July 2003 Archives

This from The Arizona Republic:

WASHINGTON - While President Bush and other Republicans press their opposition to same-sex marriages onto the national agenda as a potential 2004 campaign issue, a little-noticed "policy paper" this week from a Senate committee headed by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl lays out what some see as a road map for the GOP strategy.

Titled "The Threat to Marriage from the Courts," the Senate Republican Policy Committee paper asserts that a constitutional amendment banning such marriages is the way to counter a "willingness" of law school professors, the legal profession, judges and even the Supreme Court to take "pro-same-sex marriage positions."

With a "same-sex marriage" ruling imminent in Massachusetts and court cases pending in Arizona, New Jersey and Indiana, the paper says, "These lawsuits will continue until Congress and the states adopt a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage." ......

"Despite public opposition to same-sex marriages, it is reasonable to expect more than a few judges will accede to the gay-marriage activists' court campaign," the paper warns. "The legal profession is itself predisposed to support the remaking of marriage." ......

The paper even criticizes the Supreme Court, saying its recent ruling in a Texas case that struck down a state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex "gave aid and comfort to the activists' court strategy."

"The Supreme Court itself has shown that it will show little regard for public opinion when it takes sides in cultural divisions that emerge in society," the paper asserts.

As time goes on, the paper warns, the "risk of Supreme Court intervention to create a uniform standard (or at least to permit recognition of out-of-state homosexual unions) will only increase."

After I said yesterday that I was going to distance myself from the subject of "gay marriage", here I am again writing on it. I'm sorry, but there are just too many morons out there that make themselves easy targets for people like me.

The moron today is Senator John Kyl, R-Arizona (picture at left). This issue of gay marriage is going to be in the news a lot more until the next election, so we all better get used to the ride. And it's not going to be pretty. As Bette Davis once said "Buckle your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride!" Indeed it will be and it won't be a ride for the weak. A lot of things will be said that are going to be hateful, divisive, and frankly, un-American. Once we start making changes to the Constitution, we start tearing away at the fabric of what has made this country great. Every time we touch that great document, we run the great danger of diminishing our freedoms that so many of us have come to take for granted. The shouldn't be taken for granted. They can be taken away by the addition of a constitutional amendment. Fortunately, it is very difficult to make changes to the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason. Some have said that there's no way they will be able to gather the support to pull off a change to the Constitution. Maybe so. But I find the mere mention of the idea very disturbing.

At issue here is civil marriage. I make the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. In civil marriage, the marriage may be granted by the church or it may be granted by the state. A church or denomination who disagrees with the principle of gay marriage would not have to agree to perform the ceremony. I'm totally fine with that. The state and federal government does not have that luxury. Gay people are citizens of this country (until some bigot in power is able to pull of a constitution amendment making gay citizens illegal). Gay citizens pay taxes. Gay citizens vote. We take part in this democracy and should be entitled to equal rights in all civic sectors.

President Bush's remarks on gay marriage (07/30/2003):

"I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Bush's comments about codifying a way to prohibit same-sex marriages suggested to some lawyers that he is becoming more open to the idea of a constitutional amendment to ban them.

While I was surfing the web last night, I came across this poll. This happened to come from America Online. At the time I took this snapshot, there were over 400,000 people responding to the poll. An hour later, there were close to a million who had responded, but the percentages were exactly the same numbers.

Associated with this poll was a link to a chat room where you could talk to others who had voted. I went in just to see what people thought. It was basically a room where a lot of gay bashing was taking place, and it was pretty hateful. You know, after Matthew Shepard and James Byrd were killed, so much awareness was put on hate and the negative effects it has on our country. One would think that we would have learned something from that. Not the case. I'm not even going to repeat some of the awful things people were saying should be done to gay people in our country. It doesn't merit repeating. The dialogue did show me how easily it is to get people stirred up into a frenzy and make them lash out. I also felt sorry for them for their need to defend marriage so strongly. Is marriage really that fragile?

When I mentioned my relationship and tried to make my case for why it should be honored by the state, I was told by several to read the Bible. To that, I made two points. First, I am not talking about a religious issue here. I'm talking about a STATE GOVERNMENT honoring a marriage. I was then told that the Bible applies to everything. I then said "then why do we need separation of church and state? They had no answer to that. Secondly, I suggested to them that their energies of judging gay people might be better spent addressing some of the hate being directed towards gay people in the room. I'm pretty sure the Bible makes more than a few references to that. Again, no answer.

I drew tired of trying to make my case when everyone was spouting off and not really listening. I decided to leave the room and do something else that I wanted to do. I will probably spend less time in this blog about gay marriage. Basically, it's no longer worth my energies. I get too worked up over it, and it's a losing battle. In the end, our beloved President will agree that an amendment to the constitution is the best way to "deal with" this problem and put the fags in their place. Eventually (probably after I'm dead), it will hit the Supreme Court who will rule the amendment unconstitutional and will therefore order that gay people cannot be denied the right to marry. That is my prediction. It's just too bad that so many have to go through the feeling of being second class and less worth of societal support for our relationships.

Canada is looking better and better all the time and if my partner were to get a new job in Canada, it would be hard to pass up.

I'm having blogging withdrawals here. I am going to have to go back to work just to get some rest. I spent much of the weekend redecorating around the house (we gay guys like to do that sort of thing from time to time). The bathroom looks FABulous if I do say so myself. It's pretty wild. The colors are a light red with bright yellows, along with a shower curtain of deep reds, subdued yellows and greens to tie it all together to make the colors "play nice" with each other. I have artwork on its way that will hopefully be here next week sometime, along with a custom-ordered shade for the window. The shade will be a honey-comb style pull down shade in the color of "juniper". No where in the room have I introduced this color. It's subdued, but will introduce a focal point of interest (hint: it doesn't have to be bright if it's a unique color as it will make its own statement). After the room is completely done, I'll post a picture here.

Many of you are probably thinking that this guy has been watching the new show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on Bravo. Well, I have. But, I can give any of the gay guys on there a run for their money I'll have you know. Aside from my work wardrobe that is B O R I N G !!! (who's isn't), I'm very fashionable out of work. And, as Carson (from Queer Eye) said, "never be afraid of color - God knows I'm not!"). I totally agree with that. Out of my work clothes, I have been told that my attire is somewhat flamboyant. I like to have fun with clothes and color. So, I wanted the bathroom I was decorating to be "me". For all of you who are now inspired and want to go out and start redecorating, I say go for it! On the down side, it is a hell of a lot of work. In the end, you will hopefully have something that you like and can be proud of.

A lot of gay people don't seem to like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy because it feeds on a lot of stereotypes. It does. Here are a few of the stereotypes it exploits:
All straight guys are slobs without a clue on hygiene, style, or fashion. That's true, many don't. But, I bet I can find a gay slob for just about every straight slob there is.

Part of being gay is putting others down. When these guys go into the straight guys home, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING about him is "wrong". His place is a wreck, his clothes are all wrong, etc. etc. I can deal with that, but what REALLY turns me off is the way these guys put down the straight guy. And I mean real put downs. That's just uncalled for. One would think that we (gay people), of all people, would have a bit more sensitivity to that sort of thing.

We know what "chics" want. Hell, I don't know for sure what women like. I just know what I like. I suppose it's true that some guy who has let himself go can gain great strides in impressing a girl if he improves himself in the slightest way. After all, when you are really disgusting, the only way to go is up (and no, I'm not saying that as a put down).

Other issues in my life......
I don't think it was necessary to post the photos of Qusay and Uday Hussein blown apart on the internet. Talk about morbid. I know that awful stuff happens in the world. That doesn't mean that I want it happening in my mind. I pull up a news story from a legitimate news source, and before I know it, I'm staring at a horrible picture of the two blood-splattered bodies of these two men. Totally uncalled for. I know the Iraqi people want their proof, but I doubt they are going to the internet to get it.

I've had it with Blogger. I was so pissed this weekend to find that all the sudden, part of my site was no longer working as I had set it up. The reason: Blogger in all their wisdom decided to change some of the key flags that I was keying off of. I received no email about this change. Nothing. It really made me decide to bite the bullet and stop relying on external sources to do my publishing. Then, I will control everything. This coming weekend, I will be moving my site to Movable Type and managing it from a SQL database. Just bear with me while I learn Movable Type. I do expect formatting changes throughout the weekend, but hopefully that will all subside by the following week.

Starting Tuesday, I will be one step closer to being like Cher! That's right! I am going to try this personal trainer thing. I have been talking with one and I've decided to give it a try. Maybe it will give me motivation. I told him I want to look just like Cher.... with a few differences.

That's all for now. I got to get dinner ready. Cheers!

Jeffrey Kofman, a Canadian journalist allegedly attacked by the White House for reports on the plunging morale of American troops in Iraq says he's not surprised his original story touched a nerve. Kofman says many soldiers he interviewed in Baghdad question why they're still there. Some openly criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for delaying their return home.

According to the Washington Post, an operative from the White House decided to respond to Kofman's coverage by sending some personal details about him to well known U.S. Internet journalist Matt Drudge. Two facts were played up: first, he's openly gay, and second, he's Canadian. Critics slammed the attempt to use nationalism and homophobia to try to discredit an unflattering news report.

"I think it's not surprising in certain ways that a provocative story provokes," Kofman said in a telephone interview from Iraq. But he's not sure why anyone would want to "out" him as a Canadian, or how any of the details of his life could be seen as a "smear." "It's all a little perplexing and kind of a sideshow," he added, noting that the real story is what's going on in Iraq. "I think you just have to kind of look at this and roll your eyes and move on."

A national ad campaign from a gay-rights military group will ask Congress to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. The "Lift the Ban" campaign, which launches August 1, is the work of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, or SLDN.

The campaign will use postcards and print ads to bring awareness to the issue and ask people to urge Congress to repeal the antigay policy. The campaign will launch as a postcard ad in Washington, and will be featured in publications throughout the country. To join the Lift the Ban campaign, just sign the petition.

Rosalyn Tureck, a pianist and harpsichordist who devoted more than six decades to performing, researching, teaching and writing about the works of Johann Sebastian Bach, died on Thursday, July 17 at her home in Riverdale, the Bronx.

Early in her career, she was an avid interpreter of contemporary music before deciding to focus entirely on Bach. She had an insightful outlook on the music of Back. She felt that it was crucial to understand Bach not as a modern thinker, or as the beginning of music as we know it today, but as the peak of musical development from medieval times through the Protestant Reformation. She would also enthusiastically speak about performances of Bach on electronic instruments.

Rosalyn Tureck was born on Dec. 14, 1914, and became interested in the piano when she was 4. Her first teacher was Sophia Brilliant-Liven, a Russian pianist who had been a teaching assistant to Anton Rubinstein. In those days, Bach was widely considered to be primarily didactic music, good for developing students' hand muscles but too dry for the concert hall. She was fascinated by Bach's work. When she was 16, Ms. Tureck moved to New York to study with Olga Samaroff at the Juilliard School. When she entered the Naumburg Competition, she made it to the finals and presented an all-Bach program as her closing recital. As she told the story years later, the members of the jury said they could not give her the award "because they were sure that nobody could make a career in Bach."

Since 1947, she had been spending more time in Europe, where the demand for her Bach concerts was greater than in the United States. In 1957 she moved to London, where she formed a chamber orchestra, the Tureck Bach Players, as well as the International Bach Society, meant to be a forum in which musicologists and performers could exchange ideas. In 1981 she started another organization with a similar mission, the Tureck Bach Institute.

Ms. Tureck returned to New York in 1977, after 20 years abroad, and announced her arrival with a 40th-anniversary celebration of her Town Hall Bach series, performed at Carnegie Hall. She opened the series with two performances of the "Goldberg Variations" in one evening: first on the harpsichord, then on the piano. The focus of her career, however, continued to be Europe, and in the 1980's she moved back to England, returning to New York only in the fall of 2001.

She continued to make recordings, including a series for the VAI label, as well as one of her signature pieces, the "Goldberg Variations," for Deutsche Grammophon in 1998. In recent years, Deutsche Grammophon also reissued some of her classic Bach recordings, including her 1953 account of "The Well-Tempered Clavier." She published numerous articles on Bach, as well as a three-volume collection of studies, "An Introduction to the Performance of Bach."

She was scheduled to perform on Thursday evening at the International Keyboard Institute and Festival at Mannes College of Music in Manhattan, but had to withdraw when she became ill. Instead, the college presented a tribute to her, which she was unable to attend. A friend, Rabbi David M. Posner, said she died a few minutes after the tribute ended.

(Minneapolis, Minnesota) An exhibition of the atrocities the Nazis perpetrated on German and Polish gays is coming to Minneapolis, the home of a state legislator who claims gays made up their victimization during the Holocaust to gain sympathy.

Last March state Rep. Arlon Lindner during debate on two bills he had brought forward to repeal gay rights laws in the state, said gays were lying when they cited thousands of homosexuals who were exterminated or sent to concentration camps by the Nazis.

"It never happened," Lindner told the House. "I was a child during World War II, and I've read a lot about World War II," he said. "It's just been recently that anyone's come out with this idea that homosexuals were persecuted to this extent. There's been a lot of rewriting of history."

Lindner also refused an invitation to visit the National Holocaust Museum, just outside Washington, where an exhibit of gays in the Holocaust was on display. So, when the museum announced it was sending the exhibit on a tour of the US, Minneapolis gay and Jewish groups seized on the opportunity to offer both Lindner and the community a history lesson.

For my part of this, I've offered to pay for the Representatives' tickets to the event. He now really has no excuse not to go. I sent the following email to Representative Arlon Lindner:

Dear Representative Lindner:

I have read in the news over the last year of your comments concerning gay persecution at the hands of the Nazi's during World War II. I understand that you believe that they were never persecuted. Your remarks to the House:

"It never happened. I was a child during World War II, and I've read a lot about World War II. It's just been recently that anyone's come out with this idea that homosexuals were persecuted to this extent. There's been a lot of rewriting of history."

Well sir, I understand that an exhibition of the atrocities the Nazis perpetrated on German and Polish gays is coming to Minneapolis. If you will go to the exhibit, I will gladly pay the price for admission for two adults. I think it may be very educational for you.

You have my email address. Just let me know when you will be going, and I'll make arrangements for admission (assuming there will be a charge of admission). You can't beat a deal like that! You really have no reason not to go, unless you fear the truth.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT

To send email to Representative Lindler, go to his website.

This is the first of a series of pictures that I will feature from time to time. It's something new that I'm starting. Many of you know that digital photography is one of my hobbies. I take lots of pictures on a monthly basis. From time to time, I'll probably pick out a few that I like and feature them here. We'll see where it goes from there. To see the full series, just click on the image.

I took this on my way home from the mall this afternoon. Last year, we didn't see anything from this plant. This year it decided to bloom. It will last until mid-August. I like it because it is one of the more unusual plants in our garden. It is what I would probably be if I were a flowering plant - a little dash of class and flamboyance! Why go to the trouble of making a flower this complex if you aren't going to make good use of it!

Kent is home now from his meetings he had this weekend. I just finished with my first part of redoing the bathroom. We went to the mall this afternoon to order the window shade that will replace the old one. Now I just have to get a matching shower curtain and rug to match my color scheme. I'll have to post a picture when it's all done. Now how many people on the web do you know that actually posts pictures of his bathroom on the internet? It's got to be close to a first.

It's been a busy day for me today. I woke up this morning around 8:30. Kent was gone. He has meetings every day this weekend. I hate it when that happens. I picked today to start refinishing the bathroom in the master bedroom. It's going pretty well, although I'm only half way done, and have spent all day on it. I guess I'm not a very fast painter. A couple of hours ago, I stopped for the day, showered, and went out to dinner. Sometime between leaving for dinner and finishing dinner, I got really depressed. I'm not sure about what. Maybe several things. Maybe it was all the fumes from the paint that I inhaled all day long. Towards the end of the day, they were very noticeable in the room.

I found myself thinking about really strange things on the way to dinner. Really, a combination of a lot of things. Here's a list: why do friends grow apart over time? why so much attention to the "American family" when most families suck? why is it so hard for us to care? ....about anything? ....other than ourselves? Maybe it's my perception. Maybe everything is great for most people. Part of it is probably me. Maybe a lot of it is. I feel like I've been robbed of something by just belonging to a minority that is disliked. I'm not saying that we are the poor persecuted group or anything like that. The point is, I spend a lot of time trying to live my life in a normal way for me, and be happy. A great deal of my thought process is taken up wondering how people will think about me who just meet me, how my family looks at me, etc. I keep thinking that if I had been straight, I would be free to have normal everyday problems without all the layers and layers of other issues from being gay. I probably sound like I'm bitching and moaning about my problems, but most people who are straight never really think about their sexuality. That is the way I want to be. I advocate gay marriage, but do I really want all of that in my life? I want marriage but if you think about what we would have to go through for it, I don't know if it's worth it. We would be inviting a bunch of people to our wedding. How many would refuse to come? The ones who did come, were they just being polite, or did they just want to see what a gay wedding was like? All of that would make it impossible for the day to be the "best day of my life". It would be fraught with worry and doubt. All this from being a sexual minority.

I wonder if it's ever going to be possible for me to feel good about what I am and comfortable with this world I live in?

On to another topic near and dear to my heart, gay marriage....

I decided to do a bit of research on how the Democrats feel about allowing gay people the ability to get married. Of course, the majority of them have decided that they do not support gay marriage. Some of them support the idea of a "civil union", similar to what Vermont has.

The Vermont "civil union" law has a couple of problems. First, it's not portable from state to state. If you get a civil union in Vermont, that will only grant you marriage rights that heterosexual married couples in Vermont have. If you were to move to another state, those rights would not follow you. The same is true for divorce. Not so long ago, a gay couple who had been issued a civil union in Vermont wanted a divorce. The problem they encountered was trying to get the divorce honored in the state they moved to (Texas), since Texas didn't honor the arrangement in the first place. The would have had to move back to Vermont, reestablish themselves as state residence (takes one year), before they were eligible for a divorce. I believe they have given up on trying to get a divorce.

Of course, the Federal Government does not honor the Vermont "civil union" either. Any rights granted by the civil union will be ignored by the Federal Government. This is why there is nothing equal to marriage. I'm somewhat surprised that I have even started to care about this marriage issue for gay couples. But, as I've grown older, it's a more important issue. My relationship is very important to me. It's not a matter of religious beliefs. I know many people are up and arms about the gay marriage issue because they feel that marriage is a religious ceremony. The fact is, I would be happy if that were the case. That stopped being the case when the government started putting a value on marriage and started dishing out certain legal rights associated with it. Today, to get the same protection that marriage automatically gives a person, I will have to submit all kinds of legal papers to achieve the same thing. And, there's no guarantee that my wishes will be honored. There are gay couples who have gone to extraordinary lengths to guarantee such basic needs such as the ability to make medical decisions in an emergency. Even with the proper papers, I have know the partners of these couples to be turned away from some hospitals. They thought that they did everything they could legally do, yet they were not allowed in as a member of the family. The reason: the hospital did not honor or recognize their relationship.

So, my position is that no arrangement short of a full-fledged marriage will suffice. And why should it? Our relationships are every bit as worthy of recognition as any one else's. I make this pledge now... the issue of gay marriage is make or break issue for who I will vote for. I will not vote for a candidate who does not have the respect for me to honor my relationship of 28 years. That's all there is to it. I don't believe I've ever had one single issue so important to me as to dictate how I will vote. It's also important that we let candidates know how we feel about this issue. That is why I have included the email address of the candidate. Just click on their name to send them an email. It only takes a minute. The individuals who are not for gay marriage already know how I feel about them.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
Opposed to same-sex marriage. Kerry, like each of the other top-tier candidates in attendance, struggled to explain why he supported full rights for gay and lesbian couples, but not the right to get married. "I do not support (gay) marriage itself because . . . of how I view the world culturally, historically, religiously."

Rev. Al Sharpton of New York City
Wholehearted supports same sex marriages. He said limiting gay couples to "civil unions" would be "saying we will give blacks and Latinos the right to shack up but not to marry." He said the very question of whether gays ought to be eligible for marriage was insulting. "It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or white marriage. . . .' The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings."

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Opposed to same-sex marriage. In explaining his opposition to gay marriages, Lieberman said, "I'm not ready to give a snap judgment on this. Marriage has a special status in our culture, our heritage, our history." He said he would undertake a review of all 1,049 federal benefits that go to married couples and decide which ought to be extended to gays.

Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri
Opposed to same-sex marriage. He said as president he'd work to guarantee all federal benefits available to married couples be made available to gay couples, but suggested that neither he -- nor the nation -- was ready for gay marriage. "I simply feel that civil union is the way to go," Gephardt said.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida
Opposed to same-sex marriage.

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
Opposed to same-sex marriage.

Governor Howard Dean of Vermont
Opposed to same-sex marriage. "Marriage isn't the federal government's business," Dean said. "My view is that we have to have a civil institution to provide equal rights for every single American."

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
Supports gay marriage.

Former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun
Supports gay marriage.

I think that I may be getting to a point in my life where I have very little tolerance or use for BS. BS.... I see a lot of that every time we get close to a presidential election. Everyone promises things they have no intention of delivering. Remember when Bill Clinton promised to completely do away with the expulsion of gays in the military? When he became president, he tried to do that. They came up with "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue". Well, we ended up with something that allowed far more abuse than the simple expulsion of homosexuals from the military. We ended up with a policy that was fraught with abuse and allowed commanders to pretty much do whatever they wanted to do with military personnel who they suspected of being gay. And, in many cases, they did pursue. Many years later, we are still stuck with "don't ask, don't tell...", with apparently no one with the testicular fortitude to kill this stupid policy. All it would take is the stroke of a pen. That's all.

I suppose as a free American I can buy into the notion that we are free because our troops keep us free. BULL SHIT! I'm sick of hearing that crap. I have lost respect for our military leaders and our commander in chief. They want us to buy the notion that these men will suffer being around gay men and women. They want us to "trust" them when they say that the presense of gay soldiers would have a negative effect on "unit cohesion". My answer: REAL soldiers wouldn't give a damn about that. REAL MEN would be confident in themselves to do the job at hand. Let's pose it this way: you are going into battle. You and the men around you encounter fire from your enemy. You are watching out for each other in an extremely tense and dangerous situation. How comfortable would you feel with someone who was watching your back if you knew that person was worried about something as small as a gay guy in the platoon? This really has nothing to do with the gay guy in the platoon at this point. It has everything to do with the character of the soldier having the problem with the gay guy. He's not focused. How many other issues in his life will cause him not to be focused? How many lives will that cost on the battle field?

Maybe because of this, gay people are in danger in the military, but it has nothing to do with them. The real problem is character of the military. Do military personnel follow orders, or don't they? If they do, and were ordered to get over their issues with sexual orientation, it shouldn't be a problem. But apparently, they don't follow orders. Apparently, they aren't good soldiers. And this is what is protecting our freedom.

Do you realize how many gay soldiers have sacraficed their lives for our freedom and our country? They deserve better than "don't ask, don't tell". Young gay men and women who become openly gay in the military are discharged under "don't ask, don't tell", when it is convenient to do so. In times of war, stop gap measures are enforced to keep them from leaving the military. If they are good enough to be forced to fight while knowing they are gay, they are good enough to serve openly in the military! The fact that they are forced to stay during war conditions pretty much shoots the hell out of the idea that openly gay personnel nagatively effect "unit cohesion", wouldn't you say?

Many reading this will be offended by my attitude on the military. I stick by it. I've never been in the military, not should I have to be to understand a very simple problem. It is simple homophobia. Get over it! People in the military will say "you don't understand the close living quarters... the conditions... etc. we are forced to live in..." So? Why is that an issue? Do your freakin job already! If the gay guy next to you makes a pass at you (heaven forbid), it means that he isn't a good soldier and is breaking general rules that have nothing to do with "don't ask, don't tell". He should be reported for not doing his job. That simple. I belong to a gym. After I work out I take a shower. I'm in a common shower with other men (I'm sure most all straight men). Their sexual orientation or mine is not the issue. The issue at hand is getting clean. If I happen to see what other guys have (their "equipment", if you will), so what? I say nothing and think nothing of it. A straight male friend once said to me, "but it's not fair because I can't shower with women". I told him, "well, it wouldn't matter to me. I wouldn't have a problem showering with men or women. To me you are there to get clean, and that's the end of it". Apparently, he had something more in mind.

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld - Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Imagine if major companies from all around the world started producing or sponsoring condoms. They would become fashionable and companies would probably advertise more openly. Here are just a few examples that come to mind:

Nike Condoms

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi told the closing session of the second annual African Union conference on Saturday that Africans who are "straight" need not fear the Aids virus.

Speaking through a translator, Gadhafi drew some laughter with his reference to Aids only affecting homosexuals. He said Aids was being used by business "as trade to build up their wealth". "Don't try to use Aids as trade. All you have to do is observe the rules. If you are straight, you have nothing to fear from Aids," he said.

...and just when we were starting to get the idea that AIDS wasn't a gay disease, Moammar Gadhafi adds insight letting us know that it is indeed a gay disease. Thank you Moammar!!

I know that many people would love to think that it is those Godless homosexuals who is solely responsible for AIDS. Sorry folks, it just aint true. What is true is that we ended up getting most of the blame for the current situation of AIDS. That's tragic because in the first place, it simply isn't true. Secondly, while we are so busy pointing fingers at who cause all of this, AIDS has spread out of control. Now, the focus is on Africa. Below, I've given the first known sources of AIDS and the theory of its' origin. It never did come from gay people and spreading propaganda to that effect is just wrong.

Origin of AIDS
1926 - Some scientists believe HIV spread from monkeys to humans between 1926 - 1946. Recent research indicates HIV most probably first jumped from chimpanzees to humans as early as 1675 and didn't establish itself as an epidemic strain in Africa until 1930

1959 - A man died in the Congo in what researchers now say was the first proven AIDS death.

1978 - Gay men in the US and Sweden -- and heterosexuals in Tanzania and Haiti -- begin showing signs of what will later be called AIDS.

1980 - Deaths in US -- 31 (includes all known cases 1981 and before)

Not that it serves to prove anything, but this last point does give me a bit of satisfaction. When Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, he never once uttered the word "AIDS" in public. Not once. Why? Simple - because it was not a problem of "mainstream America" while he was president. The problem, in his view belonged solely to the homosexuals, a very unpopular group at the time.
1990 - Ronald Reagan apologizes for his neglect of the epidemic while he was president (US). He said this to AIDS activists at that time who promptly shouted back to him "...just go away and keep doing exactly what you have done, NOTHING! You had the power to make a difference, and you chose not too."

Global statistics on AIDS

Total number of AIDS deaths since the beginning of the epidemic until the end of 2001:
Total 21.8 Million
Adults 17.5 Million
Women 9 Million
Children <15 years 4.3 Million

Total number of AIDS orphans since the beginning of the epidemic until the end of 2001:
Total 14 Million

AIDS really isn't a gay problem - it never really was. In the United States, people have long wanted someone convenient to blame it on. The gay community made an easy target for that. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, it ravaged uncontrollably. Where were we then? Now, all the sudden, President George W. Bush is very concerned about AIDS, almost overnight. Our President, just like Moammar Gadhafi is using AIDS as a political tool. The two are NO DIFFERENT!

I saw this story of gay families and was touched by it. It took place in Washington state. Ahhh, the sign of progress!

It's called the Out in the Park Family Pride Festival, a gay-themed event that's been held at Wright Park since 2000. And Saturday the changing status of families headed by gays and lesbians was on the minds of participants at the annual event, which organizers believe drew several thousand people.

With the Supreme Court's June 26 decision striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law and with British Columbia legalizing same-sex marriage early last week, people attending Saturday's event said they felt the tide of history is running in their direction. David Stansel of Seattle, who was at the event with his partner, Troy Garner, called the Supreme Court ruling "a symbolic victory." Garner sees the high court's decision as an important step toward achieving that goal. He said he "firmly believes" such marriages will one day be legal in the U.S.

Magdalena Nieves of Olalla already considers herself to be "absolutely" married to her partner of two years, Lori Anderson, having tied the knot with Anderson in a civil union ceremony in Vermont. She, too, considers the Supreme Court decision to be a milestone in history of the gay rights movement. "It makes us a part of real mainstream American society and legitimizes us and gives us the opportunity to have as much of a married life as heterosexuals," she said.

"There's a huge number of same-sex couples that have been together for many years, that love one another and lead very, very healthy, happy lives and that raise families, that are very decent people. We lobby, we have voices, and we're constituents who vote."

Now... there are millions. Life was simpler as a kid. It's amazing to me just how much time one can spend on web page design. I am in the process of completely redesigning our web site. It's a lot of work just deciding on a design. I've been working on it all day and when I'm complete, I am hoping to have a web site driven completely by CSS. Don't worry about it if you don't know what CSS means, except, it's cool stuff. When I'm done, the menus should load fast and the design will be completely different and should be a bit friendlier to less popular browsers I hope.

I've been so caught up with work and web design, that I haven't even checked what is happening in the world. There are a few things I put together at the bottom of this entry about things happening in the news. Heck, we could be at war and I probably wouldn't even know. That's the beauty of web design. It's very easy to completely lose yourself in it.

So what's new in our life... well, we now have our very first DVD tower to put all our DVD's in. I thought I had a lot of DVD's, but they all fit in one side of this case. It is square and rotates to the other sides as needed. You can tell not much happens out here when the arrival of a DVD case causes a "disturbance in the force".

Ever since our company left, my cats have been cranky. We aren't sure why. You know how cats are. To them, no company is good company. Kent's brother and sister-in-law visited for a few days. Maxwell is here mulling over my keyboard and getting his hair all inside. He says "hi" to everyone in cyberland.

We are cooking out tonight and having shish ka bobs. I'm not sure about the spelling of that, but I'm sure when Kent reads this, he will correct the spelling. They will be beef shish ka bobs (sorry for not being politically correct to all you vegetarians out there), marinated in a sesame ginger sauce. It is starting to smell really good. We'll cook it all up on the grill and eat on the deck tonight. I wish I had gotten my teaky torches now. Oh well.

We went to see Terminator 3 last night. Kent didn't care for it so much, and I have to agree that it wasn't nearly as good as the second one. In fact, I think they should have left it with the second one. The story line made sense. Now, they can go on and on and on with sequels. At some point, it just gets cheap.

The only BIG thing happening in the news right now that could effect us here in Connecticut (eventually) is what is happening in our neighbor state of Massachusetts. They are debating if it is constitutional to deny gay people full marriage licenses. Seven gay couples who tried to get marriage licenses were turned down. They subsequently sued and this is the result. If Massachusetts allows this, a powerful precedent will have been set. The first state in the nation will be allowing full-fledged marriages for gay couples. That's pretty major. Of course, if history has taught us anything (Bowers vs Hardwick), it will take about 17 years for that to happen. I'm not holding my breath.

Zoe, thanks bunches for the guest book entry! It was nice to hear that I wasn't too "out there" for people at the party. Of course, we'll see if I'm invited next year (haha)! I had a great time, but it's just as well we left. We aren't great dancers. As we left I noticed that you two were dancing and totally in to each other. It's no wonder to me that you didn't see us leave. And by the way, don't mention to Andy that we are a gay couple. We usually don't tell people for awhile so they are not too shocked. On the other hand, how many non-gay men compliment another man on his eyes.

Well, that brings us up to day. We hope your are all having a great time where ever you are! Cheers.

Boston Globe backs gay marriage rights. As the top court in Massachusetts prepares to rule on same-sex marriage, the largest newspaper in New England urged the court on Tuesday to extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians as a matter of constitutional fairness.

In a lengthy editorial titled "For Gay Marriage," the Boston Globe said, "For all the legal acrobatics offered by opponents, it is hard to see how anything other than an animus toward gays and lesbians prevents them from obtaining the same 'benefits and protections' enjoyed by heterosexual couples."
Major Newspaper Stokes American Gay Marriage Debate (Reuters)

Second Canadian province legalises gay marriage. British Columbia has joined Ontario in legalising same-sex marriage, with the Appeal Court in Canada's westernmost province ruling that gays and lesbians have an immediate right to wed.

The three-judge panel on Tuesday ordered "reformulation of the common law definition" of marriage to declare it a union of any two individuals, regardless of gender. The Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, bowing to pressure from the liberal-leaning top courts, last month pledged to make gay and lesbian marriage the law of the land. The British Columbia decision came as religious conservatives in Canada battled to preserve the 137-year-old legal definition of marriage as the"union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".
British Columbia approves gay, lesbian marriages (Boston Globe)
B.C. court OK's gay marriage (Winnipeg Sun)
B.C. allows gay marriages (Seattlepi.com)

Gay ex-colonel sues over dismissal. WASHINGTON -- A former Army lieutenant colonel who was discharged in 1997 for being gay has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the military sodomy statute. The suit, filed in federal court here, is based in part on the recent sweeping Supreme Court opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared that the Texas sodomy statute violated the right to privacy. Jon Davidson, senior counsel at Lamda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the federal lawsuit was the first to be filed using the landmark court ruling as a precedent. The former soldier, Loren Loomis, who filed the suit late Monday, said he was seeking to reverse his discharge and to have his military record corrected.

Loomis was discharged just one week shy of the 20-year career mark that would have entitled him to full retirement benefits after his home was burned down and a firefighter found a videotape of him engaging in sex acts with other men. The Army discharged Loomis, who was wounded in the Vietnam War, in which he won two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart, under "other than honorable" conditions, a move that deprived him of pension and benefits that he says are worth more than $1 million.

Under the policy introduced by the Clinton administration, the military cannot inquire into a soldier's sex life unless there is clear evidence of homosexual conduct. Men and women who volunteer the information can be discharged. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay rights group that monitors military justice, is assisting Loomis with his case.

I found this article on The Boston Globe called "The threat from gay marriage" by Jeff Jacoby. It was published on July 3, 2003. I found the article to be annoying and obnoxious. It falls short of truly understanding the issues involved in the granting of marriage rights to gay partners. You can read the full article (the first of two parts) from the link given above. I've decided to analyze the article and add a perspective that I suspect Mr. Jacoby can't - that from the view of someone who is fighting for those rights. It is, after all, easy to sit back and casually talk about giving or not giving rights to individuals when you have those rights. I suppose it's roughly the same as talking about people who are dying in some third world country from lack of water as you are sipping from your bottle of chilled bottled water.

In truth, same-sex marriage is not an issue about which Americans are ambivalent. Nearly every survey taken since the issue first emerged in the late 1980s confirms that they are firmly against it. Six times between 1989 and 1998, for example, the CNN/Time poll asked whether marriages between gay men or lesbian women should be legalized. No more than 31 percent ever said yes; no less than 64 percent ever said no.

''Solid majorities ... do not endorse legally sanctioned gay marriage,'' concludes Karlyn Bowman, an expert on public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute. In a recent compilation of surveys dating back to 1973, she shows that Americans have in many ways become more accepting of homosexuality. They are far more likely to have homosexual friends and to affirm the right of gays and lesbians to equality in job opportunities. Polls find majority support for homosexual teachers, doctors, politicians - even clergy. But not marriage. Americans adamantly resist the idea of men marrying men or women marrying women..

Just for the sake of argument, let's discuss the issue of slavery and human rights. When it was beneficial for white slave owners and the public at large to benefit from slavery, the general population was not in support of ending slavery. The fight to end slavery was a long and painful one for this country. We eventually came to the correct conclusion that slavery was wrong and that people are entitled to their rights as human beings. My point is this: the act of giving or denying the rights of citizens is not a popularity contest. It is an absolute. You do it because it is the right thing to do. If a citizen is in good standing with the society that he/she lives in, there is no adequate reason to deny any rights to that person if everyone else has those rights. Gay people seem to fit into the category of being in good stand with society - at least, society collects taxes from us and allows us to vote. Unless people can come up with better reasons than "I just don't like gays so I don't want them to be able to get married", or "we will be sanctioning homosexuality", they had better get used to the idea of granting equal rights to gay people, because legally, they don't have a leg to stand on.

And they are right to resist. For if same-sex marriage is made lawful, marriage itself will be gravely harmed.

Would someone please explain this one to me so that I can understand it? Explain it to me like I'm a six year old, because I don't get it. How on earth will allowing gay people to marry threaten current marriage laws? How will their marriage even effect what you have today? Churches will still have the ability in all their wisdom to deny gay people the privledge of getting married in their church. Nothing what so ever would change in regards to religion. The various denominations are still at liberty to preach that gay people are sinful and without social merit, etc., and are totally free to deny them the right to marry as well as welcoming gay people into their churches.

The issue of marriage is a civic matter. The issuance of a marriage license is given through town/city clerks who work for the state governments. Along with a marriage license is the granting of hundreds of state rights and benefits along with many federal benefits. There is no reason what so ever that these should not be granted. Religion is not the issue and any threat to straight marriage is not the issue. If anyone reading this feels differently, please feel free to open up a dialog in the comments entry below. I honestly do not see a threat to marriage, unless of course, you are equating marriage to an exclusive country club and want to keep it all to yourself. I sincerely hope that you are not cheapening marriage by doing that.

It is not by coincidence or on a whim, after all, that human societies since time immemorial have restricted marriage to opposite-sex unions. That restriction is part of a system of social taboos whose purpose is to protect families from the caustic power of unrestrained sexuality. Together with the ancient taboos against adultery and incest and the Western taboo against polygamy, the heterosexuality of marriage helps shield women and children from exploitation, cements the union between fathers and mothers, and bolsters the ethos of monogamy on which the dignity of marriage depends.

Weakening those traditional norms boosts sexual freedom, but as sexual freedom rises, the stability of families and marriage declines. The slippery slope is real, as America's experience since the sexual revolution makes all too clear. Is that a reason to condemn everything that expands sexual options? No. (How many Americans want to return to the era before reliable birth control?) But we should recognize that those options aren't free. We pay a price when we weaken common standards, especially those that pertain to marriage and sex. And the price of same-sex marriage - as even some ''queer'' theorists openly predict - may be the ruin of traditional family life.

What planet are you living on? We are not talking about "sexual freedom" here. Gay and lesbian people had sexual freedom long ago. We didn't ask for it - we seized it. With the overturning of sodomy laws in this country, we are no longer criminals for expressing it. You say that "We pay a price when we weaken common standards, especially those that pertain to marriage and sex". What standards would be weakened by giving two individuals the ability to publicly celebrate their bond with marriage? Another way to look at it would be to counter your comment with a question: What is the price we pay by sticking with the old standards that we now live with? We have an entire segment of society who are now second-class citizens. Will our tax rates be adjusted to be on a second-class tear? I don't think so. It's time to put up or shut up. If we cannot partake in ALL that this society has to offer, we shouldn't be required to pay for it!

Ah, but to say that is to run smack into what has become a familiar taunt: How does my committed gay relationship threaten your marriage? Puh-leez! I defy you to produce a shred of evidence that marriage for gays will harm anybody else.

Well, here's a shred of evidence: The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship. Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married.

Just a shred - but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples. It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones - and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place. Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably. But it's also probable that some of them weren't. In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.

I wouldn't even call that a shred of evidence. I would call it your vivid imagination going wild with you. People's desires are not something that can be reduced to statistics that will make any sense. There are undoubtedly many reasons why a marriage fails. And all of this of course depends on an assumption that sexual orientation is a choice. "I'm tired of being straight. I'm going to try being gay for awhile". It doesn't work that way. There are those who try to live a straight life who are intrinsically gay. Living a straight lifestyle doesn't make them gay - DESIRE does. At any rate, I think you would be better served focusing on the dismal statistics of straight marriage. With a divorce rate of almost 60%, I don't know how it could get much worse.

We live in a society that wants to stop gays from getting married. At the same time, I can go on any game show and watch a bunch of women compete in a contest to see who will "win" the man they are competing for. The winner will be able to either claim her one million dollar prize, or she can marry him. HOW DISGUSTING! How the hell is gay marriage going to do further harm to something like that? It isn't gay people who are harming marriage. Straight society did that all by itself.

It did my heart good to read this editorial from the Boston Globe endorsing gay marriage:

For gay marriage

A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL

7/8/2003

FOR 200 YEARS American society has drawn a steadily expanding circle of rights: the rights of blacks, then women, and then 18-year-olds to vote; of minorities, women, gays, and the physically disabled to be free from discrimination; of single mothers, adoptive parents, and other nontraditional families to receive government benefits. In the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry could not be restricted by race. In 1993 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the right to adopt children could not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court found that the benefits of legal marriage could not be withheld from lesbian and gay couples. Now seven same-sex couples have petitioned the SJC for the right to marry under civil law. Their stories of courtship and commitment are so ordinary, and their claim to equal benefits so compelling, that it seems inevitable the circle of rights will eventually widen to enfold them as well. We think the SJC should say that day has come.

The Massachusetts Constitution guarantees that ''equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.'' The plaintiffs in the case before the SJC believe that this declaration of rights means that the ''common benefits and protections'' of marriage may not be denied to couples because they are the same gender. For all the legal acrobatics offered by opponents, it is hard to see how anything other than an animus toward gays and lesbians prevents them from obtaining the same ''benefits and protections'' enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

The arguments presented by the opposition -- primarily the Massachusetts attorney general, supported by several accompanying briefs -- boil down to three. First, opponents argue that the state has an interest in limiting marriage to heterosexuals because such arrangements better advance the ''main object'' of marriage -- that is, procreation and child-rearing. Aside from the insult implied to all marriages that don't include children, the SJC has already recognized that gay parents can bear, adopt, and raise children, and the Legislature has affirmed that by passing laws about the care of children from such unions. It is a logical contortion to define the primary function of marriage as child-rearing, to allow gay couples to perform that function, then to deny them the right to form a marriage.

'Grievous' violation
Opponents also say that denying a marriage license to same-sex couples, while possibly discriminatory, is not a ''sufficiently grievous'' constitutional violation to require the court's interference with the legislative branch. Tell that to Hillary Goodridge, one of the plaintiffs, whose health care proxy document was little help when her partner of 15 years gave birth and she tried to see her newborn daughter in a neonatal intensive care unit. Or David Wilson, who was treated as a stranger by emergency medical personnel when his partner of 13 years suffered a fatal heart attack.

Finally, opponents say the Legislature should decide all issues dealing with marriage licenses. But the court is being asked for its opinion on a constitutional matter of fundamental rights -- its proper purview -- and it should deliver such an opinion. The Legislature may be asked, as in Vermont, to sort out the specific remedy. Or the SJC could simply declare that marriages between two individuals of the same gender are legal and valid.

It is worth repeating that these are civil marriages. No one is asking any religious organization to sanctify, or even recognize, these unions.

A good model for the case before the SJC is Loving v. Virginia, which ruled almost 40 years ago that bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional. It may be difficult to imagine a time when interracial marriage was considered an abomination by much of society and was specifically outlawed by many states, just as some day it will be hard to imagine that gay couples were once ostracized simply for trying to form stable families. In Loving, the Supreme Court said that constitutional rights must be vindicated despite a long history of laws to the contrary. So too with the right of same-sex couples to marry.

A social institution
It is true that most people still view marriage as an arrangement between a man and a woman. The traditional definition of marriage as a social institution designed to promote child-bearing and child-rearing is grounded in distinct gender roles that were not just socially but legally imposed for much of American history. But society, and the law, have already greatly expanded the definition of family, and civil marriage has been redefined as a partnership of equals. No doubt marriage between one man and one woman will continue to define the vast majority of unions. But that needn't be the only acceptable definition.

In Massachusetts as elsewhere, the everyday reality of same-sex families is far ahead of the law. At Little League games, school plays, and Thanksgiving dinners, gay and lesbian couples and parents are living ordinary lives. They have made moral, emotional, and financial obligations to each other and seek only the recognition and protections a legal marriage affords. ''The desire to marry is grounded in the intangibles of love, an enduring commitment and a shared journey through life,'' reads the plaintiff statement to the SJC. It is time to extend these rights -- and responsibilities -- to all Americans.

I guess if you give some nut enough rope, he will hang himself with it. I came across this in the new and thought I'd share it. I had heard of Michael Savage, but had never listened to him. I frankly have better things to do than to listen to stupid people like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. He is entitled to his opinions and ideas, and is free to express them. MSNBC apparently felt that he shouldn't express them on their dime. After this incident, they fired him.

In his Saturday talk show, he referred to one of his callers as a "Sodomite" and said he should ''get AIDS and die.'' According to MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gains, ''His comments were extremely inappropriate and the decision [to fire him] was an easy one.''

Savage and his "Paul Revere Society" advocates closing borders, deporting illegal immigrants, mandating immigrant health tests, and eliminating entitlement programs. The televised version of ''The Savage Nation'' began March 8 despite the protests of such advocacy groups as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

The incident that resulted in his firing began innocently. Savage was taking viewer phone calls about airline horror stories, and a male caller began talking about smoking in the bathroom. ''Half an hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike take your . . .'' the caller said, before he was cut off and his words became unintelligible.

Michael Saveage: ''So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?'' Savage asked. The caller replied: ''Yes, I am.'' ''Oh, you're one of the sodomites,'' Savage said. ''You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Do we have another nice caller who is busy and didn't have a nice night in the bathhouses and is angry at me today - get me another one, put another sodomite on. You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it, get trichinosis. I don't care about these bums. They mean nothing to me."

Well... guess we know how he feels about smoking in the bathroom.

It's been a nice weekend. I'm getting a bit anxious and ready to get back to work. It was a nice weekend and a time to think about all the freedom we have in this country. I actually do try to think about why we are celebrating on any given holiday. I know things aren't a good as they could be for many citizens in this country, but they are looking up. Certainly one could easily think of other countries without much of a problem that are far worse in human freedoms. With all our problems in this country, we are towards that top of the list (after Canada, of course) in granting freedom to its' citizens.

Is U.S. Congress being led by grand old gay bashers? Scalia's justifications for discriminatory conduct sound terribly familiar. Change "homosexual" to "Negro" and Scalia is at one with the authors of Plessy v. Ferguson's mandate for "separate but equal" schools, and the judges who upheld anti-miscegenation statutes.

Antonin Scalia is raging against the coming of the light. Scalia's dissent from the epochal Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy statute confirms Ayatollah Antonin's standing as the intellectual leader of the forces arrayed against equality and modernity in the United States.

In establishing the deep historical roots of anti-gay sentiment in America, for instance, Scalia took pains to note the 20 prosecutions and four executions for consensual gay sex conducted in colonial times. He noted, approvingly, that even today, "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders in their home." ......
The only thing good about the opinions from the like of Antonin Scalia is that he is so far off the wall when compared to the America we live in today that he comes off as some rabid wacko. That's not to say that people like him should be underestimated. There are more of them out there than we would like to think. We all need to stick together and realize that America is changing, and for the good. We are all the same people and we are all equal. The law of the land should allow us all to be equal under the law. That frightens many people who would like us to think that we are not equal - that there are some of us in the American populace who are less than equal. They are entitled to their opinion, but the law should be blind to race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Gay Rights Gain in California - 3 bills close to passage in legislature. So far this year, three landmark measures have won approval from the state Assembly and appear headed for certain state Senate passage. Planned new laws would ban discrimination against transgender individuals and allow registered domestic partners virtually all the same rights as married couples. Another bill would forbid the state from contracting with firms that provide benefits to heterosexual spouses, but not to registered domestic partners. The tax measure would prevent property reassessments when one domestic partner dies, keeping taxes down and providing the same protection enjoyed by surviving heterosexual spouses.

All three proposals passed the Assembly without a single Republican vote. "I don't think any California Republican has ever voted for any bill expanding gay rights," said Democratic Assemb. Mark Leno of San Francisco, sponsor of the bill to ban discrimination against transgender individuals. Leno is one of the first openly gay men elected to state office in California.....

Gay families flourish as acceptance grows. Keith Lee Grant and Daniel Tamulonis had been partners for 15 years when Keith decided their self-focused life was too empty -- that they had much more to give. So eight years ago, this interracial New York couple adopted a 2-day-old infant from Arkansas whom they named Isaac. Both dads quickly became adept at diaper changing, middle-of-the-night feeding and all the other challenges of child care.

Five years later, when life with Isaac settled into a manageable rhythm and the men were approaching 50, the cut-off age for adoptive parents, they adopted 3-day-old Trish. Keith knew all along that he wanted children and had initially thought that he and Daniel would become foster parents. But Daniel says that the experience has been delightful and rewarding. "We never looked back," he says. "I have Keith to thank for this. Having grown up gay, I never thought I would have a child in my life."

Thinking back 16 years...

If I had to describe life with one word, it would be experience. My whole life has been an endless array of experiences. I've been thinking a lot about my journey through life. I used to think that life was something that we had to endure. It was a series of very unfortunate and painful experiences that one had to go through. Along the way here and there, there would be a glimmer of happiness, if one was lucky. If not, you would have to endure the slings and arrows of life with the rest of us. In Macbeth, William Shakespeare described life thus:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Does life signify nothing? Perhaps it does. This world is full of misery and sadness. Nothing has really changed since Shakespeare wrote those words so long ago. That has been what most of my life has been. Does that mean that the first part of my life has been wasted with sadness? I used to think so and I used to be resentful of this damned world and our damned society. A good friend of mine who died years ago of AIDS told me "We have every right to hate society for what it has done to us." He was speaking from his point of view of how society hates what it does not understand. In his case, homosexuality and AIDS. It was 1987 and in the United States, AIDS was a "gay disease" in those days. Indeed, it started out even being called "GRID", or "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency". The name was later changed to AIDS. At the time he said that, I was hurting so bad from burying my friends who were dying all around me. He looked at me and said, "Bill, I love you. You can't come back here after you leave, because I won't be here. You have to live and promise that you will remember me." All I could do was to put my arms around his frail one hundred twenty-five pound body and whisper in his ear "I love you." I left shortly after, never to see him again. Life is funny that way. It's like a cruel joke. On the one hand, it tears your heart out at moments like that and makes you feel that there really is no hope. At the same time, somewhere you have the strength to say “I love you”, as though that might make a difference. It didn't. I still felt like giving up and my friend died feeling that no one in society at large gave a damn about him. He was absolutely right. No one did give a damn. He had AIDS. He was homosexual. No one cared about his plight. Now he is dead and I say, good for him! GOOD FOR HIM! He found peace and beat life at its' own game.

Ahead 16 years...

It has taken me a long time to not take life personally. Although people can sometimes be rotten, life does not discriminate. It plays with all of us equally. When you are in terrible pain, it's very difficult not to center on that pain. I used to think that I had more than my fair share. I blamed society and people for lack of understanding and compassion. In fact, that is true. Generally speaking, we as a human race are devoid of compassion or redemption. We seem to only feel better at the suffering of others, as though to say "thank God it's not me". If I remove myself from my world a bit and look upon life a bit more subjectively, is my suffering any worse than a mother who just lost her children? No, of course not. To her, the world is caving in and she has lost her family. That is tragic. The only thing that would make the tragedy worse is if she received no compassion or help from society, as though it were somehow her fault that her children are dead. That would be beyond tragic. That is how I felt when no one cared about us dying of AIDS.

Now, years later, I look back on time with a bit more objectivity. I see things from a different perspective now. I realize that life does not single people out. It can happen to any of us at anytime. On the flip side of life, there are events that happen every day that are blessings, if we choose to see them. The odd thing about life is that, when you look back on the years you have lived, the good and bad get blended together into a culmination of bittersweet memories that enrich your soul. That is the essence of life. I now realize that of all the people I have known, loved, and lost, that I was just lucky to have known them.

One of the most unforgettable memories that I have from those years was that of going on an AIDS march. We lived in the Castro neighborhood (San Francisco) in those days. A march from Castro Street to City Hall was to take place one cold October evening. It started out small but as we marched down Market Street towards City Hall, many joined us. By the time we got to City Hall, there were thousands of us. I was by myself that night in a crowd of thousands of strangers. Many had AIDS and were looking very bad. As the numbers of those who had died was read, and various speeches were being given, a feeling of doom came over me. I found myself getting low to the ground and crouching with my head down and my arms folded over my head. I just wanted it all to end. Then, I felt someone's hands on my shoulders who asked me to stand up. I did. He put his arms around me and held me tightly. I didn't even know who this was. I was crying and I said to him "Harvey said that we have to have hope, but he didn't know about this. There's no hope left." The friend who helped me up said to me "there is always hope, but you have to be strong and believe that someone cares." I turned towards the stage a brief moment and then turned around to say something to the one who had helped me, only to find he was gone, vanished. It was an eary feeling. I walked home that night. I wanted to be alone and to think. Could it be that hope wasn't dead? It was a confusing time. Shortly after that, we moved from San Francisco to New England. I knew that It was a pivotal moment in my life. I was leaving behind the one place where I was more free to be myself. At the same time, I was leaving behind horrible memories of sorrow. I felt as if I were leaving the City of Oz and venturing into the Black Forest? What would happen to us? The comfort I had was knowing that whatever happened, it couldn't be any worse than what we were leaving behind.

Present day...

So here I am, sixteen years later. During the writing of this, I have taken time to visit my old friends who I said goodbye to long ago. I have read their obituaries that now, with their age, have the smell of old used books. I have visited The Aids Quilt where many of them have memorial panels done in their memory. It seems like a lifetime ago, but I still remember the times we had together with every inflection still intact. That is my gift to them. I did not forget.

Today, my community has become so used to AIDS, it has become a way of life. We cope with it when we have to, and we help other human beings as we can, regardless of their background. Looking back on the past with resentment is what I call the "dark side", if you will. It helps no one and accomplishes nothing. The sad part of it is, we, as a society, never seem to learn much from lessons of the past. Here we are today, many of us trying to legitimize our relationships with marriage, and still being thought of and treated as second-class human beings. The real question is this: What is it in the human psyche that insists on degrading and demeaning others who aren't on a level playing field? This is exactly what causes wars, death and worst of all, apathy. When people stop caring and give up hope, what is left?

O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of
infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams (Hamlet 2.2.258-60).

We went to a Fourth of July party last night. I had a lot of fun and it was really good to see some old friends again. I'm totally open with them about being myself. It's unfortunate, but I'm only completely open with about 30 percent of the people I know. I'm sure most gay people understand that. It's bazaar in a way how the mind instantly adjusts a filter on what it will allow out and what it won't. At work, I have to project someone different, although even there, there are people who I'm a bit more open to. I'm not talking about being out of the closet. I'm "out" to absolutely everyone in my life. If you knew me, you would know that it would take too much energy for me to be in the closet. It's not that I'm obviously gay (at least, from my perspective - I have no idea what others think when they first meet me), but I don't try to hide it or push it into peoples faces. I just try to be me.

I had fun at the party, but I sometimes feel that maybe I'm a bit too open with people. There were people there that I'd never met that I ended up talking about some pretty personal things too, personal for them and me. I met one gentleman who was with another good friend of mine, and in the middle of the conversation I interrupted him and said "you have incredible eyes". It wasn't meant to embarrass him, if I did. It was just that as he was looking at me, they seem have a piercing effect. The next thing I know, I was telling him how I felt. I do the same thing here on this blog. I don't hold back. Sometimes I wonder if that's a wise thing to do. Many times I have this little voice telling me not to publish something. Early on in this blog, I said I would be myself and publish what was going on in my life. I do that, and I have done that. But I often wonder if it's the best thing to do. You are putting your life under a microscope, and some may not like what they see. For those of you who don't know me personally, it's no big deal. But some who read this do know me. It can be a bit strange.

At parties, I'm usually this very talkative outgoing guy who appears to love fun and to get to know people. That is true, I do. But I also have another side to me; a side that most of us have. It's a side of self-doubt, self-worth, depression, etc. That also goes into this blog. I have posted family issues or problems here, only because they are a part of my life and this blog will reflect that. It's never meant to hurt anyone, but words are very powerful, and one should never underestimate that.

After the party, I was uneasy. Actually, when I meet Kent's colleagues and visit with them, I always go away uneasy. I wonder if I've revealed too much or if I've been overpowering in my quest to have a good time. Have I shared too much? Did I say anything inappropriate? Do I have an overpowering personality? That's a good question. I have been told that my personality can be "formidable". I don't know if that's a good thing. But, I do know that people are what they are. There's no changing that. I try not to say anything that will embarrass Kent with his colleagues, but I don't know if I always achieve that.

The high point of the evening wasn't the sparklers and fireworks, which were really good. The high point is always meeting new people and talking about their experiences, and talking with old friends again. My only hope is they feel the same way about seeing me again.

I'm going to say some things in this article that will undoubtedly offend some of you who read this blog. They are my thoughts of marriage in general. First of all, let me start by saying that I would very much like to be married. The idea of living in a world where I could plan my wedding, invite my best friends and family, be a part of all the arrangements, and finally exchange our wedding vows on that wonderful day and share our joy, would be.... well, a dream come true for me. Why would I want this? For the same reason that anyone gets married. First and foremost to share with our friends and family the most joyous day of our lives. Secondly, but not any less important, to gain legal recognition and have access to the 588 laws in our state granting specific rights to married couples and the countless federal laws that married couples have access to.

The first one I could achieve, if I had a family who would partake in such festivities. I don't. I venture to say that if my partner and I had a wedding, there would be a few of our friends on each side that felt comfortable enough to be there. It would seem that we have along way to go before gay marriage is "normal". I don't want to get into which parts of our family would or would not join in the celebration. There are a few things (although not many) that I think are best left unsaid in a public forum. The people who I am talking about know who they are and I would like to say to them that your attitudes about this is more your loss than ours. I have dealt with the fact that we aren't fully accepted and are an embarrassment to you. That lesson didn't come cheaply for me - it hurt like hell. But, like most every gay person I know, we have dealt with it and put it into the category which it belongs ("shit"), and have moved on with life.

I'd like to talk about the "Institution of Marriage" and how it is the foundation of our society. Many people say that our society is going downhill and that "traditional values" are going out the window. That's not all bad. Those "traditional values" are the same values that instilled in people that it was ok to beat up gays while everyone turned a blind eye to the crime, including the police. And people wonder why so many gay people are leary about trusting the police. We never know if we are going to get help or get ridiculed. These "traditional values" are the same values that made us wonder if horrible crimes like that of Matthew Shepard would be prosecuted. Some of you reading this will probably think that this is just another gay man ranting about the injustices of the world. Well, if you really knew the case of Matthew Shepard, you would know that early on when the crime was unfolding, the defense for the two accused of murdering Matthew was going to argue that this was simply a gay bashing gone too far and that "boys will be boys". This is the truth and if you doubt it, do the research. The defense changed their attitude and realized that the case wouldn't go that way because the prosecutor flat out told them "don't go there. This boy is just like any boy from any American family." I remember the words and also realized that he may not have been so understanding had he not gotten to know Judy and Dennis Shepard so well.

Things are changing. The traditionalists are holding on to the last thing holding our nation together - marriage. Never mind that well over 50% of all marriages are ending in divorce. If they really thought about it a bit, they would realize that marriage has been damaged far more than gay people can damage it. If anything, we will give marriage back some of the dignity that it has lost. Think about it for a minute. If you go on television and view some of the "entertainment" of the day, you will see people playing a game show. If a contestant wins, he can choose who he (or she) wants to marry OR, they can choose to accept one million dollars instead. If they choose marriage, that marriage is honored with all the state laws in that state in addition to all the federal laws. In other words, it will be honored. There are other shows that deal with marriage in this way as well. In my opinion, nothing does more to cheapen marriage. I have yet to hear one person voicing opposition to this practice. Where is Senator Frisk during all of this? No where. He apparently sees nothing wrong with how people get married, as long as one has a penis and one has a vagina.

This brings me to the point of this article called 'Entering into the "Marriage Country Club"'. From my perspective, the comparison of marriage and membership into a country club are too close to ignore. What are the requirements of marriage. Apparently, you only have to be male and female and be of sound mind enough to know that you are getting married. Nothing else is required. You can have a wedding, or you can have the justice of the peace marry you. It doesn't matter, as long as you are male and female. If you are lucky enough to get married in Las Vegas, you may (for a fee I suppose) even get Elvis to marry you and to walk the bride down the isle. Again, to be a member of this country club, you must be male and female. Oh, and now you can also be African American as well. If you are African American, you can also marry a white person now. This was not always the case, but the kind folks of this country at one point said "gee, that's not really fair", and allowed them to marry as well. Again, you have to be male and female. So, in it's current state, marriage is a country club that only heterosexuals can join in the United States. You have to pay your admission fee (marriage license). But once you have done that, you get all kinds of wonderful prices and gifts. Behind door number 1 we have... you guessed it, STATE RIGHTS! Behind door number 2 is the inclusion of FEDERAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS!! Finally, behind door number 3 are many wonderful gifts given to you from friends and family so that the two love birds can start off their wonderful life together. We are all so happy for them!!

How dare the queers and faggots infringe upon this wonderful institution of marriage. They will only cheapen and degrade it and pull it down from the high pedestal that we have elevated it to. I used to want to get married, for the sake of having a marriage. Now, with all this controversy on gays trying to get married, I have come to realize that the institution of marriage is, well, frankly cheap and degrading. It cheapens the relationships that we have. These are relationships that in many cases have been through hell and are still intact. They have faced rejection from family, friends, and society, and somehow are still thriving. In many cases, it isn't the gay relationship that would benefit from marriage, it is the institution of marriage that would benefit from the strength of this gay relationship that has survived much societal ordeal. How many straight relationships last, even with the approval of society? Well, about 40% it seems.

I'm no longer interested in marriage. I now see it for what it is and what many of us have is so much more profound than that. What I am interested in are the legal rights that I am entitled to. I hesitate to say "entitled" because I think as Americans we have become accustomed to "entitlements" and in many cases it ends up harming our country. That being said, we pay our taxes, we commit no crimes (since the Supreme Court ruling overturning all sodomy laws), and we love each other. We are indeed entitled to these rights afforded by marriage. If the state and federal government doesn't agree, it should divorce itself from marriage and stop sanctioning it with rights and liberties altogether. The government should not be in the business of running a country club that has an exclusive membership. All citizens must have access to it. I look forward to the day when the Supreme Court utters those same words.

Justice Thomas was one of three justices dissenting in Lawrence et al v. Texas. In his separate dissent he writes "And, just like Justice Stewart [in Griswold v. Connecticut], I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy'."

Flashback to October 11. 1991 and a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 10:01 a.m., in Room SD- 325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Biden, chairman of the committee, presiding. After opening statements by Joe Biden and Strom Thurmond, then-nominee Thomas concluded his opening statement with the following paragraph:

I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation. I am not going to engage in discussions, nor will I submit to roving questions of what goes on in the most intimate parts of my private live or the sanctity of m bedroom. These are the most intimate parts of my privacy, and they will remain just that, private.

I guess we could be generous and say that Justice Thomas is not overly troubled by "a foolish consistency", unlike someone else in Washington, but I don't think I'm that generous.

Thanks to The Antic Muse for the link.

Yes, gays and lesbians have an agenda. They want to create a society where they can live in security and peace, and be accepted as humans.

Every week in West Virginia, teenagers are beaten because someone thinks they are gay or lesbian, while school officials look the other way. And in West Virginia, it is still legal to fire workers or evict them from apartments because of their sexual orientation. Ask any gay or lesbian person — it happens every day.

They seek a country where people judge them on the content of their character, not on what they do in the bedroom. America isn’t there yet, but this Supreme Court ruling brings the nation a lot closer to being a humane, decent, compassionate society. - from the West Virginia Gazette.

Editorial: Bigotry is on display. Frist has tried to present himself as a more tolerant, and tolerable, player than Lott. But, like Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum, R-Pa., Frist's "tolerance" does not extend to gays and lesbians.

In April, Santorum said, "I have a problem with homosexual acts. ... And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

While prominent Republicans such as Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, quickly distanced themselves from Santorum's suggestion that loving gay and lesbian relationships were comparable with criminal behavior, Frist stuck by Santorum. And now we know why.

Like Santorum, Frist is bigoted against gays and lesbians.

Frist's bigotry was on display when he appeared Sunday on ABC-TV's "This Week" program. Complaining about the Supreme Court decision that gays and lesbians have a right to privacy that cannot be infringed upon by the sodomy laws of states like Texas, Frist said, "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually - or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

Just as Santorum did in April, Frist made the incredible comparison of respectful monogamous relationships with criminal activity. And he pushed the limits of credibility and common sense even further by suggesting that protecting the rights of privacy for law-abiding American citizens would somehow legitimize "prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home."

Frist then called for rewriting the Constitution to reflect his bigotry - in the form of an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman. Knocking through Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state, Frist ranted on about "sacraments" and protecting "Western values."

An excellent commentary regarding Senator Frisk's comments on gay marriage:
Senator Bill Frist has come out (pardon the expression) in favor of a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage. I found his remarks on the subject amusingly illogical, and I offer a short critique for discussion. See http://www.sunspot.net/cgi-bin/ultbb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=18 for the full article.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.<

Well, technically, "criminality" is defined by the laws, and the SCOTUS has just struck down the laws in question, so private, consensual homosexual behavior is not criminal. He's seems to be confusing his idea of morality with legality, which is a problem that plagues many of his ilk.....

Wal-Mart bars anti-gay bias. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has broadened its corporate policy prohibiting discrimination to cover gay and lesbian workers, the company confirmed with CNN Wednesday.

Tom Williams, a Wal-Mart spokesman told CNN that the company implemented the changes "because it was the right thing to do for our 1.5 million employees. We feel that they need to be treated with respect and feel valued--no exceptions."

The International Bank for Settlements is not a liberal institution, and the Financial Times is not a liberal newspaper, so this story took me by surprise:

Bush tax cuts 'may sap confidence'
By Christopher Swann in London
Published: June 30 2003 19:49 | Last Updated: June 30 2003 19:49

The Bush tax cuts risk undermining confidence in the health of US public finances, according to the Bank for International Settlements, the forum for the world's central banks.
...

The BIS warned that the US risked exacerbating imbalances in the US economy which could result in a painful correction in the future. The Fed may have contributed to new imbalances, the report suggests, by fuelling a rise in house prices with its steep interest rate cuts which have led to a further build-up of debt.

The sharp reversal in US government finances has become a growing source of concern. The latest official forecast for 2003 is for a deficit of more than $400bn, compared with a budget surplus of $236bn in 2000.

Link to the entire article

There was a bubble in the financial markets at the end of the 1990s. A substantial retreat in the nation's finances was inevitable, maybe even a retreat into deficits. But the sheer irresponsibility of the tax cuts President Bush has pushed through are mind-boggling beyond belief.

But I'll give him this. He is consistent. For every problem there is the same solution -- tax cuts. A terrorist attack means that we have to spend more on security -- TAX CUTS. We have to spend $60 billion to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- TAX CUTS. The elderly need a prescription drug benefit as part of health care -- TAX CUTS.

As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." What do you suppose Emerson would have to say about President Bush?