August 2003 Archives

I haven't really heard from Wyoming since Matthew Shepard was murdered there several years ago. I read this story about someone who went after a gay man who he felt was just a bit too obviously gay. I can understand the story I suppose, because I've had the same thing happen to me. It's scary when it happens, because you don't really know if the person after you is a nut case.

Michael Grisson, 19, is accused of following and yelling obscenities and threats at the victim, Jimmy L. Bryan, 18. Defense attorney Louis Walrath claims Grissom may have been provoked by Bryan's 'gay' appearance. Walrath says a person who acts gay "invites these kind of remarks." Gee, I hope I'm never in a situation to have him as a lawyer!

You can read all about the story here if you want more info on it.

Following a ruling against Microsoft in Chicago earlier this month, Microsoft may be making changes to its Internet Explorer web browser. In mid August, Microsoft lost a civil case brought against it by Eolas Technologies and was ordered to pay the company $520.6 million for infringing on patents relating to Internet Explorer.

According to the W3C consortium, Microsoft had used Eolas-patented technology such as plug-ins, applets and scriptlets in Internet Explorer. Were the offending portions of the software to be removed, it would significantly alter the way IE works and countless Web sites would be forced to change their own to accommodate changes in IE. Microsoft has indicated that they will very soon be making changes to its Internet Explorer browser software in response to this ruling.

From Microsoft's perspective changing some of the code in its browser, which is used by about 96 percent of all web users, would allow the company to avoid paying royalty fees to Eolas. After the court's decision in the lawsuit was announced, Eolas said it would pursue Microsoft for further payments, which in the next few years could add up to hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars.

I often wonder if we'd be better off without Microsoft. Do they add value? Yes, I think they do, but when something sleazy like this comes up (which it often does in the Microsoft world), you have to stop and wonder how many times we are going to have to pay for the crap they pull. So they change the code. People like me will pay for it. Most of the people who come to my site and other sites are using Internet Explorer (determined from my web logs). It's the web masters who will be caught in the middle on this one. And all because Microsoft tried to pull a fast one and was caught. Sleazy bastards.

I know it's not wise to stereotype folks, but it's hard to find ANY veterans who aren't homophobic. When I here the topic of gays in the military come up around veterans, it's almost an instantaneous response from them about how they regret that the "old days" are gone. They would tell stories about what they did to known or suspected gays in the military during the time of World War II. Let me tell you, it's not pretty. In the mildest form, they would beat the crap out of the person until he was either killed or was forced to leave the military, at which time he was given a dishonorable discharge under Section 8. In a combat situation, the gay soldier may never return from a field mission. It would never be proven how he died, but many suspected that it was our own men who killed him. There are a lot of stories just like this.

So, when I saw this story, I was hoping that maybe over time the attitudes have changed a bit. I was hoping that people would someday recognize that the gay soldier also risked his life for his country and many times had to be the most courageous of all, not only from the enemy, but from his fellow soldiers as well.

Well, that time has obviously not come. Their objection is that "soldiers should not be honored based on sexual orientation". I actually think that it's very important for gay soldiers to be recognized. It's important to the gay community to know that so many gay men and women risked their lives for this country. A memorial showing that is certainly not asking for too much.

The news source for this story was the Contra Costa Times:

SACRAMENTO - A small marker unveiled this week in Capitol Park was hailed by gay-rights advocates as the first such state-sanctioned landmark honoring gay and lesbian soldiers killed in action.

The tiny memorial -- about a foot long -- graces the walkway of the California Veterans Memorial and is engraved with an eagle and the words, "In Honor of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Veterans Killed in Action."

But while supporters applauded the pavement marker as symbolically historic and long overdue, some veterans groups blasted it as offensive and disgraceful, saying soldiers should not be honored based on sexual orientation.

We are once again having a critical blood shortage here in Connecticut. According to the Red Cross, some hospitals will be forced to reschedule medical procedures. Here I am running around in my car and I hear this plea from the Red Cross, asking everyone who can donate blood to do so.

I would love to, and, prior to the AIDS epidemic, the Red Cross welcomed me with open arms. Now, I am permanently barred from ever giving blood again - that means, the rest of my life. I can live with that. It used to really upset me because I felt like I was being singled out, but now I just regard it as one less thing I have on my "to do" list, to do.

The policy to exclude gay people (specifically gay men) from the approved list of blood donors was created during the early 1980's when the AIDS epidemic was getting started. In those days, there were no tests that could be performed to detect the AIDS virus, and the blood supply was not being screened.

My confusion is this: why keep this policy if the blood supply (all blood) is being tested for AIDS and HIV? Also, the dynamics of AIDS has changed greatly since the 1980s. The policy does not address the rise in HIV infections among heterosexuals, thus providing a false since of security. Is the policy based on discrimination or scientific research? I don't know the answer to that. I only know that every time I hear the Red Cross asking for blood because of a blood shortage, I'm left feeling frustrated because I could be doing my part to be a good citizen and who knows, perhaps even save a life.

Bill thinking outloud.....

Without the benefit of marriage:
spend more on taxes, health insurance, legal bills

when your partner dies, the other has no access to survivor's benefits (pension and social security)

hefty legal bills for wills, power of attorney, etc. (straight married couples do not need these)

if one of you dies, the other one is a legal stranger

not eligible for club membership discounts (for example, the American Automobile Association offers family memberships only to legally married couples, while car rental and insurance companies charge an extra driver fee to unmarried couples)

any cash gifts between spouses are tax free, whereas an unmarried gay couple must pay tax on gifts over $10,000 per year

when one partner dies, the other can incur inheritance taxes avoided by married spouses, who inherit up to $1 million untaxed

joint ownership of property, cash and other assets is also more complex since responsibility for the taxes on each amount is unclear

in the case of divorce, you can't take advantage of tax shelters for liquidation of property that married people can

when selling a house residency requirements for the capital gains tax exemption are less stringent for married couples

even when an employer does offer domestic partnership benefits, they usually end up costing the employee more in taxes than his or her married counterpart would pay, because such benefits are treated as taxable income, whereas the federal tax code extends these benefits to married spouses as part of a worker's pre-tax income.

federal laws dictate that a large part of a pension plan must go to the surviving legal spouse, but each company decides if its employees can name a non-spouse as beneficiary.

unmarried partners cannot roll their partner's 401K (or other retirement investment plan) into their own, which means they don't get the same tax breaks as a married person.

ok... now that I've totally depressed myself, I guess I'll take a walk and reflect about how much I love being a second-class citizen in this country that I love. I hate injustice and wonder why we have so much of it built into our legal system in a country the boasts of having "justice for all".

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
-- Susan B. Anthony

Take a look at this from today's Washington Post

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.

The good news is that "the Bush administration for the first time is exploring the creation of a multinational military force under United Nations leadership" (U.N. troops considered for Iraq duty), but I have to wonder. Why would anyone take us seriously when a United States firm gets no-bid contracts worth nearly $2 billion, especially when the Administration has made it clear that they're not particularly interested in letting companies from other countries in and when the former chief executive of that corporation is our own Vice President. (Is he still in an "undisclosed location"? I haven't seen him on TV for quite a while.)

I've read about this case off and on over the months. Although hate crime charges were not filed against Treve's three attackers, there is no doubt in my mind that the attack was motivated by hate. It seems that to prove it as a hate crime, you must use hatred-filled terms as you are beating your victim to a pulp, such as "faggot" or "queer", etc.

If you think a bit about this, Treve was attacked outside his West Hollywood home - an area heavily populated with gays. He was attacked just afer he had embraced a male friend. This all leaves me asking the question, "Why were they there?" and "Why that area?". It just seems suspicious to me.

News source for this strory is 365gay.com.

(Los Angeles, California) One of three men charged in the vicious baseball bat beating that left actor Treve Broudy near death pleaded guilty Wednesday to mayhem and conspiracy to commit robbery.

The openly gay model and actor, who appeared in the movie The Fluffer and did commercial voiceover work, was attacked as he walked with a friend on a West Hollywood street September 1, 2002.

The beating was so severe Broudy was knocked unconscious and was in a coma for nearly a week. He suffered a loss of vision in one eye and still has difficulty reading.

I came accross this article from The Courier-Journal in Kentucky. It's about a man who was killed after allegedly making a pass at his killer. If that were a capital offence I know a lot of people who would be dead now. The victim apparently knew his killer, which is probably why he went to the hotel room to begin with. Just goes to show you that you may never fully know people as well as you think you do.

HARDINSBURG, Ky. — A man police have charged with the murder of a Rineyville resident, whose body was stuffed into a suitcase and thrown into Rough River Lake earlier this summer, admitted he killed the man because he dislikes homosexuals, his relatives said in statements to Kentucky State Police.

Josh Cottrell's aunt and cousin told police that Cottrell told them he had planned to kill Guinn "Richie" Phillips because Phillips was gay. Relatives said Cottrell strangled Phillips after Phillips made a pass at him in an Elizabethtown motel where Cottrell was staying, according to documents filed in Breckinridge Circuit Court. Phillips disappeared June 17. His body was found in a suitcase on June 25.

The body of Guinn "Richie" Phillips (left) was stuffed into a suitcase and thrown into Rough River Lake earlier this summer. He had disappeared about a week earlier.

Josh Cottrell (right) was indicted on charges of murder, robbery, tampering with physical evidence and being a persistent felon. He's being held in the Breckinridge County jail.

I was talking to a friend today who is back at work after being treated for breast cancer. She's in good spirits and is a strong-willed person, but it has taken its toll. Breast cancer runs in her family affecting nearly seventy percent of the women in her family. It's hard for most of us to feel what that would be like... the fear and uncertainty. The closest thing I can compare it to in my own experience is having my close friends who were like family to me come down with AIDS. You don't know how many in your family it will effect, and you are living in a state of fear and uncertainty.

I know a lot of breast cancer research is being done, but it seems like we really don't give a lot of thought to this horrible disease. It effects so many of us in our general population. You would think it would get more attention. I'm just saying this based on my own experience. I don't honestly remember the last time that I thought about this.

As I was talking to her about what she had been through, she was very upbeat about it all, but that's the kind of person she is. To myself, I was thinking, "this sucks!". I do understand that you have to remain positive. I did that many a time as I was trying to give support to my friends who had AIDS. Outlook is important.

If you'd like more information about breast cancer or want to make a donation, visit the American Breast Cancer Foundation.

As I've grown older (and hopefully wiser), I've come to realize the power of the dollar. I never used to think about it. I would buy whatever it was that I needed without really thinking about the philosophy of the company I was buying it from. If the company had oppressive policies towards its workers or was hostile to my community, by buying their products I am in effect an accomplice in their actions. I, in an indirect way, say that what they are doing is "ok".

Well, it's not ok. Just as I have the power of the vote in voicing who I think should be in government, I also have a vote with my money. Every single time you buy anything, you are casting a vote for the company that you are buying from. That is power!

We need to think more about that. Myself, I'm a Reebok customer but from now on, I will be buying Nike. Why? To cast my vote and let Nike know that I approve of their policies and what they do for all their workers. Just think, if every single gay American would do this, how many companies do you think would come around and create equal rights for its gay and lesbian workers and their domestic partners? News source for this story was The Business Journal of Portland.

Beaverton, Ore.-based Nike Inc. received a perfect score in the Human Rights Campaign's second ranking of how large domestic companies treat gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.

The campaign, which bills itself as the nation's largest lesbian and gay political organization, rated companies on a scale of zero percent to 100 percent on seven factors including written non-discrimination policies, health insurance coverage for employees' same-sex domestic partners and diversity training.

You know, when I first saw this episode on Boy Meets Boy where Michael Jason Tiner came out on the show, I was thinking to myself, "uh oh". I was hoping he wouldn't get in trouble for this. I wasn't sure if he was still in the military or perhaps he was not on active duty.

The Navy has discharged Jason because of his appearance on the show. The don't ask, don't tell policy of gay people in the military has once again claimed another victim. Another soldier in our military without one blemish on his record is gone and I'm left wondering, who really lost out here, us or him? It's time for this stupid policy to be abolished. The US military (our government) has to get over the idea that gay men really are not interested in seeing the penis's of straight men! I've lost a lot of respect for our military over this policy. They need to grow up and realize that gay people are a large part of this society and a large part of the military. And John Ashcroft, if you are reading this, fuck you! You and the current administration are a big part of the problem.

The news source on this story is the Southern Voice Online:

SAN DIEGO — The television gay dating game “Boy Meets Boy” may be counting on a dramatic conclusion in next week’s final episode, but one of its most intriguing developments already took place, off-camera.

One contestant, a gay combat systems instructor for the Navy, was discharged from the military for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

News source: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

A state judicial review panel suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore with pay Friday for defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the State Judicial Building. .....

The eight associate justices of Alabama's Supreme Court voted unanimously Thursday to overrule Moore and comply with U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument.

This is a subject that to me is very black and white. As someone who was raised a Christian I can understand the conviction of those who want the Ten Commandments to stay in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building. As a gay man, I fully understand as a minority how dangerous a precedence that can be. With the mindset established in the minds of the people living in Alabama, if I were charged with a crime and it came out that I am also homosexual, do you think that religion wouldn't enter into the argument? Say that I am the victim of a brutal gay bashing. I'm in the courtroom facing my attackers. Would they get a lighter sentence because they beat up someone who the jurors felt was "an abomination" to God? It's hard to say. But, it doesn't give me much comfort to know that religion would at some level enter into the argument. That, I'm certain of. Of course, many arguments like this can be made. I used my particular issue as a gay man as an example. The same could be said I suppose for someone convicted of rape, or incest, or any of a number of issues thought to be "sinful".

Government institutions must remain just that - government institutions. The should be blind to religious issues and focus only on handing down justice for crimes committed, without any influence from religion. This is why the Ten Commandments must leave the rotunda of the State Judicial Building.

I saw this story and thought it was really great to see other couples like Kent and myself getting ahead in the world. Sometimes, really nice things do happen to people. It's important to remind ourselves of that on occassion and enjoy life. Despite the jerks, it can still be a wonderful world.

News source: gay.com.Shocking even themselves, gay couple Chip Arndt and Reichen Lehmkuhl took home the $1 million prize Thursday night on CBS' "The Amazing Race," but they also shined the spotlight on another race -- the battle for equality.

In the nail-biting season finale, after hitting four continents and 24 cities and journeying 44,000 miles, the pair from Los Angeles, whom the show's producers referred to as "married," crossed the finish line first in Arizona.

After host Phil Keoghan announced they'd won, the duo screamed and cried with joy.

"There's no way I could've gotten through this without Reichen's support and patience. What I realized throughout the race is how much I need him and how much he needs me," said Arndt, an entertainment finance consultant, after winning the race. "In the end, people look at both Reichen and myself and they see love, and they realize that Reichen and I are partners, and together, we can do anything."

Update: UPS Gay Suit Settled - 02-19-2004

I'm frankly a bit surprised to hear this from UPS. I would have thought that a company as big and diverse as United Parcel Service would be a bit more enlightened and sensitive to its employees. This story makes me sick. I would expect something like this to happen with a smaller company like the one I work for, but not UPS. As for me, I'm going with another carrier from now on until they issue a public apology for this.

The way companies treat their employees should be in all our minds when we choose that company to do business with. If you choose a company who you know openly discriminates as UPS did, what does that say about you? Think about it. News source: Contra Costa Times.

A gay San Francisco couple sued United Parcel Service Inc. on Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming that the package delivery company unfairly discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation.

The dispute revolves around a benefit that allows UPS managers to follow their spouses to other cities and still keep their jobs and seniority.

Daniel Kline, one of the plaintiffs, has worked for the Atlanta-based company for 20 years, the last 16 of which he spent as a supervisor in Oakland.

Last October, Kline's partner of 27 years, Frank Sories, got notice that he would be transferred to Chicago in January by United Airlines, his employer of 19 years. Sories was four years from receiving full retirement benefits so he took the transfer.

In November, Kline applied for a transfer to Chicago and at first received approval from his bosses and district human resources staff, according to the lawsuit. But in January his transfer request was denied. His Oakland attorney, Alexander van Broek, sent UPS six letters and heard back that Kline was not qualified for a transfer because he was not married.

I suppose you have to consider the source on this one. It came from the Family Research Council (news source Yahoo), a right wing organization whose purpose among other things is the total elimination of all civil rights for gay people. They won't say that because that would sound bad, but they wouldn't feel bad about it if that happened. In fact, these people wouldn't feel bad if all the gays just went away.

The only thing I can say about Rev. King's "I Have a Dream" speech is this: if the words are true for one group, they are true for all groups. Otherwise, they mean nothing.

On August 23rd, groups from around the nation will gather at the Lincoln Memorial to mark the 40th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. The "March on Washington" event is co-sponsored by a number of liberal organizations, and this year, it will incorporate homosexual activist organizations. The Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council strongly opposes the hijacking of the civil rights movement by homosexual activists, and believes that homosexual behavior cannot be equated with such innate characteristics as sex or race.

I saw this article and thought... how ironic. The very author of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is now speaking out against a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This from 365gay.com:

Bob Barr in an op ed article for the Washington Post calls the proposed amendment "unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive."

Marriage is a state responsibility, Barr writes, arguing that the federal government has no business interfering with state's rights.

Do you feel safer now than you did two years ago? John Ashcroft thinks you should, and he's spending your tax dollars on a month-long publicity tour for the U.S.A. Patriot Act trying to convince you. He even has a web site: Preserving Life & Liberty.

I understand that we live in a dangerous world and that some restrictions on our personal liberty may be necessary to ensure our safety. Unlike a lot of people, I don't resent the additional security at airports. I'm pleased to see it. But there's something about Ashcroft that scares me. He seems never to have heard of a surveillance technique that he didn't want to use, and seems not to notice that there's a problem when the President can declare a U.S. citizen to be an "enemy combatant", depriving that person of all normal rights of a criminal defendant. Granted, the "enemy combatant" ploy isn't part of the Patriot Act, but how much confidence can you expect me to put in an Attorney General who defends it? How can you expect me to believe him when he tells me the Patriot Act needs to give him more intrusive power?

I'm sorry. I don't trust John Ashcroft any further than I can spit, and I can barely miss my toes.

This from the New York Post:

August 19, 2003 - More than half of Americans favor a law that bars gay marriage and specifies that wedlock is between a man and a woman, an Associated Press poll found. The survey also found presidential candidates could face a backlash if they support gay marriage or civil unions, which provide gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

The poll, conducted for the AP by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa., found 52 percent favor a law banning gay marriages, while 41 percent oppose it.

Closing eyes and taking three deep breaths... I don't know where all of this is going to wind up. I don't personally believe that the Constitution will end up being changed to define marriage as one man, one woman. I could be wrong, but I don't think that will happen. I'm more concerned with the environment that we are now living in. Tensions are high and suddenly we have shifted from being acceptable to being a group who wants to destroy marriage. We aren't out to destroy marriage. We just want to be part of our society. We want equal rights, and we have every right to ask for and expect that.

I went to lunch today at one of my usual sandwich places. I got out of my car and noticed that this guy was glaring at me. He was a middle-aged white man. I could tell he was pissed off at something. I looked away from him thinking that I had done something to offend him. Then he yells at me, "You fucking faggots aren't going to destroy marriage in my lifetime. You'll be taken out first!" I don't really enjoy using language like that in my journal, but I think it's important to show the level of hate that is out there. It's certainly not the first time something like this has happened to me, but it's very unnerving when I'm going there with my work on my mind to be confronted with that. I assume that he concluded that I am gay from my bumper sticker (I have a rainbow bumper sticker), or perhaps from the way I was carrying myself (I'm never sure if I look gay or not, although some people say I have gay mannerisms). Whether I do or not is not the issue. I shouldn't have to put out energy to not be me. That's ridiculous. I for one will have a greater sense of my own personal security. I usually eat there, and I usually go inside, get a table, and take a few minutes to just unwind a bit. Today, I got my food and took off. I just wanted to get away from there, and I don't honestly know if I'll go back. I suppose it could happen anywhere. If the police had been there, I would have told them, but I'm not sure if I'd actually get any support from them. They are part of the same system. What if their feelings are the same as this man who apparently had such hatred for me? I'm thinking of perhaps carrying pepper spray with me now. We still live in a free country right? Because today, it's feeling a little bit Iraqish to me.

Just be careful out there. Keep your wits about you and always know who is around you at all times. And remember, it's not all the population who feels this way. We have friends and allies out there as well. We need to remember that despite what these polls are saying, the granting of civil rights is not done by a popularity contest. In the end, I believe honor and good will triumph in our fight for equal rights.

It's important to keep our cool when everyone else seems to be losing sight of what is really important here. I'm going to pull a thought from a well known poem that I think is appropriate to what the gay population in America is going through right now. Some find the poem trite, but I think it does have a message for us. Read the poem, and really try to follow it. I think it will help us. The highlighting is my own.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

IF by Rudyard Kipling

I spotted this story from The Miami Herald concerning the new Harvey Milk School in New York City:

If the problem is straight kids harassing gay ones, I'm not convinced the best solution is to send the gay ones packing. Especially since the real world doesn't work that way, doesn't allow you to be sealed away in some safety zone from that which makes your life miserable.

If New York schools have $3.2 million to spend on this problem, maybe they should use the money to do what schools are supposed to do: educate. Teach tolerance to the little miscreants who think hitting a gay kid somehow makes them bigger than they are. Teach it to educators and administrators who allow that behavior.

I agree with that to some extent. If the school officials were doing their job and stopping the harassment, we wouldn't need places for gay students who are suffering from harassment. Below are reasons why we need the Harvey Milk School. They speak louder than anything I can say about it. I would also direct you to the story I published of George Loomis, a gay high school student who was forced to drop out of high school because of harassment. No one did anything about it, and because of it, George was unable to gain acceptance to the UC system. He later sued the school district successfully, but nothing will bring back the experience and the years that he lost.

Below I have listed just a few cases in the last few years. The list goes on and on (on the list I'm reading, over 300 cases of harassment). I've listed just a few.

CALIFORNIA April 1998: Five students file a lawsuit against the Morgan Hill Unified School District claiming that officials at Live Oak High School and Murphy Middle School did nothing to stop antigay harassment dating back to 1991. One of the plaintiffs, a seventh-grader, was hospitalized after a group of boys repeatedly beat him at a school bus stop while shouting antigay epithets. The bus driver, the suit says, did nothing.

MASSACHUSETTS
May 1999: Two students at Northfield Mount Hermon School corner a 17-year-old fellow student and carve HOMO in five-inch block letters across his back with a pocketknife. They say they targeted the boy because he likes the British rock band Queen, whose lead singer, Freddie Mercury, died of AIDS-related complications in 1991.

January 2000: A Boston High School student is sexually assaulted and beaten unconscious on a subway by a trio of female classmates who assumed she’s gay because she holds hands with girls. The victim, a Moroccan, grew up in a culture where hand-holding among schoolgirls is customary.

NEVADA
January 2000: Derek Henkle, a former Reno student, sues the school district there for failing to protect him from antigay harassment, including threats that he would be dragged from a pickup truck and an incident in which a lasso was thrown around his neck.

NEW YORK
September 1999: After many days of being subjected to antigay harassment, a 16-year-old gay student at Shenendehowa High School in Clifton Park is ganged up by five students. After he hits one of his tormentors on the head with a stick, he is suspended. School officials allegedly take no action against the assailants. The incident prompts school officials to add the words sexual orientation to the school’s antiharassment policy.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the gay high school, but I'm not willing to wait until we have a murder case to give my support to this school.

I'm publishing this story from the September 26, 2000 issue of The Advocate. I thought it was appropriate given the story/controversy over the Harvey Milk School in New York City. Many feel that the school is unnecessary. This story of George Loomis is only one of many that happen every year.

George Loomis sued the Visalia Unified School District for all the harassment he suffered at the hands of teachers and students. In August 2002, the district agreed to pay $130,000 to end the lawsuit.

Triumph over trauma Forced out of two high schools, George Loomis fights for other gay students By Sabrina McIntosh, From The Advocate, September 26, 2000

George Loomis was an above-average high school student. He was active in student government and even served as the student representative on the Visalia [Calif.] Unified School District board of trustees. His grade point average was above 3.5. Then last October, Juan Garcia, his Spanish teacher at Golden West High School, turned to him and spoke.

“He looked at me and said, ‘Only two kinds of men wear earrings, pirates and faggots, and there isn’t any water around here.’ After that he started calling me ‘pirate,’ ” Loomis, 18, recalls. “He said that during class, in front of all the other students. I was humiliated.”

This is frightening. John Dean (yes, that John Dean) reports:

On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother of three-year-old twins - was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm.")

Time magazine published the story on July 17, and Newsday published it on July 22. Novak says that "two senior Administration officials" sought him out; Time attributes "government officials"; and Newsday notes that a "senior intelligence official" said that Wilson worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer" (quotes are from the Dean article).

Why is the Bush administration naming clandestine CIA operatives to journalists? Dean argues that

The answer is clear. Former ambassador Wilson is famous, lately, for telling the truth about the Bush Administration's bogus claim that Niger uranium had gone to Saddam Hussein. And the Bush Administration is punishing Wilson by targeting his wife. It is also sending a message to others who might dare to defy it, and reveal the truth.

I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but I find it hard to believe that any administration would reveal the identity of CIA operatives for such crass political reasons. Having said that, what possible reason could there be? Given the enormous threat such leaks could pose to our ability to gather foreign intelligence, it seems to me that the House and Senate Intelligence committees ought to be asking that question. Why aren't they?

I'd like to talk a bit about this gay backlash that I've read is taking place in the United States. It's easy to look at figures and say "Oh my God! People suddenly hate us and want us to go away!" The fact is, those feelings have always been there. With all the publicity all the sudden about gays in the media, gay programming, and gay people in political circles, peoples attitudes on these issues are also coming out of the closet.

Three separate Gallup polls since the Supreme Court overturned a Texas sodomy law in June have shown declining support for homosexual rights. The percentage of Americans who responded that "homosexual relations between consenting adults" should be legal had increased from 32 percent in 1986 to a high of 60 percent this May. But a poll in late July showed that number had dropped to 48 percent, the lowest in four years. The polls were conducted before the Episcopal Church confirmed the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop last week.

I'm not really sure what people are so surprised about. This is human nature. If you put something out there that people have never in their lives experienced before, they will usually respond to it negatively, unless it in some way benefits them directly.

I think intellectually most straight people would want equal rights for all law-abiding citizens. Emotionally, that can be a different matter, and when the debate shifted to allowing gay people to fully marry, it became an emotional issue for many people. They must feel very insecure and think that society has lost its marbles. We have a few things going for us. Not many, but what we have going for us is very powerful.

I spotted this letter to the editor in today's Hartford Courant. It's always interesting to see what people in my neck of the woods feel about gay marriage.

Kathleen Parker [Other Opinion, Aug. 13, "It's OK To Be Concerned About Gay Marriage"] stated: "And it is not homophobic to suggest that we may have lost our minds." By saying we may have lost our minds to consider gay marriage seems, at best, controlling and, at worst, homophobic. What does it matter to Parker why two people get married? Recreation, procreation - what business is it of anyone else?

On the same day, a letter ["Tolerance Being Expolited"] made references to Vatican statements against gay unions.

If it is true that to encourage same-sex child-rearing is to do psychological violence to the children because of their need for the experience of a mother and a father (as stated by the Vatican), then aren't all single mothers who share expenses with other single mothers doing the same psychological violence to their kids? What about when one parent dies and the other parent moves in with same-sex relatives to raise the kids? Would the answer be that in this case, no, the parent died, therefore the child had no choice? Well, kids up for adoption can't choose to be with their parents. They would probably rather be loved by gay men or lesbian women than stuck in orphanages or shuttled between foster homes.

Parker asks, "Is gay marriage constructive? Is it useful to society?" If one shortens this to "Is marriage constructive and useful for society? List why." Most answers on the list would apply to both groups. Gay men and lesbian women can raise heterosexual children the same as other men and women. They pay taxes; they volunteer to help out for civic duties; they are people.

As a married woman with three children, I will teach my kids love. If you don't agree with homosexual behavior, don't do it. But don't judge others for it, either. It is not too hard to believe that all we need is love.

(name withheld by webmaster), Haddam, CT

I read this column by Bessy Reyna in the August 15th issue of the Hartford Courant. I very much enjoyed the points Bessy made about straight marriage and the state of marriage today. I hope you enjoy it as well. It is reproduced here with the author's permission:

What a wild and crazy heterosexual guy Geraldo Rivera seems to be. In his memoir, aptly titled "Exposing Myself," he discloses his many infidelities during four marriages. Now Rivera has married for the fifth time and to a woman 30 years his junior. We'll see if the big religious ceremony and reception will keep him from going back to his old tricks.

Rivera is now neck and neck with Billy Bob Thornton in approaching the record of that other oft-married celebrity Elizabeth Taylor. In a great display of heterosexual love, Taylor has had eight marriages and seven husbands. Her first marriage, to Nicky Hilton in 1950, was a fairy-tale affair designed and produced by MGM studios. Later husbands, particularly Richard Burton, significantly helped to increase Taylor's jewelry collection.

These folks are just so lucky to not be gay. They have had the opportunity to defend marriage over and over and over again, exchanging spouses like buying and selling stocks in the heterosexual commodities market.

Lately, you can't hear or read the news without encountering the words "gay" and "marriage" or "civil union," lumped together as items of great controversy - particularly since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy statutes and the Episcopal Church, in a cliffhanger, voted to confirm the openly gay Rev. V. Gene Robinson as a bishop. The same Episcopal conference also approved an option for dioceses to allow clergy to bless gay and lesbian unions.

However, not everyone is as supportive of gay unions. In Hartford, a coalition of black church leaders is organizing a march on the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut next Tuesday. What is alarming about this group is that it includes the Rev. Wayne Carter, the city school board chairman. Maybe Carter is not aware that because of the constant harassment gay teens face in schools, New York City is opening a new school for gay and lesbian students. One can assume that Hartford gay and lesbian students who share that experience will find no sympathy if they complain to Carter.

As is to be expected, the Vatican is urging Catholic and non-Catholic lawmakers to oppose civil marriages for gays and lesbians. Fundamentalist right-wing religious leaders trudge their well-worn path to talk shows to defend heterosexual marriage. Now President Bush is reviving attempts to codify marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

But they all seem to be talking about the idealized version of marriage, the one in which, after a beautiful ceremony (civil and religious), the couple has children and they all live happily ever after. In today's real version, that marriage stands only a 50 percent chance of surviving.

Still, President Bush was quick to invoke the Defense of Marriage Act against the possibility of civil unions and same-sex marriages. His lawyers are looking for the best way to prevent them. Bush, who was willing to use half-truths to lead us into war, now uses the term "sinners" to define a couple of the same gender who are committed to a long-term, loving relationship. He would deny them the opportunity to be legally a part of the society to which they contribute greatly. In a secular democracy like ours, we know that civil marriage brings many legal advantages, including health and pension benefits and transfer-of-property advantages, just to name a few.

I wonder how Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter is openly lesbian, feels about President Bush's efforts to maintain the status quo of heterosexual marriages. Perhaps Cheney has forgotten that during a vice presidential debate he said, "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or - or prohibit behavior in that regard."

What all this talk about marriage between "a man and a woman" really means is that I can get married as many times as I want - as long as my partner is of the opposite sex. Then I can live my married life in any kind of relationship - loving, violent, neglectful. I can have children who might be loved, neglected or abused. And if I choose, I can get a divorce and start all over again, and again, as many times as I want.

I hope that when the time comes, gays will do better than that.

Bessy Reyna is a free-lance writer whose column appears once a month.

A different kind of article from uk.gay.com:

At a time when religious and conservative right wing groups are attempting to dismiss homosexuality as "unnatural", a leading zoologist has said gay people could be seen as the "pinnacle of evolution".

Speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival, Clive Bromhall said that mankind's evolution has resulted in a present state of "infantilism", where we break the primate mould by being playful, creative and child-like right into adulthood.

“From men's obsession with swollen breasts to our constant search for a pseudo-parental God, everything about the human species is infantile," Bromhall said in a lecture.

ok.. I admit... he lost me when he started talking about "men's obsession with swollen breasts"! Other than that, yeah, I think I'm pretty evolved!

The San Francisco board of supervisors voted this week 8-0 to give initial approval to a bill by Supervisor Chris Daly that would require the city to recognize domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriages that were lawfully entered into elsewhere. This is the first bill of its kind in the country. From the article:

Same-sex couples who entered into a civil union in Vermont, or registered as domestic partners in Berkeley or got married in the Netherlands, for instance, would have the same status in San Francisco. Daly's measure, which he said is largely symbolic, would allow those out-of-town couples to skip the step of registering their partnerships at City Hall.

The city's domestic partners law is mainly intended to benefit city workers, who can share their work-place benefits with their domestic partner. The law also gives all domestic partners such rights as hospital visitation privileges and property tax protections.

I got this great idea that I would start working out again and going to the gym regularly (4-5 times a week). I did that. In fact, I even hired a personal trainer (Jim) to help out with advice. It's working. I can see muscle toning beginning, but my body is protesting loudly. In fact, I haven't been able to go for the last 3 days because last weekend I was feeling so good about it that I increased the weight as well as the reps. BIG MISTAKE! All week long I've been fighting aches and pains similar to that of the flu and have had no energy. I'll try to get back into it again today or tomorrow. After the last two weeks, I'm not ready to give it up. Gotta keep truckin!

I read an interesting article concerning the church role in gay unions (I guess we aren't suppose to use the "M" word yet). The article starts with:

A strong majority of the public disapproves of the Episcopal Church's decision to recognize the blessing of same-sex unions, and a larger share of churchgoing Americans would object if their own faith adopted a similar practice, according to a new Washington Post poll.

So broad and deep is this opposition that half of all Americans who regularly attend worship services say they would leave their current church if their minister blessed gay couples, even if their denomination officially approved those ceremonies, the survey found.

As courts, companies and congregations nationwide consider what standing to give gay couples, the poll demonstrates strong public disapproval of any religious sanctioning of same-sex relationships.

Church vs. state
It underscores the sharp distinction most Americans make between relationships blessed by the church and those recognized by the law.

"Americans are saying, 'We're willing to move pretty far on this issue, we're much more tolerant than we used to be, but don't mix it up with religion and God,' " said Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.

All of the attention of late has been on the legalization of gay relationships from a legal point of view. At least, that is what the debate should be about. Lawmakers in Washington for the most part seem to not have the ability to separate church and state. They want a constitutional amendment stating that "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman. Again, they loose the distinction of what the state has sanctioned. The federal government has extended over 1000 specific rights to the institution of marriage. As for my state of Connecticut, 588 laws currently on the books extent specific rights to marriage. Herein lies my problem with marriage.

I would be just as happy to call gay marriages "civil unions", or some other like name, as long as the rights and privileges of marriage extended to those relationships for federal and state sanctioned rights. I thought that was the problem many lawmakers in Washington had with extending equal marriage rights to gay couples, but I was wrong. Not only do they not want gay couples to have those rights, but they do not want us to be able to get married in any way, shape, or form. That is what the "Federal Marriage Amendment" is all about. It will write bigotry right into the constitution. I believe their goal is to marginalize us from the rest of society.

But then I started to think about the many gay couples who want their marriage to mean something other than the extension of legal rights. To many, the joining of two people is a religious experience. They want the support not only of the state and federal governments, but of their friends, family, and people they worship God with. This is a big problem for most churches and one they are going to have to come to terms with. It will come down to actually turning people away from church because the values of those people cannot be reconciled with the church. This is a huge problem for biblical teaching in general - turning people away from God? That is not something that Jesus stood for, in my knowledge of Biblical teaching. Of course, as we all know, anyone can make the Bible say anything to justify ones' actions, even to the point of killing others in the name of God.

Source: 365gay.com - (Los Angeles, California) The Roman Catholic Church says the confirmation of the first gay bishop of the Episcopal church could jeopardize relations between the two faiths.

I say good riddance. Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting to the point where they want to tell the Catholic Church to go to hell? I'm not saying this about many Catholics who do their best to find their way in life and in this church, but the Catholic Church has in recent years become nothing but a church led by small-minded bigots dressed in robes who are interested in protecting their enterprise (if you really think this has nothing to do with money, I have a bridge to sell you!).

It's a sad reflection on the Catholic Church too. They could be using their money to reach out to people in need of help. Instead, the choose to use rhetoric that divides and instills hostility in people.

I can't help but think that they are using gay marriage and the installation of the first gay Episcopalian bishop to draw attention away from their own house with all the accusations of sexual abuses of priests. The issue of gay marriage has provided them with a nice distraction from that controversy. Jesus would not be impressed.

Anyone who's seen more than 5 minutes of a Fox News broadcast knows they call themselves "fair and balanced." You can decide for yourself whether the description is accurate, but before you decide to describe anything you produce as fair and balanced, you had better check with your lawyer. Fox registered the phrase "Fair & balanced" as a trademark in 1995. So Fox News isn't just fair and balanced it's Fair & Balanced™.

Why do I mention this? Well, Al Franken has written a book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right that will be published in late September. It seems that the folks at Fox were not amused by the title. They filed a trademark infringement lawsuit on Monday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan to stop his publisher from including the offending phrase in the title of his book.

According to the Associated Press:

The lawsuit also says that Franken has been described as "increasingly unfunny.''

I have news for the good folks at Fox. There's someone decidedly "unfunny" here, and it isn't Al Franken.

I found this interesting. A 1997 study by the General Accounting Office showed that there are more than 1,000 federal rights, benefits, obligations and protections associated with marriage that gay and lesbian couples currently have no access to. Here's the top five:

Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouse’s Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death.

Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. While some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is considered taxable income. When married spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free.

Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and a heterosexual spouse gets the stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of the estate.

Preferential estate tax treatment. The $1 million estate tax limitation doesn’t apply to married people: a heterosexual married person can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without owing one penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property.

Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance. Some enlightened companies - the Hartford was among the first – offer family discounts to gay and lesbian couples, but it is not yet an industry standard.

The other benefits given by marriage:
Insurance benefits through a spouses employer
Insurance discounts offered to married couples and related persons living in same household
Veterans/military benefits offered to spouses (education, medical care, housing loans)
Income tax deductions, credits and exemptions
Tax relief for natural disaster losses
Immigration of foreign partners
Witness and court testimony rights
Continuation of lease rights (renewal of lease)
Community property rights
Payment of wages for deceased partners and workers compensation benefits
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement
Consent to post-mortem examination
Right to make burial arrangements
Bereavement leave for partner, child, or partner's close relative
Family leave to care for partner or child during illness
Right to make decisions in medical emergencies ("next of kin")
Visitation rights for partner or child in hospital or other public institutions
Custodial rights for a seriously injured partner
Right to file a wrongful death suit
Tuition discounts/use of facilities
Company benefits/perks offered to spouses
Commercial discounts/incentives offered only to married couples or families
Joint child custody, adoption and foster care rights
Equitable divison of property, child custody, visitation rights and support in the case of divorce
The right to obtain domestic violence protection orders

Every once in awhile I'll come across a story about a gay couple who are having problems with US Immigration. One of them is a citizen of the United States and the other one is staying in the US with a work visa. Once the visa expires, one of them has to leave the country, or they both have to leave the United States. Without legal status of marriage, there are really no options left. This happened to a couple of friends of mine years ago. Rather than having to end their relationship, the one who was the United States citizen had to leave the United States with his partner. They ended up going from country to country with no real home.

This is the case of the couple I read about today. They are in the process of selling their home and their possessions and must leave the country when the work visa expires in April, 2004.

Under immigration law, only family members can sponsor foreigners for green cards. The permanent partner immigration act now being considered by Congress would create a new category that would give same-sex partners the same privilege without the benefit of marriage.

111 Congress members support the bill, but that's far short of what's needed for passage. And with the current anti-gay marriage atmosphere, this bill won't have a chance in a Republican-controlled Congress. The bill has been introduced in Congress every year for the past three years.

MovableType provides facilities for automatic generation of RSS new feeds. If you know what that means, and you'd like to syndicate the site, you've probably already noticed the Syndicate this link on the sidebar.

We've taken advantage of that RSS to generate headlines from recent posts for other parts of this site. So now if you visit one of the other pages in the menu above, you'll have easily accessible links not only to the top of the journal, but also to recent individual entries.

Enjoy!

This is to all the heterosexual (legally) married couples out there who thought that your marriage was about your love and commitment to each other.

Rick Santorum: Why? Because -- principally because of children. I mean, it's -- it is the reason for marriage. It's not to affirm the love of two people. I mean, that's not what marriage is about. I mean, if that were the case, then lots of different people and lots of different combinations could be, quote, "married." Marriage is not about affirming somebody's love for somebody else. It's about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.

As Andrew Sullivan said in his blog:

Today's Republicans are out to get you too. Santorum then says the following: "I'm not that familiar with civil union laws." Huh? When Brit Hume presses him on whether he would support any benefits for gay couples, he demurs. This is a U.S. senator who has put himself into the forefront of the gay debate who doesn't even know what civil unions are. You know what? I believe him. He hasn't thought for a second about the good of homosexual citizens. And why should he? And in this he's not alone. I still don't know, for example, whether National Review would officially approve of any benefits for gay couples at all. I don't know what Stanley Kurtz would support short of marriage. Or Maggie Gallagher. Or David Frum. Or president Bush. What does he favor for gay couples if not marriage? This is odd. Wouldn't these people be far more persuasive if they offered an alternative to marriage? It would certainly make them seem far less homophobic. They could take the position that they'd be happy to have civil unions but draw the line at marriage - and they'd get a lot of support. So why don't they? Could it be that their real agenda is not simply keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual but keeping gays as marginalized and stigmatized as possible?

The background of this case (For full story: The Mercury News):

A Marine reservist facing a court-martial says he's being prosecuted for criticizing the military at anti-war rallies and for publicizing his application for conscientious objector status at a news conference.

The Marines argue they pursued charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen Funk because he skipped out on 47 days of training in defiance of orders by his commander.

A pretrial hearing is scheduled Monday, when Funk's San Francisco attorney, Stephen Collier, intends to ask a military judge to dismiss the charge of "shirking important duty'' on the basis that Funk has been selectively targeted.

"Funk was the only one who didn't show up when his unit was being mobilized for the war, and he's the only one being prosecuted,'' Marine spokesman Capt. Jeff Poole says. "They told him, 'You'll be in trouble if you don't show up.'''

Funk, 21, who says he joined the Marines because he wanted the discipline but acknowledges now that it was a mistake, also recently made public that he is gay. He thinks he has been treated unfairly because of his sexual orientation, but says that was not an issue in his application for conscientious objector status. (click below to see the rest of the excerpt from this story, or on the link above to read entire story).

As much as I hate to admit this, I have to side with the military on this one. When you join the military, you give up certain rights. Actually, you give up a lot of rights that we take for granted. One of them is changing your mind after you commit to serve. You can change your mind, but there will be consequences. I think the thing that bothers me most about this case is that you have two entirely different issues. Whether Mr. Funk meant to or not, he combined the two just be bringing them up. Mr. Funk is telling the military that he went AWOL because somewhere between the time he signed up to the time he was suppose to report for duty, he became a conscientious objector. Oh, and by the way, he's gay and just happened to mention that in the report.

It's as if he's trying to get out for being a conscientious objector and if that's not good enough, he'll state that he's gay and "don't ask, don't tell" will do the rest for him. To be fair, I'm not going to assume that was what he was trying to do, but anyone reading this will read that into it. I'm sure the military has, and I'm sure the public will. It looks bad and does a discredit to the service men and women who are trying to serve under the stupid and idiotic "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Mr. Funk should have shown up for duty, and stated that he was a conscientious objector. He may have been shipped out until his conscientious objector status was handled. He should have kept his sexual orientation to himself and not made that a separate issue. If his sexual orientation was part of what made him file for conscientious objector status, it wasn't important to state that in his appeal to be a conscientious objector.

It's hard to believe that it's been almost two years since we were attacked on September 11, 2001. So much has happened in the world since then.

NEW YORK -- Children reading the names of those who died will be featured at this year's memorial ceremony for the victims of the World Trade Center attack, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Monday.

The ceremony, on the second anniversary of the disaster, will begin Sept. 11 at 8:30 a.m. adjacent to the trade center site.

There will be a moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., when the first jetliner struck the north tower _ and three other breaks in the reading of names to mark the times when the south tower was struck, and when each tower collapsed.

Families will be allowed to leave flowers and other mementos at the site, as they did on last year's anniversary. - Newsday.com

What is it about homeless people that bring out the worse in some of us? Most people speak poorly of homeless people without realizing that in different circumstances, they could also be homeless. Whatever you think of homeless people, the teenagers in this story make me want to become an advocate for the homeless. This is from thehometownchannel.com.

CLEVELAND -- Four Ohio teenagers have been charged with attacking homeless people with a stun gun as they slept in downtown Cleveland.

Police say the teenagers from the Youngstown, Ohio, area videotaped the attacks on at least six homeless people sleeping on park benches or in doorways.

Joshuah Langenheim, 19, of Youngstown, is charged with assault. Three juveniles were released to their parents and will face delinquency assault charges.

Police said the teens abandoned their car and the video gear after the vehicle broke down and a motorist stopped to help -- right in front of the city's Justice Center.

The young men allegedly involved were stranded downtown overnight when their car broke down near the Justice Center, Cleveland TV station WEWS reported. Officials said that's when they allegedly started attacking homeless people with a stun gun.

The suspects then allegedly urinated and defecated on the victims after they were stunned and unable to move, WEWS reported. The attacks were captured on videotape.

I didn't write anything yesterday. I didn't write because I was feeling a sense of mourning and loss. Yesterday marked the third anniversary of our loss of Sasha. We are sad. When I speak of either Brennan (left us on November 7, 1999) or Sasha, I can now speak for a minute or two before I feel the grief of their loss. I feel a lump in my throat, and have to stop. For this reason, I avoid it. I rarely talk about them because it hurts too damn much. To this day, there are times when I will be doing something around the house and I will remember them.

One of the things most endearing to Sasha was her sense of loving her family. She was very protective of us. When it got to be 9:30 at night, she thought it was time that we all go to bed. I would typically be working on the computer, and she would come in to tell me it was time to sign off. Of course, I would humor her and tell her "just a few more minutes...". She was happy with that and went away. A few more minutes turned into ten minutes before I knew it. Suddenly, she came into the room and chewed me out royally for taking too much time. I would have to sign off right then and there with her watching me. She then escorted me to bed.

I'm sure that seems like a funny story to you, and it is. But, what seemed funny and charming at the time is what hurts most now. After she left us, I missed terribly that no one was telling me when it was time to go to bed. As with anything else in life, she became comfortable to have around and I took her presence for granted.

When she went in to see a kidney specialist, I thought we had more time together. I kissed her on the forehead and said "Be brave. I'll see you soon". Be brave? Where the hell did that come from? How stupid. Why didn't I take her in my arms and say goodbye to her? I'm full of regret. I can't relive this even now, and I'm starting to cry. Enough.

I have pictures around my home of them and in that sense they are still with us. I still feel the deep sense of loss. I have said to myself since they left that time would make it better. It has to some extent. But I now know that the sense of loss and grief will never go away. It will dull with time and I will become accustomed to it. It will never come to a point that I don't feel hurt.

We miss you like hell Sasha. We love you so much. Your family.

I'm sure you've all read in various news sources about the "backlash" of attitudes in society concerning gay citizens and gay issues. Many very smart people have been analyzing this phenomenon trying to figure out why the sudden shift. Many think that it stems from the overturning of sodomy laws in this country. Their theory states that once the laws were overturned, gay marriage was just a matter of time. In fact sodomy laws being overturned never made my mind think about gay marriage. I saw very little correlation between the two. But, talk started about gay marriage now having no obstacles and that straight America should start getting ready for gay marriage. This theory states that the concept of marriage being perverted by same sex people getting marriage led to the attitude of "enough is enough".

Then, roughly the same time the sodomy laws were overturned, all the new gay-themes television shows came out. These shows generally made Will and Grace look very tame. Bravo came out with two very out shows. One called Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the other was Boy Meets Boy. One was about five gay men making over a straight man who is usually portrayed as being a slob without any idea on what to do to make himself more presentable. Boy Meets Boy is a dating game just like the other new dating games that have sprung up on TV in the last few years. The difference, it's about a gay guy who has to choose his dream date from 15 men. The twist, some of the 15 men are straight. If he happens to choose a straight man, that man will be able to claim a cash prize instead of going on the date with the gay man. If that be the case, I guess the gay bachlor loses out entirely, or maybe he gets a cash prize as well.

All these shows portray gay men in unusual and for the most part, unrealistic caricatures of what it is to be gay. This is what America is seeing. I'm not saying that some of us aren't flamboyant. I'm saying, we shouldn't care! America is in a rut and is used to one way of life. Out of many factors of how gay people have had to live, we look at the world differently or we sometimes act somewhat different. That doesn't mean that we should hide that from America. It may mean that America isn't ready for it.

I think that one thing America could learn from is the terrible burden that is put on gay Americans by having to hide our identities. In many jobs and with our families, many of us hide who we are, not so much out of shame, but the horrifying fear of being rejected by those we love, or losing our jobs. This makes us good at adapting to being in a war zone a good part of our lives. On Boy meets Boy, Jim, one of the men being eliminated from the show, happens to be secretly straight (on the show). One of the most touching moments for me was when he mentioned how difficult it was to hide amoung all these gay men that he was straight. He said he didn't realize how awful that would be to have to live your life like that and that his experience on the show have blown a lot of stereotypes he sees in society away. As Jim said, "My experience here is kind of a mirror image of how people who are in the closet, still, are experiencing daily life."

In recent years, there have been some strides and improvement in these areas. More people are coming out to their families and many places of work are becoming more accepting of their gay workers. In my opinion, the ONLY way for change to take place is for all of us to come out to everyone. It is scary and can be physically and emotionally risky, but it is worse to live a life built on lies and half-truths! Who the hell needs that? Is it any reason, with recent events of more media coverage on gay issues, that gay people are jubilant over the openness of gay issues in America?

One person said something to the effect "....I'm ok with gay people, but now everywhere I turn it's gay gay gay. Enough is enough". I can see where he is coming from. But, people have to realize that what they are seeing is only a small fraction of what gay people have had to put up with their entire lives. Everything has been geared towards straight society and we have adapted to that. We have had to pretend that we are interested in the opposite sex. When talking to others in any situation, we have had to constantly filter what we have said as to not give away our deep dark secret. Most people have no idea how much energy that takes or what a burden that puts on the mind and ego. Many of us don't make it to adulthood and give up on life. The ones who stuck with it are now just beginning to see that life can be better than empty promises and the danger of ending up like Matthew Shepard. As Harvey Milk once said, "You have to give people hope. Hope that tomorrow will be better." This will only happen when America is not only tolerant of its homosexual citizens, but also accepts them as equal peers.

Gay school in Dallas halts operations. This from The Advocate:

A Dallas private school for gay and lesbian students won't be holding classes this fall. Instead, officials at the Walt Whitman Community School say they'll spend the next 10 months seeking accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The association is the standard accrediting authority for colleges and universities in 11 Southern states. The struggling school had been the subject of a documentary on MTV earlier this year, which spurred a surge of student applications. But the lack of accreditation has meant a Whitman diploma was meaningless.

Karen McCrocklin, a member of the school's board of directors, says the school has issued general equivalency diplomas--or GEDs--good only for getting students into junior colleges. She says school officials will focus on meeting the Southern Association's requirements. Walt Whitman is one of the nation's few schools established specifically to educate gay and lesbian teens. This fall New York City will open the nation's first public high school for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students.

It is sad that the Walt Whitman school is closing in a way. I understand the need for it's existence, but I am also keenly aware that it is of utmost importance that the education one receives be one of quality. The Walt Whitman school was not accredited. It was unable to issue a high school diploma. Therefore, it's students only qualified for a GED that would get them admitted to a junior college. That's not good enough in my book.

Let's talk a bit about this new "gay high school" that is opening in New York City. It's called the Harvey Milk High school (picture left), named after slain gay San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk. The school is an outgrowth of a longstanding program for gay students. The school will only enroll 100 students in the initial class and they will study a traditional curriculum.

The school has drawn large criticisms from many. The biggest argument is one of segregation. I can't argue that. It is segregation. Most people stop at that and say that segregation is just plain wrong. I agree with that for the most part. In a perfect world, I would agree with it whole heartedly. But, as any gay person will tell you, this world is not only far from perfect, it can be down right dangerous at times. I think many people who immediately label this school as "wrong" on the basis of segregation aren't looking at the full picture. This is not a black and white issue.

Simply put, it is school teachers and administrators who are totally at fault here. If they wouldn't have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to harassment and intimidation, the need for the Harvey Milk High School would not exist. What is more important, to force gay kids to attend a high school where they are scared for their lives or go to a school where they can actually not worry about that and learn something? It's an easy argument for me.

On the other hand, author Joe Miksch makes a compelling argument in his article entitled "Two Steps Forward, One Step Back", where he claims that allowing the Harvey Milk High School to exist is the same as saying the bigots have won. Perhaps so, but my first interest is the safety of the students. I do agree he has some compelling arguments, however:

Think those black kids who eventually got into school in Little Rock, thanks to the intervention of Dwight Eisenhower and federal troops, didn't have to put up with unimaginably vile hate speech and regular violence? Of course not. Think they would have served themselves, their community and society at large by backing down? Likewise, of course not.

Catholic parish pays up for gay wedding

This from expatica.com:

NEUSS - A court in Germany Wednesday ordered a Roman Catholic congregation to compensate two gay men who were not allowed to hold their same-sex wedding reception in the church hall.

Attorneys for the church said the congregation in the Cologne suburb of Neuss had been misled by the couple.

Only after the church had accepted EUR 300 for use of the hall for a "wedding reception" did clergy learn that the happy couple consisted of two men.

Saying the Catholic Church does not recognize homosexual marriage, the parish priest refused to permit the event to be held. The Neuss court judge agreed that the church had the right to determine who uses its premises. But she said it had no right to cancel the event and then also keep the EUR 300.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would like anyone paying for my wedding who couldn't stand me. It seems like it would tarnish it, but then again, I could be the victim of watching too much Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Vatican Launches Drive Against Gay Marriage Laws

The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the document said. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

"God's plan" is at best ambiguous enough on the issue of gay people that most of the religious community would say (if they are being totally honest) that it's best to not try to second-guess God on this or any other issue. Being a non-religious gay person, I'm just wondering of all the sins that are spelled out in the Bible, that everyone just focuses on homosexuality. What ever happened to the sin of eating pork, swearing, adultery, etc.? It must be nice to have the luxury of picking and choosing through the sin book on what is important and what can conveniently be forgotten about. Such hypocrisy, it makes me ill.

Catholics Reject Vatican, 57% Support Gay Marriage

(Ottawa) The Vatican's condemnation of gay marriage has fallen on deaf ears in Canada according to a new poll. 57 percent of Roman Catholics surveyed said they would support the right of same-sex couples to marry, a figure higher than for Protestants.

The poll, by Environics Research shows that only 38 per cent of those people who identified as Protestant support gay marriage with 58 per cent opposed.

Among all Canadians, the poll found a slim majority, 53 per cent, support same-sex marriage, while 43 per cent are opposed and three per cent are undecided.

Although the survey was taken prior to the reading of the Vatican pronouncement in churches across the country Sunday, Environics pollster Derek Leebosh said support for same-sex marriage among Catholics appears to be solid.

The inability to marry does in many cases add a greater burden to gay couples. Specifically in Rich Linnell and Gary Chalmers case, there's the extra $3,600 Linnell pays each year because he cannot piggyback, as a spouse could, on the health insurance policy Chalmers gets as a teacher. "We have a college fund set aside for Paige," said Chalmers, who earns about $60,000 a year, about the same as Linnell's pay as a nurse. "I'd like to see that $3,600 going towards that fund. Part of the reason we participated in the lawsuit was securing her future."

"We've taken all those legal precautions we think we can take," said Chalmers, who carries shrunken, laminated copies of Paige's adoption papers in his wallet in case a problem crops up. "It seems like every day or every month, we find out there's another piece we haven't covered, where if we had the right to be civilly married in Massachusetts, all these things would be automatic."

Even if gay marriage goes forward, most tax and many pension issues are governed by federal law (DOMA), which includes a 1996 statute defining marriage as a "legal union