Boston Symphony Hall Pride Night, June 5, 2026
Boston Pops, Keith Lockhart, conductor
Boston Gay Men's Chorus
Radiant Broadway, Glee star, and Lynn-native Alex Newell stuns onstage alongside the bold and uplifting voices of the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus for the Pops’ third annual celebration of Pride Month!
30 comments:
That looks to be quite the festive production. I hope there will be videos of the performance afterwards.
I've been meeting the homophobes head on when they try to tear down or belittle someone on the socials for the crime of existing. Seem to be emboldened this year. (LOL - I know the why, and for some reason laughing in the face of the person who hates your very existence yet doesn't know a thing about you feels insanely liberating).
Thanks for sharing Shaw. In my opinion in the world of bloggers you are a Queen.
How long before virtue signaling expert -FJ/Joe Conservative weighs in?
from Google AI:
Virtue signaling is the act of publicly expressing moral values, beliefs, or political opinions primarily to enhance one's social standing or self-image, often without taking meaningful action to support those causes.
The term—coined in 2015 by British journalist James Bartholomew—is often used as a critique of modern social dynamics. Here is a breakdown of what it entails:
Key Characteristics
Conspicuous Display: Actions, social media posts, or statements designed to be highly visible to others.
Performative Nature: The focus is on looking good or saying the "right" thing rather than doing the actual work required to solve a problem.
Pejorative Tone: It is rarely a compliment. Calling someone a "virtue signaller" suggests their motives are insincere, self-serving, or merely intended to gain approval from a specific group.
...but hey, it's a "good" thing.
In Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court simply declared gay marriage legal. In Maryland, we put it on the ballot, and voted it in. In other words, we didn't "virtue signal" anything. The LGBT community did the hard work of lobbying FOR and gaining the approval of a majority of the State's voters. They showed ACTUAL virtue. And it has a legitimacy here that Massachusetts and the National federal legalization will NEVER have.
In Massachusetts, the courts don’t allow people to decide whether or not citizens are due equal protection under the law or whether citizens have the equal rights protection under the law. That’s how this was decided! Would Americans let citizens of states decide if people should have the right to own firearms? Do you think people should decide whether or not Americans have the right to worship as they please or not worship anything at all?
The courts applied the Constitution to the question of same sex marriage, not individual religious laws. And people do not get to decide who gets and who does not get equal protection and equal rights under the Constitution.
“Virtueless is an adjective meaning lacking in moral goodness, integrity, or righteousness. It describes someone who is corrupt, degenerate, or devoid of positive ethical qualities.”
We’re living in the age of a virtueless presidency and administration. I’ll take even virtue signaling rather than no virtue, which is what we have in Trumpism.
-FJ/Joe Conservative weighs in with the usual bull 💩💩.
If you want basic human rights you gotta work for them. We're not gonna just hand them to ya. Amirite, FJ?
Conservatives claim our human rights are”God-given.” How does that square with putting a human right for consenting adults to marry whom they choose on a referendum?
Consistent principles aren't a Conservative value.
-FJ... before the vote in MD happened, before the people organized, did anyone of your people who showed "actual virtue" campaign for the bill they would soon support. Did any of them do the hard work of lobbying legislators to sway them? Did they go to their neighbors to advocate for the measure they would soon support on the ballot?
Of course they did. Because that is the hard work of politics... convincing people to support something they feel is valuable for the good of all people.
Before the actual vote, were those people virtue signaling? What is the difference between the people of Maryland lobbying to convince people, before the measure was approved for the ballot, and Shaw's post? Or others arguing for a more "virtuous" position? Is it simply because you had a ballot measure?
Please let us know how someone who lives in a state where direct ballot measures are not Constitutionally permitted does "actual virtue" if it does not include speaking up, writing blog posts, supporting people or speaking to their friends.
What would "actual virtue" look like, in a real, practical sense, in those states. Or perhaps more precisely, what would YOU see as active virtue in those states as it relates, in this case, justices and equal rights for gay people?
How would people demonstrate "actual virtue" and change laws in those states, as opposed to virtue signaling/
trump Conservatives have no values beyond supporting their grifting cult leaders delusions.
Elites (judges) "deeming" new Constitutional rights via the Courts (ala Roe), or establishing new "definitions" of what a marriage never was, is "virtueless" virtue signaling, pure and simple. Grass roots voter initiatives passed via drafting new legislation and lobbying the voters, doing the hard work of gaining general public acceptance and approval, is virtue itself.
from Google AI:
Same-sex marriage became legally recognized in Maryland on January 1, 2013, following the successful passage of the Civil Marriage Protection Act and a statewide voter referendum.
The Legislative Path
March 1, 2012: Governor Martin O'Malley officially signed the Civil Marriage Protection Act into law after it passed the Maryland General Assembly.
November 6, 2012: Opponents forced the issue onto the ballot through a veto referendum (Question 6). Maryland voters ultimately upheld the legislation with 52.4% of the vote, making it one of the first states to legalize same-sex marriage via popular vote.
January 1, 2013: The law took effect, allowing same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses statewide.
Key Provisions
Gender-Neutral Language: The law changed the legal definition of marriage from a union "between a man and a woman" to a union "between two individuals".
Religious Exemptions: The legislation explicitly protected religious institutions, allowing clergy and religious organizations to decline to perform or host same-sex marriages without legal penalty.
You're right. Universal principles are. Consistently f'ing over white people out of white guilt may be a consistent Democratic Party principle, but it's not a universal American one (like ignoring race entirely, ala MLK Jrs. dream).
Their "consistent principle" originated with Herbert Marcuse and the New Left. It's called "repressive tolerance"... since uneducated whites like me need to be repressed into tolerating black people.... and teaching me this lesson through repressing whites AA/DEI is their duty. They are so "enlightened" ya know! And I'm so deplorably racist becaus I think that MLK Jr.s "Dream" idea was more on point.
JC: "Universal principles are. Consistently f'ing over white people out of white guilt may be a consistent Democratic Party principle, but it's not a universal American one (like ignoring race entirely, ala MLK Jrs. dream)."
MLK's dream was an ultimate destination, not a description of modern-day America. Ignoring race ignores the deep-seated structural disadvantages caused by centuries of discrimination.
MLKing himself supported compensatory programs to level a historically uneven playing field. This is from his book, "Why We Can't Wait,":
“A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”
We most certainly HAVE NOT reached a point in our country.
MLKing also used this as an example: "If one person is entered at the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, it is impossible for the second runner to catch up on his own."
And this about the popular advice that Black Americans should simply "lift themselves up by their own bootstraps." MLKing pointed out that it is a "cruel jest" to tell a bootless man to lift himself by his bootstraps after centuries of unpaid labor and wealth extraction."
A marriage is a contract between two consenting people sanctioned by the state for tax purposes. They marry and file taxes as a couple. There's no religion involved in the contract.
The government does not police the romantic intent behind a marriage; as long as you meet the legal requirements and freely consent, the union is valid, even if the primary goal is taking advantage of tax brackets or health insurance.
Same sex marriage was always guaranteed by the Constitution. It was always there, it just needed a couple to challenge it and a judge to enforce the law:
"The fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by two specific clauses within the Fourteenth Amendment:
The Due Process Clause: Protects fundamental liberties, with the Court declaring that the right to marry is a personal choice and fundamental liberty inherent to individual autonomy.
The Equal Protection Clause: Prohibits the government from denying any person equal protection of the laws, meaning the state cannot deny same-sex couples the legal benefits and recognition afforded to opposite-sex couples.
These combined protections require all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages on the exact same terms as opposite-sex marriages."
I'd also remind you, Joe Con, that it was in many currently living Americans' lifetimes where lynching without accountability (it's called "getting away with murder") happened here in America. One, in 1981,which did result in conviction for the perpetrators:
"A Notable case often cited regarding lack of convictions: Emmett Till (August 28, 1955): His kidnapping and murder is often considered the last "classical" lynching. Although two white men were identified and arrested, an all-white jury acquitted them, resulting in no one facing prosecution.
Michael Donald (March 20, 1981): Sometimes referred to in historical records as one of the last reported lynchings in the U.S., this attack in Mobile, Alabama, resulted in the two perpetrators being successfully convicted and the Southern Poverty Law Center bankrupting the United Klans of America.
Wasn't it mostly Democrats in the South that did the lynching
They never lynched any white people? All those cinematic Western posse's chasing robbers and rustlers and horse thieves was just a cover for "white supremacy? Who knew? Clint Eastwood's Good, Bad & Ugly was just racist bs...
btw- what the current demographic of state and federal prisoners today... I wonder if that had anything to do with the "disproportionate" lynching of blacks (since they're still disproprtionately represented in prisons 60 years
after the Civil Rights Act
People of color account for nearly 70% of the combined state and federal prison population, making up a disproportionate share compared to their representation in the general U.S. population. Black and Hispanic individuals are the most heavily impacted, with Black Americans incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans.
Must be racist cops, huh?
Yes, it was southern Democrats who did the lynching. Those southern Democrats then split from the Democratic Party to become Dixiecrats as soon as national Democratic politicians started passing legislation for civil rights and voting rights. One thing those people who did the lynching always were, and that was Southerners who codified into law Jim Crow and the killing of black Americans. That happened in southern states; it was a southern historical thing.
There is a high incarceration rate of African-Americans. The reasons for this are varied and complicated. I’m not gonna be dragged into a discussion of it because that’s not what this post is about. The fact that you bring it up as some sort of indication of Black people’s inferiority or proclivity for lawbreaking shows me that you do not understand what the sociological and political reasons are for this. It is a huge subject. I suggest you go to Google and find out for yourself. What you posted here is provocative. Why don’t you cover it on your own blog.
...and all the former Republicans in the South switched parties and became Democrats, right? LOL!
All your posts are essentially about this issue. The poor blacks... we need to keep helping them (after 60 years of failure)... they are INCAPABLE of helping themselves without our patronizing policies....
Woke = soft neo-racist hypocrisy.
You're full of malarkey. All my posts are NOT about Black Americans and their struggles with people who think like you.
We have NOT had 60 years of failure. The fact that two highly educated Black Americans made it into the highest pinnacle of American politics -- POTUS and FLOTUS -- belies your sorry, incorrect and racially charged claim.
"lack Americans are unequivocally better off today in terms of legal rights, educational attainment, and physical health, but profound economic disparities and the racial wealth gap persist. While progress is evident, achieving true economic parity remains a generational challenge."--Brookings Institute
"70 years ago (the mid-1950s), the Jim Crow era was deeply entrenched and legally sanctioned segregation was the norm in the South. The Civil Rights Movement abolished these."--MichiganAdvance.com
"High school completion and college graduation rates among Black Americans have skyrocketed, resulting in a much larger representation in white-collar and professional occupations." --Brookings Institute
"Life expectancy and overall health outcomes have increased substantially compared to 70 years ago, though some specific disparities still exist."--Brookings Inst.
"The national Black unemployment rate has reached historic lows in recent years, and median Black household incomes have grown to be at their highest points in a generation." --Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies
50 years after the Kerner Commission
African Americans are better off in many ways but are still disadvantaged by racial inequality
Report: Black America doing much better than 40 years ago (AP)
Yes... a generational challenge. 60 years is 3 generations. The Great Society money is now $39t in the whole. So Basta!
What's left of their deficit is genetic. They need to inter-breed more. And that's not something that the government can help with.
So you don't hate Trump because he's a white supremacist, rapist, and felon? Who knew?
btw - Sometimes being a felon is a recommendation (ie Nelson Mandela and Tommy Robinson), especially in light of the complete collapse of the USIC in 2016 under Obama. I'm gonna miss Tulsi.
btw - They should have just handed out that $39t in "reparations" instead of eeking out the welfare. Blacks would have been "better off" (in $ terms), but still turned to sh*t on a societal level. Like the difference between Spain (plundering gold & silver from the Americas in the 14th-19th century) and Britain (training the workforce to be productive through the 20th). We all know which empire lasted longer.
btw - You do know that Brookings is the Democrat-Think Tank revolving door right? They may be just a little bit biased.
"Both conservative and liberal studies agree that African Americans have made substantial absolute progress in education, poverty reduction, and occupational advancement over the last 60 years. However, they strongly disagree on the extent of progress and whether racial equality has meaningfully improved when compared to white Americans.
Ultimately, both sides acknowledge that African Americans have significantly more resources and higher living standards than they did 60 years ago. However, the conservative consensus emphasizes these absolute gains to declare the country successful on racial equality, while the liberal consensus highlights the lingering and systemic disparities that remain between Black and white Americans." --EPI
Only two people? Why not Five?
Post a Comment