My New Year's Wish For You

I wish you all much health and happiness in the new year!
I hope that '09 is a year of positive change in all of our lives.

A Random Fashion Rant:

A 45+ year old woman, no matter how fabulous her body is, in a too-tight velour track suit in hot pink (with something inevitably written across her ass!) from the Jr's department looks desperate (not necessarily to get laid, but definitely to hold on to her youth).
No two ways about it.
That said, if she's comfortable with that look, more power to her. She has the right to wear it and I have a right to voice my obnoxious opinions on it.

Tradición

The New Year's Eve cooking officially got underway yesterday. I spent the afternoon in the kitchen preparing dessert.

Arroz con Dulce (aka: Arroz con Coco) is a Puerto Rican version of rice pudding. Coconut, cloves, ginger and cinnamon are the main flavor components of this dish. It's not a runny pudding, like the typical kind. In fact once spooned into serving platters and cooled it "sets" and can be served in slices. I made quite a few plates.
I'll be preparing a few other Puerto Rican treats for ringing in '09.

Note:
There's a few variations (on measurements mostly) on the recipe out there. The link above is to the one I followed...though at one point I abandoned it and just followed instinct as usual.
I also made it times 5.

Weekend Flashbacks!

Rest in peace, Ms. Kitt. You were a classy broad. Grrr!

My favorite Ertha song:

Fierce Fridays!

Charlize for J'adore (Dior).
Delicious!

Christmas Memories

My Mommy and me.
Christmas morning, 1972.

May you and yours make wonderful new memories this Christmas!

Memoirs of a Gay-sha

Ok so there's nothing Asian about this post. But it is a stroll down memory lane and I wanted to steer clear of any "Dude Looks Like a Lady" references.
I wasn't in the studio yesterday so I have no new work to post today.
Since I've got RuPaul's upcoming Drag Race tv show on the brain, I've decided to hit y'all with a lil' drag flashback! My stage name was Miss Demeanor.
Enjoy!

Performing Melba Moore's rendition of "Aquarius".
I stayed up all night gluing those damn daisies (and sequins to the daisies).

For about 10 years of my life I was a part-time Female Impersonator. I competed in various pageants (and won some!), acted in a film ("Trust Dance"/unreleased) and had great fun doing gigs at various night clubs throughout the TriState area.

Winning Miss Gay Bucks Co. USofA


Promo head (and leg) shot.


Performing a half Spanish/half English version of Peggy Lee's "Fever".


Winning Miss Colosseum. (I was their first!)


Struttin' around the stage. I loved that gown!


Modeling a Dior at Miss Gay PA USofA. Got the gown on a DEEP discount on account that an opera singer had ordered it and never picked it up. A halter strap had to be added, as I was (am) not "naturally" able to keep it from sliding down my chest.


Miss D. was last spotted at a Halloween party circa '03-'04.

(hope you got a good giggle, Judy! ;-))

Swimming to the Moon

Swimming to the Moon
Acrylic on canvas/20x20"

I recreated this piece as a Christmas gift for my partner's mom.
She's been after me to paint these fish on something...anything for years now.
I photographed it about 50 times while painting it and might put a step-by-step video together.

Weekend Flashbacks!

I loved this song so...



and still do.

Fierce Fridays!

I have been waiting to post about this for quite some time. There is an official preview on the Logo website (actually quite a few previews), but none have made it to Youtube or become embeddable. This report from The Insider is pretty good though:

RuPaul's Drag Race!



Needless to say I will be watching religiously!
I have been a fan of Ru's since day one. He's a great talent and a great voice for individualism. I've had the pleasure of sitting down and chatting with him a few years back. I also did a phone interview with him earlier this year for, oddly enough, a Prince fan site (go figure!). He's wonderfully intelligent and incredibly gracious. I wish there had been a show like this during my decade-long Drag-stint (pics to come!).


Ru and Moi, West Village NYC

Early Mis-Step for Obama

Huffington Post reports:

Progressive groups are decrying the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the Invocation at the Presidential Inauguration as "disappointing" - but it is far more than that. It is an act of spiritual violence against lesbian and gay American citizens and a profound betrayal of the philosophy of inclusion and unity espoused by President-Elect Obama.

"The Presidential Inaugural Committee, at the direction of President-elect Obama...will organize an inclusive and accessible inauguration that...unites the nation around our shared values and ideals."

Shared values and ideals? Let's let Rick Warren speak for himself.

Here's Rick Warren equating marriage equality for same-sex couples with incest and pedophilia:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/200...n-Transcript.aspx?p=7#gaymarriage

"The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Of course, the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage that Warren refers to in the first part of this quote were essentially property contracts that did involve "one guy having multiple wives" - but that's beside the point of this piece.

Here's Rick Warren going even further and using the statistical lack of support by black Californian's for marriage equality to justify his opinion that the rights of lesbian and gay citizens do not constitute civil rights:

"...this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don't believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights."

The California Supreme Court saw the situation differently, but, in Warren's view, the definition of the civil rights of minorities is open to definition by majority public opinion.

Here's Rick Warren talking - in 2004 - about how HIV/AIDS was not an issue of concern for him until recently:

"Two years ago HIV/AIDS was not on my agenda; it was not even a blip on my radar." [emphasis added]

The deaths of more than 500,000 American citizens - the vast majority of whom were men who had sex with men - simply didn't register on Warren's radar over the course of more than two decades. The disease finally and rightly became a cause of concern for Warren and the Christians to whom he speaks when his wife brought to his attention the plight of children in Africa orphaned by the pandemic.

Same-sex relationships equal incestuous and pedophiliac abuses. Equal protection under the law for lesbian and gay American citizens isn't the same thing as civil rights. The lives and deaths of gay men less important than those of children or orphans.

The sad reality is that American gay men and lesbians have heard it all before.

But we didn't expect to have such values and ideals validated by this President-Elect at this Inauguration.

Warren's stated beliefs make it clear that - when he invokes God at the Inauguration - it is not the inclusive and all-loving God who is recognized and worshiped by lesbian and gay men of faith in this country. With an entire world of spiritual leaders at his beck and call for this historic event, Obama can and should do better.

The message for American gay men and lesbians in the choice of Rick Warren is that - once again - "everyone" means everyone but us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lea...warren-obama-really_b_151916.html

Please take two minutes (that's all it takes) to send Obama's Transition Team a note on how you feel about this:
http://change.gov/page/content/contact/

Friends

Another small'n.


Friends
Acrylic on canvas/6x6"

My First Youtube Venture

Awesome artist and fellow blogger Martha Marshall turned me on to Animoto when I told her I was thinking of doing some slideshows and possibly putting some artwork on Youtube.
I gave it a shot last night.

Now that I've dipped my toes in the water (and didn't drown) I plan on making some "full-length" slides/videos as soon as I've accumulated some more new work.

Cherries Jubilee

Cherries Jubilee
Acrylic on canvas/12x12"

My Top Ten of '08

SONG:
1) "Black and Gold"- Sam Sparro
2) "Spotlight"- Jennifer Hudson
3) "American Boy"- Estelle
4) "I Kissed a Girl"- Katy Perry
5) "Chasing Pavements"- Adele
6) "Cobrastyle"- Robyn
7) "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)"- Beyonce
8) "Little Bit of Feel Good"- Jamie Lidell
9) "Green Light"- John Legend feat. Andre 3000
10) "Corporate Cannibal"- Grace Jones

ALBUM:
1) Adele-"Adele"


2)Sam Sparro- "Sam Sparro"


3) Robyn- "Robyn"


4) Estelle- "Shine"


5) Grace Jones- "Hurricane"


6) Jamie Lidell- "Jim"


7) Duffy- "Rockferry"


8) Kat De Luna- "9 Lives"


9) The Pussycat Dolls- "Doll Domination"


10) Jennifer Hudson- "Spotlight"


VIDEO:
1) "Corporate Cannibal"- Grace Jones
2) "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)"- Beyonce
3) "Black and Gold"- Sam Sparro
4) "American Boy"- Estelle feat. Kanye West
5) "I Kissed a Girl"- Katy Perry
6) "When I Grow Up"- The Pussycat Dolls
7) "If I Were a Boy" - Beyonce
8) "Spotlight"- Jennifer Hudson
9) "Little Bit of Feel Good"- Jamie Lidell
10) "So What!"- P!nk

Weekend Flashbacks!

The 51st Grammy nominations were announced recently.
Here's a flashback to the 27th award ceremony honoring the music of 1984.
The best Grammy year EVER!!!
Nominees and winners included: Prince, Tina Turner, Cyndi Lauper, Sheila E., Chaka Khan, and Lionel Ritchie, to name a few.

One of the greatest comebacks in music history and still fabulous!

Suits

Suits
Acrylic on canvas/10x10"

Dear Santa: T-Shirts I Must Have

I love fashion as much as the next gay, but for easy everyday wear, nothing beats a great t-shirt. Here are some of my favorites:

From Troubletease:
"As the ship approached, he offered a flower and angered the bees."


From No More H8:





From the hilarious Deven Greene:







I've been a pretty good boy, Santa.

One Heart

Painted for my hubby.


One Heart
Acrylic on canvas/8x10"

Woman

Woman

Acrylic on board

Image is 2 x 2 1/2". Framed size: 4 1/2 x 5"

On the Bible... as an Argument Against Gay Marriage

This Newsweek article was forwarded to me by my dear friend Amy. Thank you!
It is the best piece of writing on the subject I have read so far.

Please take a few minutes to read it. Well worth it!

OUR MUTUAL JOY
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.
Lisa Miller
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008
For feedback on this story, head to NEWSWEEK's Readback blog.

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.
The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)
Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).
The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.
If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God." In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.
Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History."
Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband and wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems," she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds."
We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;You were very dear to me.Your love for me was wonderful,More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.
In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.
In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."
The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.
Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do "holy union" or "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."
More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

With Sarah Ball and Anne Underwood
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
© 2008

Vegas Report: Part 3 (Fashion)

THE GOOD:

The Lunching Diva!



I loved this lady! I just had to snap her pic front and back.

The Classic

Some women do just fine without wardrobe trends.

The Hipster

Everyday Style should look this easy!

The Adorable Couple

Fun and well accessorized (yes, I meant the man!)

The Shopper



How to wear thigh highs and fishnets without looking hooker-ish!


THE BAD:


I wish the sweater around the shoulders were my only gripe about this outfit!

Lost in Translation

Oh no! This "mature" lady seems to have packed her daughter's skirt by mistake.
The old adage "If you've got great legs, flaunt 'em!" doesn't mean dress 65 from the waist up and 30 below! EEK!

Doublemint Disaster!

Something tells me these gals fancy themselves fashionistas. Sigh!

THE VEGAS:
We can't really fault these ladies for their crimes of fashion.
It's all in a day's work.

The Smoking Bunny





The Flamingo Girl


Needless to say there were many other infractions (it's Vegas!) but time was short and drink plenty so I couldn't catch them all on film.

My blog is featured on Best Gay Blogs!

Yay me!

Vegas Report: Part 2

Ok, so don't let the tasteful photographs mislead you into believing that all fun had during our trip was civilized. We drank our share of $15 long island iced tea "yards" and acted the fool (not the most difficult thing for me) plenty!


Tasteful glassware. We're high class, you know!


You can't find this outfit at Chanel...I tried.


Quite proud of ourselves, having just ridden the New York, New York roller coaster without tossing any cookies. We swear we're not drunk...why won't you believe us???


Umm...luckily we steered clear of this hut.


I strike an appropiate pose in the "porn" room.
How do you like me now Tyra??!

Next: The Good, the Bad and the Vegas Fashion Report.