There’s a lot more crying in the Marines than you’d expect from the fetishized image packaged for pop-consumption. In fact, the first thing you do as a Marine is cry. The end of boot camp includes a grueling 54-hour test of your physical, mental, and cooperative abilities, culminating in a ceremony where your first Eagle Globe and Anchor (the symbol of our beloved Corps) is placed in your hand. The crying isn’t just for the artifact in your palm, but also for seeing your drill instructor smile, address you with respect, and call you a Marine.

If that doesn’t get you, Lee Greenwood blaring over the loudspeakers certainly will.

Much of a Marine’s world is hidden from civilians. Our culture, from our clothing to our language, is our own. We are a familial pack with fierce loyalties and fiercer love. So much love, in fact, that crying is unavoidable. Imagine if you will, that your brother or sister at any moment would actually lay down their life for you, then multiply that by thousands of brothers and sisters. But it isn’t only the eminence of danger that stresses you, but also the drama that comes with family.

My service as a Russian linguist in the Marines ended in 2002, but my experience as a Marine is a story without end. I meet new members of my extended family every day, and, from time to time, I encounter some I knew quite well in unexpected places. We talk about our family drama and wax about what was. It never gets old, even as I slowly do.

Two years ago, on a Sunday morning, I woke up and began fumbling through my facebook mailbox. There, under the “other” box, was a message from a corporal I hadn’t seen since my tour of duty ended. The message was long, but one sentence conveyed all the intended meaning: “I’m sorry I didn’t try harder to stick up for you.” Again, the tears.

You see, this Marine and I were quite close. We’d gone out on the town clubbing, and sat on E-tools eating MRE’s in the black of night, and we’d traded jabs in the barracks about newbies trying to pass off jokes as anecdotes for attention. In his letter, he detailed how not standing up for me when discussions got nasty was, in his words, the “greatest regret of his five years in Marines.” People didn’t know for sure I was gay, but most suspected it.

The irony of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was that not telling was itself a giveaway. As a gay Marine, life in the corps was often difficult for me. I like to think I hid it well with smiles and overachievement, but when you know someone well enough, you can always tell when something is wrong.

It was my friendships with Marines like this corporal that kept me alive, kept me going. But the one thing we never shared was my constant fear of being kicked out or of being killed by one of my own. That I endured on my own. After a few incidents with my Recon company, I even went so far as to move off base because of fear for my safety. It’s an unsettling feeling to be afraid of your own family.

I took half a day to collect myself before sending the corporal from my past a “friend request” and trying to compose a response. The response, I’ll admit, was fumbled and half dismissive.

Today, the paper walls that separated Marines from one another have been shredded. A deep part of me aches to know the freedom to love my fellow Marines with unedited trust. “Were that I could do it again,” is a sentiment common in nearly all Marine vets. I chose to join the Marines for too many reasons to count, but being gay was never part of the equation. For the most part, I didn’t even know I was gay, or rather, I hadn’t admitted it to myself. The reasons why I didn’t reenlist are a much shorter list. At the top was DADT.

Once I came out to me, the military stopped being a place I could continue to learn about myself. It became something that was stopping me from knowing that person.

A year after repeal, I can’t help but be caught up in the fantasy of it. Over and over I’ve relived every detail, back to the white buses, yellow footprints, quarterdecks, and campaign covers. I’ve rewritten the story of my service with me bringing a “real” date to the Marine Corps Ball or for “mando-fun.” I’ve relived conversations free of pronoun games. I’ve imagined actually going on dates instead of having rendezvous.

There’s nothing like the Corp’s culture of “hurry up and wait” and “good to go,” and in which everyone answers “How are you?” with “Outstanding!” To all current service members, I envy the freedom you have on your journey. But to the corporal who wrote me that Sunday morning, if you allow me to say it all over again, I’d say it differently. I’d say:

“I’m sorry that what I went through hurt you. And, I’m sorry that I couldn’t share with you the details of the hardship I faced. Sometimes, I was scared. Sometimes, I worked so hard, not because I wanted to prove what I could do, but because I was afraid I’d lose everything if I didn’t. I wanted very much to trust you with more. It’s a sad thing when brothers have to love one another through walls. Please, don’t ever think that my lack of disclosure represents any lack of love for you. I miss you.”

Brett Edward Stout is a veteran corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is the founder of the Gay Marines Facebook page and is a contributing writer to The Advocate.

Opinion Guyd: A Marine’s Wishful Do-Over in a Military Without DADT

GuySpy

Speculation abounds around one of the most beloved, secretive, and worshiped companies the world has known: Apple. Every move they make is analyzed and used as fodder for predicting their next move, and the “hobby” product of the AppleTV is no stranger to this speculation. Indeed, I am about to enter the fray of speculation over Apple’s “next big move.” There are moves that Apple has made that might indicate a future where our entire home is finally in line with Jobs’ vision of being entirely engineered by Apple.

The AppleTV as it exists is by many considered to be a failure. Right now the device’s name is deceiving. Instead of a TV it’s a small device that sits next to your existing television and allows you to stream iTunes, photos, pictures, games, and movies from your phone or iPad. The technology hasn’t really caught on despite the price tag and design, but there is something to be said about this device that isn’t yet being said. Earlier in 2012 there was a particularly strong rumor that Apple may actually be looking into making a full size proprietary Apple Television. But why would they? There’s an answer for that.

In 2010, Apple unveiled the iPhone 4 with its retina display, a display that still surpasses the resolution of any other phone currently on the market. Soon after, iPad 3 was upgraded to this same technology, and just recently so too was the first Apple MacBook Pro. As these retina displays get larger and larger, it seems to make sense that Apple could continue this to increasing scale and make a full-sized television. However, there’s one big problem: content.

With the advent of the iPad 3, Apple effectively exceeded the resolution capabilities of the existing market. It may seem hard to believe, but an iPad 3 actually has more pixels (meaning that it is delivering more visual information) than a 50” plasma TV. No really, it does. That means the exact same HDDVD or BlueRay disk you’re playing on your Plasma TV is actually lower quality than what the iPad 3 is capable of. Now Apple has made the screen even bigger with its new MacBook. So, what is Apple doing? Simply put, fixing a problem they created on purpose.

It seems that Apple may have its sights set on a much bigger picture with their little “hobby” project. Apple understands that the difference between what your television does and what your computer does is a shrinking one. As Apple produces its retina displays from the original 3.5 inch display to the new 15” laptop and soon enough their larger 27” iMacs, they will be accomplishing two objectives: 1) Making the components of those products less expensive via larger production scale, and 2) Building a content base. As developers for Apple continue to produce applications for the new expanded resolutions, so too will some of those apps be easily converted for use on the would-be Apple Television. But good money says that there are a particular subset of apps Apple has in mind: games.

As of the most recent estimates by the Entertainment Software Association, the gaming industry has grown from $9 billion a year in 2007 to well over $25 billion in 2010. While small, simple games have long been the staple of iPhone web developers, all that may soon change. Everything I’ve presented thus far creates a game-changing environment for the gaming Industry. The processing power of Apple’s mobile devices are already catching up to that of major gaming consoles like XBOX, and the popularity of gaming on those devices is already forging relationships with major game developers. In effect, Apple could create a console system where you already owned the controller (your phone/ipad) in a resolution that only their proprietary Television was capable of. Indeed, this could be the path to having an all-Apple household. Oh, and all of that is on top of having a built-in die-hard consumer base and a reputation for being the coolest company on the planet. When you look at how Apple operates, the future may be soon upon us. Apple has long been interested in cornering markets by creating or redefining them. If indeed this is Apple’s End Game, I for one am ready to play.

Opinion Guyd: The End Game of Apple’s Prophesized Television

GuySpy

“Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”

-VP Biden

In the world of non-profit activism in the equality movement, the current strategy is starting to be called into question. If you open the paper, you’ll see any number of states fighting for marriage rights. Though gay marriage is not the only challenge facing the gay community, you might think it is if you look at the checkbook. Some would argue: Do we even really want to get married?

While no one argues that marriage should be off the table, there are questions about the priority it has been given in the equality movement. We should ask ourselves, what would Martin Luther King Jr. have said if he’d been told you can have marriage but everything else is off the table? And it is a good point to consider: When compared to HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, suicide, job training, education, care of the elderly, housing, and employment, marriage seems trivial. If we really want to protect our community, should we not put greater emphasis on getting kids into homes, getting them internships, and getting them into politics? If we put more focus on those issues, wouldn’t we have a wholly different community having a wholly different discussion about equality ten years from now?

Marriage is neither the only nor the biggest challenge facing our community. We have to question if a spouse, a picket fence, and 2.5 kids have to be the measure of a successful gay life. It is important to consider that gay culture is not straight culture. The argument could be made that, in our desperate pursuit for marriage rights, we are forsaking our own identities in an effort to conform to heteronormative traditions. But even where gays are getting married, many couples are negotiating the polygamy of that marriage and creating a new idea of what marriage is.

To put it more broadly, while not all gays even want to get married, nobody wants to be fired, homeless, or dying. So, why all the fuss over marriage? In short, the reason is the 14^th Amendment. Within the 14^th Amendment is a clause known as the Equal Protection Clause, and that is the gamble. Should the marriage issue make its way to the Supreme Court and if it were to issue a favorable ruling and if that ruling was based on the Equal Protection Clause, the game for all gay rights protections would be effectively won. ENDA, DOMA, housing, adoption, health benefits and others could all potentially be settled with one whack of the gavel. As it stands, there has never been a ruling that would make the Equal Protection Clause apply to sexual orientation. When you consider the broader impact the marriage fight might win, it seems to be a potentially huge payout on a massively expensive wager. It remains to be seen if we think the gamble is worth it, but it is clear at this point that we’re already all in.

Opinion Guyd: Do We Really? Should All Our Bets Be On Gay Marriage?

GuySpy

In June 1969, the gay rights movement began with blood, fists, broken glass, and thunderous chants. Since the Stonewall Riots, many have blamed our slow progress on everything from the politics of the Moral Majority to the AIDS epidemic. The newly reinvigorated movement is steaming forward, spearheaded by a push for full marriage equality. However, it is worth considering how relevant marriage is if even our First Amendment rights are still in question. Some of the most complex legal cases concerning freedom of expression, speech, religion, and the role of government have plaintiffs and defendants who aren’t even old enough to vote. The gay rights movement has moved out of public squares and into public schools. In the fight for equality, high school has become the new Stonewall.

Perhaps the easiest question to answer is, “Why?” Why has the First Amendment debate moved from college campuses and into high schools? It’s a simple lesson in math. When you multiply an increase in out teens by the visibility of gay heroes then divide by more rules, you get First Amendment questions that make you wonder if you’re smarter than a 12^th grader. In the interest of safety and quality education, we give public schools certain latitude with making exceptions and limitations to First Amendment rights. But who decides those limits and on what grounds they are allowed to make them, has become a point of contention.

Even if you only look into the last two years, the volume and intricacy of the disputes faced by children are awe-inspiring. As you investigate each individual case, the complexity becomes almost overwhelming, as does the pain endured by some of the youngest warriors fighting on the front lines of the battle for equality. In Chicago, a judge ruled in favor of an anti-gay student who came to school in a “Straight Pride” T-shirt that read “Be Happy, Not Gay.” The student argued that it was his religious right to promote an opposing view to pro-gay shirts worn by students supporting the “Day of Silence” campaign. In the eyes of the student, the condemnation of gays was the balanced opposition to the support of equality. In this case, the judge agreed and students in Chicago are once more allowed to wear shirts that oppose homosexuality. Students have continued to wear pro-equality shirts as a public display of support for gay students.

For many, some satisfaction can be drawn from simple displays of protest in the face of negativity. However, satisfaction isn’t so easy for everyone. Many students have faced a punishment far more vicious for simply expressing who they are. In Mississippi, Ceara Sturgis was erased from her high school yearbook for not conforming to gender norms and wearing a tuxedo in her formal portrait; a motion to dismiss was denied and the case has moved into discovery.

In Mississippi, Constance McMillen lived through the horror that her school canceled prom entirely rather than allow her to bring a same-sex date. This same school had only months earlier repeatedly suspended a male student, Juin Baize, for coming to class dressed as a girl. McMillen’s case was ruled in her favor and she received damages and changes were made to the school’s rules. Baize was forced to transfer to another school. But, while favorable judgments may be ruled in these cases, a court can offer no real reparation to replace the memories these students were denied.

It isn’t just displays of identity that have been challenged, but words themselves. Religious watchdogs were outraged when a Wisconsin school paper censored an opinion piece opposing gay adoption rights. Among the criticisms of the piece were references inaccurately stating Jesus’ opposition to homosexuality (in the “New Testament” Jesus makes no reference to homosexuality) and a full printing of the “Leviticus” verse that states that homosexuals should be put to death for their sin. Christian legal advocates were quick to call this as an infringement of the student’s freedom of religion. The school offered an apology and said it would review its editorial guidelines. The situation does beg the question, is religious text exempt from being hateful or bullying? Is there no circumstance in which a religious text can be considered as an incitement of violence or a form of persecution?

If opposing homosexuality is protected by religious freedom, what protects promoting equality? In California, Kearian Giertz was kicked out of a school pageant by an assistant principal for answering the question, “Where do you see yourself in ten years?” by saying he hoped gay marriage would be legal and he’d be married. And in an Atlanta school, the senior study body president Reuben Lack was removed from office for attempting to change prom court rules to be inclusive of gay students. While the California assistant principal has been reprimanded and the Atlanta teen is challenging his school in court, one has to wonder, what lesson did the schools hope their students would glean from this? The obvious cynical answer seems to be, “Don’t stand up for equal rights,” and that “Promoting equality makes you unfit for leadership.”

But it isn’t just faculty challenging students. Faculty has also been the source of controversy. Recently, New Jersey teacher Viki Knox found her tenure in jeopardy after posting on facebook her opposition to a display that included photos of Harvey Milk and Neil Patrick Harris. She cited numerous religious objections to the display and at one point stated, “Homosexuality is a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation … I know sin and it breeds like cancer!” Privacy advocates argue that even teachers have a right to personal opinions, but opponents argue that when those opinions enter a public forum, they are subject to review.

No decision has been finalized in the New Jersey case, but it isn’t only what school representatives are saying privately that has been the most outrageous. In March of this year, two principals resigned amid anti-gay controversies. Iowa Principal Mike Cooper resigned (though he claims for other reasons) after a school assembly went viral on YouTube. In the video, a Christian rock band played music and afterward gave a speech where they railed against the sexual perversion of homosexuality and against abortion. The school paid the band for the appearance. And Tennessee Principal Dorothy Bond resigned after bluntly telling gay and pregnant students they were going to Hell. Both are examples of Evangelism in public schools and cause us to ask where the moral teaching we ask of our schools crosses the line of the establishment clause.

The examples go on, but the only reason we even know about these cases is because the students have decided that enough is enough and are fighting back. These children have been willing to spend years of their life sitting in court rooms to challenge the laws and policies that would presume to tell them who they are. Students have used social networking sites like facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr to organize protests, mobilize parents and communities, and circulate petitions. Kids have used their voices and bodies to stand up for themselves in an unprecedented display to defend their rights. They unequivocally have stood up and said they refused to be silenced.

There has been tremendous and surprising resistance to student voices. The most extreme efforts to silence the pro-gay youth movement are neither created by teachers nor students, but by government. Minnesota, Tennessee, and Utah are the three strongest examples of anti-gay sentiments being legislated into school policy. In Michele Bachmann’s district, the local school board pushed through a “Don’t Say Gay” policy that effectively banned schools from addressing homosexuality even in response to direct questions, in relation to verbal or physical violence, or when asked for guidance. In effect, the policy is a denial that homosexuality even exists. The result: Nine gay teens committed suicide in the less than two years it took for local residents to pressure the school board to reverse the policy.

Even in the middle of the outcry and anger over the Minnesota policy, Tennessee and Utah took up similar measures that would have instituted “Don’t Say Gay” legislation statewide. The entire debate caused many to question the role schools play in our society and if schools need to be (or for a point of practicality, can they be?) safe spaces. “Don’t Say Gay” legislation passed in the Tennessee House but is currently being stalled in the Senate. The Utah bill, which would have banned any form of sex education or sexual discussion, was vetoed in a surprise move by Utah Governor Herbert. The Governor was condemned as a traitor to the Conservative cause but defended his decision by saying, “I cannot sign a bill that deprives parents of their choice.”

The ultimate question is this: “What do we want our children to learn?” If you return to the cynical reading of what is being taught by our school systems, you’re left thinking our intention is to teach intolerance, political apathy, and the promotion of religious tradition over progressiveness and equality. But there is a different reading if you look for the lessons being taught by the bravery of the students. A lesson that begins with the ultimate question any child can ask: “Why?” Why do these children do what they do? Why are they fighting? If you’re looking for simple answers, it doesn’t get any simpler than this: “They believe they will win.”

Opinion Guyd: Is High School the New Stonewall?

GuySpy

To many, after the failed Wisconsin recall election (the most obvious aftermath of the Citizens United ruling,) hope for our political system seems bleak. But a chance still remains that all will be okay, that American politics can still work and are beyond being sold to the biggest pocketbook. Obama.

Now, your first thought may be that this is somehow an endorsement of the incumbent, but not exactly. What we face in the general election is not an approval of the sitting President but rather a rejection of a movement that believes you are not an American. This may sound like voting for Obama to spite the opposition, because it is. However, you need to understand what exactly that opposition is. By every action that has befallen us since the 2010 election, we have been boldly faced with the prospect that the deepest pocketed in this country do not consider us worthy of voting, and have acted to silence our wills with overwhelming cash and block our action by rolling back our access to the polls. They do this because you cannot be trusted and because you aren’t as smart as them.

Mitch McConnell stated publicly that the GOP’s primary objective was to deny the President a second term. In the pursuit of this goal, the party has abdicated their responsibility to govern, to ensure the national welfare, to aid in the recovery of the second greatest economic calamity we’ve faced, and to realize that this nation doesn’t belong to a party.

Little discussion has been given to the dramatically poisonous priority presented by McConnell, but mind you, the scope of its pettiness has harmed us all and is wholly responsible for our nation’s slow recovery. But, the hope we can still look to is, if we reject the notion of arms crossed, ears plugged obstructionism we face a certain change. If we eliminate that priority, our nation’s leaders will be forced once again to actually govern. Conversely, if we do not we stand to ratify this conduct and may permanently and irreparably harm the very idea of what America is.

This election isn’t about Obama or Romney, it’s about the rejection or endorsement of a political movement that would burn the village to spite the innkeeper rather than enter into negotiation for a night’s stay. 2012 is about refusing to agree that you know better because you live better. And this political fight is about deciding if we want a government sold to the highest bidder that spends most of its time pan-handling or actually governing.

Opinion Guyd: A Return to Governing: Hope 2.0

To the surprise of no one Facebook going public was the biggest IPO in history. And, to the surprise of no one the stock price shot up during the initial excitement and then settled back down at a reasonable rate. What is surprising is that people are suing over it. At the heart of the lawsuit are projections about company profits that some investors say they were not privy to and a claim that the stock was overvalued at sale. Primarily, these were based on the growing use of mobile devices to access Facebook and the lack of ad revenue thus far from mobile ads.

Raise your hand if you didn’t know people are using mobile phones and iPads to use Facebook. No one? What about the lack of ads on Facebook mobile? Again, no one? So, exactly what was the secret that only some investors knew about? When talking about the blatant operation of the most utilized site in the history of mass media, I don’t think you get to claim that Facebook was hiding this. It’s important to understand that when Facebook started, they didn’t even know how to incorporate ads on the PC-based version, but they figured it out with smashing success. Their lack of an exact course of action has precedent and doesn’t truly reflect a lack of value at all. So, what exactly are people so mad about? Bono.

They (those miffed at the price drop) are not Bono. They are not even the guy who painted the mural on Facebook HQ walls. And they had expectations that led to the only place expectations can ever really lead to; disappointment. But buyer disappointment does not justify a lawsuit. As for the claim that the stock was overvalued, I question this at face value.

The other day, I was trapped under the awning of a food kiosk in a torrential downpour. A homeless man approached selling umbrellas. Negotiations began and a price was set. After a quick exchange I emerged from the kiosk with my $20 umbrella. The point is, he set a price and I either was or wasn’t willing to pay it. While it would turn up worth less to me when I walked one block and the rain stopped, it doesn’t change the fact that, moments earlier, it was worth far more to me than even the $20 he’d charged. Just because the amount I was willing to spend to have an umbrella right now wasn’t the same I was willing to pay later, does not give me grounds to for grievance, even as I sit at my desk looking out at the beautiful sunny day next to my $20 umbrella.

Opinion Guyd: Facebook and the $20 Umbrella

GuySpy

When the President spoke out in support of marriage equality, the number of negative stories (form the LGBT community) that immediately rode on the announcement’s coattails was flabbergasting. Many are transfixed by an idea that the President isn’t doing enough for gay rights. The reality is, that is a load of crap. For this group of people, the President didn’t say it soon enough, didn’t say it loud enough, or didn’t look like he meant it enough. My response is, Who cares? If you’re starving and I bring you a loaf of bread that I didn’t make fast enough, big enough, or with enough love in my heart, are you saying you won’t eat it? When it comes to rights progress, we have been starving.

For this obnoxious and vocal group of people the President could be on stage in a bipartisan leather disco orgy and they would still complain that, “Yeah, he did it but he didn’t look like he was into it.” The hard part for the rest of us who maintain a degree of sanity is how to cope with these people. Because it’s hard not to get angry at someone so easily dismissing the most outrageously pro-gay rights President in the history of the nation. It’s hard to keep an even tone when they complain about when he did something, how he accomplished something, or what events transpired not long before he said something.

The process to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the methods for dropping defense of DOMA, and the timing of his endorsement of marriage equality are irrelevant- period. But more importantly, there are the things he hasn’t done that they also take issue with. Wake up! We don’t necessarily want him to. If you look at the last two years, it is painfully obvious that there is a blind opposition to anything the President supports. For that reason alone, there is real stock in the idea that the President signing an executive order on government contractor job discrimination is the worst thing that could happen to ENDA. It may not be ideal, but it’s a black and white political reality.

The only reason why we managed the repeal of DADT is because of the exhaustive effort of the President to maintain silence until the most crucial moment. Any earlier and the tide of anti-Obama zealotry would have blown repeal off the negotiating table. While we need to pressure the President about keeping things on the table, threatening him with withholding our votes is absurd, counter-productive, and harmful to anything we could hope to achieve in the rights movement. The President may have ample patience when it comes to advancing gay rights, but if the end result of his patience is what we’ve gotten so far, I can’t get enough of it.

Opinion Guyd: Just Can’t Get Enough

GuySpy

Does homophobia make a hot guy hotter? This blanket of exaggerated hotness seems to extend beyond real homophobes like Tim Tebow or David Tyree and to envelope undeclared homophobes like Aaron Schock and Scott Brown; homophobic by association.

We see images of Schock lounging poolside or Tebow painting bible verses on his face for a game and our primitive impulses overwhelm us. Specifically, though, why does embracing a widely rejected opinion that gayness is inherently unmasculine, unnatural, and weak translate to heightened lusting? Why cling to the now archaic edifice of last generation’s machismo?

The answer may be simpler than you think. Some straight people wear homophobia the same way that a twink wears a cardigan. For some, homophobia has become a gesture of a bygone generation that was harder, better equipped, and more grounded in their manhood; today’s version of an ape thumping his chest.

It’s still somehow surprising that these modern icons of hate feel protected by their zealotry and misogyny rather than exposed by their revealed insecurity. If positive emotions overcome negative ones, then the lesson from all this is simple. The rise of new, straight, gay rights advocates like Ben Cohen and Scott Herman proves that the tease of embracing equality overcomes the brutality of reinforcing hate.

So, if homophobia doesn’t produce the hottest result, why be homophobic at all? Ultimately, the answer that seems most plausible is that many men are homophobic for a reason. It may, in fact, be their latent, repressed, ready to burst urges that we are so very drawn to.  Meaning that, the impulse that lures us toward hot homophobes comes from one of the most masculine instincts of all: the thrill of the hunt. If the Tim Tebows of the world were to come out, it is easy to imagine some of their sex appeal being lost. But that doesn’t prove that being gay is less hot, rather that the excitement is gone when the hunt is over.

photo by Jo Ann Santangelo

Opinion Guyd: Is Homophobia Hot?

GuySpy

In the age of super PAC, politics and news organizations are more interested in the sound of their own voices than answers. We’ve crossed out of the light and into the dark shadows of social bubbles. Political lies have long been spit by politicians but today lies can be espoused for national consumption without authentication or correction. Jon Kyl saying 90% of Planned Parenthood services are abortion, Mitt Romney claiming Obama doubled the deficit, Santorum reporting that California Universities don’t offer American history, and Alan West declaring that 78 Democratic members of congress are card-carrying communists: these are lies.

The dogma of political evangelism has superseded that of skeptical reason. We believe things because they sound like what we want to be true; masses praying to prophets at the podium, and apostles on TV panels.  What good is political transparency if you can make up your own facts and sell them to the highest bidding corporation?

There has been much talk about “the bubble” and that there are equal opposing bubbles on the media left and media right. But, the assertion that there are equal bubbles on either side is inaccurate. Bill Maher pointed out this difference on his show Real Time, sending a camera to expose the stereotypical realities that both sides use as ammunition against the other: rednecks espousing racism and blacks in welfare lines and refusing to work. But he goes on to point out that in only one of these two situations are these archetypes voting against their own interests. This is what reveals the deeper difference.

But this isn’t as simple as mere ignorance. At work is a far more insidious means of political power; political piousness. Even when faced with truth, those in the Right’s bubble have an unwavering devotion to a belief that they stand on a side of good versus evil. This is beyond having an opinion that one party is superior to another, this is a rejection of the idea that consideration should even be given to the positions of the party. If your position cannot be changed, you don’t have an opinion- you have a religion. If your stance remains intact in the face of evidence, you don’t have an opinion- you have a theology. If you have a claim that isn’t supported by any verifiable facts, you don’t have an opinion- you have a mythology.

Recovering from religious abuse is difficult. It requires more than just admitting you were wrong, but accepting it. It forces us to acknowledge not just that we were deceived, but that we are deceivable, that we can be manipulated. It is easier to slow down and watch radicals like Rick Santorum run off ahead of you and claim you were never headed towards the same place at all. But, during the chase, there comes a point when those who have divergent paths become so far away, they’re no longer part of our lives.

Gay men too can easily fall into this trap; can easily be surrounded by only other gay. We can call out haters for oppressing us while simultaneously making jokes about straights. We can scream discrimination at straights skeeved out by gay sex while simultaneously recoiling with squeamishness at the thought of straight sex. We can become abusive to the majority while complaining about their intolerance of us. We do this without thinking what it means. We do this because an enemy is a powerfully uniting force. And change; change is hard. Once we are used to standing on one side of things, it is easier to continue the bliss of believing we are doing good than to look at ourselves and wonder what we believe, if we have an opinion, or if we have a church.

Opinion Guyd: You Don’t Have an Opinion