have never seen anything like it. People who don’t like tap-dancing would be blown away! I can’t say enough out spectacular it was! And act two was wonderful! And there were so many of my favorite Porter songs like – of course – Anything Goes, and then De-Lovely, Blow, Gabrielle Blow and more that I am too tired to remember.

Then sweet Matt agreed to go take the Staten Island ferry – and it id free – where we were able to see the Statue of Liberty. WOW!!!! Unbelievable. She is majestic my friends!

Then we went to one of Matt’s favorite gay bars and I bought us a round of beers and flirted with the very hot bartender. Then it was a rush back to the PA so Matt could catch the bus home.

And me?

I couldn’t help it! I went back to Times Square and who should I run into? The coupe from this morning! Hey pointed me in the right direction and I took about a billion pictures, on top of the billion I took on the ferry. TS at night is so amazing.

Something funny. It wasn’t as big as I expected. It is HUGE, but it is tighter, more compact. But wonderful!

Then it was back to the PA, I got on the right train and in the right direction…

BUT…..

I didn’t know which direction to go once I got off the train! I listened to the wrong person and missed the bus by – literally – seconds. Had to wait on my exhausted feet and knees for over a half hour. That was the eleven at night bus!

Finally got back to the hotel around midnight, somehow packed pretty much everything, went to the lobby and printed my boarding pass and had a cocktail and here it is after one in the morning and I want to get up EARLY in the morning to go see the Empire State Building!

Please wish me good luck.

All in all a spectacular event and experience and I wouldn’t chnge my life for anything!

Because now..?

Well…

Anything goes!

Pleasant dreams!
Ben

PS: Not a drop of rain! The sun came out over Lady Liberty!

Sunday Morning and I Am In NEW YORK!!

kc_risenphoenix — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:50:10 GMT

So everything is about done as far as the writer’s conference is concerned. Most people have left and the rest are gathering for breakfast this morning. Catered breakfast. Will join them for ten minutes or so, I may or may not be late in meeting B4rak666. But I feel I have to give proper good-byes.

And thank God I am meeting Brak666 today. I have known him nearly ten years and never met him! So wonderful, and what a wonderful LJ friend he is. So sweet and kind and funny and talented and thoughtful and more. Who knows what trouble we will get into today?

PLEASE send out “Broadway-Show” vibes. I must see a Broadway show!

I am going to cry my eyes out in a few minutes. My DSP friends have become family. They are my tribe as well. Who knows when I will see them next?

I am crying now dammit.

SO….

Focus on Manhattan. This is it! NEW YORK CITY!!!!

…there…

I am smiling again.

Just got to get there and not lost.

Please pray that it not rain. Only showers, but that can be too much.

I claim it! PERFECTION! And that’s the truth!

With love,
Ben

PS: Thank you for all your comments and advise and love and light. I have not been able to respond to most of yo. I trust you understand! love!

It's Saturday Night (Late) in New York!

kc_risenphoenix — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 04:18:51 GMT

So a bunch of us are gathered in Elizabeth North's room, and just carrying on. What a fun evening. Here I sit (OMG) with Lynn West, Alix Bekins, Jamie Samms, Amy Lane, Elizabeth and her son, Mary Calmes, Ariel Tachna, Jamie Fessenden and Andrew Grey! Laughing, getting tipsy, having a great time.

What a day.

Got into the city early just as I hoped, went into the village, had a slice of New York pizza, AND I went to the Stonewall Inn! Had two (expensive but strong) cocktails. Talked to a young couple (who aren't going to make it! Girl!) and talked to a bartender that was there the night of the Stonewall riot! Got a T-shirt also!

Raced back to the Gay and Lesbian Center (can't remember their actual name) to the Rainbow Book Fair in it was PACKED! Great time. DSP sold tons of books.

Then we had a lovely dinner at the most incredible Italian restaurant and WOW I am still stuffed hours later.

What a great weekend. It will break my heart as they scatter to the seven winds tomorrow morning, but it will help that I leave early early early to head downtown to meet Brak666. I'm a little scared! Taking the train/subway and that spooks me out. But I will be fine. Think of me! Send me angel energy.

This is it! I was meant to be here this weekend. It is happening! My dreams are coming true. No. They are true!

Namaste,
Ben

It is Saturday Morning in New York City!

kc_risenphoenix — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:04:16 GMT

It is Saturday morning in New York City and what could possibly be better than that?

Who knows what today will bring?

Last night was so much fun although it was $$$$$. Thank goodness for business expenses! The drag queens were fun and exceptional, funny, the food was amazing – I had the Chicken Parmesan, so good!

It’s the transportation that is the killer!

Send me positive vibes I’ll get to see the Village today!

I need to wake up! Girl! I was in Elizabeth’s (pub of DSP) until about 2AM! Now it is after nine and need to start my day.

Love and Namaste,
Ben

Everything is Amazing!

kc_risenphoenix — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:02:55 GMT

So far my trip has been utterly amazing!

Left early yesterday morning and got in before noon. The flyover Manhattan was breathtaking!

Got to the hotel, immediately starting meeting the whole Dreamspinner Press staff and it was all I could do not to cry. Relax. Happy cry, not sad cry. Everyone has been so wonderful! The hugs! Elizabeth, the co-publisher of DSP, hugged so hard and tight! I felt like our hearts touched. And Lynn! OH!! And Julianne! So kind and darling and sweet and beautiful!

We went to a Walgreen’s to get pop and booze and stuff and the walk back just about killed me. Took me hours to feel better. Really. But on the walk back, way at the end of a street, I saw the silhouettes of both the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. Took my breath away again.

We had the most amazing “Meet and Greet” last night where I met almost everyone who is supposed to be here. We talked, we laughed, we bonded, we got bombed. Free booze!

Today was workshops all day and I am tired, but I don’t dare take a nap! What if I oversleep! We are going in for a dinner at a club called “Lips” where drag queens serve you and perform. About eight of us.

OH! And I found out today I sold my newest story, It Had to Be You! I guess they really liked it and that makes me so happy! I was warned that the edits might be tough with all the historical stuff, but that’s fine.

I have also promised Elizabeth my first novel by July 1st! SO exciting! She wants the novel and is counting on it. She does consider this a promise. I have to do this. It’s my reputation.

There is still quite a few days left. Tomorrow is the huge Rainbow Book Fair. If I can, I am hearing there a shift early since it is in The Village. OMG! The Village! Can you imagine??

Then the RBF and back here. The next day I meet Matt! OMG!

Well, I will post again if I can!

LOVE you all,
Ben

Did You Know What Law Russian Lawmakers Just Passed??

kc_risenphoenix — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:11:37 GMT

To My LJ Friends ~

Did you know that lawmakers in Russia's cultural capital of Saint Petersburg just passed a law that would make it a "crime" to write a book, publish an article or speak in public about being gay, lesbian, bi or transgender - labeling it "homosexual propaganda"?

I just watched a powerful video illustrating this attack on fundamental rights, and joined thousands in signing a powerful message to the Governor, who has the power to veto the bill.

The message is calling people to boycott vacations and such to Saint Petersburg. I'm hoping friends will family to do the same. St. Petersburg is fairly low on my vacation list, below India and Greece and Britain and more, but I am shocked to find out that in a day where more and more nations and states are passing gay marriage, that this could have happened and the WORLD needs to SPEAK OUT!

Major governments have condemned the bill, and a grassroots surge of calls and petitions hasn't been able to stop it's advance. But with Russia spending $11 billion in the next five years to attract international tourists, and Saint Petersburg's reputation as the cosmopolitan "window to the west," together we will make sure that the powers that be in Russia will hear our people power - and buying power - loud and clear.

Take a minute to watch this video - and sign this letter to the governor, and ask your friends and colleagues to do the same. We only have a few more days to sway the Governor - and every voice counts.

Namaste,
Ben

www.allout.org/stpetersburg-dont-go

OMG!!! SCREAM!!! Incredilbe News!!!!

kc_risenphoenix — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:40:41 GMT

California Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court has declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

The measure, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008, outlawed same-sex unions just five months after they became legal in the state.

Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for two couples who sued to overturn the ban have said they would appeal to the Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/02/california-proposition-8-unconstitutional-appeals-court-rules-72332.html

Appeals Court Rules California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker's ruling on both constitutional grounds and because of the thorny issue of the judge's personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.

Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. However, supporters of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner -- like the gay couples who sued to overturn the ban.

Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected those claims, and the 9th Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them and its passage followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in the nation's history.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.

With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los Angeles, plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8.

Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriages were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco considering the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion a year-and-a-half after a federal trial judge struck down the ban, known as Proposition 8. The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case.

Even if the panel upholds the lower court ruling, it could be a while before same-sex couples can resume marrying in the state. Proposition 8's backers plan to appeal to a bigger 9th Circuit panel and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court, which would likely put its ruling on hold while that process plays out.

The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard oral arguments on the ban's constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether Proposition 8's sponsors had legal authority to challenge the lower court ruling once California's attorney general and governor decided not to appeal it.

The California court ruled in November that the state's vigorous citizens' initiative process grants the official proponents of ballot measures the right to defend their measures in court if state officials refuse to do so. While its reading is not binding on the federal court, the 9th Circuit's written heads-up suggests the panel accepted the Supreme Court's interpretation, legal observers said.

Further complicating the 9th Circuit's consideration of the case was a move in April by lawyers for the coalition of religious conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the ballot seeking to have the lower federal court decision striking down the measure vacated because the now-retired judge who issued it was in a long-term relationship with another man.

Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker disclosed he was gay and had a partner of 10 years after he retired from the bench last year. Proposition 8's backers have argued that Walker's relationship posed a potential conflict-of-interest and that he should have revealed it before he declared the measure unconstitutional in August 2010.

Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected their claims that Walker was unqualified to preside over the 13-day trial that preceded his ruling -- the first in a federal court to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married -- because he stood to personally benefit from declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit held a hearing on that question in December.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the state Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.

University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff said the unique circumstances giving rise to the ban's passage could prompt the 9th Circuit panel to strike down Proposition 8 without addressing if banning gay marriage would be constitutional in the eight other states in its territory.

"The circumstances in California are unprecedented. The state supreme court found marriage equality to be a right of the highest order under the state Constitution, and thousands of couples actually exercised that right before a discriminatory initiative took it away," Wolff said. "The federal courts would do well to focus their attention on those unique circumstances, which would support a ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional while leaving the situation in other States for another day."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/07/appeals-court-rules-californias-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews

Proposition 8 Ruled Unconstitutional by 9th Circuit Panel... What This Means, And What Comes Next
by Adam Bink

We just received the 9th Circuit's opinion in Perry v. Brown that Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-enacted ban on marriage equality in California, is unconstitutional. In addition, the appeals panel ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 did have standing to pursue their appeal of Judge Walker's decision striking down the marriage ban, and upheld District Court Judge Ware's decision denying a stay to throw out Walker's ruling because he is gay. The ruling on constitutionality was divided on an 2-1 vote, with Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Hawkins voting to strike Prop 8 down, and Judge N. Randy Smith voting to uphold the ban. The ruling regarding standing and the motion to throw out Judge Walker's decision was a unanimous 3-0 vote.

In his Aug. 4, 2010, decision, which the 9th Circuit upheld today, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. In his opinion, Judge Walker presented 80 findings of fact regarding same-sex marriage, which included discussions about the immutability of sexual orientation, the ability of same-sex couples to be good parents, and the inequality of providing LGBT couples with civil unions as opposed to full marriages. These findings of fact are highly significant, because while appellate courts can overturn a lower court's decision based on its findings of law, they usually defer to those courts' findings of fact. Today's ruling affirms Judge Walker's findings of fact, meaning that they can but used in the future in other trial cases in the 9th Circuit that deal with LGBT rights.

Today's ruling is also significant because the 9th Circuit ruled that District Court Judge James Ware, who took over the Perry case when Judge Walker retired, was correct in denying a motion filed by Prop 8's proponents to overturn Judge Walker's decision on the grounds that he failed to disclose that he himself was in a long-term relationship with a man (which he did announce publicly after the decision was released). In a Dec. 8 hearing on the motion to overturn Judge Walker's decision, the 9th Circuit panel seemed deeply skeptical that Judge Walker's ruling should be thrown out because of his orientation and relationship status. The 9th Circuit's decision today is an important victory for the assumption of impartiality that our judicial system is based on, and demonstrates that LGBT judges are just as fit to preside over cases pertaining to LGBT rights as are their heterosexual counterparts.

What comes next? The first issue on everyone's minds is whether same-sex couples can wed immediately. The answer is that it depends on whether a stay is issued in the case. After Judge Walker issued his decision, a stay on his ruling was also issued that kept Prop 8 in effect as a law until such time that another court struck it down, meaning California's same-sex couples have not been able to wed since his ruling. If the 9th Circuit panel or another court body issues a stay, same-sex couples cannot wed. Many legal observers expect a stay; however, it's not entirely certain.

The other issue on everyone's mind is: what comes next in terms of appeals? The losing side could appeal the decision in one of two ways. First, they could request what is called an en banc hearing. In most appellate courts, this involves the decision by a panel of judges (in this case, the three-judge panel reviewing the Perry v. Brown case) being reviewed by all the judges on the appeals court. In the 9th Circuit, however (by far the largest appellate court in the country), an en banc hearing involves 11 of the court's judges. In order for this review to occur, a majority of all active judges in the 9th Circuit must vote to rehear it. Many legal observers believe it is unlikely that the court would allow an en banc hearing. The losing party could then appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it decides to hear, and hears arguments in only about 1 percent of all petitions filed for certiorari (judicial review) each term, so there is no guarantee it would take up an appeal of Perry. If four Supreme Court Justices agree to hear the case, the Supreme Court will review the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-bink/prop-8-unconstitutional_b_1260292.html

Prop 8, California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Declared Unconstitutional
by Lisa Leff

SAN FRANCISCO — Same-sex marriage moved one step closer to the Supreme Court on Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled California's ban unconstitutional, saying it serves no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity" of gays.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave gay marriage opponents time to appeal the 2-1 decision before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume.

"I'm ecstatic. I recognize that we have a ways to go yet. We may have one or two more legal steps," said Jane Leyland, who was gathered with a small crowd outside the federal courthouse in downtown San Francisco, cheering as they learned of the ruling.

Leyland married her longtime partner, Terry Gilb, during the five-month window when same-sex marriage was legal in California.

"But when we first got together, I would have never dreamed in a million years that we would be allowed to be legally married, and here we are."

The ban known as Proposition 8 was approved by voters in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. The court said it was unconstitutional because it singled out a minority group for disparate treatment for no compelling reason.

The justices concluded that the law had no purpose other than to deny gay couples marriage, since California already grants them all the rights and benefits of marriage if they register as domestic partners.

"Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called `How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire,' it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different," the court said.

The lone dissenting judge insisted that the ban could help ensure that children are raised by married, opposite-sex parents.

The appeals court focused its decision exclusively on California's ban, not the bigger debate, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine Western states.

Whether same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry "is an important and highly controversial question," the court said. "We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case."

Six states allow gay couples to wed – Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia. California, as the nation's most populous state and home to more than 98,000 same-sex couples, would be the gay rights movement's biggest prize of them all.

The 9th Circuit concluded that a trial-court judge had correctly interpreted the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he threw out Proposition 8.

The measure "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the court's most liberal judges, wrote in the 2-1 opinion.

Opponents of gay marriage planned to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, which came more than a year after the appeals court panel heard arguments in the case.

"We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage – tried in San Francisco – turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court," said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group based in Arizona that helped defend Proposition 8.

Legal analysts questioned whether the Supreme Court would agree to take the case because of the narrow scope of the ruling. California is the only state to grant gays the right to marry and rescind it.

Douglas NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the Ninth Circuit's narrow decision would allow the Supreme Court to uphold the measure without ruling "on marriage for same-sex couples on a national scale."

"In effect, the Ninth Circuit's decision allows the Supreme Court to continue the incremental, case-by-case trajectory of marriage for same-sex couples in the United States," NeJaime said in an email.

Weddings appeared unlikely to resume anytime soon. The ruling will not take effect until the deadline passes in two weeks for Proposition 8's backers to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that sponsored the measure said they have not decided if they will seek a 9th Circuit rehearing or file an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker's ruling on constitutional grounds and because of the judge's personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.

Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. Supporters of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner. The 9th Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.

In its ruling Tuesday, the panel majority said it was unreasonable to presume a judge cannot apply the law impartially just because he is a member of the minority group at issue in a case.

"To hold otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts," the opinion said.

Reihardt, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Jimmy Carter, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Michael Hawkins, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Judge Randy Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, saying he disagreed that Proposition 8 served no purpose other than to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.

Smith said Proposition 8 could serve to promote responsible child-rearing among opposite-sex couples, adding that even if those beliefs were flawed, they would be enough to make the measure constitutional.

Voters passed Proposition 8 five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure added the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. Its passage followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in the nation's history.

An estimated 18,000 couples tied the knot during the window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.

Gov. Jerry Brown, in his previous role as attorney general, and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to defend Proposition 8 in court and left it to the ballot measure's sponsors to appeal Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit.

Associated Press writers Paul Elias, Garance Burke and Terence Chea in San Francisco and Raquel Dillon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

http://www.livejournal.com/editjournal.bml?journal=kc_risenphoenix&itemid=646219

Wow! Today is Charles Dickens’s 200th Birthday!

kc_risenphoenix — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:34:18 GMT

Wow, how on earth did I miss this? But then again, I guess I didn’t. Today is the 200th birthday of Charles Dickens. Google even did a doodle inspired by the author and his work and you’ll see it if you are googling today.

Here are two articles that I enjoyed. One is for kids, but hey! Who cares? I hope you enjoy them and that you will take a moment to raised a glass to one of the greatest writers in history.

Happy Birthday, Charles!

Celebrating Charles Dickens’s 200th Birthday
By Raymond M. Lane

Charles Dickens was born at midnight on February 7, 1812, the second of Elizabeth and John Dickens’s eight children.

It was reported that the newborn baby began to cry as the clock struck 12, and many feel that his voice is as real today as it was 200 years ago. Dickens grew up to become one of the world’s most famous and beloved writers. His characters are known throughout the world. click the link to find out more

If I Had No Fear

kc_risenphoenix — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:20:28 GMT

There’s someone in my mirror
Who’s voice keeps getting clearer
Asking, “What would I do this year
If I had no fear?”

So I heard this song performed yesterday and it really reached me. Maybe it will you too? If you go here you can find the song: http://www.myspace.com/music/player?sid=65837246&ac=now

I really love it and hope you will find some meaning in it for you too!

“If I Had No Fear”
by Jana Stanfield

There’s a brave soul inside
I’m still longing to be
Buried so deep she’s like a distant memory
She’s sick and tired of waiting
Holding her breath
Wants to wake up and shake up
The life I’ve got left

There’s someone in my mirror
Who’s voice keeps getting clearer
Asking, “What would I do this year
If I had no fear?”

So I’m making a list of things I haven’t done in life
And my whiney-assed excuses for why I never tried
The palomino never ridden
The piano never played
And I realize there’s nothing I can’t start today

There’s someone in my mirror
Who’s voice keeps getting clearer
Asking, “What would I do this year
If I had no fear?”

There’s no fear here!
No fear here!
No fear here!
No fear here!

So I’m starting with my “A” list
Africa and Asia
Auckland, Antarctica
Alaska and Australia
Next comes the “B” list
Be confidant
Be brave!
Be daring enough to refuse to behave

There’s someone in my mirror
Who’s voice keeps getting clearer
Asking, “What would I do this year
If I had no fear?”

No fear here!
No fear here!
No fear here!
No fear here!
No fear here!
Oh, no!

Sexuality: Is It Anyone's Business?

kc_risenphoenix — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:22:55 GMT

Saw this in Dan Savage's column and I had to share it. It exemplifies what I've been trying to say on the subject here in my LJ for years. People say, "I don't need to be out. It isn't any bodies business. Being gay is only part of who I am. Like my eye color."

So you would try to hide your eye color?

Without further words, here we go...

I'm a college freshman. I thought that college would be the place to come out, but the sad fact is that college hasn't changed anything. I'm still unable to admit my sexuality to my friends, teammates, classmates, and hallmates. I have thought about joining the LGBT organizations, but those guys are too "out" for me. Not that there's any problem with that. I just don't think that being gay is anyone else's business unless I want them to know. The hardest part is seeing other freshmen go out to parties, hook up, and date when I don't have the opportunity to do so. I've resorted to going on Craigslist, but my encounters have been weird. What should I do?

Closted Undergrad

You're not required to disclose who you're going out with, CU, or the gender of the folks you would like to go out with. But keeping your sexual orientation a secret indefinitely—not your sexual interests (which you can keep to yourself), but your sexual orientation—will ultimately warp your psyche and your life.

Think about it from the other side: What would the straight guys on your team have to do in order to hide their straightness from you? They could never mention their girlfriends, go out on dates, or hook up with someone they met at a party. They would have to hide their porn and be careful not to check out girls in public. They could never get engaged, get married, or have kids. They might be able to have furtive, secretive, and shame-driven sexual encounters with other closeted heterosexuals they met online or in places where closeted straight people gathered to have anonymous sex, but finding love—true and lasting love—would be extremely difficult.

It wouldn't be impossible—some gay people managed to find lasting love back in the bad old days—but it would be difficult. And the sneaking around and hiding and lying would ultimately warp their psyches and their lives.

If you don't want to get warped, CU, you're going to have to come out. And once you're out, you don't have to hang out with gay people with whom you don't click, and you don't have to be gay the way, say, the LGBT groupers on your campus are gay. Remember: Gay men who are out at your age (18?) tend to be a bit gayer than the average gay dude. They're out in part because they can't be in. And God bless 'em and more power to 'em and the gay rights/liberation movement would never have gotten off the ground without 'em. But since you can pass, CU, you've had the option of waiting.

You have, of course, the option of never coming out. But as you're discovering, CU, it's hard to date in the closet, and DL-enabling sites like CL and Grindr aren't going to deliver the kind of connections you want. So long as you're limited to quickly arranged hookups with guys you don't know, can't risk getting to know, and can't be seen with in public, all of your encounters are going to be weird. Not because all the guys on CL or Grindr are weird—there are good guys on both sites—but because you're trying to have a life and keep it secret, and that tends to attract weirdos without lives.

Look, CU, you're only 18. You've got time. But what you're going to realize, in not too much more time, is that dating and finding love—or even just sex—inside the closet is nearly impossible. You can remain in the closet and keep your business secret, but you won't have much of a life in there. And when you realize that, CU, you'll come out. First to a friend or two, then to your family, then to everyone. And once you're all the way out, you'll find that the guys you've been focusing on—the "too out" guys—aren't the only gay guys out there. Just some of the best.

I know it's hard. But you can do it. All it takes is opening you mouth and saying the words

Because as long as you stay quite, you are saying that your gayness is something to be ashamed of.

To never talk about who you love, a movie star you think is sexy, never date with friends, nothing?

wow

Namasté,
Ben