Please Stop Spitting on Me During Sex
WARNING: This post contains sexually explicit language. Please read on at your own discretion.

Please stop spitting on me during sex. It’s gross, unnecessary, and totally weird. There is absolutely no need for you to spit on me while we are having intercourse, and, honestly, the spitting causes more problems than anything else. I don’t know what porn you saw this in, but please stop doing it. I don’t know why you find it attractive, because I certainly don’t.

First of all, spitting on me is not going to provide any more lubrication than your mouth is already providing during sex. By sucking my penis or licking my anus, you are already providing a sufficient amount of moisture to facilitate the sex act. What’s more, by using your mouth like a normal person during oral sex, you spread your saliva evenly over me, which is much more useful during intercourse than stray wads of lube hocked up on me. Not once have I looked at my dick during a blowjob and thought, “Wow, I am incredibly dry in this one particular spot. I hope he spits exactly there to keep me lubed up!” Half the time you try to spit on me you totally miss your target. I really don’t need your spit on my futon, alarm clock, or rug. I also don’t want a loogie in my chest or ass hair; you keep trying to be manly, but you missed the spittoon by a mile!

I can’t stand when you spit on me while we are kissing. When we softly taste each other with our tongues, that is hot! When you grab my face and spit in my mouth, that’s not! Maybe some guys enjoy the degradation of having their face spit on, but that is not me. Your spit is actually kind of gross. It’s ropy and bubbly, and sometimes there is phlegm or bits of food in it. I don’t need to see that.

When I dominate another man, I absolutely never spit on him. There are a lot of things that happen in porn that look hot on video but are gross unfulfilling in real life. Spitting falls under this category. The rawness of it may appeal to some, but otherwise it’s completely gross. There are tons of other hotter and more agreeable acts to do to assert your power. Being dominant can involve holding someone down with exerted arm muscles, using powerful words to make them submit, or simply taking the lead in the bedroom (all consensually, of course). Spitting is the most unpoetic way to be dominant.

www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-terrell/please-stop-spitting-on-m_b_6427114.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

Russia Now Says Trans People Can't Have Driver's Licenses

You’ve got to hand it to Vladimir Putin’s Russia: Just when you think they’ve thought of everything, leading Russian anti-LGBT forces get even more creative.

read more

Thom Senzee

www.advocate.com/world/2015/01/08/russia-now-says-trans-people-cant-have-drivers-licenses

GOP Lawmaker Wants To Declare Texas A Sovereign Anti-Gay State On Same-Sex Marriage

A Republican Texas state lawmaker has filed a bill attempting to re-ban same-sex marriage in the highly likely event it is made legal in the Lone Star State by federal courts.

Rep. Cecil Bell Jr. on Wednesday introduced House Bill 623, which he’s calling the “Texas Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act.”

The bill would essentially declare Texas a sovereign state when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage, meaning it wouldn’t have to comply with federal court rulings.  

The Texas Observer reports: 

HB 623 would amend the Texas Family Code to prohibit the use of  taxpayer funds for the “the licensing or support of same-sex marriage.” It would also bar government employees from recognizing, granting or enforcing same-sex marriage licenses. Any government employee who violates the provision would be barred from collecting “a salary, pension, or other employee benefit.”

HB 623 would also require Texas courts to dismiss challenges to the law and award attorneys’ fees to defendants. And it would grant Texas sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it comes to enforcing the law, “regardless of a contrary federal court ruling.”

“When I was elected, I made a promise to my constituents to fight to protect our traditional values and to stand strong in the defense of our constitutional rights as Texans and Americans,” Bell said in a release. “Texas is a sovereign state and our citizens have the right to define marriage. We as Texans voted in 2005 to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. In Texas marriage is sacred and traditional families are recognized as the fabric of our society.”

Last February, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia struck down Texas’ marriage bans as unconstitutional. But Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed the decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear oral arguments in the case on Friday. 

More on Bell’s bill from The Texas Tribune: 

“The federal government is trying to act to create moral standards, and that’s just not acceptable,” Bell said.

Daniel Williams, a legislative specialist for the gay rights group Equality Texas, said the bill would go against legal precedent. 

“This bill is retreading very well-established precedent here. In 1869, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that no, Texas does may not ignore federal law whenever it wants,” Williams said. “Beyond it ignoring federal law, it would actually punish state employees who follow the law.”

Ken Upton, Dallas-based senior counsel at Lambda Legal, called the bill “laughable.” 

“How can someone who knows so little about the way government works be elected?” Upton told Towleroad.

 

Equality Texas issued an action alert calling on people to contact Bell’s office. “Tell Cecil Bell that Texas and Texans respect the constitution, respect the rule of law and respect the right of loving couples to make their own decisions absent unnecessary government intervention,” the group wrote. 

 

Bell will also be hosting an open house next week to kick off the Texas legislative session. Details below should anyone wish to crash the party. 

Also, watch one of Bell’s campaign ads, AFTER THE JUMP … 

 

John Wright

www.towleroad.com/2015/01/gop-lawmaker-wants-to-declare-texas-a-sovereign-anti-gay-state-on-same-sex-marriage.html

WATCH: Calif. Sen. Barbara Boxer Will Not Seek Reelection

The four-term U.S. senator and LGBT ally announced today she will not run for reelection in 2016.

read more

Sunnivie Brydum

www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2015/01/08/watch-calif-sen-barbara-boxer-will-not-seek-reelection

To Be a Fly on the Wall
On Friday, January 9, the United States Supreme Court will discuss whether to review of one or more of the five marriage equality cases now before it. We’d love to be a fly on the wall at the Court’s private conference, but we, like millions of other LGBT Americans and their friends and families, will have to wait for the Court’s public announcement, which could come later that day, the following Monday, or even later in January.

Nearly all legal observers thought the Supreme Court would take a marriage equality case last October, but the Court instead declined to review decisions in favor of the freedom to marry from the 4th, 7th, and 10th Federal Circuits. Marriages began immediately in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Utah. Other states in these federal circuits, such as Colorado, North Carolina, and West Virginia soon thereafter followed suit. At the same time, the 9th Circuit Federal Court ruled in our favor, and states such as Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona gained equality. Today, 36 states and the District of Columbia have marriage equality.

But a very conservative federal trial judge in Louisiana and the 6th Circuit federal appeals court (covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) failed to follow the otherwise unanimous consensus of lower federal courts, which had sided with equality since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in 2013. The 6th Circuit and the Louisiana federal judge upheld the statewide marriage bans before them.

Speculation is high that the Supreme Court will grant review of the 6th Circuit (or Louisiana) decision. Last summer, Justice Ginsberg, stated that “some urgency” would exist for the Court to take the case if the 6th Circuit ruled against equality. Conflicting decisions from federal circuit courts present a classic reason for the Supreme Court to review a case. Justices Thomas and Scalia indicated late last fall that they had wanted the Court to take one of the cases in October. But the Supreme Court could also decline review of the 6th Circuit and Louisiana cases and continue to allow the various federal appellate courts to reach their own decisions regarding state marriage bans.

We urge the Supreme Court to grant review of one or more of the cases before it and establish marriage equality nationwide and heightened constitutional protection for LGBT people more broadly. If it doesn’t, LGBT people will continue to be excluded from marriage in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee for the indefinite future. Married LGBT couples will remain vulnerable if they move or travel to a state without equality. LGBT couples who married in states with equality but live in states without it will be deprived of important federal rights and protections. And LGBT Americans will continue to live with uncertainty as to whether the Supreme Court and other federal courts will protect us from governmental discrimination in all aspects of our lives.

As we await the Supreme Court’s decision, action will continue apace in the federal circuits. Marriages began in Florida earlier this week, and briefing is nearly complete in the 11th Circuit. The 5th Circuit (covering Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) will hold oral argument in marriage equality cases on January 9, the same day the Supreme Court will conduct its conference. Decisions will follow in the coming months. The First Circuit is also reviewing an unfavorable ruling from Puerto Rico, and the Eighth Circuit (covering states such as Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas) will be hearing and deciding case(s) as well.

The case for equality is strong if the Court takes a case this January. The Court’s 2013 Windsor decision articulated forcefully the harm that inequality causes LGBT couples and their families. If the Court takes a case this term, oral argument will take place in the spring with a decision very likely in late June — just in time for Pride. We hope for an equality filled 2015.

John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, together for nearly three decades, were plaintiffs in the California case for equal marriage rights decided by the California Supreme Court in 2008. They are leaders in the nationwide grassroots organization Marriage Equality USA.

www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-gaffney/to-be-a-fly-on-the-wall_b_6438112.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices