Archive for the ‘Lesbian’ Category

Between Classes
March 29, 2008


On my way to the next one to give an exam, but thought it fun to note here that my basic writing students informed me this very morning that Condoleezza Rice is a lesbian. She owned a house with Randy Bean! This kind of evidence is akin to that citing weapons in Iraq: proof positive!@! Let’s go to war!

How do you teach students the variety of logical fallacies in a basic writing course? For one, assume they read your blog. Dear Students, focusing on Ms. Rice’s phantom sexual orientation is a ruse as old as the day is long. It goes something like this, “Any strong woman must be a lesbian.” The Rupert Murdoch ball starts rolling, and you no longer hear the words coming from her mouth. Read here for more insight into this phenomenon.

They also told me that Alan Greenspan is gay! Don’t know about the origins of that one, and frankly, I didn’t imagine they know who he is. Anyway, dear students, you may want to focus on a few words from his recent autobiography instead, “Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Henry Kissinger, gay or not, follows up with what should next concern Generation Y, who are our future soldiers and politicians, “An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony — which appears to be the current trend — must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security.”

–Greenspan and Kissinger quotes from


4 Responses to “Between Classes”

  1. Jim K. Says:
    December 14th, 2007 at 2:31 am eDo they have “Critical Thinking” class there?
    Should be part of every HS curriculum.
    There are different ways to arrive there,
    but Condi is likely painted with some relative
    of the “hasty generalization” or “broadbrush”
    fallacy, run twice. But it’s just urban legend to the students.
  2. Mark Lamoureux Says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 2:07 am eAre you talking about Queensborough kids?
  3. Amy King Says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm eHa, nope. Nassau kids.
  4. Kate Says:
    January 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm eFunny how (strong woman = must be a lesbian) is an odd compliment to dykes. Rock on, Amazons.

Kiss Me With the Mouth of Your Country
March 29, 2008


I have just finished sending out my chapbook copies for the DUSIE Chapbook Kollectiv.

The title is this post’s title. I have a few copies left over, so if you’re interested in receiving one – freely and imminently – please drop your snail mail address to me at amyhappens @ gmail . com – I’ll post it to you before the holidays.

My DUSIE chapbook from last year can now be viewed online here, “The Good Campaign“. Read a review of it by Chris Rizzo here or read another review of it by Fionna Doney Simmonds here.

5 Responses to “Kiss Me With the Mouth of Your Country”

  1. Jim K. Says:
    December 9th, 2007 at 4:00 am eI got it. I read it.
    The sound and touch are great. It’s beautiful!

    A leedle revu, all true:

  2. Gina Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 4:41 pm eOh hey, if you still have copies, hook a sister up! xoxo
  3. Amy King Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 9:01 pm eI got you, lady!
  4. Indran Amirthanayagam Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 10:59 pm eI would love to read the poems if still available. cheers. Indran
  5. Amy King Says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pm eIf you send me your snail mail address, I’ll send you a copy!

The Great American Love Story
March 27, 2008


After Thirty Years …

As the day of Independence draws near, I realize it’s high time to look closely at a truly egalitarian relationship that is symbiotic, nurturing, and successful in the face of the great American obstacles regularly and historically hurdled by Ernest & Louie Clay-Crew. The story these two share touches on the traditions this country still battles and thrives on. Regardless of your race, class, orientation, geographic locale, or gender, you’ll find that Ernest and Louie have something to teach us all about dependence and independence.

A few excerpts follow below from their story, though it really ought to be read in entirety, and additionally, Louie maintains an elaborate list of poetry publishers that accepts electronic submissions for all of you poets out there. Thanks Ernest and Louie — “Oh while I live, to be the ruler of life, not a slave, to meet life as a powerful conqueror, and nothing exterior to me will ever take command of me.” — Walt Whitman

And Happy July Fourth to every citizen — “I am as bad as the worst, but, thank God, I am as good as the best.” –Walt Whitman.


“Our marriage [2/2/74], like our courtship, has been conventional. It was love at first sight when we met at the elevator just outside the sixth- floor tearoom of the Atlanta YMCA [9/2/73]. Ernest was a fashion coordinator for a local department store, I a state college professor from 100 miles way, deep in the peach and pecan orchards. One of us black, the other white; both native Southerners. We commuted every weekend for five months. Our friends were not surprised when we decided to marry.

One could be too quick to sentimentalize a few details, such as our bed, a two-hundred-year-old four-poster built by the slave ancestors of one of us for the free ancestors of the other. Perhaps we were fulfilling their dream? Or Dr. King’s dream…? We find day-to- day living too difficult for us to negotiate other people’s dreams: we work at living our own dream, a dream no different from the dream of many other couples, a dream of a home with much love to bridge our separateness.

Our friends here for a long time wondered why we do not at least keep a lower profile by not mentioning our relationship. It is important to Ernest and me that our relationship is public. We are not in merely a sexual union, but in a complex coupling that integrates all our life together. Whether we are entertaining or being entertained, even when we are just shopping at the local Piggly Wiggly, it is important for us to know that we know that they know. We can even sometimes get into enjoying their games with knowing, as when the employees all dash behind the butchers’ one-way mirror to watch us wink at them when we pass. As Ernest puts it, ‘Honey, you may gloat, but we’re the stars!’

One of the lowest points in our marriage was an occasion when I asked Ernest, ‘If you get that job with the cosmetics firm in NYC, can I live off your earnings so I won’t have to stay here in Georgia the rest of this year?’ He did not answer. I waited out the long silence almost half a day, and then he said, ‘Did I ask you could I `live off your earnings’ when I moved here from Atlanta without a job first?’ I had momentarily lapsed from the more pervasive economy that our marriage effects. Were we autonomous, at each trysting we would come at each other unequally. I would be the wealthier, Ernest the younger; I the more experienced, Ernest the more spontaneous…. In marriage everything is given once and for all. For us marriage ended trading and introduced sharing. The money is ours. The youth is ours. The spontaneity is ours. And whatever is exhausted or whatever is incremented is ours.

My own neurotic compulsions with these middleclass perceptions have frequently inhibited my full enjoyment of our marriage. While I enjoy cooking, sewing, and more limitedly, keeping house, more and more my writing and my organizing activities have preempted the major portions of my energy. Ernest is a better cook, a much more efficient housekeeper, and an expert shopper. Once I came home late on a rainy night to find all the washed wet clothes in the refrigerator. ‘What on earth!’ I exclaimed. ‘Lord, chile, you sure be white tonight,’ he laughed; ‘I can tell your mama never took in washing. It’s the way to avert the mildew.’

My learning to enjoy my man’s househusbandliness as much as I enjoy my own is in many ways parallel to our enjoying all parts of each other’s anatomy. The first question most gay friends ask us is, ‘Which of you is the husband? Which the wife?’ We honestly have no way to answer respecting this dichotomy. We are not thus differentiated. We both like gentle perfumes, and we both like poignant funkiness; we both enjoy our gracefulness as well as our toughness.

We are not mirror images, however. Our careers are different and we do not compete. We make no special demands about productivity, but we are both aware that a marriage is dead when either fails to want to contribute. Ernest respects the summers I spend not making a dime but writing away as if I’ll not have another such season. I respect his taking off a year to go to school or his taking off time to do hair of women in the state mental hospital.

At the risk of being still more invidious, I suspect that of the many nongay couples who break up, many break up because society’s alleged supports of heterosexual relationships are falsely advertised and hypocritical. After the honeymoon is over, once the careers pull at each other, once Jan and John realize that their parents might even expect them to divorce, that their priest has divorced, that their friends and neighbors are too busy with their own relationships to care (except possibly for the value of self-congratulation that attends efforts to seem to care), non-gays choose to walk away from each other in bewilderment, or to remain together only by law. Gay relationships may be paradoxically blessed by not having the chance even to expect such support systems.

Ernest and I wrote our divorce contract at the outset: each would take half. We made our wills to structure property guarantees. We both own together all that each makes. We have had to make our own structures, knowing that major efforts would be exerted to deny even those plans. We have instructions about funerals, burials, etc.

We have had some few but very significant resources in our community, namely, in our friends. We are both gregarious and affable, and we are invited to many parties. Often he is the only black person or I the only white present, so segregated are the others in our community. We are avid dancers, and always do courtesies of dancing with our hosts’ spouses. Maybe some index of our integration is the fact that only one couple has ever said that we should feel comfortable to dance together at their parties, and even there the other guests do not have an ambience about them that would make us feel comfortable doing so. Also, our gay friends would be much too vulnerable for us to invite to gay parties any of our nongay friends.

In many ways we did not even anticipate, our coupling is itself our career, so much does it alter our professional expectations, our job security, our work climate, etc. Everyone knows that gay folks are reasonably harmless if we remain at the baths, the bars, the adult movie houses, the tearooms, and other such restricted areas. Ernest could have met a new Louie and I a new Ernest every night at the Atlanta YMCA for decades, and no one much would have bothered. Possibly a Tennessee Williams might have celebrated our waste, or maybe even a Proust. Certainly my priest would not have shouted, as he did recently, that we are ‘making a mockery of Christian marriage and the home.’ Then my bishop would never have written, as he did this week, ‘I am weary of almost constant pressure applied on this office by a movement which I do not fully understand, but which I wish to grow in understanding’–this while virtually telling me, probably his only regular gay correspondent, that I persecute him merely by calling attention to my needs and the needs of my people. Were Ernest and I still just tricking furtively at the YMCA, my students would see me as they used to, as the linguist, the rhetorician, the literary critic, the poet, the jogger–and not, as so often now, merely as ‘that smart sissy.’ It is only when we couple openly that the heterosexist culture marshals its forces against us.”

–From Two Grooms by Louie Crew

–Photos of the Renewal of Vows, 1999.


“The poet judges not as a judge judges but as the sun falling around a helpless thing.” — Walt Whitman


11 Responses to “The Great American Love Story”

  1. Helen Losse Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm eThanks Amy. I read the entire story. I have several poetry publication credits, thanks to Louie Crew’s poetry list. Their story is truly about a loving relationship and how to make it work.
  2. Michael Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 12:44 am eExtremely moving in his discussion of how couplehood works and doesn’t work: Louie should be giving lessons to all who propose to live and love together. Calm, practical, and wise without showing off wisdom. May they prosper and be safe!
  3. Jim K. Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 3:48 am eNice excerpting. People are people. -)
  4. Jim K. Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 4:33 pm e
    ..that I persecute him merely by calling attention to my needs
    and the needs of my people.

    –This type of histrionic counter-argument is what I find most galling.
    That people asking for their own personal rights are oppressing
    other people by their mere asking. Maybe even by their
    mere presence. Not that you have or have
    not something within an institution….no: merely mentioning an
    issue is supposed to be an act of oppression against the majority.
    A rape-victim “oppresses” a Catholic ER because she wants
    a morning-after pill….this is cut of the same cloth. A cloth that
    hungers to make everyone the same, to control. Is the deal that
    you receive things by pawning your freedoms? Such a place
    cannot receive “public” support or patients if it truncates private
    life. This is not the big idea, on this, the day of our independence:
    The idea is that the the public trust was set up to assure private
    freedoms. Our Constitution is plain on this.
  5. Timothy Caldwell Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 9:46 pm eWow, nothing like making me cry. Thanks for sharing this touching tribute to love and friendship, and also for the Whitman quotes.
  6. Unwicked › Amy King: Recommended Reading Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm e[…] Amy King is a poet, teacher, and overall groovy person who I consider myself fortunate to have encountered in my travels. She has a post up today that dug right down into me and touched that heart of mine. Please take a moment out of your day or night to enjoy The Great American Love Story. […]
  7. yousef Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 10:06 am eplz read my story . i am writer living iran. tanks

  8. Amy King Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 7:32 pm eHelen, My sentiments exactly & I’m glad you read the whole account.

    Jim, Indeed, I despise the “you’re oppressing me” contention simply because others don’t “agree” with the way someone else is living or with the decisions that they wouldn’t make. I don’t even like the whole simplified notion of “tolerance” as such — I’ll tolerate you? Gee, thanks – does that only mean I don’t repel you enough to cause you to harm me? Thanks for the tolerance. Sorry to oppress you by not cloning or imitating you and your decisions, etc.

    Tim, You are one of the sweetest. I think you make NYC just a whole lot nicer for being in it!

  9. Jim K. Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 2:31 am eTolerance is an eery word that has its origin in
    a freedom of thought. That is to say, someone is allowed
    to despise me, or believe that I will be tortured in eternity
    for not having their brand of mental sunglasses on, but that’s
    OK as long as they don’t mess with my life. A cold standoff,
    but a truce of thinking, as it were. We can’t tell people what to
    think, per se. We can talk about how they writh in pointless torment
    for being allergic to some natural things in the world, though.
    How they oppress themselves.
    The lingering bitters of “tolerance” are why a UCC church, for example,
    votes to be “open and affirming”, not “tolerant”. It’s not fair or loving
    to “tolerate” a marriage in a church: you must love and wish the best
    for the couple….as they are.
    For society, education and normalization are the best way to assure
    belonging. Your neighbor is still “us”, not “them”.
    Your article is about how wonderful and human two people are.
    It makes it hard to deny us-ness. About impossible.
    I wanted to come back to that so I didn’t monopolize things with
    a critique of hate-think. It is a very important story.
  10. Amy King Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 2:47 am eJim, I love that:

    “It makes it hard to deny us-ness. About impossible.” Wish we could all start thinking that way … there needs to be a bumper sticker and a blog banner and and …


  11. Collin Says:
    July 10th, 2007 at 11:00 pm eA brilliant post. Thanks for excerpting this, Amy.

March 26, 2008


If you are my student, then you now know the weekend assignment will be to write a poem in the Bouts-Rimés form. You will also know that this idea struck me when I was flipping through the aforementioned Court Green donated issues. If you are not my student, you may want to explore the form anyway. Take a peek at the three that made my cut after a cursory read, please. And pay attention to the assigned rhymes, dear scribes; they’ll be yours!


“April Parade” hit the button because Camlot smartly mentions a film I love. In fact, I own it. It’s old and it’s called “Waiting for the Moon” and is a fictional glimpse into the lives of Stein and Toklas, tastefully and artfully done. Clever too. I love it. Plus, I like this poem, especially the breaks. And the references; yes, those too.


Before I saw the film, Henry & June
(starring Uma Thurman as hot mistress
of Anaïs Nin), Waiting for the Moon
had been the lit-bio-pic I obsess-
ed most about. The ear-whispering, snake-
like sighs of Paris-exiled, bookish, smoot
h-skinned lesbians, well, that took the cake
as far as my understanding of beaut-
y went. But Uma, she was like Garbo
on steroids, or some über-King Kong play-
thing. But real, too: a neighborhood, Hobo-
ken Parade Queen walking home the next day,
still in her gemmed tiara and rhinestone
bustier, but smelling of Fireman’s cologne.

–Jason Camlot


I use the collaboratively-written play and HBO film, “The Laramie Project,” regularly in a basic literature class. Therefore, this next poem stood out well and poignantly.


Here they are again, the bright bugs of June
flittering the evening away, sun stressed
struts holding up the barbed wire fence, the moon
wandering dangerously, half dark, obsessed,
an abscess spilled into the deep holes snakes
have dug into the spiked hills. What is moot?
The question of love? Figurines on cake
don’t care about gender, stuck on a butte
of icing, Gable y Gable, Garbo
y Garbo, any part an actor can play.
O Shakespeare didn’t care if a hobo
wore a dress, a crown, as long as the day
was long, lovely. Each word a cut rhinestone.
Each touch, kiss, a dab of perfume, cologne.

– Dorianne Laux


Last, but not least, the next poem caught my eye because we analyze and dissect the tropes of Little Women in my Intro to Children’s Literature class. I love the main text for that course, incidentally. For awhile, I was using a traditional one that grew stale quickly. Then I came across this one by Perry Nodelman and Mavis Reimer. It approaches texts through a lit theory lens, boiled down but not dumbed down, that my about-to-graduate students are able to process with just a little help from me. Anyway, I read through this poem and enjoyed the twists. For your eyes only:


Jo in Little Women was not really June
Allyson. She was an actress with the stress
in pretending to be someone else, like the moon
in ovulation that never came out, the egg in obsess
that was your archetypal blank, that nearly killed her. I was a snake
to write my name in the sand near the water, first letter, moot
pont between time and eternity, she grimaced. The yellow cake
uranium was a free forgery, the horse I rode on a beaut.

I want to be alone, I said, like Garbo
but a dull boy’s awfully hard to play
and there you were as certain as a hat upon a hobo
that sublimity’s just one part of the day.
Don’t be sad, then, because we lost the rhinestone-
in-the-teacup; it was Berlin that kicked our legs up, not Cologne.

–Lisa Fishman & Richard Meier


One Response to “Bouts-Rimés”

  1. Tim Caldwell Says:
    March 21st, 2007 at 11:29 pm eI loved all three, and I adore Gertrude Stein. Too many reason why, but they’re all good ones.

The Ballad of the Sad Cafe
March 26, 2008


First of all, love is a joint experience between two persons—but the fact that it is a joint experience does not mean that it is a similar experience to the two people involved. There are the lover and the beloved, but these two come from different countries. Often the beloved is only a stimulus for all the stored-up love which has lain quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto. And somehow every lover knows this. He feels in his soul that his love is a solitary thing. He comes to know a new, strange loneliness and it is this knowledge which makes him suffer. So there is only one thing for the lover to do. He must house his love within himself as best he can; he must create for himself a whole new inward world—a world intense and strange, complete in himself. Let it be added here that this lover about whom we speak need not necessarily be a young man saving for a wedding ring—this lover can be a man, woman, child, or indeed any human creature on this earth.

Now, the beloved can also be of any description. The most outlandish people can be a stimulus for love. A man may be a doddering great-grandfather and still love only a strange girl he saw in the streets of Cheehaw one afternoon two decades past. The preacher may love a fallen woman. The beloved may be treacherous, greasy-headed, and given to evil habits. Yes, and the lover may see this as clearly as anyone else—but that does not affect the evolution of his love one whit. A most mediocre person can be the object of love which is wild, extravagant, and beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp. A good man may be the stimulus for a love both violent and debased, or a jabbering madman may bring about in the soul of someone a tender and simple idyll. Therefore, the value and quality of any love is determined solely by the lover himself.

–excerpt from THE BALLAD OF THE SAD CAFE by Carson McCullers

7 Responses to “The Ballad of the Sad Cafe”

  1. ashok Says:
    March 14th, 2007 at 7:19 pm eHmm. The excerpt is beautiful, but I think love isn’t quite as relativist or subjective. It may start anywhere, but we can judge how it evolves as good/bad, no? (Perhaps in some cases it might not be said to evolve.)

    I don’t want to posit anything just yet, just want to ask questions and hover over the topic and see if I understand everything going on. I do think I’m going to go over Auden’s “Are You There?” again, though.

  2. Jim K. Says:
    March 15th, 2007 at 12:05 am eI think this is the love that wants, the crush usually. And as such,
    it can’t help but be completely subjective. One is simply taken
    over by it. A ‘lover’s’ love is a one form. There are others,
    but that rather brilliant passage makes it pretty clear to me.

    This is one source of the blues, the craving that doesn’t fit
    your life but happens, as when BB King sings:
    “…I been down-hearted baby, ever since the day we met..”.

    Consider Eddie Albert’s tune that Ray Charles made famous:

    You give your hand to me
    And then you say, “Hello.”
    And I can hardly speak,
    My heart is beating so.
    And anyone can tell
    You think you know me well.
    Well, you don’t know me.
    (no you don’t know me)

    No you don’t know the one
    Who dreams of you at night;
    And longs to kiss your lips
    And longs to hold you tight
    Oh I’m just a friend.
    That’s all I’ve ever been.
    Cause you don’t know me.
    (no you don’t know me)

    For I never knew the art of making love,
    Though my heart aches with love for you.
    Afraid and shy, I let my chance go by.
    A chance that you might love me too.
    (love me too)

    That’s the kind of love at the Sad Cafe,
    the kind Carson was talking about.

  3. ashok Says:
    March 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm eI’m not sure – even as I preach political moderation, and the use of reason as a restraint – that I can conceive of a love that doesn’t want. Even the thirst for knowledge directed towards the highest things I could say is a “lust” for knowledge (cf. Plato, Symposium).

    Thanks for helping me think through this, though. I like struggling with words, but sometimes things hit too close to home.

  4. Jim K. Says:
    March 15th, 2007 at 10:48 pm eThere are different strains that can blend, to be sure.
    Those advanced matching services talk about two basic
    forms of attraction,
    physical attraction, and ‘coupling’. Physical being …well, wanting to
    do physical things, and coupling being wanting to be with someone
    for all time, that pair-bonding thing. They happen together sometimes,
    but the coupling can be the subject of ‘crushes’, and focuses on a
    way someone changes their face or says words or moves. We feel we
    know someone, have a soul-mate. McCullers’ crystal insight is
    to point directly at the sad assymetry of it, usually.

    Those types are, of course, seperate from what type of person the
    attraction is fixed on. Many times, that is simply the same pallet
    on a different canvas. Mysteries that could call more for wonder than fear.

  5. John Baker Says:
    March 20th, 2007 at 2:38 pm eThanks for this. I read the book a long time ago, so long that I didn’t even recognize the style. But, with the excerpt you gave us, I remembered why it is that I think of the book often, year after year. Since that first reading it has always been near.
  6. sandra simonds Says:
    March 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm efantastic. really made my day to read this.


  7. Patricia Says:
    March 24th, 2007 at 3:34 pm eI watched the video of Ballad of the Sad Cafe three times. The first time
    I laughed at the seemingly ignorant and dirt poor little boring town and its simple townsfolk. But as I watched the mood set in of the drama in human interactions which happens anywhere on the planet. I began to place myself into the conflicts of the main characters.

    The third time I saw the video my sentiment about it became much more pensive and felt especially regretful for Amelia as she was humiliated by fighting with a man in front the entire town. If she had any bit of femininity and womanhood for anyone, she lost it forever in that incident.

    Amelia wound up sorry and pitiful at the end of the story; and it brings to view how life is mundane – but when love or desire enter into it,
    life can become traumatic and enduring in sadness.

On the Issues
March 26, 2008



“Homosexuals should relinquish their right to protect our country along with their right to earn a living wage for the able completion of such service. I mean, whenever I think of them doing the ‘do’, I get a funny feeling down deep, below the waist, and then my morals start to burn and ache.”


“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,” the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

“As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” he said.

In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

Of those who said they were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe it hurt morale, according to the poll published in December.

–from the Associated Press


Speaking of how to use (& count the troops), killing willy-nilly for big business is totally on the moral highground, yes, Mr. Pace?


9 Responses to “On the Issues”

  1. CharlieJ Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 5:17 pm eAn AOL News poll showed nearly 240,000 votes as of 1:00pm EDT. The margin is two to one in favor of SUPPORT for General Pace’s comments regarding gays in the military.

    How do you feel about Pace’s comments?
    Agree 65% (more than 156,000)
    Disagree 33%
    Not sure 3%
    Total Votes: 238,800

    I applaud General Peter Pace for taking the correct stand on this matter. His comments are right on target. There is NO REASON for him to apologize to anyone. His personal beliefs are his own and NO ONE need apologize for their personal beliefs. While I agree that he should be loving and respectful in his statements and (more importantly) actions, being forced to accept and celebrate the choice of homosexual behavior is NOT something anyone should be confronted with — military or civilian.
    These gay advocacy groups need to sit down and shut up! There is NOTHING “outrageous” or “insensitive” in what General Pace said in the interview. I listened to part of his comments. He was soft-spoken and respectful, but also firm in his resolve. Pace answered one question with a very straightforward and truthful answer, “The US Military’s mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence, cooperation amongst its members, and the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the US military. I’ll leave it at that.”
    Homosexuality *is* an immoral act. It is NOT natural, normal or moral. The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity — all matters that point to trust, confidence and cooperation. General Pace should be applauded for standing his ground and speaking the truth.
    I, personally, plan to be active in the fight against these homosexual advocacy groups as they seek to villainize General Pace. Here’s hoping you will join the fight as well. It’s high time conservatives (especially Christians) stand up for our beliefs and convictions.

  2. Jim K. Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 5:49 pm eAmerican Taliban
    The epistemology is infantile.
  3. Amy King Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 8:16 pm eAnd Charlie, you fully believe in imposing your belief system on every other person in the world, no? Until we eventually bow down to your god, your will, and your image. We shall all become little conservative Charlie robots, where no one executes any unapproved behaviors, and no one shall diverge from your cookie cutter replica of a “human”, no?

    This country was founded on the principles that no one shall force their belief system on anyone else, especially in the name of any god. You see, we can’t all be the same, Charlie, and in this country, there’re bound to be people who behave as we would not. In some cases, we might not even like the way they behave. However, the guidelines for controlling behavior (& establishing laws and policy) are pretty clear: as long as your behaviors don’t infringe on my permitted behaviors or hurt others, you are free to act and think differently than me.

    What gets me is that just because you don’t like what homosexuals do, even when it’s not done unto you (& even when you try to authenticate what you don’t like by labelling it your “moral values”), you think you have the right to banish such behavior **basically on the premise that you don’t like it.** So the fuck what? I don’t like the way you eat your cereal or fuck the person you fuck; I don’t think you do it well or properly, but that’s not my bag or concern to dig into and fix — because your actions are not about me, Charlie. And the hurried, tasteless way you eat your cereal or fuck someone doesn’t infringe on my life or hurt me in any way. Get it? Why do you feel the need to control homosexuality, Charlie? Why is homosexuality *your* cause, Charlie? Why is it about you, Charlie? Unless it actually is about you and what you’re trying to beat out of yourself …

    In my brief history on this planet, I’ve found it’s always the advocates of this type of “moralistic” behavior that are actually repressed homosexuals. And there’s not much that’s more dangerous than a repressed homosexual with a cause that’s personal-turned-public …

    So when does your crusade to save everyone begin?

  4. Amy King Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 8:18 pm eOh and good thing AOL voters told us ‘what for’, Charlie — not like they’re speaking for actual enlisted men and women there, Charlie. Did you happen to catch the Associated Press poll that actually queries the viewpoints of enlisted military folks?
  5. Amy King Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 8:23 pm eOne more thing, since I let your comment appear here — I just re-read it and really enjoy the way you characterize General Pace as “soft-spoken” and “firm”. That’s so sweet of you to notice! And very telling–are you sure you’re not in love?

    But really, what’s with this list of adjectives, “The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity — all matters that point to trust, confidence and cooperation.”? Heterosexuals can certainly be those things, just as gay couples can be and, as often, are not. Those are the hazards of any relationship, regardless of its orientation, Charlie. To tell yourself that it’s just gays who behave promiscuously is to live in a very naive world of “denial will get me the everyone’s-just-like-me vision I seek”.

    But the logic here re: “matters that point to trust, confidence, and cooperation”? What in the world are you trying to conclude? Or did you just throw those words in because you heard Pace use them and thought they sounded pretty and strong?

  6. Amy King Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 8:48 pm eI just re-read Pace’s statement (& I promise, I’m leaving the computer after this), “We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior.” Since when does the military prosecute anyone for adultery??
  7. evie Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 10:12 pm emy “morals start to ache and burn” when i hear that military personnel with injuries that make them unfit for service are being reclassified as fit, without real physical examinations, and shipped off to iraq. this is the case right now, at fort benning, and possibly other military bases as well:

    as for sexuality, if everyone in the armed forces who has had premarital, promiscuous, adulterous, homosexual, or kinky sex (all of which i see as well within the range of “normal” possibilities, in terms of what most folks are likely to do [and should be left alone to decide about] in their lives) — not to mention everyone who has had incestuous, non-consensual, or pedophiliac sex (which are where i draw the line, because they are by definition about huge imbalances of power and destroying people’s relationships to intimacy) — if *all those folks* were kicked out of the armed forces, there wouldn’t be *anyone* left to fight.



  8. Michael Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 10:31 pm eCharlie, I checked out your blog. Thanks so much! It gave me a new understanding of what it means to be a conservative Christian in the 21st century — an eye-opening lesson on how to read the New Testament in the light of the New Materialism. I had forgotten that Jesus had a wishlist of products he wanted, complete with pricetags. The table at the Last Supper must have been full of techie goodies!
  9. Kevin Says:
    March 14th, 2007 at 5:04 pm eOh geez! This Charlie dude just cut and pasted his comment from what he wrote on his blog.

    You’ve never been to this blog before, Charlie. I suspect you’re just watching Technorati and posting the same nonsense on every blog you find. (Hell, I’m not sure why I’m even writing this since you probably won’t be back to read anyone’s response to you.)

    Last I checked, nearly half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. So, I’m not getting where you get this idea that heterosexual relationships exist in some la la land of perfection and morality. Wasn’t it your buddy Newt Gringrich that just confessed to having an affair while actively trying to impeach Clinton FOR THE SAME DAMN THING? But that’s ok because he’s heterosexual, a Republican, and he confessed, right? Where’s your outrage at a potential Presidential candidate who has admitted to infidelity?

    Yeah, that’s what I thought. Hypocrisy abounds.

Remember That Time?
March 26, 2008

Hey Michael Lauran,

Remember the time all five of us went to Vieques, Puerto Rico, and Jen Demartino and I narrated every move you made as you made it? Remember how our narration took the form of nostalgic questions? Remember how we drove you crazy? Remember when we all went rafting and swimming in the Bioluminescent Bay and then ran away when the other tourists got pissed at our narration? Remember the time that parrot nearly took my hand off? Remember when the pilot flew us in his hoopty-like mini van with wings from San Juan over the rain forest, and he gave me the controls since I was sitting in the co-pilot seat? Remember when you all screamed in real terror? Remember when the locals told us later that he was a total drunk?

Remember the times we went swimming in such a clean & clear ocean and then how we went back to our hotel each night and got free drinks at the lovely outside bar? Remember the very cool kick-ass locals we vowed to stay in touch with? Remember when that local “lady” of the village cornered Jen on the dance floor and danced up and down the length of Jen’s body singing, “Trabajo,” over and over until Jen couldn’t look anymore panicked?

Remember the time Jen moved to L.A. and became some famous casting agent who shows us the town & goes dancing with us when we visit? Remember the time you were living in San Francisco, and I was missing you? Remember when you sent me & Jen a Regina Spektor video that reminded you of Jen’s and my antics? Remember the time I wrote you a blog post that barely touches on our history but denotes the love we share just enough? Remember when I signed a blog post to you, “Love, Amy”?


4 Responses to “Remember That Time”

  1. Jim K. Says:
    March 12th, 2007 at 2:06 pm eMichael likes eggs, toast? ;-) Why live one life.
  2. Jim K. Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 2:35 am eRegina is awesome!!
  3. Amy King Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 2:40 am eYeah! She’s fun~
  4. Jen Says:
    August 31st, 2007 at 5:17 am eremember the first time i saw your blog, august 3, 2007, and i got terribly nostialgic? remember when i didn’t know how to spell nostalgic? remember vieques? and how we got to name our own cocktails? and remember when we were farting in bed and waking everyone up? ok remember when i was farting? remember when i made a pass at you and rejected it and it wasn’t weird, i just kept farting?
    me too.
    damn that was one of the best trips ever. period.

How To Be A Mainstream Power Couple
March 25, 2008


~~ Create a talk show that can hold its own against Oprah and make it to your 600th episode. ~~ Hook up with an actor who starred in one of the best sitcoms ever to grace TVLand. ~~ Have a funny coming out story that takes place when you’re 31 that includes your 99-year-old granny (”I knew you were living with Ellen and all this time I was thinking, ‘I hope that lesbian isn’t hitting on my granddaughter!’”). ~~ Make earnest statements about your quasi-controversial coupledom. ~~ Get into an accident that includes the paparazzi to insure that it is youtubed; be gracious about it. ~~ Get rich. Very. ~~ Pose for W magazine, even if it isn’t your cup o’ tea. ~~ Finally, host the Oscars.


FOR POETRY PEOPLE — Guess what famous poet wrote the following poem, please:



If I were a tree you’d say
I was lost by a highway.
Death overflows the ditches
in which life confined it
and will be that way for some time.

I saw the alchemist drown
in his turquoise at seven
and elsewhere saw the less spiritual side.
God, how it gets me down.

Then furtively a bailiff came
as though to take my measurements
for a new suit. “Here, I don’t need this …
brine.” I was cluttered for the day.

A Mrs. came out of her house
being as I was on the road to say
look for the heather that is father
to the salt hay down the road.

I guess I only confused
my eager willingness to understand
just about anything that was offered.
Alas, it wasn’t much.

There were few requests for employment
and those seemed old and pallid
as though faxed by a squid one day last March.
Now, a year has gone by. Not quite

a year though, as I
was going to say.
They offered me Bluebeard.
So much that was unacceptable

that day and all the forests to come.
Though bathed in sleep and aromatic
persons, other stimuli come to the aid
of the hairs of one’s neck:

a lad on a bicycle, once,
beautiful as the crescent moon;
enjoyable as a book in a long set of books
who asks you this secret again.

–What Well-Known Poet Wrote This Poem?


Now, I’m gonna watch the PBS special, “Billy Strayhorn: Lush Life.” See part four of Gabrielle Calvocoressi’s poem, “Suite Billy Strayhorn”, on my blog here.

Incidentally, two-time Oscar winner, Emma Thompson, pole dances. Who knew?

7 Responses to “How To Be A Mainstream Power Couple”

  1. Todd Colby Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 7:48 am eJohn Ashbery!
  2. Beaman Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 11:36 am eNo idea but I like it.
  3. greenpointhermit Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 3:53 am eIt’s cheating to Google.
  4. Amy King Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm eI’m pretty sure Todd is an Ashbery-aficionado. I’ve always wanted to type that: John Ashbery-aficionado.
  5. Robin Says:
    February 9th, 2007 at 4:36 am eThanks for the update on all thing L. I didn’t realize how far behind I’d gotten. Again.
  6. Robin Says:
    February 9th, 2007 at 4:36 am eI meant, all things L. But what that means, I’m not exactly sure.
  7. Amy King Says:
    February 17th, 2007 at 12:37 am eYou’re welcome, Robin. But I don’t think I’m very up on such news, though I’d like to be!

Weekend Appreciations, In Brief
March 23, 2008


** The BBC production of Sarah Waters’ novel, Fingersmith. Suspenseful, Victorian constraint with a well-executed Sapphic theme and good acting all around, especially by Elaine Cassidy.

** A gorgeous American Masters’ production on Gregory Peck, an actor I’ve admired, and yes, loved for a long time.

** And all flarfing aside, from the inimitable Rodney Koeneke, two from his new book, Musee Mechanique:

Misogyny in Islam

Hey gurl
my page is betta than urs…

Hey Judge Judy…
wingless gargoyles cannot speak

Hey, is that true? events
transpired over 3000 years ago?

Hey cities of loud distress–
get yo’ ass free wireless

Hey, Macarena! How ’bout a
vapory security filter?

Hey, Jehovah, how ’bout that
Elks Club singalong? How ’bout those drunk Elks?

Hey. How do civilised people kill responsibly?
hehe…bye: C-U later ….


LonelySoul: what up, hayles?
LonelySoul2: break, bb! You’re a lesbo!

candy177: LOL that would be funny though…
“I am from Lesbian”

LonelySoul: wats up hun?
(christy22 hides in her hole)

Some say my lover’s face
DracoTempros pokes candy’s hole

LOL that would be fun though
BladeOfEquinox sings to Numb

BladeOfEquinox sings to Numb
christy fades into shadow

some say whatever
DracoTempros: the “Breast” Man

LonelySoul all tainted up
sits on the floor bruised and broken

I’m tired, Draco.
Draco’s tired.
some say how awesome

would it be
to see some horny lesbos.

Rodney Koeneke


** Rounding out the set with not the least, one from Jenny Boully’s[one love affair]*:

…the entire catastrophe of being a poet …

The entire catastrophe of being a poet is that, after the
fact, everything will be too eerily coincidental: the fact
that the fire could not and would not light; the fact
that the kindling flamed fast only to extinguish itself;
the fact that the bed sheets were two sizes too small;
the suggestion the doves gave of not being able to
roost, of having to move on again. And later, some
evening without a fire, when the poet writes it down,
as she will and as she must, the other more obvious
metaphors of lameness, impotence, shame and weari-
ness: the thunderstorm that was not as tormenting as
the weatherman said it would be; that we could not,
try as we might, properly row our boat to shore; the
same storm’s lightning felling the old sycamore to
cinders and ash; the sound of a train in the distance;
the over-used view of the moon caught between
branches. And so, the entire catastrophe of the poet is
the conspiracy of the world, how everything can be
read yet how the poem the poet writes regarding this
written world will never be read by the one for whom
it is intended. The bridegroom after all is not ready,
will not tear through the scenery, does not have a
musical mating call. And when the snow storm comes
late in spring and gathers in clumps in your windows
and doorframe, and you know the wisteria is suffering
some other kind of forbearance, then you will know
what this means: a metaphor for another kind of de-
mystifying; another kind of premature parting; the
beginning of solitude and other such things.

Jenny Boully

One Response to “Weekend Appreciations, In Brief”

  1. Dan Coffey Says:
    July 17th, 2006 at 5:14 pm ePerhaps this is why I have such a hard time writing — I don’t want to spoil the happy coincidences by imprisoning them, and/or I don’t want to give the sad ones the benefit of no doubt.



Just saw this film, GYPO, the first British release that engages the Dutch Dogme 95 style (all natural: no lighting, no make-up, no soundtrack, just a camera, standard sets, and script with a bit of improv, etc). It’s a good one that touches on xenophobia & class issues and has a little Sapphic love story to boot.

The film is told in three parts, and only in the third does the audience finally understand the events and character contemplations in the first and second parts — so I had to go back and re-watch some of it what was going on in the characters’ subtle actions to appreciate the absolutely fine acting. But this structure doesn’t detract, but rather, it adds to the suspence aspect and enhances the second viewing. Stellar work for something put together in something like thirteen weeks and on a minimal budget.

For a nice breakdown, click here.

Sex: The Defining Line?
March 23, 2008


First, a note on the bedroom pictured – it’s from Philip Johnson’s “Glass House.” Johnson was a brilliant architect (think “Lipstick Building”) and a closeted homosexual for much of his life.

Speaking of homosexuality, how is it possible this week we went back in time? Georgia and New York courts did, at least. We’re still opposed to gay marriages (are heterosexuals actually threatened? really?) while the rest of the world forges ahead and gets over it.

In fact, civil unions elsewhere have surpassed such blasé ideas as simply giving the LGBT community an opportunity to publicly validate long-term unions … now, just about anyone can attach themselves to another person – regardless of their sexual relations–even if they have none. Gasp.

If we truly relied on “marriages” defining themselves according to whether or not folks were sexually engaged, I have a feeling a number of heterosexual relationships wouldn’t qualify anymore, if you catch my catty drift. I’m just sayin’ … things fizzle. People take “breaks,” have extramarital affairs, become asexual, etc. — so when the sex fizzles, does that mean marriages automatically dissolve too?

Which brings me to my next point: civil unions elsewhere have much broader parameters, “Any two unmarried persons who want to live together can contract a PaCS, on condition they share common housing and are neither direct ascendants or descendants (mother, grandfather or child), nor too close relatives (brother, uncle or niece).” No clause in there stipulating sexual engagement on a per annum basis … two platonic lifelong friends may enter into a civil union as long as they live together (& presumably take care of one another).

The definition of “family” just opened up, friends. Thankfully. Many folks without lovers & who have not had the best parents just collectively breathed a sigh of relief … and may now even be feeling their living situations are valid and viable without the push to get married for life. Indeed, there are other options~

These unions also seem to have more appeal to heterosexuals now, “According to a French Parliament report issued two years after the law’s enactment, apparently about 60 percent of Civil Solidarity Pacts were concluded by heterosexual couples.”

What do the unions ultimately provide? Well, “…the PaCS gives same-sex couples legal, fiscal and social advantages they never had before.

And the overall effect of all this openness? Oh, something we could all benefit from, “… Despite the homophobic outburst it provoked, the PaCS unquestionably made homosexuality something ordinary.” In other words, an opportunity to finally just get over it.

Personally, I firmly believe the ongoing debate here in America is a ruse to keep us distracted from more important, life threatening matters, matters which are really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to considering the long-term effects of our country’s actions.

Does America really care if gay couples declare “we’re together”? I’m thinking not so much … but I’m an optimist.


And finally, speaking of positive things, “Play It Again” over at Dan’s spot — what a nice little note! Thanks, Dan~

9 Responses to “Sex: The Defining Line?”

  1. kevin Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 3:12 pm e(are heterosexuals actually threatened? really?)

    yes. and you can’t stay with xstine & i in the fall lest you bring is into yer cult. (cult the right word?)

    i probably would’ve opted for the civil union given a choice seems more reasonable especially as god didn’t make an appearance in our vows and such

  2. Amy King Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 3:54 pm eI always thought the same-sex marriage thing was a financial decision. Isn’t that why insurance companies are lobbying against both civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples?

    I’m also unsure of what Kevin wrote above, because it wasn’t exactly English, but I think I disagree.

  3. Dan Coffey Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 4:43 pm eSpeaking of bad English, my wife and I were laying on the couch(es) yesterday, reading and getting over our hangs, and we had the MusicChoice cable tv “radio” on the 80s channel. They played a song by Bad English and John Waite was singing. I mused aloud, “Where the Hell is Tommy Shaw?” Then my wife reminded me that he was in fact the lead singer in that OTHER “supergroup” Damn Yankees.

    -Proud owner of #8 of 10 lim ed signed copies of Beat Roots by A Waldman/ill by G Schneeeeeeeeeman.

  4. Amy King Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 6:45 pm eAmy King didn’t reply to Kevin above. Kevin replied as Amy King. His is a desperate call to join my cult, an opportunity which will be readied, Kevin. But be prepared: there are initiation rites. Of a most perverse variety. And after, you shall be Ms. Kevin and Christine King. Prepare the way. Tell everyone in Buffalo to hold on. Charge up the batteries.

    All will take place with a Leonard Cohen tenor.

    Isn’t Beat Roots new, Dan?

  5. Dan Coffey Says:
    July 11th, 2006 at 2:27 pm e“Isn’t Beat Roots new, Dan?”

    Yes, spanking brand. And yet older than the Upanishads if you feel me.

  6. kevin Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 1:28 pm ethis civil union that you typed of, existing in france if i recall, is something i would’ve opted for given a choice as marriage, increasingly defined (or perhaps always was) in religious terms, doesn’t apply to the marriage ceremony we had as god wasn’t in our vows.

    that more clearerer? sorry, typing at work got me down.



  7. Amy King Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 4:17 pm eI can’t tell who I am anymore.
  8. kevin Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 5:50 pm eif yer not tellin, i won’t either
  9. Aimee, grrl w/ a sunburn Says:
    July 14th, 2006 at 8:21 pm ewho the hell is amy king!!!