Always taking over with their wholegrain, crunchy goodness and all those eggplants!

Actually, I'm really starting to dig vegetarian food when it is cooked by Jessica at Hoi Polloi.  Or Ledcat.  Or anyone but me.  But still ... does everything have to be vegetarian? What next -- recycling bins at Wendys?

I regret to say that Lesbian Night at Dozen Bakeshop has morphed into Lesbitarian Night, complete with vegetarian chili (note to anyone reading this -- I hate chili more than anything in the world.  Except snakes.  And pickles).   I almost wept to realize that rather than a simple free cupcake, I would have to fork over $10 for a vegetarian meal.  Even if it does include a red velvet cupcake. 

On a Tuesday. 

Sigh.  I mean I can see the cute word play and vegetarianism is much healtheir and it really isn't cool to say LesbiFleshEaters.  Still ... cupcakes!  That's part of the lesbian nation, too.  Coffee and a cupcake.  That's all I wanted. 

Plus, the Dozen people aren't even sending me their promotional materials after I hooked them up with Ehrrin and her dyke salute.  No little press releases about chili of the week.  Nothing.  I may not like the chili, but I like the lesbians part.

If Hoi Polloi starts offering cupcakes, I'm set.  Can I go back to the Priory Bakery now that Brenda Frazier lost her election?  All these rules confuse me.  I just want a cupcake!

And you know when I want one?  On Saturday nights when we go out to dinner and have some time to kill.  But it is hard to find a cupcake on a Saturday night that is not encased in cellophane. 

Now I'm going to want one all day tomorrow.  Not a lot of cupcakes in East Liberty.  I'm afraid of Paddy Cakes (why make the cake so fast, baker's man?  why would i want to share my cake with a baby who should not eat cake?) 

See, this is what happens ... darn lesbitarians.  Lesbivores?  Sigh.  This is what happens when Jessica gets me to try tofu crumbles and kidney beans in the same evening.  The whole world goes topsy turvy. 

Three letters in today's Post-Gazette, two for gay rights and one for gay oppression.  Still no letters in the Tribune-Review.

Proud papa Edward Walkowski of Brookline simply wants his lesbian daughter and her partner to have equal rights. Edward recognizes the true political agenda of the Amendment supporters:

The political leaders pushing this amendment are nothing but political opportunists and hypocrites -- political opportunists because, by taking advantage of fears, prejudices and ignorance, they would hope to create a wedge issue that would aid their own political aims, and hypocrites because if they were truly concerned with protecting marriage and the family, they would attempt to legislate against divorce and to legislate for pre-marriage testing to ensure that couples would be stable partners and parents.

Lorette Barone of Point Breeze makes another simple point, namely that gay marriage won't impact her marriage.  Nor will it protect anyone else's marriage.

Kudos to Bruce Kraus ("Gay Marriage in Pennsylvania," April 27 Forum). I have no idea how exactly the anti-gay marriage amendment will "strengthen marriage" -- an institution that has been in decline everywhere without any help from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community and lots of help from educational, religious and legislative bodies.

I do know that GLBT people marrying will have no impact on my 45-year marriage. The adoption of the amendment will disenfranchise a host of my fellow citizens who -- constitutionally -- share all the rights and privileges that I enjoy... well, almost, but not quite because they're... you know.

On the other hand, Nancy Staible of Zelienople believes marriage is the answer.  Nancy is an old friend of the letters page.

Contrary to the attitude shared by several of the senators hosting the hearing, I think the people of Pennsylvania do understand what marriage is, what it is not and why we need to protect this bedrock of our society. I would venture to say that every member of those listening to or offering testimony, whether supporting or opposing the amendment, was born as a result of the union of one man and one woman and understand the value of marriage.

That's probably not true.  There's a range of possibilities. I speak hypothetically because I don't know who was there or the circumstances of their conception.  Someone may have gay parents.  Someone may be the result of artificial insemination. Another could have been conceived as a result of sexual assualt or incest.  I'm guessing a few were born to teenagers who didn't understand the consequence of their actions.  Nancy and her ilk rarely mention those circumstances.  Getting married because you "have to" is not the same thing as entering a loving union with full intent and commitment.

The limited role of government in our representative republic is to establish and maintain laws that are determined to be best for the country and its people. Marriage over time has been shown to be the gold standard for raising children, socializing men and women, building a strong economy and providing for healthy, long lives.

Also, not true.  Research has shown that two parent families have strengths for children, but that gay parenting is little different than heterosexual parenting.  If anything, it is the constant barrage against the gay community that is hurting our children.

Just this week, we see a newlywed couple who beat the hell out of each other and bystanders on the day of their wedding.  What economic contribution does that make?  It drains resources because of the need for police and judicial intervention. 

Staible deludes herself that marriage is some sort of magic bullet to cure social woes.  So why doesn't she turn her attention to the aspects of existing marriages that aren't working so well?  Why not help women who are being battered by their spouses have better supports have healthy, long lives?  Why not strengthen safety net resources so financial hardships don't destroy marriages?  Why not address healthcare so families aren't forced to remain unmarried so women and children can access publicly funded healthcare because their male partners' business doesn't offer a family plan?  There are tons of things Nancy could do.

If she really cared about marriage. 

The Post-Gazette published City Councilman Bruce Kraus' recent testimony on SB 1250 which would embed a definition of marriage into the PA Constitution.  All I can tell you is that this is a really great read.  Here is my favorite excerpt:

With all the challenges that we, as a commonwealth, are facing -- deteriorating infrastructure; staggering health-care costs; municipalities crippled by the inability or unwillingness of legislators to ensure that nonprofits contribute toward ever escalating municipal service costs; rampant gun violence; and corruption in government -- certain Pennsylvania state legislators would like us to believe that defining marriage and outlawing civil union is our most pressing legislative priority.

In reality this is their mark of shame.

Legislating a ban on same-sex marriage or civil unions is homophobia, bigotry and sanctioned discrimination of a selected class of people. I would liken homophobia to racism, sexism and anti-Semitism because it seeks to dehumanize people and deny them their dignity, personhood and equal protection under the law. In the year 2008, would you dare to legislate to deny marriage or civil union based on race, creed, age or ethnicity?

This need not become a mark of shame, but rather a call to courage -- the courage to overcome fear and injustice. Choosing the right thing to do is not always popular or easy, but standing for what is right and true and just, especially when it is unpopular, is the true test of moral character.

Today I ask you, as members of the state General Assembly, with the power to end this discrimination before it can go any further, to not only vote against SB 1250, but to speak out against it and the intolerance, prejudice and discrimination it represents.

Bishop Zubik writes the opposing view.  He's the Bride of Christ.  Or something like that. 

Does the "Richard Simmons isn't a real man/is a girly she man" slur ever go out of style?  Peter McKay is syndicated so I guess not. Here he is describing the fancy office he built in his backyard (is this really supposed to resonate with the average Pittsburgh resident) which his wife decorated and he used for work purposes:

And somehow, my wife's stuff never made it out. Flowery pictures and ribbons are everywhere. Gingham curtains still hang on the windows.

There's a big bulletin board collage of kids' fingerpaintings, family photos and mementos.

Every surface is covered with cute knickknacks.

One friend called it the Richard Simmons room -- male, but only by a technicality.

The other day, I had an electrician out to fix a bad circuit breaker in the garage. He came in, looked around for a minute, then remarked on what a cool idea it was to turn the little building into a room:

"Me, if I had something like this, I'd turn it into a guy's room, you know? Someplace I could get away from the family!" he said.

"Yeah!" I said proudly. "This used to be my wife's office, but now it's my Man Cave!"

He stopped short, clearly a little nauseous that I'd actually used that word to describe it. He suddenly seemed uncomfortable to be alone with me.

"You know!" I said, "like the Batcave, but..."

Dead silence.

He looked around the room at the gingham, the dried flower arrangements, the pink sofabed. "You pick out that couch yourself?" he said, raising an eyebrow.

I shook my head sadly. My wife, I explained, had overruled me on that one.

"Hmmf!" he snorted, turning back to the fuse box. "Some Man Cave, pal!"

Oh, ha ha ha. Poor Peter is the hapless victim of his frilly wife and his butch male friends.  Well, I'm sure Richard Simmons is jump-jacking his way all the way to the bank, knowing he's made a ton of people healthier and a ton of money, too. 

Maybe enough to pick out his own couch.

I found this article at American Public Media ... actually, the teaser ended up in my inbox.  The premise seems to be an exploration of a recent claim by Forbes Magazine that gay bars are among the top ten businesses facing extinction, along with crop dusting and record stores.  Ouch.

APM took a look and noted some interesting trends.

First, some gay bars are becoming more mixed or "evolving" into gay-friendly bars with a healthy mix of heterosexual patrons.  Owners spin this as a sign of progress, of the cultural enmesh we've been seeking all these years.

Although, some gay exclusive bars haven't pulled off that transition and are closing their doors. Ironically, this happens at a peak of gay spending power ...$750 billion according to this article.

Others attribute the drain on gay bars to generational issues.  Back in the day, the gay bar was the community center and provided the loci for everything from socialization to organizing and advocacy.  Today's generations are using the Internet and increasingly accepted gay-identified alternative spaces and organizations to accomplish those goals. 

Finally, there are the nay-sayers who say in certain parts of the country, there is a need for gay-exclusive bars given the dynamics of that region. 

So, gay spending is up and so is the number (and types) of places to spend.  The gay bar generation is aging.  Young gays are being raised in mixed-environments where they can identity as openly queer and still find their space.  Not all of American has evolved this far. 

I personally don't have an intimate knowledge of this history of Pittsburgh's gay bar scene.  Wouldn't that make for a wonderful documentary?  Or thesis?  Anyone in queer studies done that?  I've been to Donny's, the Eagle, CJ's, Lucky's, Pegasus, New York, New York and that place that used to the Liberty Avenue Saloon, I think.  Oh, and True.  I think that's it.  I loved True because it was smoke free, but the crowd wasn't very friendly.  The Eagle was my favorite -- they seem to do a lot of benefits and I thought the different floors were a hoot.  Plus, the staff were friendly.  Granted, this is a very limited sampling -- probably 20-25 visits over the past 15 years. 

So, my inexpert opinion, is that Pittsburgh is probably one of those places that still needs a core gay bar scene even while queer-straight mixed places are emerging.  The Firehouse Lounge had a successful run of L-Word parties.  When the season ended, the women stopped coming.  They'll be back next season.  They don't do reruns. 

The coffeehouses are a great example of an entirely new mixed venue that's providing queer supportive (and queer owned) spaces.  I love the coffeehouses in Pittsburgh, although I have to admit that I tried to go to the new one in Lawrenceville  -- Your Inner Vagabond -- and it took me exactly 2 minutes to feel uncomfortable and head right back out the door.  Actually, come to think of it, it is a very similar experience to a gay bar when you walk in and people stare at you like you are an intruder.  For someone like me, that's all she wrote. I go where there is less staring b/c I equate staring = get the fuck out of here.  If I want that experience of hostile begrudging sharing of space, I'll go visit my aunt at the holidays.  Or my Catholic university reunion. 

Anyway, I was saying ... I think The Firehouse Lounge project was a good one.  But I suspect that some of those lesbians went back to their familiar haunts and, assuming they drink responsibly blah blah blah, that's a good thing, too.

Pittsburgh's gay bars are driving PrideFest this year so they certainly don't seem to be on the demise.  I wouldn't mind going for a drink if they would just go smoke-free.  Until then, I'll do my socializing at events and order my coffee without the splash of a withering glance. 

Check out the article.