September 2003 Archives
The Bush administration has not been notable for its environmental friendliness. Could that explain why a report concluding "that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers" was released on a Friday afternoon, guaranteeing that no one would notice it? Nah, I'm not that cynical. It was on the front page of the Saturday Washington Post, after all.
Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules: Study Finds Net Gain from Pollution Rules
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 27, 2003; Page A01A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society. The findings overturn a previous report that officials now say was defective.
The report, issued this month by the Office of Management and Budget, concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from October 1992 to September 2002.
By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated $23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed to sharply reduce sulfur dioxide, fine-particle emissions and other health-threatening pollutants.
$120 billion of benefits versus a cost of $26 billion sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Why did I have to find out about this via a link from Tapped?
If you'd like to see the full report, which was prepared by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, you can download the PDF from the OMB website: Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities.
I'm back into my routine again after my New York City visit. The only casualty was my cell phone. It was lost but it may be mailed back to me. Someone called saying they had it. Now, whether they send it to me is another issue. I guess there are still nice people around, even in big cities.
I had a blast in the city and I'm going to try to make it down there at least twice a year now. It's kind of hard on the pocket book because I like to stay in nice places, but it's worth it.
I came across this article about a Caribbean resort who openly specifies that they will not take gay couples. It's caused quite a rift in London and other areas. When I went to the Caribbean, I made it a point to stay in gay-owned places because I like to support my community. So, I never really had to deal with it. It is kind of surprising that a company that manages resorts would ban gays from participating as guests since there are so many gay people working in that industry.
LONDON - The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has rejected advertisements for a holiday firm that bans gays and lesbians from its Caribbean resorts.
Following a raft of complaints from gay groups and members of the public, the Mayor has decided to bar Sandals from advertising its "couples" hotels on underground carriages.
The firm ran a four-week, £200,000 ($563,000) campaign earlier this year on the Tube, but Mr Livingstone decided to act because the ads offer holidays for "its "romantic, mixed-sex couples only" locations.
Sandals, whose slogan "Love is all you need", is seen as bitterly ironic by gay men and lesbians, has already been subjected to criticism for its discriminatory policy. Complaints about its stance led Barclaycard to drop the firm from its promotions.
If that pisses you off, let them hear about it! You can send a direct email to Sandals here.
There may be a major scandal brewing in the Bush administration. The Washington Post yesterday had a major story on how some administration officials revealed the identity of an undercover CIA operative to journalists.
At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.
Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry: CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page A01
Both Dan Drezner and Josh Marshall link to the following quote from remarks by George H.W. Bush on the 16th of April, 1999 at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence:
We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.
Meanwhile all Condoleeza Rice can say in response to questions about someone in the administration revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative to Robert Novak among others is "It's with the appropriate channels now, and we'll see what the Justice Department — how the Justice Department disposes of it." That doesn't sound like the reaction of someone who's outraged.
Don't get me wrong. The Justice Department needs to investigate the apparent violation of United States law and the accompanying breach of national security. The guilty party must be held responsible and punished severly. No, I'm not complaining about there being a Justice Department investigation. I'm complaing about the lack of outrage and concern from the White House. "It certainly would not be the way that the president would expect his White House to operate" do not sound like words spoken by someone who's outraged. They are spoken like someone who's trying to contain a political problem.
They are not the words of someone who thinks that "those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources ... are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."
This has been a very full day for us. I'm tired, but not exhausted, although I'm not really sure why. It seems like we've been going ever since we left for breakfast this morning.
We had breakfast here at the hotel - nice, the standard breakfast, nothing special. We decided to take in the Museum of Natural History in the morning. I had no idea the place was so huge. We managed to see the Hall of Biodiversity, the Hall of Ocean Life, and Vertebrate Origins (fossil fish, amphibians, reptiles [dinosaurs], birds, and mammals). They were big exhibits but really first rate. If you haven't been there, and you get to NYC, you have to go!
After that we returned to our hotel to rest up for an hour or so, followed by a trip to Christopher Street. It's pretty much like Castro Street in San Francisco, except it seemed to be a bit more mixed (many straight people). At least when we lived in San Francisco, the Castro was most all gay. We spent the rest of the time window shopping until dinner time.
We arrived at Bussola Bar and Grill for dinner. They were having some street fair in the blocks where our restaurant was in, so he had very few people in the restaurant. Basically, we had the place to ourselves. The food was first rate. I really have to lay off the martinis though. We had a leisurely dinner before heading off to the Astor Place Theatre to see the Blue Man Group.
I don't really know how to describe the Blue Man Group. They are three men in blue costumes. They never talk, but do interact with the audience. We had taken our seats and were waiting for them to start. All the sudden, my name was displayed with this sign. I was asked to stand up and wave my hand so that everyone would know where I was. They then asked the audience to applaud me because I invented cold fusion. I was like, "...what the hell??!?"
The rest of the show was a gas. It's tough to describe the show, because it's very different from anything else you will ever see. I will just say that they are extremely talented and if you are every in NYC, or anywhere else they are, you really should make an effort to go see them.
That was our day. We didn't make it to the World Trade Center area. There just wasn't enough time. We will save that for next time. We will probably leave the city tomorrow around 11 to return home. It's going to be nice to be in our own home again.
We are having a great time so far. We decided to come to New York City for a long weekend. A friend of ours had a meeting in the city and was here for Friday night. We arrived at our room around 3:00. It's a nice place with a very modern atmosphere. It has everything anyone could ask for.
Of course, I took an inventory of the room and came up with some cool things from the bar in the room. Things like... Banana Moon Pistachios, peanuts, chocolate covered almonds, gummy bears!!, and of course their "intimacy kit", which consists of "two Durex lubricated, spermicidal prophylactics, two obstetrical towelettes, one package lubricating jelly". You can't get that in a Motel 6!!! Oh, by the way, this place has high speed internet - VERY IMPORTANT!
Ellen, the friend we were meeting, called a little after we arrived in our room. We were in the middle of unpacking. She wasn't expected for another two hours, but her meetings had ended, and she called to see if it was alright for her to come over early. The problem was that our dinner reservations at db Bistro Moderne weren't until 7:45pm. So, we had several hours to kill, not a big problem in NYC. We showered quickly, and got dressed in our dinner clothes. Ellen arrived with her bags. She checked out of her hotel and since she was leaving NYC early Saturday morning, decided to take a taxi to the airport and stay at the airport for the night. She dropped her bags off in our room, and we were off for the evening.
Now, where to kill 3 hours... We decided to just walk down the street and see if we saw anything that appealed to us. We came upon a bar called O'Casey's (located at 22 East 41st Street - sorry, website not available), a friendly neighborhood bar with a very friendly and welcoming atmosphere. The tables were made for two people, so we decided to sit at the bar. There was no loud music so it was very nice to be able to sit down at a quiet place and just talk with each other. I started talking about what would be good to order. I mentioned that I was trying to learn more about martini's. The guy next to me, who said his name was "Jimmy", offered his advice on the different martini's. He was very Italian and a good looking man. He seemed to take a liking to me, and we started talking about many things.
He convinced me that I should try a martini with vodka and onions, the call it a "Gibson" apparently. It was good, and very relaxing. An hour later, I'm on my second martini, but this time with olives. Nice! People acknowledged that I had good fashion sense (of course!), and it wasn't long before I was talking to other patrons who were regulars in O'Casey's. If I lived in NYC, I would certainly like to hang out more at this bar. It felt like home.
After O'Casey's, we walked a few short blocks to db Bistro Moderne. I was very taken by the rich atmosphere of this restaurant. As you enter, you are met with walls painted red. Painted on the walls are huge flowers in yellow. It was quite striking. The wall opposite the flowers was also red, but had mirrors all over the wall, which give the feel that the flowers were everywhere.
Aside from the warmth of the place, the food was first rate. I started out with an apple martini, made with apple vodka complete with apple spices and a stick of cinnamon bark - WONDERFUL! Shortly after came my warm artichoke soup that was a nice prelude to the main course. I had a steak on a reduction sauce with peppercorns and vegetables, consisting of Lima beans, baby carrots, among other vegetables. of course, cooked to perfection. Kent had the poached salmon on cabbage with gnocchi.
For desert, I had pear and banana on chocolate pubbing cake. It's a bit hard to describe but was beautiful to see. Very well presented. With this, I had a glass of desert wine, Muscat beaumes de Venise.
Afterwards, we came back to our room, said our goodbyes to Ellen and took a shower before bed time. I woke up at 6 this morning fully refreshed. Ordered coffee, and am about to go downstairs to the hotel restaurant for breakfast.
We aren't quite sure what we will be doing today. I think we are going to take in a museum, perhaps the Museum of Natural History, and I would like to try to get to the World Trade Center to pay my respects.
Have a great day. I'll catch up with you later!
Being a geek, I am constantly surfing for new "stuff" that comes out that I simply MUST have. Fortunately, none of these actually cost me money this time around. I just thought I'd share a few things I came across.
US quarantines visa system after virus attack
An attack of the Welchia worm lead the US Department of State to shut down its system for filtering visa applications in search of potential terrorists. A computer virus has hit the US Department of State, affecting the performance of the government's information technology system that manages visa approvals, according to reports.
The virus shut down the State Department's Consular Lookout and Support System (Class) on Tuesday, according to published reports from Reuters and the Associated Press. A State Department representative CNET News.com reached on Wednesday would not confirm that the system had crashed but indicated that IT personnel were working on a problem.
MSN praised for plan to cut free chat rooms
Child advocates Wednesday applauded a decision by Microsoft's MSN online service to crack down on its free chat rooms, calling unmonitored chat sites among the most hazardous places for kids on the Net. "There is no question but that chat rooms generally tend to be very dangerous places for children," says Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Responding to complaints about child predators, pornographers and spammers who prey on children, MSN said Tuesday that on Oct. 14, it will shut down chat in its online services in 28 countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia, and will allow only paying members to chat in the USA, Canada and Japan.
Right... so what about the others who offer up chat rooms? Ultimately, it's up to the parents to monitor what their kids are doing. I'm a big believer that much of the delinquents we have today are the product of parents who just weren't active in their kids life during their childhood and adolescents. Granted, I'm not a parent and I'm not saying it would be easy to be a parent, but you either take the job seriously, or you have no business being a parent, period.
That means:
1) you know where your kid is at all times.
2) you know all of his/her friends.
3) you make it a point to meet his/her friends parents to find out what attitudes they instill in their children.
4) you take an active roll in your kids education. This means that you are aware of what they are studying in school and are active in any problems they are having with their homework.
5) you insist that they have homework and are doing it.
6) you periodically talk with their teacher(s) to make sure that they are doing as well as you think they are doing.
7) you attend PTA meetings every time and talk with the teachers of your kid. You make them very aware that if there is any issue, they are expected to contact you.
8) you spend time with your kid. This is very important for the relationship you have with your kid. You, as a parent, should be their best friend - that one person who they can tell anything to.
Not easy, but if I were a parent, I would never have to tell myself, "I don't know how this happened... I didn't raise them to be that way...". It just wouldn't happen. I'm not a big sports fan, but if my kid happened to love soccer and was on the school soccer team, I would make it a point to learn all I could about soccer and to participate in my childs interest. That would mean attending the games, etc.
I just don't understand why that's so difficult for parents. Saying that you don't have time in your busy schedule just doesn't cut it. You make the time!
Electronic Paper Speeds Up for Videos
Some day soon, videos may be playing on paper instead of screens. Scientists in the Netherlands have developed a new version of electronic paper that can switch quickly from one color to another, giving it the ability to display moving images. The new system is described in a report published today in the journal Nature.
Electronic paper??? Too weird for me.
Is Google like Microsoft? In some ways
Why lump Google in with Microsoft?
First, Google has reached near-monopoly -- or at least oligopoly -- status as a search engine. Some observers fear their privacy is being violated: too much personal information culled about them by one company. Some advertisers complain about a lack of transparency in Google's search algorithms, which dictate the ranking of Web pages on its results page. Individuals might wonder about this, too.
One reason Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus, says he helped back Nutch, an open-source alternative to Google, is because Google is ``very guarded about how it works.''
He bemoans that businesses are trying to manipulate Google, attempting for example to boost their ranking by creating bogus links to their sites. (Google uses the quality and number of links, among other things, to measure relevance.)
Well, if you go to Google, and type in the search box "bill and kent", our site will be the first in the list. I don't have an issue with my ranking! 
After Social and Legal Acceptance, What's Next?
Every year it seems the gay community is up in arms about one issue or the other -- the right to serve in the military, the right to visit our partners in hospital, the right to get married. These fights appear discrete, but their common thread is a much more basic yearning that exists outside the ambit of legislative change -- the need for society to acknowledge that we are not perverse.
Rodriguez sees the Supreme Court less as making history than acknowledging a reality on the ground. When the vice president's daughter does not deny she is a lesbian, it means "the issue of whether or not we can join the American family is following the fact that we already are part of that family." Being gay is no longer the shadowy preserve of the night. The love that once dared not speak its name is part of daytime talk shows, Republican conventions and softball leagues...
Rodriguez thinks our outlaw tradition might survive our newfound legal status. "We are using the words privacy, sodomy, even marriage in this debate. But no one wants to use the word that gets to the central issue -- love." According to him, it's not sex or even marriage with its poached salmon that we are really after. "Society might give us the right to sex in private. But when the Pope gives me the word 'love,' then I'll break out the bottle of champagne."
It's true... everywhere I look I see the undeniable fact that gays are being assimilated into straight society. If you've ever watched Star Trek, The Next Generation series, you will know about a race of beings who's soul purpose is to evolve towards perfection. They do this by assimilating other species into their hive. They are viewed as being very evil. The subjects that are assimilated loose the identity they once had to become one with the hive. They are of one mind, all tied together by the queen, who controls their actions (ok... no off-color jokes about who is going to be the "queen" please). There are no individuals - they are ONE. They call themselves the Borg.
I have recently started to feel that I am gradually being assimilated into straight society. Of course, I've always been part of society, but if you are gay, you know very well that there is a part of your life you don't share with people who are straight. You know... the "gay stuff". The people you don't share with are your co-workers, your family, your friends. They have traditionally felt uncomfortable about such talk. A lot of it is conditioning. They are taught that what gays do is gross. In fact, it's no different from what they do.
I remember when I went to a bar after work with a couple of straight male friends. After a round of drinks, they wanted to know all about what it was like being gay. I said, "pretty much like being straight except that you can't show affection in public at all or show that you might be partners in any way, and if family shows up you have to watch everything you say so that you won't make them feel uncomfortable. In other words, I have to look and act just like.... you". They looked at me and said, "that sucks".
Well, yes it does. Over time, I have distanced myself from people that I would have to explain things to because well, frankly, it takes too much energy to cover up my life, along with the fact that it shoots my ego all to hell. I have only a few straight friends who have been very carefully chosen because they do get it.
Now, I feel like more and more people are "getting it", and that being gay is finally not "gross" to them any longer. There is a gay culture that many do not know about. Are we going to loose that? Will we become just like our straight counterparts with their set of problems? Being gay had it's set of problems for sure, but they were problems I could identify with.
Being an outcast was not always a bad thing. It has made it easy for me to just walk away from my family with all their problems. I haven't spoken to them in 19 years. I last talked to my family at my mothers funeral and no, I never told her I was gay. I wonder if she would have been ashamed of me? Would it have "killed her" if I'd told her, as my aunt said it would? I grew tired of the gay jokes being told in my family right in front of me and having to make it look like I was laughing at them also. Or, the time I took Kent to my aunts house for Thanksgiving dinner when I was in college and was asked by her not to let anyone know that Kent and I were together because my uncles "just wouldn't understand". I finally said, "enough is enough".
Today, the taboo of being gay is gone with 60% of society. It will never be 100%; there will always be the Pope, the Jerry Falwell's, and the Fred Phelp's of the world. But things are getting better as a direct result of more people coming out of the closet and making themselves known. Most everyone knows a gay person. Now, when they hear a gay joke, many don't react well to it because they can see that it's built on harmful stereotypes that drive us apart and ultimately hurts people they care about. I think most people are generally fed up with those types of stereotypes and can see that they only serve to further fragment our society.
A few months ago, Kent and I went to a small pizza place in Coventry, appropriately called "Coventry Pizza" (I never said we were original). We sat down, and ordered our dinner. Off to our left were a couple of families, sitting at a series of tables pulled together to make one large table. At the end of the table, closest to us, were the two men of the families. They were in their early-mid 30's. One of them leaned over to the other and said, "We have a couple of fags sitting at the table next to us." He then nodded towards our direction with a big smile on his face. I heard it word for word and thought to myself, "Here we go again." The other man looked our way and looked back at his friend. He said to him in disgust, "I don't believe you would even say that. Just drop it!". The other man had this look on his face like, "What the hell did I do?".
I don't know why the man scolded his friend for saying that. Perhaps his brother is gay, perhaps he has friends who are gay and knows what those attitudes can do to gay people, or perhaps he knows a gay person who was the victim of violence towards gays. I do know that not so long ago, that man probably would not have reacted that way. He would have agreed with his friend and they would have shared a nice laugh at our expense.
I see things like that, and I realize that we are on a new frontier of acceptance. It warms my heart, but it is also uncomfortable for me. I'm not used to talking openly to others about my relationship with Kent. A few straight friends have mentioned to me that we never show affection towards one another. I said to them, "We won't. We are very well trained not to - not in public." I don't think it's safe for gay people to do that, even today. Perhaps, that is only in my mind. I have a fear of being assaulted, having had several of my friends in life savagely assaulted. We really don't live in a free country.
I have always hated society for making us feel that way. Now that acceptance is growing, I can't just put down my arms and disarm. I have a spent a lifetime putting up these walls and arming myself with the tools I would need to survive in this hostile country. That won't change overnight. I figure that about the time I'm at the end of my life, I will finally feel comfortable fully sharing myself and what I am inside with society, if they want to hear it. I suppose that's not a bad way to leave this life and this world. Until then, I will resist being totally assimilated into society and keep to myself the part that I feel most at home with, the gay part.
General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on General Wesley Clar, now running for the presidency.
"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
Here's a bit of progress! The New York State Democrats are supporting a resolution favoring gay marriage. Yeah, that's right next door to me!! Come one Connecticut, you can do it!! I promise, when I get married I'll pay just as many state taxes as I do now.
New York State Democrats unanimously backed a resolution advocating marriage between gay couples Monday, becoming the first state party in the nation to support the idea following the Supreme Court's legalization of homosexual activity earlier this year.
Meeting in the Hyatt Regency Buffalo, Democrats from around the state strongly declared that the rights afforded traditional married couples should be extended to gays and lesbians and that civil marriages identical to those recently approved in Ontario be instituted in New York.
"We wanted to make sure we would be in the forefront of the fight for civil marriage," State Democratic Chairman Herman D. Farrell said after the meeting. "We're proud to say that as a party we have always been moving forward in the gay community."
It will be interesting to see if they stay the course. In a related story, the Republicans have come out with a scathing article against the Democrat's resolution.
If September 11, 2001 has taught me anything, it's taught me that the liberties that we all take for granted can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.
After 9/11, we were all shell-shocked and horrified. John Ashcroft and others came up with The Patriot Act, to make us all feel safer and to preserve our way of life. It's not clear to me that the Patriot Act has done either. America changed after 9/11. We are less trusting now. That distrust is the very blood the Patriot Act lives on.
The Patriot Act says that for us to feel safer, we must be willing to give up some of the freedoms and due process that we have come to expect. Constitutional rights are conveniently ignored for the greater good of the country (didn't we go through this once before? ...something called McCarthyism?).
A few items from the Patriot Act:
Sec. 206: Allows a wiretap to be granted against an individual, instead of a particular phone. Previously, for example, if a person had a cell phone, a home phone, and an office phone, the government had to obtain separate warrants on each.
Sec. 206: Allows a wiretap to be granted against an individual, instead of a particular phone. Previously, for example, if a person had a cell phone, a home phone, and an office phone, the government had to obtain separate warrants on each.
Sec. 209: Permits the seizure of voice-mail messages under a warrant.
Sec. 213: Allows FBI agents to conduct a search of a business or a place without notifying the owner that the search has been conducted until later.
Section 412 extends the power of the attorney general to detain foreigners. The attorney general can order the detention of any foreigners if he certifies that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" involvement in terrorism or activity that poses a danger to national security. He does not need to explain his reasoning or show evidence.
Sec. 416: Directs the Attorney General to implement fully and expand the foreign student monitoring program to include other approved educational institutions like air flight, language training, or vocational schools.
Gives the FBI expanded powers of access to educational and business records in investigations of suspected terrorist activity. Under the act, records of the books and other materials you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents. The act prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you.
Sec. 814: allows wiretaps for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, including anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage. Critics state that the law expands the powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US (and those who communicate with them), and that it expands the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, from the situations where the suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is "the" purpose of the surveillance to any time that this is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.
Critics state that the law allows increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence, repealing some of the barriers put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting joint investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including Martin Luther King Jr. It allows wiretap results and grand jury information and other information collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, the latter being a broad new category created by this law.
Feel safer now?
I read an article on the internet about marriage. It brought up an interesting concept about the state of marriage today. The article outlines the states' power to issue marriage licenses, and, with the onset of gay marriage challenges, the states' very authority to issue marriage licenses at all, could be found to be invalid.
In the gay and straight debate over the legal definition of marriage, both sides actually could lose.
The debate about the definition of marriage is based on the states' long-standing power to license, conduct and regulate marriages. We know that power has always been presumed constitutional. But that may have ended 32 years ago without notice.
Before gay marriage was an issue, there were few challenges to the states' regulation of marriage because the regulation seemed to match the majority's religious sentiments. However, a changing society and the gay community's quest for the license to marry have changed that.
There would be no controversy if the power to license, conduct and regulate marriages was not assumed by the state. But, because the state is the authority on "legal" marriage, state definitions of marriage cause controversy when individuals or groups with new or divergent definitions feel discriminated against.
Gee, wouldn't it make gays even more loved by society if we managed to completely blow marriage out of the water for every body? That won't happen. From a constitutional point of view, marriage could be in trouble from many angles. Basically, marriage today is like a club membership. The origins were based in religion. Today, the state and federal governments have issued many government sanctioned privileges for marriage. Herein lies the problem. How can you constitutionally deny some members of the population the rights and privileges of marriage when they cannot legally marry in the first place?
The article states that both gays and straights could lose the rights of marriage if marriage rights are challenged. But that's inaccurate because gays have nothing to lose in this battle. We don't currently have the rights associated with marriage. How can you lose what you don't have?
On a more emotional and personal level, I don't think that people realize just how humiliating and degrading it feels to be a second class citizen. Society said for years that gay people were too promiscuous and were unable to establish long-term relationships. Those are all stereotypes. The exact same thing can be said for the straight community.
I will tell you from personal experience that it is hard to keep a long term relationship intact. This is true for everyone. When two gay people try to establish that same relationship, they get no recognition. There is no wedding, reception, anything. Their relationship must survive solely on it's own merits. That's tough. It's ironic that society feels the need to prevent gay relationships from receiving the recognition of marriage, when it has repeatedly stated that gays have no interest in relationships.
People take the rights and privileges of marriage for granted. Those of us who don't have those rights are forced to try to enforce marriage rights through documents such as wills, living wills, power of attorney, etc. All of the issues of these documents are dealt with in marriage. People who are currently afforded those rights are not going to stand still and let those rights be taken away from them because the institution of marriage has been found to be unconstitutional.
Wesley Clark gave a campaign speech at the Citadel yesterday. I don't know much about him, except that he was a Rhodes Scholar and graduated first in his class at West Point. And I don't know whether I'll vote for him in Connecticut's Presidential primary next spring. But Chris Sullentrop's article (Wesley Clark's Patriot Act - The general unveils his campaign message in South Carolina) about his campaign appearances yesterday ends with these paragraphs:
"We need a new spirit, a new kind of, a new American patriotism in this country. … [T]his new spirit of patriotism should be dedicated to the protection of our rights and liberties. … In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised."
No other Democratic candidate, not even John Kerry, could stand in front of two 75 mm howitzers on the quad of a nearly all-male military college and defend the antiwar left without looking faintly ridiculous. Wesley Clark is Howard Dean with flags.
I have to say that sounds pretty good.
For the American people, for citizens in a democracy, patriotism's highest calling isn't simply following what the administration says. It's not blind obedience. It's not unquestioned adherence. The highest form of patriotism is asking questions. Because democracies run on dialogue. Democracies run on discussion. No administration has the right to tell Americans that to dissent is disloyal, and to disagree is unpatriotic.
I'll be keeping my eye on Clark more than I expected to.
It amazes me these days just how courageous many of our young gay people are. I realize that times have changed since I was a teenager. Much of the support these kids have today didn't exist when I was their age. Still, it takes a lot of guts to stand up and make a problem known.
In this case, Allen Wolff met with the Baldwinsville school board on September 8, to urged the school board to make some additions to the code of conduct. Wolff, 17, said he wants students to be protected against harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity and how these are expressed. The code sets the rules for students in the district. It says nothing about sexual orientation.
Allen didn't graduate in time after failing to complete his physical education requirement last school year. He stopped going to gym class after being harassed. Instead of giving up, he made the school board aware of the problem. Now, it's up to them to step up to the plate and do the right thing.
We have another casualty of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. I say "we" because we are all paying for this stupid policy in many ways. Many very talented people are no longer allowed to serve their country, just because someone found out that they are gay.
They make no exceptions to this. Even for people who have talents that we desperately need. I'm thinking of the linguists who were trained in Arabic and Korean who were discharged from the Army for being gay. Now, we have a doctor who is serving in the Air Force who is being let go. Not only are they letting him go, they are also asking for the $71,500 back for his medical education.
This is where all of you come in. You paid for his education with the taxes you are paying. The Air Force will no longer have this man's knowledge or expertise.
Making him pay is adding insult to injury. It's a further penalty. He wants to serve but he cannot," said Hensala's attorney, Clyde J. Wadsworth. "That's not a justified reason to discriminate against a gay service member."
Maj. Karen Finn, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the military branch was not immediately prepared to comment.
"Don't ask don't tell" was not at issue in the case. It has already been upheld by the court, which said the discrimination was justified to promote "unit cohesion" and military preparedness.
I honestly didn't think the gays were so powerful as to damage "unit cohesion" or to undermine "military preparedness". If we are that powerful, why are we even debating issues that determine what rights we will and will not have?
I think I am all set on my new computer. It takes me awhile to get used to the new keyboard, which is a bit smaller and more compact. I got the Sony Vaio, which is perfect for this kind of work. And, with the wireless connection built in, I can now blog anywhere. I'm actually sitting on my front porch blogging now. OK... I know what you are thinking... get a life Bill. Perhaps you are right. I'm a bit of a geek.
We are all excited about our trip to New York City this coming weekend, although we have heard that their is a gang of punks going around the Chelsea area beating up gay guys (I have to figure out if that's where we are going to be). We will be staying in Manhattan Midtown. On Saturday, we plan on taking in some of the sites, the World Trade Center, a museum or two, and end up in the Christopher Street area. Hopefully, that isn't where that gang is going to be.
I was reading an article today in Newsday.com about the repeal of the British statute, Section 28. The law was introduced under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1988. Basically, the law barred local government councils from "promoting" homosexuality. In other words, don't talk about it at all in the schools.
"Today's repeal of Section 28 is a triumph for 21st-century tolerance over 19th-century prejudice," said Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay justice group Stonewall.
The law, which barred local government councils from "promoting" homosexuality, was the subject of protests from the moment it was introduced under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1988. It was devised to deal with concerns over homosexual content in sex education, but was condemned by campaigners as discriminatory.
It struck me that for so long homosexuality was something not to be talked about. We are all too eager as a society to experience beautiful art, music, sculpture, or literature and we often times like to know a bit about the creator of that work. I know from my past that it's not uncommon to study a composer of music who happened to be gay. I always took comfort in the fact that if that person could achieve something great in his lifetime with conditions as bad as they were, than I surely could do something with my life worth while.
I remember in college, I was attending a class on romantic composers. I remember that we were studying the Fourth Symphony of Tchaikovsky. If you aren't familiar with the work, I will tell you that it's not an easy listen. Tchaikovsky, who was gay, lived at a time and place when being gay was not accepted. He had to try to hide his orientation, and, through a series of doomed relationships with women and men, finally tried to commit suicide. All because he was made to feel like garbage because of how he felt.
I felt like Tchaikovsky was talking directly to me through this work. It was as if he were screaming his despair at me, to be a witness to what he went through. I remember thinking, "It's not that bad now". Then, one of the girls in the class raised her hand and asked, "Wasn't Tchaikovsky a homosexual?". The room got quiet as if she said something totally inappropriate. The instructor told the class that he was. The students shook their heads in a disapproving manner, and one male student offered the opinion of "that's gross". So much for trying to understand his despair. I remember thinking at the time that I wanted to say to the class, "Is this how you will live your life? You will dismiss anything not in your immediate understanding with 'that's gross'?".
It wasn't just that class. Homophobia was alive and well at the College of Idaho, as you can well imagine. None of us were out, although we had formed a bit of a network on campus. We knew each other on campus, but couldn't risk what would happen and we never spoke with others outside of our group in a way that would indicate that we even knew each other. Especially Kent and me. We live in an all male dorm which consisted of a large number of jocks. In our senior year, people did find out, and it was open season. The people that we thought of as friends, turned out to be total jerks.
I remember one instance where I went to ask our RA something. His name was Dave S. (no last names given, but people who know the college probably can figure out who I'm talking about). I was in the doorway. I asked my question, and they all looked at me and laughed at me. There were probably five other guys in his room. One of them got up, came over to me, and put his arm around me. He then asked me if I'd like to get in his pick up with him, and drive out to the lake, presumably to make out. Of course, it was all part of their way of humiliating me. I removed his arm from my shoulder and promptly told him to get lost, which prompted another outburst of laughter.
It's funny... after all these years, that still hurts. I want to tell Dave how much that hurt, and how much of a jerk he was. I guess you can't make people more than what they are inside, but one would hope that the people who you stick with the label of "friend" would be a bit more understanding.
I suppose it was going to happen sooner or later. A gay couple married in Canada has tried to cross into the United States as a gay married couple. They were turned away and told that the United States does not honor such arrangements.
As one of them said, "When we realized we weren't going to be allowed into the country, we had to make a real hard decision. We could have filled out separate forms, but how much of your dignity do you want to have chip away? We feel we had an affront to our dignity, so we decided to go back home."
It will be interesting to see where this goes. Here, you have our country disallowing a marriage honored by Canada. This is an exception to the rule. We have never questioned before the status of marriage, so any Canadian marriage has been honored.
It's an interesting article, well worth a read.
Looking at it from this angle, it doesn't look so frightening. What a huge storm.
I want to thank those of you who sent me words of encouragement. You are true friends. We all have our bad days. What makes life so worth living is knowing that the next day or maybe the next day after that will be a better day. In time, maybe the world will be better. We all have to stick together to make all of this work!
ok... I think I'm back on track again. We have a major hurricane about to hit the east coast. Connecticut won't be hit directly by this storm, but will receive some major rain and wind from the storm. I may be home tomorrow because of this and with a little luck, may have my new notebook computer!
I came upon these items in my daily search. There's a little bit of everything here. I call it the good, the bad, and the ugly (and yes, I am a Clint Eastwood fan!).
THE GOOD
New fraternity geared toward gay, bisexual men. It's good to see the inclusion of other groups that were once so unpopular. I'm sure it won't be easy to belong to this fraternity, but hopefully in time, it will become more commonplace throughout the country.
OTTAWA -- By a razor-thin margin, the federal Parliament embraced gay marriage on Tuesday by rejecting a 137-year-old definition that preserves the institution for "one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."
MPs voted 137-132 against a Canadian Alliance motion to maintain the traditional meaning, despite a string of court rulings that allow gays and lesbians to wed.
There are fair-minded people out there. I think with all the bad news in the world now, it's easy for us to forget that we do have friends and allies. Politically, I'm sure it took a lot of courage to come out in favor of giving gays in Canada the right to marry.
MPs hand gay-rights activists another win.
OTTAWA -- Homosexual-rights activists claimed a second straight victory last night as MPs passed a controversial bill to ban verbal gay-bashing.
In a 141-110 vote, Parliament decided to include "sexual orientation" in a law that already bans inciting hatred against people of colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
THE BAD
Republican Senators Lobby to Prevent Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Anxious to counter moves to legalize gay marriage, a group of Republican senators lobbied Wednesday for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
"In response to those who are trying to destroy the legal status of marriage and force their will on the American people, a constitutional response is necessary," said Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas.
The "legal status" of marriage that the good senator is referring to are all the federal and state CIVIL rights that come from being able to obtain a marriage license. Yes, I for one am trying to destroy the legal status of marriage as it currently stands. The legal status is a civil issue, not a religious issue. As such, you can't set up a membership (in this case, straight couples) to a class that receives those benefits, excluding others. That is wrong and will be found to be unconstitutional, assuming that strict legal interpretation of the Constitution is observed.
The Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
THE UGLY
Gay Israelis Charge Police Brutality.
TEL AVIV -- Gay civil rights activists in Israel have leveled charges of police brutality against members of the Tel Aviv police force, who they claim took part in a violent and unprovoked attack on gay people in a city park last week.
"I was sitting in Independence Park with a few friends, and suddenly about 10 people arrived," a 25-year-old witness told the Haaretz newspaper. "We didn't know yet that they were policemen, because they wore [special patrol unit] uniforms, and we didn't notice this in the dark."
I immediately called the police," the witness said. "The policeman on the telephone told me it wasn't such an urgent case and that we would have to wait."
More calls were made. Haaretz reports that a single squad car arrived about an hour and a half later. The police, who were surly and in no apparent hurry to apprehend the attackers, approached the area. "When the [attacking] policemen saw that they were other police officers, they simply laughed and left," the witness said.
It's odd that in a country such as Israel that such brutality would exist among it's own citizens. Perhaps the police are so used to being in a violent state of mind that they see this as "sport". That still happens a lot in this country. There are still many places that if you belong to an unpopular minority, that last call you want to make is to the police. You never know what you are going to get.
"When the [attacking] policemen saw that they were other police officers, they simply laughed and left," the witness said. I guess that pretty much says it all.
When I was a college student, the most I had to worry about was getting to classes, practicing (I was a music student), and studying. Those were a challenge for me because I was constantly being distracted by other things (parties, and an occasional crush on some good looking guy - before I fell for Kent, that is!). Today, students are more politically savvy and activism is coming back in some circles.
I read this article yesterday about a college student taking on his college over the Boy Scouts (yes, they still are expelling boy scouts and scout leaders who are gay). It prompted me to write the following letter to the college President, Kenneth Ender.
Dear President Ender:
I was very disturbed at an article that appeared on the internet regarding bias and discrimination at Cumberland County College. I would think that at the college level, most people would stop discriminating against students at a college, particularly when that person was the President of the college.
By allowing the Boy Scouts of America to meet on campus, you are allowing your college to practice discrimination. This can be said of any group. In the case of the Boy Scouts of America, it's bias and discrimination against homosexuals. Does your college indeed sanction this kind of discrimination?
Your views on this issue are your own. However, by allowing this to happen, you are saying that it's also ok for the college you represent to practice this discrimination. Since that seems to be the case, I will be posting an opinion to this on my website. It currently receives approximately 10,000 hits a day. Word spreads fast on the internet. It's too bad that you have brought this controversy to your college.
Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT
http://billandkent.com
I guess activism is still alive and well, even in an old activist like me. A bit from the article I cited above:
VINELAND -- When Kyle Brandon arrived for classes at Cumberland County College one night last spring, he didn't expect to come face to face with dozens of members of the Boy Scouts of America.
But that's what happened when Brandon, a 36-year-old openly gay Vineland resident, walked into the college's Frank Guaracini Jr. Fine and Performing Arts Center. The stress of witnessing the start of a Boy Scouts award ceremony for the college's president, Kenneth Ender, was so intense that he broke out in cold sweat, Brandon said.
In the months since that day in April, Brandon's experience has brought the national debate on the Boy Scouts of America's policies toward gays and atheists to the college's pine tree-shaded campus. And school officials are taking the debate seriously.
In a complaint filed with the school's Board of Trustees last month, Brandon asks that the Boy Scouts be banned from CCC's campus because of the organization's refusal to extend membership to atheists and gays.
"The (U.S.) Supreme Court said the Boy Scouts have the right to discriminate," Brandon said. "But that doesn't mean an institution that receives state and federal funding should open their doors to them."
You ever have one of those days, or weeks, where you just feel BLAH? I'm going through one of those times where I'm wondering why I even get out of bed in the morning.
I read the news, and it seems as if we have more enemies than friends. Canada is about to fall apart over gay marriage. The Episcopal Church has people leaving because, heaven forbid, they now have a gay bishop.
In the United States, it seems like most people don't even favor giving us the same rights that everyone else has. Screw marriage rights for gays. That's never going to happen. I tell people that being gay is a small part of what I am. And, it is. But, when you see all the things that you are being denied because you are in this minority group, it becomes a big issue. I suppose I should just shut up and be happy that at least my state has a law that prevents me from being fired for being gay. Why should we even need such a law?
Don't ask, don't tell is going to stick around for who knows how long because our brave men in the military apparently aren't brave enough to have a gay man in their midst. The politicians don't care, as long as they get elected. If they get our votes, fine, but they will screw us anyway when they get into office. It's amazing how fast they forget who helped to put them there in the first place.
I just bought a new notebook. As a capitalist, I should be overjoyed. Maybe I need Prozac. I think I will go get lunch, take it down by the Connecticut River, and just meditate on, as a citizen of this country, what I don't have.
This weekend has moved somewhat at a slow pace for me. We went to Monet's Table Saturday morning. It was as nice as it always is. They have great coffee! We came home to find that the clothes I ordered had come, and just in time for our trip to NYC. We are going to see a friend who will be there on Friday, Sept. 26th. We are having dinner at this great place on 44th street called db Bistro Moderne.
She leave the next morning, which gives Kent and me the entire day on Saturday to run around NYC!! We aren't sure quite yet what we will be doing during the day, but it will take in some museums and exhibits for sure. I'd also like to go to the World Trade Center and pay my respects.
Saturday evening, we are going to see the Blue Man Group. That was an idea from a co-worker. It sounded interesting to us, because it's not something that we would have chosen on our own.
We are also looking at buying the season series of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra at Carnegie Hall. I've known about them for years but recently on my way home from work, I heard them on the radio performing the Water Music of Handel. Ordinarily, I don't get too excited over Handel. He's not one of my favorite composers. I should qualify that. I hardly ever hear anyone do justice to his compositions. I suppose partly because people don't really understand how to perform them, and they are just very difficult to do well. I remember performing the Water Music in a small chamber orchestra when I was playing. The music made me uneasy because it is so exposed. Everything has to be perfectly placed. The Orpheus does an absolutely magnificent job of this work. In fact, when I got home, I immediately got online and ordered it! That's the biggest complement I can pay. That and the fact that I now want to go to their series at Carnegie Hall.
The Connecticut PRIDE festival on Sunday was somewhat of a disappointment for me. I expected a larger turnout. It was held in Riverfront Plaza in Hartford. I parked in East Hartford and took the comfortable walk across the Founder's Bridge crossing the Connecticut River. The plaza was a nice place to hold the festival, but with the rain, only about 300-350 people attended. I stayed for about an hour, and left. I'm sure the weather played a large part of the poor attendance. It was misting off and on and threatening to let loose at any moment.
This morning we went to a diner for breakfast. Afterwards we decided to stop by Best Buy to take a look at the notebook computers. I've been thinking of getting one for awhile now. You know, it's just hell having to sit at my desk writing all this stuff, when I could be in front of my TV writing about it, while relaxing in my big poofy blue chair.
After looking at the options, I decided that I liked the Sony Vaio (picture at left). After looking at them, I thought that it sure would be nice to be able to write and surf while I'm in NYC. After not-so-much deliberation, we decided to buy it. My exact model is here. It's simply amazing what one can talk oneself into. It's suppose to arrive Thursday.
Someone sent this to me and I got a few laughs from it. I had seen it before, but had forgotten about it. Enjoy.
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX) , Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be
driving with the following characteristics:1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a
new car.3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would
have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows,
shutoff the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could
continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your
car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to
reinstall the engine.5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable,
five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five
percent of the roads.6. The oil, water, temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be
replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An llegal Operation" warning
light.7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and
refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned
the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how
to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the
same manner as the old car.10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
ok... NOW I'm off to Connecticut PRIDE!
More and more gay couples are opting to become parents. And why not? Many of us have had to form our own families - families made up of friends and hopefully, blood relatives. The older I get the more important family life is to me. I think it would be awesome to bring a child into our household, but it does take a big commitment. In our case, we have decided (me more reluctantly than Kent) not to have a child. I love children and it seems from my interaction with Nicholas, that I have a way with them. I think I would make an outstanding parent.
I came across this story on the internet about two men who decided to become parents. They hope their son, Alexander, will grow up to be straight. They don't say why, but I can only assume it is to save him from the difficulties in this world that come with being gay. If I had a child, I suppose I would want the same for them, although I wouldn't make a big deal about it one way or the other. I know that sexual orientation is not chosen any more than eye color. Whatever they are and become, they would be loved by me and would have my support.
An extraordinary documentary about how two gay men flew to America and hired a surrogate mother to have a son is set to rekindle the debate about what constitutes an Australian family.
In the US they call it the "gayby boom".
In Australia, where laws vary, it is still the centre of emotional and ethical controversy.
Tony Wood, 40, and Lee Matthews, 34, are an upper-middle-class professional couple who decided five years ago they wanted to be parents.
The men each donated their sperm to fertilise eggs donated by a young American woman they chose after studying a catalogue in a process "very cut and dried, like retail shopping".
The resulting embryos were then impregnated into another American woman, who gave birth to a 2.8 kilogram boy, Alexander, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last December.
In a process which is banned in most countries around the world, the men used a California-based surrogacy and egg donation firm, Growing Generations, which is dedicated to the gay and lesbian community. The firm's website says it has assisted with the birth of at least 196 babies in cases from around the world.
Go here to read this story online.
Well, I'm off to see what's happening at Connecticut PRIDE. Today is the day for our pride festival.
Last January, I wrote about the suicide of a gay teen named Marcus Wayman. Marcus was in a parked car with a 17-year-old male friend when police stopped to question the two, found condoms while searching the car, and arrested them for underage drinking. At the police station, officers lectured the two teens about the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality and threatened to tell Wayman's grandfather that Wayman was gay.
After the 18-year-old Wayman was released from police custody, he went home and shot himself in the head.
His mother sued the town and the officers for police misconduct, discrimination, and violation of the right to privacy. The lawsuit against the Minersville, PA police has been settled. The police officers had asked the federal appeals court to let them out of the case on the basis that it was not clear that the right to privacy protects lesbians and gay men. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone would think this. How would it even enter anyones head that the right to privacy didn't extend to gay people? It's as if to some people we aren't even a part of this society.
For further information on Marcus Wayman, please visit the Marcus Memorial Campaign.
Click on the link below to read the full story. News source: The Advocate
John Ashcroft is on his tour of the country promoting the Patriot Act (and sponsoring a web site, Preserving Life & Liberty, in case you've forgotten). So it's timely to review what the provisions of the act are, especially since some of it's provisions are set to expire in 2005 unless renewed.
I have to confess that, like most people (probably even most members of the press who complain about the Patriot Act), I haven't read it. It is over 300 pages long after all. If you're more diligent and responsible than I, I'll just point you in the right direction.
If you're lazy, like me, there's an easier way to get a good overview of the Patriot Act's provisions. Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner have a four part overview of the act on Slate. Here are the links:
New Source: billingsgazette.com
The politically conservative Montana Family Coalition is planning a media campaign against the new television show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," claiming that the reality-based show featuring five gay men is trash and shouldn't be on TV. ..... "To me, that's not a reality show about gay people," said Julie Millam, who said she watched clips from the show. "A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS."
I won't even dignify that last remark with a response, other than to say (I just can't help myself), that perhaps she will feel differently when her son gets AIDS only to find that he has no where else to go for support other than the AIDS organizations... run by and formed by... you guessed it, gay people. But don't worry Julie, we won't turn him away.
I'm used to this sort of ignorance though. It's very close to what I grew up with in Idaho, a neighboring state. I've buried too many friends from AIDS to be understanding of her bigotry and ignorance.
"We don't want to see (gay content) on every single TV show," she said. "I'm hearing from people left and right, that every time they turn on the TV it's something to do with gay people. It's not reality."
Actually, it is reality. She just doesn't want to see it. What she really wants if for the "good ole days" to come back. You remember those. The days where people who were gay wouldn't even think of coming out of the closet and being themselves. Where we had to pretend to be something we weren't just to survive. The reality is, we do exist and most of us are sick and tired of pretending to be something we are not just so some of the more narrow minded of us can fell better and more comfortable AT OUR EXPENSE.
Julie Millam, I love you as a Christian. As a gay person who has gone through hell for the likes of you, you can go to hell.
Ever since I saw the movie Gandhi, I have been fascinated by India. It is a land that I always told myself that I would be going to at some point in my life. I know that it is a land of many religious beliefs. I can appreciate that. To me, that is part of the culture of the country. I enjoy meeting other people from other places different from myself and to try to appreciate their experiences and outlook on like.
I won't say that I live in such a shell as to think that being gay would be popular in India. I didn't expect that at all. I think sexuality is most always one small part of what a person is. It becomes a much larger issue if you feel that your life or freedom may be jeopardized because of it.
(New Delhi) The government of India says the public would never accept the decriminalization of homosexuality. In a brief presented to the country's Supreme Court, the government says that "Indian society is intolerant to the practice of homosexuality/lesbianism."
The high court is hearing an appeal by AIDS and gay groups that the country's sodomy law is unconstitutional. The so-called laws against nature allow for people convicted of homosexuality to be imprisoned up to life, although the maximum sentence is seldom handed out.
The government told the court Monday that society’s disapproval of homosexuality was "strong enough to justify it being treated as a criminal offence even where the adults indulge in it in private."
News Source: 365gay.com
Well, India isn't important enough to me to put myself into a culture that would put someone who is gay away for life. I realize that that would only happen if you were convicted of being gay (how ever that would come about, I don't know), but it wouldn't be worth the risk.
To my gay readership out there... ever notice how the world is becoming somewhat smaller