YAYYYYYYY!! IT'S MY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Let's see. It's been an odd day with out much fanfare. That's not a bad thing. It basically means that the whole day so far has been mine - just mine. So, I took advantage of it. I went to the mall for awhile and found some things for the house that I've been wanting. I bought them as a birthday present to myself. You can't beat that.

I started my day by waking up at 6:00 this morning to the sound of Kent taking a shower. I guess I could have joined him, but bed felt so good! It's really weird the things you think about when everything is so quiet, your mind is rested, and you let it explore on it's own.

I was thinking about our life in San Francisco and one particular time when Kent and I went to an outdoor market in the Noe Valley District, not far from the Castro District. This was like twenty years ago. We were looking at the goods for sale, and very much into ourselves. We were apparently holding hands without thinking about it. We passed another couple (male-female couple), and about ten feet past us, the male turned back to us and said "fucking faggots". I'm not sure exactly what kind of response he wanted to get from us, but we didn't even look back his way, not even to acknowledge him. It's hard to start a fight when nothing is fighting with you.

I know he was being an ass, as so many have to us in the past. But in my thoughts this morning, I found myself wondering if he would still have those same thoughts, given that gay people seem to be more accepted today. He would also be older, and hopefully more mature. What are his feelings today about gay people?

I remember shortly after that, we went to some gathering for AIDS awareness. At the rally, someone sang "Somewhere". The lyrics sliced through me like knives, and I began to cry.

There's a place for us,
Somewhere a place for us.
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us
Somewhere.

I suppose that sounds lame now, but at the time that we were at the street fair and being called "faggots", I was wondering if we would ever get to a point in time where we actually feel like we belong in this world. It's hard for most people to even understand what I'm talking about I think. To me, it's not a matter of being able to openly show that I love my mate. The issue is, will we ever live in a world where we can openly show affection without even thinking that we are showing affection? In other words, for gay people to show affection, it is often a "political statement" of some sort, and it shouldn't be. Straight people never give it a second thought because to them, it is natural. Will we really get to a time where there really is "a place for us" in this world, where we won't feel queer? I know, heavy thoughts for 6:00am.

My father-in-law is better today, and I'm thankful for that. I'm over my cold, which is good and despite the fact that I'm one year older, I'm in good spirits. I'm also glad Christmas is behind us. It was exhausting this year. Christmas dinner was probably the best we have ever prepared. Everything tasted so good.

I'll see you all in the New Year!

Cheers!

My Christmas this year is filled with many mixed feelings.

I decided to stay home this year. It was my decision. Kent and I talked about going to Yuma, CA for Christmas this year, but I just didn't have the desire to do that. In all honesty, it's been very difficult for me to put behind me the fact that I wasn't invited to the ceremony when Kent's father received his "lifetime achievement award" from our college. I know... it's old news and it's history, and I should move on. But, it was a big issue for me. I've covered it before and it no longer merits rehashing. Suffice to say, some people have disappointed me greatly, and I have tried to learn from that. About going to Idaho for their 50th wedding anniversary... well, the jury is still out on that.

So, part of that learning told me to stay home this year. And I did. Kent parents, and brother and sister-in-law decided to come out for Christmas this year. It hasn't all been easy, but at least I'm on my own turf.

We had a nice Christmas dinner. We delayed having it until Friday. Dec. 26th because some didn't arrive until late Christmas Day. We then opened our Christmas presents. It was fun. I had a sense of family.

Kent's father had a bad cold. It kept getting worse and turned into the Flu. He had to spend three days in the hospital. It was a bit scary to me. His fever was up over 103 a few times. He just came back home this morning. They've delayed going back to Yuma until this Friday, which I think is a good idea.

Other than that, I'm doing well. And, I'm actually quite rested (that doesn't mean that I'm ready to go back to work!).

I hope you all had a great Christmas season. I'm getting ready to take on 2004, right after my birthday on 12/31.

I found this online poll from the American Family Association. They say on their website that they are going to turn the results into Congress, but I have doubts that they will, given that the majority of those polled favor full marriage for gay couples. The American Family Association is against recognition of gay relationships in any way.

Take the online marriage poll from the American Family Association.

A lot has happened this Christmas season in our household. I'll make an entry about my thoughts on this Christmas a bit later. In the mean time, I read this letter from a 79 year old man who shared his thoughts on religion. In a strange way, it gives me some hope for the future of understanding each other.

I am a 79-year-old cradle Episcopalian, and I'm tired of hearing all the flap about a gay bishop. Any Episcopalian who regularly attends church and takes communion should remember that the service starts with reference to two commandments: Thou shall love thy God and thou shall love thy neighbor. How is it possible to do both of these things and dislike, possibly even hate, a homosexual whom one does not even know?

Now a bunch of zealots, like those who wish to break up the Episcopal Church, want to go so far as to change the Constitution to prevent same-sex marriages.

Enough, already! The framers of our Constitution, the most important document protecting individual rights since the Magna Carta, in their wisdom wrote a broadly worded document that did not put all of the power in the hands of the federal government.

Now it seems someone is trying to change this document to take some of those rights away. Can anyone imagine Congress writing our Constitution today? With the lobbyist writing parts of it, as they do our present laws, it would look like a fast-food menu.

Is marriage a religious or legal institution? If it is religious, then no government, state or federal, should intervene. If it is legal, then the various religious groups need not be involved. Does this not involve church and state and the separation and rights we are guaranteed? Catch-22, isn't it?

I would add that no one wants pedophiles loose among us. However, there is a great deal of difference between homosexuals and pedophiles. However, based upon comments I've read, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people do not understand the difference. Let's leave well enough alone and be at peace with our neighbors.

E. Danforth Knight Jr.
Venice

I am feeling a bit better today. I haven't set foot out of the house, but it's been nice to just do things at my own pace. I had a nice nap this afternoon and got a bit of energy back from that. While I took my nap, Kent took his parents around Coventry to see some of our historic sites.

Kent's brother and sister-in-law are arriving around 5:00. We may open presents tonight, but I'd rather wait tomorrow when I have more energy.

On a different note, I was surfing the net and came across this article concerning the sexuality of Jesus. Although I thought the article was interesting, my feeling is that the issue of sexuality is exagerated in the church to absurdity. They are missing the point. Jesus may have been gay or bi, as the article points out. This flies in the face of all the homophobia that has been directed at gays over the centuries. I can see why the church doesn't want to talk about it. The church should be more welcoming of all people. If that wasn't what Jesus was about, I don't know what is.

I would like to wish everyone a happy and healthy Christmas.

Yesterday was one of those days that most of us dread. I was trying to get everything ready for family and Christmas, and at the same time was coming down with a cold. It was a race of time to see if I could get all things done I wanted to before I ran out of energy.

I managed ok, but around 7:00pm, it all caught up with me and my fever spiked. I'm not sure what it was but I was freezing. I couldn't get warm, so I got into the shower and took a nice hot shower until the fever broke. Then I took TheraFlu, which pretty much wipes you out for the night.

I woke up this morning at 5:00. I made myself a nice cup of tea, took some more TheraFlu, put on my headphones, and watched a movie. I found myself phasing in and out of the movie, no doubt because of the TheraFlu. But, the fever is gone now at least.

I hear signs of life stirring upstairs now. Kent is up and his parents are getting up. So much has happened in our family since I last saw them. There was the whole business last summer of me not being invited to an award that his father received. I ended up going to the Virgin Islands. Don't get me wrong. Between the Virgin Islands, and Idaho, the Virgin Islands win on all fronts. But, it wasn't just that. I felt alone and rejected there. I had fun and did new things, like overcome my fear of the ocean and actually went snorkeling for the first time since encountering a shark in Hawaii. But it wasn't the same. It was hollow. Kent wasn't there, and I felt like I apparently wasn't deserving of having a family.

Gay people more times than not end up making their own family from their circle of friends. I have had to do that. I know that I'm not alone, so I'm not sitting here complaining about it like it's just me. But that doesn't make the feeling of isolation any less real to me.

Maybe this Christmas will be different. I've gone to great lengths to try to make it so. I've put up and decorated a beautiful Christmas Tree. I've decorated the entire house with ornaments. This year, I do have the Christmas spirit, but I can't help wonder if I'm setting myself up for another disappointment. I try to make my home warm and inviting. My walls are covered with past photos of friends, some of which are no longer with us. It is a reflection of our life together.

We'll see how it goes. The advantage of being sick is that if things get too intense, I'll just medicate myself an go off in to la la land.

Many conservatives have denounced the prospect of gay marriage because, they say, it would make a mockery of traditional marriage. Nonsense. If the institution has been mocked, the blame should be laid firmly at the feet of heterosexuals, including conservative stalwarts such as Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox network pioneered these freak shows three years ago with the Rockwell-Conger stunt. Murdoch also divorced his wife of 32 years and married a much younger woman. (story)

This is just another effort to trivialize our community to the rest of the nation. Now, they are taking all images of gay gatherings at national sites, including the Millennium March on the Washington Mall, and removing them from videotapes that have been shown at the Lincoln Memorial since 1995.

National Parks Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy is said to have been concerned about pictures in the video that showed same-sex couples kissing and holding hands after conservative groups complained.

That's right folks. How dare we openly show affection for one another? It's almost as though we would like to be equal with everyone else.

I've never been close to my brother.

I grew up in the typical 1950's-60's dysfunctional home. My father died with I was six, leaving my mother with three kids. And, all of us kids didn't particularly like each other. It's not that we hated each other, but we were always fighting over something. My sister and I were allys. She seemed to be on my side most all the time, but that's probably only because she was so busy dating boys all the time. After 1984, my sister and I were never to talk to each other again.

That leaves my brother. For most of my childhood, he was always bullying me. I spent all of those years defending myself and avoiding him. During high school, he went off to the San Diego when he joined the Navy. I thought I would be glad to see him go, but I worried about him leaving home for the first time. With him gone, it would just be me left at home with my mom and step dad.

Then, there was the growing problem of keeping my gayness a secret. I was sure he would be ruthless in his opinion of me if he found out that I was gay, based on all the derogatory gay jokes that he enjoyed sharing with my step father. I can't tell you how relieved I was to find out that he actually suspected that I might be having an affair with his girlfriend while he was away at San Diego. I was thinking to myself, "Thank God! He still thinks I'm straight."

Then, there were the not-so-minor annoyances of always being embarrassed in front of what few friends I had. He seemed to take great joy in that. He was always playing jokes on me and generally just being mean all the time. If I had anything, he would take it. This was not always a bad thing, you just had to know how to make it work in your favor.

For example, on one occasion, he took some candy and gum from me. I protested to no avail. The next time I was at the grocery store with my mother, I made it a point to buy some "Feen-a-mint", the "chewing gum laxative". Mom asked me if I knew what that was. I acknowledged that I did and that I "needed it". She bought it for me.

When I got home, I put the gum on my bed and made sure it was placed in clear view. I left it unopened so he would know that I hadn't even had the pleasure of having any yet. I was betting that he wouldn't know what a "laxative" was.

A couple of hours later, he entered the living room where my mother, sister, and I were watching TV. He had this huge grin on his face and was chewing on this big wad of gum. With a smirk on his face, he looked at me and said, "Hey Bill, I took all your gum that you got!". He was very proud of himself. He was chewing on the whole package of gum! My mother looked at me and said, "OH MY GOD!". She looked at Mike and said, "Spit it out you fool!". He was like, "What the hell??!?".

The next morning, I woke up, and noticed that Mike wasn't in bed. We shared the same bedroom. I got dressed, and on my way to the kitchen, had to pass the bathroom. As I passed the bathroom, the door quickly opened. Mike was in the doorway looking somewhat pale. He looked at me with a pissed off look and said, "It's nothing but WATER!!!". Lesson learned.

Life has a funny way of turning everything around. Life hasn't been easy for Mike. He ended up getting a divorce. His health is not so good now. He's diabetic, and severely overweight. Over the years, he has tried to get closer to me as a brother. This has not been an easy task. I have spent most of my life building walls around me to keep people like him out. But over time, I have began to trust him.

I called him on his birthday a few days ago. He is going back to school. He mentioned to me that others in the class were talking about their families and what they were like. Out of the blue, Mike pipes up and says, "I have a brother. He's gay, and a better man than I will ever be, and I'm so proud of him." A silence came across the room. Three in the class said they didn't care for gay people. Mike said, "What has that group of people ever done to you?". The others replied, "Well, nothing". Mike replied, "Well, if you don't have a good reason to bring down a group of people, you should just keep your trap shut. My brother has been with his partner for almost thirty years. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to live like the rest of us, and be able to get married." They dropped the subject.

I think my brother finally gets it. It's too bad that most of America doesn't.

And I'm sure the majority of people (who could vote) favored preventing women the right to vote.

I'm sure the majority of people wanted to keep slavery.

I'm sure the majority of people wanted to prevent black people from being able to marry.

I'm sure the majority of people wanted to prevent white and black people the ability to marry (maybe they still do?).

I'm sure the majority of people probably wishes gay people would just "go away" or be put on some island somewhere, where society doesn't have to "deal with" all of these "gay" issues.

I'm sure that for the next two generations or so that the majority of people will not agree that gay couples should have any marriage rights.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!

What the majority wants and what are laws dictate as being fair and equal for all citizens are thankfully separate issues. The "majority" has been wrong many many times before.

They are wrong now about gay marriage. We want to be part of society as equal productive citizens. What is so wrong with that? We give a great deal to this society. We should have the right to be equal in every regard.

Everytime I read a story such as this, I get so angry. The man in this story never even got to say goodbye to his partner who slipped into a coma.

In court testimony, chief physician at Shock Trauma, Dr. Thomas Scalea, said Flanigan was barred because doctors were too busy trying to save Daniel's life to allow visitors. Flanigan was finally permitted to see his partner but only after Daniel's mother and sister arrived hours later. By that time, Daniel was no longer conscious, his eyes were taped shut, and he subsequently died without being able to say goodbye to his partner.

Before reading the verdict which rejected Flanigan's suit, the jury said it felt sorry for Flanigan's loss and thought the University of Maryland Medical System could have "communicated better" with him. (story)

One thing that you might want to look at is the Partner Medical Rights package by Family LLC. The cost is $175.00 (it says you get $35 off at checkout). The documents are created for you and mailed to you. It's probably less costly than seeing a lawyer to try to draft documents to give you some of the rights of marriage with regards to medical decisions.

For the "savage" murder of 41 year old Aaron Webster, a man, who was 17 at the time of the murder, has been sentenced to "three years in custody for a manslaughter conviction".

Webster was repeatedly beaten on the head and upper body with a baseball bat or pool cue. He was found naked except for his hiking boots.

Ryan Cran and Danny Rao, both 21 and from Burnaby, have also been charged with manslaughter in the case and are scheduled for a preliminary hearing in April.

I wasn't there and didn't hear the testimony, but only three years seems a bit lenient to me. The man is dead after all. I'm sure he wanted to live his life, and these hoodlums deprived him of that. I would have said 30+ years would have been more appropriate.

I really thought that after Matthew Shepard, we were beyond simply giving a slap on the wrist for killing a gay person. (story)

12/20/2003 - Sentences for Aaron Webster's killers too light, gays say

Court transcript given below:

I read this story about two gay men who have been together for 58 years. They finally went to Canada and got married. It's a moving story about how for so many years they were a couple, but could never acknowledge that to their families or friends. They came from a different time where keeping your homosexuality a secret was done for survival.

Kent and I acknowledged long ago our relationshilp, but it came with a price. I don't know how to put a price tag on freedom of personal expression. I do know that living a lie is a wasted life.

They worked together, took cruises together and sang in the same church choir. They lived together for nearly six decades but never held hands in public.

Then, last month, Gustavo Archilla, 88, and Elmer Lokkins, 84, crossed the Canadian border near Niagara Falls and were married. ...

The couple capture what some in the gay rights movement say is an essential but unappreciated point in the argument for same-sex marriage: It offers something more basic and profound than survivor rights or shared health care. For many gays and lesbians, the power of marriage lies in the sanctity of its tradition, its social legitimacy -- the very thing opponents of gay marriage are mobilizing at the highest levels to protect. (story)

One word... MORON!

I honestly don't know why this president doesn't just scrap the Constitution of the United States. When anything else gets in his way, he simply ignores it anyway.

WASHINGTON — President Bush is taking a stand on a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. And the President's support may help pass a Federal Marriage Amendment when Congress comes back into session early next year.

Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Now, President Bush has handed down his own verdict on the issue, saying that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban homosexuals from marriage and protect its federal definition. (story)

I think it's time that we just came out and said in the open that the Republican Party has become worthless and devoid of any value. The "compassionate conservative" doesn't know the first thing about being compassionate or accepting. The same can be said for his party. It didn't used to be this way. The Republican Party would at least listen and were reasonable. Today, they are owned by the Religious Right and if you don't believe that, just listen to this president, with all of his "faith-based" initiatives.

GOD and people's religious values have no place in government or the setting of government policy. The line separating church and state are becoming smaller and smaller.

This amendment will fail.

If it becomes part of the Constitution, it will eventually be defeated and removed from the Constitution because it goes contrary to the purpose of the Constitution. This will be an amendment to deny a certain segment of the population equal rights. That is a black eye to that great document. In the end, it will be removed and the efforts to create two different classes of citizens will have failed.

If the states fail to ratify the amendment (if it makes it that far), this President, along with all the Republicans who supported and voted for this amendment's passage, will be shown to be the homophobic bigots that they are. Again, the amendment will fail.

I say, let them go down this path. It will lead them to a place that they don't want to be.

Read more about it.

Detroit Lions president Matt Millen apologized Monday for calling a former Detroit player a "faggot" – twice – in an incident following the Lions game Sunday at Kansas City.

"You faggot! Yeah, you heard me. You faggot!" Millen was heard shouting at Johnnie Morton, a Kansas City wide receiver who played for the Lions for eight years until leaving following the 2001 season.

George Carlin was fond of citing the "seven words you can't say on television" as proof that there are no bad words, just bad thoughts. Repeating the seven words over and over again (as Carlin has done for years) serves to take the sting out of them, the comedian argues.

Why, then, does race remain taboo, but a slur used to describe a homosexual gets a free pass?

The answer: For the same reason that people seem to think that it's ok to deny gay citizens equal rights in every other part of their lives.

In 37 of the 50 states, it's still fully legal to fire a gay person, and they have no recourse, because it's not against the law. Even the Federal Government has not added "sexual orientation" to the other classes of protection - race, disability, etc. We can't even get married to the one we love and I probably never will be able to. I honestly don't expect to live that long.

So, I don't really understand why people are shocked that Matt Millen felt he could get away with calling someone else a "faggot". Let me tell you something. In any given month, I get called a "faggot" or "queer" at least 2-3 times. People that suddenly feel that it's taboo to call another person a "faggot" just don't have a clue.

They can get away with it because most of society thinks it's just fine the way things are.

I've thought a lot about the priviledges of marriage, but I honestly never thought about this. An article published in New York Press by Michelangelo Signorile discussed what Rosie O'Donnell went through with her lawsuit.

Honestly, at the time, I really thought the whole thing was about the ego of a lawfirm up against the ego of Rosie, and I'm still not sure who has the biggest ego.

But, after reading this article, it made me aware that there are so much that we miss out on by not being able to marry. It's astonishing:

"If you are a heterosexual talk show host and you’re sued by a major corporation, anything you have said to your husband is privileged information," she said in an interview on my radio program on Sirius OutQ last week. She was referring to two rights of marriage that few of us ever think about–until we’re sued for $100 million, or brought to court for something far minor. One is the spousal immunity privilege, which, if you watch enough Law & Order or The Practice, you know means that, in general, a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife and vice versa. The other is known as the privilege for marital communications, which protects confidential correspondence between spouses. These are just two of hundreds of rights granted by marriage–rights that gay couples don’t have.

"If you are a homosexual talk show host," O’Donnell continued, "and you’re sued by a corporation, anything you have ever said and/or written to your spouse/partner/wife is allowed to be entered into the record. It is totally unfair."

She believes that Gruner & Jahr’s lawyers were well aware of that inequity and exploited it to their advantage.

Don't they have shampoo in Iraq? (or beard trimmers, for that matter)

Seeing Saddam's skin tone after coming out of that hole only reinforces what I've said for years: MOISTURIZER IS IMPORTANT FOR HEALTHY SKIN PEOPLE! I know what you are thinking: "Bill, that's not the hot issue here!". Well, maybe it should be. I think that when little things pop up in life (like war), we tend to forget about other things that are important, like what the stress of war is doing to your skin tone. When in doubt, moisturize - even in the trenches!

I saw the funniest entry on another website of a draft of a constitutional amendment to "defend biblical (read: Traditional) Marriage".

I want to go see the Connecticut Gay Men’s Chorus in their Christmas concert, but my in-laws are coming to visit, and they probably wouldn't appreciate a group of gay men together, singing, and not being ashamed of being gay.

Gay bashing is on the rise, so I've read. In fact, according to FBI reports, bias crimes against gays is at an all time high. I am wondering if I will get through this new year without having the crap beat out of me for being.... me. It could happen at any time. argh... don't want to think about it anymore.

Saddam Hussein and American politicians are different. Saddam was honest about his disgust for minorities and slaughtered them. American politicians hide their disgust of minorities, act like your friend to get money from you, then vote against you once they are in power.

The health club is an evil place to go, but I need to go. I think my trainer is Lucifer. He looks like Al Pacino in Devils Advocate.

Hillary Clinton has a "power" hair style. I wonder what color she uses?

I read today that Princess Diana regularly had colonics. I suppose that's the only way she could purge all the royal crap she had to deal with.

If I were actually thinking about ditching my current job and found a new job, I'm getting too old to worry about this bullshit at this period in my life.

DON'T FEAR CHANGE. CHANGE FEAR.

Yesterday, Idaho sent a clear message to Fred Phelps and the gay-bashing demonstrators of the Westbory Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas.

The Phelps' supporters are trying to establish in Boise a monument that says Wyoming murder victim Matthew Shepard is in hell. Shepard, beaten to death in 1998, was targeted because he was gay.

Nearly 500 people countered Phelps' demonstration of hate.

Catholics, Protestants, Jews, evangelical Christians, gays, toughs, peace advocates, and passers-by in cars quietly countered a protest in Boise by a handful of relatives of Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. Nine Westboro church members picketed churches Sunday and marched along Capitol Avenue to spread his message that God hates homosexuals.

Everywhere they went, they were met by crowds of Idahoans who, despite their often-conflicting views all shared a disgust for Phelps´ self-described message of hate. Even those who share Phelps´ view that homosexuality is a sin viewed him as an outside agitator meddling in Idaho affairs. (story)

It kind of blows my mind that there were even people there from Emmett, the small town I grew up in. Maybe it's not so closed minded anymore. Who knows? Could things be changing even there?

The foutain's not flowing now. They turn it off in the winter, ice in the pipes. But in the summer, it's a sight to see. I want to be around to see it. I plan to be. I hope to be.

This disease will be the end of many of us, but not nearly all.

And the dead will be commemorated, and we'll struggle on with the living, and we are not going away. We won't die secret deaths any more. The world only spins forward. We will be citizens!

The time has come. Bye now. You are fabulous, each and everyone, and I bless you. More life! The great work begins. - End of Angels In America

A lot has happened with us this weekend. First off, Kent got home late Friday night, around 11:30. I was asleep, but he woke me up just long enough to tell me that he was home. It is great having him home. I told him of all the things I went through with the last storm. He went to California last Saturday when we were having the last big storm. Sunday morning, we had 15 inches of snow on our driveway. I did my best to get the snow cleared, but it was just too deep for our little snowblower. I ended up shoveling one lane so I could at least get out for work. That was on Sunday, a week ago. Then, Monday morning I went to leave for work but realized that they had grated the road again, leaving two feet of snow and ice once again blocking my driveway.

So, I took the shovel and cleared the driveway. On my way back to the house, both of my feet slipped our from under me. I fell flat on my back on the hard driveway. I was seeing stars.

So, we decided that our old snow blower probably wasn't up to the task of the winters around here. Above is a picture of our old one, alongside the new one. Hopefully the new one will be up to the task.

As I write this, I'm sitting here watching mindless TV. Smallville is on and I'm wondering if Clark Kent (played by Tom Welling), has any other shoes in his wardrobe other than Timberland boots?? Maybe he needs a visit from the Fab 5.

We got our Christmas tree up today. It's a large tree - about 8 feet tall. I forgot how many balls (don't laugh) that we had for the tree. It took me two hours to finish, but it looks pretty good, even if I do say so myself.

We captured Saddam Hussein today. I suppose now we can feel as though we accomplished something, even if he wasn't our target. At least, we went into Iraq looking for Osama bin Ladin. Maybe they'll find him in another hole.

It's important to remember history. We often get comfortable with the life we have without thinking about the past. We all know about the holocaust, and we've all seen movies about how the Germans exterminated over six million Jews. But, until recently, other minorities were ignored.

Now, Germany is finally going to build a memorial to the gay victims of the holocaust.

BERLIN - Germany will build a national memorial to homosexuals persecuted or killed under the Nazis, in addition its planned memorial to the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, parliament decided Friday.

Nazi Germany declared homosexuality an aberration that threatened the German race and convicted some 50,000 homosexuals as criminals. An estimated 10,000 to 15,000 gay men were deported to concentration camps, where few survived.

"Homosexual victims of the Nazi regime were mostly shut out of Germany's culture of remembrance in the past. That is now over," said lawmaker Volker Beck of the environmentalists Greens party.

I've written about this in the past. It's hard to believe that the memories of the gay victims have been ignored for so long, just because people disliked them. Even the Jewish victims of the holocaust didn't want them remembered. But now, maybe there will be some recognition of what happened to this forgotten part of history. (story)

This week has been the week from hell for me. Work is killing me and with Kent gone all week, it's been kind of hard to get motivated. Kent gets home tonight from Santa Barbara, CA. It will be nice to see him again.

On Tuesday, I caught up with some friends that I hadn't seen in four years. They spotted the website and through that we were able to reconnect again. It was really nice to see them again. Friendship has been a difficult thing for me in life. It's taken me a long time to realize that I see friendship much differently than most people. To me, it means a commitment of support and love for my friend. Of course, I realize that there are what would you would call "acquaintances" and "friends", and they are different. I have many acquaintances, but just a few friends. It was nice to see them again because, before we drifted apart, they were friends. It was nice to see them happy together and to see the wonderful life that they have created together. I don't know if I will be part of their future. I guess time will tell. Whatever happens, I wish them well.

I read this bizarre story about an Iowa judge who granted a divorce to a lesbian couple. How can a divorce (a legal procedure) be granted towards some arrangement that wasn't legally recognized in the first place?

Gay rights activists say the divorce between Kimberly J. Brown, 31, and Jennifer S. Perez, 26, does not open the door to recognition of same-sex relationships, but a conservative group said Friday it will ask the Iowa Supreme Court to overturn the decree.

"We believe the judge exceeded his authority," said Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a family advocacy group.

Hurley and other conservatives fear the judge's decree, which refers to the union as a marriage, could be a step toward legitimizing same-sex unions, which are not permitted under an Iowa law passed in 1997.

In a perverse way, I find it somewhat amusing to watch and participate in a society that has no clue how to deal with our relationships. I suppose I should be thankful that they are even willing to recognize that we have relationships and that, at this point in time, some are at least trying to figure it out.

But, I would like to just say to society, it's really not that complicated folks. We are two human beings that love each other. Sex is secondary. Pretty basic, but society gets all hung up on gender.

I got a kick out of something I read on Shadow Footprints about the "25 Dangers of Legalizing Gay Marriage" from Morphizm.com. It's a good read and pretty well tells it like it is.

I have talked in the past about how stupid the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy is. It's costing us a lot of money to enforce, and it's costing us a lot of talent that could be put to good use.

I read this story and was very touched by it.

"What if a married person in the military couldn't tell anyone that his wife exists?" Glover said. "And if he did, he'd be fired?"

That was Glover's predicament. Her partner had moved from Ohio to an apartment in Monterey. Glover told no one, splitting her time between the post and her partner's place, and lying about her whereabouts on the sign-out log. She was afraid to be seen in public with her partner. The hiding took its toll; the four-year relationship ended. The breakup fueled Glover's anger toward "don't ask, don't tell."

An interesting article. It brought back memories. After Kent and I moved to Coventry, I was searching for a church in our area. Kent had grown up Presbyterian, so I called our local Presbyterian Church. I explained to the minister that we were new in town and would like to attend their church and see if it was a good fit for us.

After learning that we were a gay couple (I thought he should know so there would be no awkward surprises), he said that we would not be welcomed and to please not come around. So much for being Christian.

Rushing To Judgment What do conservatives like Rush Limbaugh hate more than drugs? Ambiguity

I like conservatives. I like the way they feel about unions, globalization, farm subsidies, helmet laws, states' rights, animal rights, affirmative action, the environment, free trade and Ted Kennedy. I also like the way their women dye their hair really blond and flare their nostrils when they're angry. But the reason I can't get down with the conservatives, despite my libertarian leanings, is their absolutism. Rush Limbaugh has long been rabidly antidrug, saying all users should be locked away. Yet when he came back on the air after just five weeks of rehab for addiction to some drug I'm actually too conservative to have even heard of, he suddenly believed the liberal doctrine that addicts are victims of a disease who can be cured only through the help of others. If Rush accidentally kisses a man on the lips, he's going to switch on gay marriage and have no show left. (story - Joel Stein)

I think if I ever got to the point that I heard Rush Limbaugh being an advocate for gay marriage, I would seriously wonder if the world was ending.

It is interesting however to see how Rush's attitude over drug use has changed since he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Suddenly, he's developed a new appreciation for what it's like to be a drug abuser. Myself, I've never been a drug addict, so I can't personally offer insight into what it would be like, but I don't have to become one to imagine that it would hell.

I rarely listen to Rush anymore. Don't get me wrong, I never took him seriously. It's just that, when I go to lunch, there's nothing else as entertaining to listen too.

Why just today for example, he was talking about how Hillary alone was controlling the news media and those around her by collecting the "testicles" of those who were interviewing her. Yes, that's what Rush said.

If you were "good" (asked the right questions), at the end of the interview, you could have your testicles back. If you asked innapropriate questions or portrayed Hillary in a bad light, Hillary would keep your testicles.

It left me wondering.... what if the interviewer was Diane Sawyer?

Last week was a strange week for me. Our company had a meeting explaining the new benefits that are being given and what has changed in the benefits.

I've spent a lot of time griping about the lack of protection in the relationships of gay and lesbian citizens. I'm sure some of you have gotten sick of hearing it, almost as much as I got sick of writing about it. Some have said that if the state's put in place "civil union" laws, that would be sufficient.

As I was listening to different speakers talk about certain benefits, a new life insurance benefit is given this year. This interested me because we are getting to a point in our lives where I have a need to be concerned over such issues. If I die, will Kent be taken care of? Will funeral costs be covered? So, I was interested in this. Time after time, the speaker talked about the policy and that you could also put your "spouse" on the policy as well, so that if something happened to your spouse, you would also be covered.

After the meeting was over, I went up to the speaker, and asked if a "significant other" or a "domestic partner" would qualify. The answer was, "No, but you can specify anyone you would like to be your beneficiary." That wasn't the question I asked. In other words, I would be able to do this, but since Kent is not my spouse, we are out of luck on this one. Would "civil union" legislation by the state cover something like this? The company offering the insurance is a national company. Would they even be able to tailor their national policies to conform to state laws?

I shopped around a bit. They are all the same way. So, I'm seeing the discrimination of marriage in my daily life now. I hate meetings like this. With all the benefits offered, the "spouse" is always eligible to partake, but we can't. I end up depressed, and feeling like garbage.

I know it's not me, but I will tell you that it's very difficult to feel like you are equal to everyone else when even the company you work for reinforces that you are simply a second-class employee in a country that views you as a second-class citizen.

A letter reprinted from the Daily Hampshire Gazette:

To the editor:

The Gazette's Nov. 21 editorial on same sex marriage states that the challenge facing the Legislature is whether it can write legislation that ''reserves the word (marriage) itself for traditional unions, at least for now.'' The editorial does not include an argument against same-sex civil marriage, it simply notes that the prospect ''troubles opponents''.

Respectfully, the mere fact that there is opposition to allowing gay and lesbian couples equal marriage rights is not sufficient reason for the Legislature to oppose it. Basic rights for minority groups are matters of justice, not consensus. Still, it is worth noting that the most recent statewide poll on this issue found that only 38 percent of Massachusetts residents opposed the SJC ruling.

The debate over civil rights for gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts is far different today than it was before November 18th. Civil unions are now advocated by the governor and others purely as a means of preventing the SJC ruling from effectuating gay marriage.

It is not possible to achieve ''equal protection'' (the title of your editorial) for gay and lesbian families by creating a parallel status, such as civil unions. Marriage cannot be divorced from the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that attend the age-old institution.

If, as the Gazette editorial suggests, we extend benefits to same sex couples, but ''reserve'' marriage itself for heterosexuals, then we will have created a separate institution specifically for gays and lesbians, as a means of preventing them full access to marriage, and to the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy. That's not ''equal protection'', that's second-class citizenship.

The SJC ruling throws down a gauntlet - either stand with gay and lesbian people and affirm their equal status under the law, or stand with those who would assign second-class citizenship on the basis of sexual orientation. This is a time for courage.

Rachel Maddow
Cummington

I guess I was so sleepy when I made my first entry today that I forgot to say that we are in a winter storm. Overnight we got four inches, which isn't bad, but the worst is suppose to his this afternoon and tonight. Depending on who you listen to, we will receive anywhere from eight to fifteen inches of snow. It's coming down at a pretty good clip now.

Kent got up at six this morning to run the snowplow over the driveway, but it's going to need it again soon. The trick is to keep up on it because it's no fun to remove twelve inches of snow from our driveway. It should be nice this afternoon with it snowing like hell and winds up to fifty miles per hour.

Kent is waiting at Bradley Airport for his plane. He's on his way to Santa Barbara, California for a week-long meeting. He barely made it out. The guy at the ticket counter said, "You are one of the lucky ones that will make it out. All of the afternoon flights have been cancelled." So, it sounds like this afternoon will be interesting. I'll worry like hell until he gets there, but I'm sure everything will be fine. More on the storm

I was sound asleep but for some reason woke up at 3:00am and was wide awake. I got up, did the usual bathroom stuff, and decided to go watch TV for a bit, before discovering that Max is on my TV chair. We have a rule in our home. Whoever is on a couch or chair can keep the spot until they give it up. So, Max won out.

So what woke me up? I had a dream about a reunion. It was so weird. I think it was my second grade class. I'm not sure what tells me that, other than my second grade teacher was there, although she was a high school teacher of mine, but my dream tells me otherwise, so I go with it. Also, there's no way I would remember people from my second grade. I remember them from high school. I've forgotten them, at least I thought I had. But in my dream, everyone was approaching me and saying, "I bet you don't remember me." But of course, I remembered everyone, even though I would never remember them in real life again.

The mind is really strange that way. I guess I have exact memories of all these people from so long ago stored away in a subconscious place in my mind. They came through vividly, even the smallest details came out. None of their spouses were there. It was just me and them, with no pressure to conform, or to explain. Is that what my mind wants?

I've been invited to high school reunions, but never went. The same is true for college. Basically, what do I have to offer? They would be there with their wives and husbands, and I would be there left trying to explain why I'm not married and just hope that I'm not judged for it. Or, I could lie. My imaginary wife could have died of cancer 5 years ago, but I have three kids who are grown with my grandchildren. But, it wouldn't be real. It wouldn't be me. But, is it what they want to hear? Do they want to hear that their friend from so long ago, is a queer?

I feel like it's something that's been robbed from me, just like the happy years of high school. High school sucked but was bearable because of a few friends. They never believed the rumors in high school about me. Now, if I were to go to a reunion and be honest, all the nasty rumors that they denied along with myself, would be true - unless I lied. Then would I loose them as friends or even worse, loose their respect? I haven't seen them in a very long time, but somehow, that would matter to me.

In college I had a few acquaintances from living in a dorm. I suppose at the time, I called them friends. They made their quota of gay jokes at the time, and left nothing to the imagination on how they felt about gays, without ever knowing that one of them was in their midst. So how do I approach going to a reunion with them there? The answer is, if you are gay and don't want to deal with that, you don't go. So, I never did.

But in my dreams, I am me. They ask me if I'm with someone, and I point over to Kent. They say, "How long have you two been married?", as though it were nothing. I say, "Twenty-nine years now". They congratulate us both and make a toast to us.

Somehow, gifts appear and we have the wedding reception that we never had, with people actually being genuinely happy for us. There's no hint of rejection or judgment. It was nice. I actually didn't want to leave my dream. It was nice spending time with old friends. Even the old friends who made the gay jokes were there, but their antigay attitudes were gone. They were also happy for us.

Then, I woke up. I realized that I had wanted all of that in my life, and my dream was the closest that I would ever come to achieving it. I suppose, that is the best I can hope for. But it was so nice while it lasted.

I read this editorial by Alan Dershowitz about the state sanctioning marriage verses civil unions, and it made a lot of sense to me.

Basically, the government (state and federal) would get out of the marriage business. Everyone would be able to obtain a "civil union" from the state and federal government. The civil union would be equal in rights for all couples.

Religious institutions could decide whether or not to grant marriages to gay couples. But gay couples would have all the rights and responsibilities of a civil union, along with heterosexual couples. It's the best of all worlds.

The only problem is that some people wouldn't even go for that. They actually want the state and federal government to sanction "marriage", and to hell with separation of church and state. That has more to do I believe with bigotry than being practical and reasonable. I also believe that the federal government would not go for it as well because it would come across as "sanctioning homosexuality".

If it were possible, I would love it if all gay people in this country just stopped contributing anything to this society for say, a month, just to see all the services that come to a halt. I think it would be very enlightening to a lot of people.

The article from Alan Dershowitz is below. It has been printed in numerous papers throughout the United States.

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacred, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison after he engaged in voluntary sexual relations with a 14-year-old boy just after Limon turned 18. Had Limon's partner been female, Limon could have been sentenced to about one year in prison.

Limon appealed his sentence all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to Kansas in light of its June ruling striking down laws that criminalize gay sex. The Kansas Court of Appeals panel may rule by February.

Justice G. Joseph Pierron, the presiding judge of a three-judge Court of Appeals panel hearing the case of Limon v. Kansas, repeatedly questioned the legislative intent behind a law that lessens the penalty for teenagers who engage in voluntary sexual relations but specifically excludes homosexuals.

In Kansas, sexual relations for those under 16 are always illegal. But under the state's "Romeo and Juliet Law," the punishment is far less severe when the sexual relations are voluntary and between someone 14 to 16 and someone under 19 -- so long as the sex is between a male and female.

So what do you think? It seems reasonable to me that Mr. Limon has a legitimate hope of having his sentence reduced. Of course, we are talking Kansas here, which hasn't exactly weighed in on the sided of reason where gay issues are concerned.

Here's where I weigh in. If a crime is on the books in Kansas that two teens having sex at that age is illegal, that's the way it is. But, sexual orientation should not be an issue in weighing the sentence. Mr. Limon should receive the same sentence as that of a heterosexual in that situation, or, the heterosexual should be given the same sentence as Mr. Limon. Whatever the sentence, it should all be the same for everyone.

At least, it seems that Justice Pierron of the appeals court is trying to be fair. "I'm trying to find what the real reason was other than, 'We just don't like homosexuals,' " Pierron said at one point. Let's hope for Matthew Limon's sake that the outcome is fair.

For the actual appeal, read below.

Here we go again. A few months ago Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas attempted to errect a statue in Casper, Wyoming, the hometown of slain gay student Matthew Shepard.

Phelps has formally asked the city for permission to install a 6-foot granite edifice bearing the name and image of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old Wyoming college student who died in 1998 five days after when he was lured out of a Laramie bar by two men, kidnapped and beaten into a coma. Police said he was targeted in part because he was gay. His attackers were later convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. ...

Shepard has no known connection to Idaho. He was from Casper and attending college in Laramie when he was killed. Phelps, who picketed Shepard's funeral, has tried to get approval for similar anti-gay monuments in Casper and in Idaho's Minidoka County.

In Casper, the city council voted to move its Ten Commandments monument from a public park to a historic plaza. It's unclear whether that action will be enough to block Phelps' marker.

In Rupert, county commissioners decided not to sell any of the courthouse lawn, either to Phelps or to another religious group that had sought to install a monument to the Ten Commandments.

I've said it before that I think these people are crazy. I've always felt that we should all have free speach, but these people are scary. Of course, now that states have sanctioned the placement of religious monuments on state property, they have opened themselves up for this kind of abuse. (story)

A letter reprinted from the Daily Hampshire Gazette:

To the editor:

A recent letter writer argued against gay marriage on the grounds of ''natural law,'' which in this case seems to have something to do with procreation and the raising of children. The writer seems to believe that marriage is a sociological institution based upon this ''natural law.''

I have been married for ten years. My wife and I, for medical reasons, are not able to bear children. Another couple, friends of ours who have been married for eight years, have chosen to remain childless for personal reasons. Yet another couple of friends were unable to have children and have chosen to adopt, and are raising a wonderful young lady. This last couple is unmarried, and is unable to get married because they are both of the same gender.

It seems to me that if marriage in our society were truly based on this ''natural law,'' my marriage would be illegal and my lesbian friends would be encouraged to marry. Clearly, this is not the case.

Mark Renaud
Easthampton

That's the headline in a Washington Post story this morning.

In the past two years, the Department of Defense has discharged 37 linguists from the Defense Language Institute for being gay ... At a time of heightened need for intelligence specialists, 37 linguists were rendered useless because of their homosexuality.

We've had "Don't ask, don't tell" for ten years now. Isn't about time that the military admitted that it isn't working? Come to think of it, the military would probably still have racially segregated platoons if civilian leaders, i.e., the President and Congress, had not ordered them to integrate.

Since our fearful leader (no that's not a typo) won't do it, it's time for Congress to make a stand. If Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are genuinely concerned about the safety and security of Americans, they will introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity mandating that the military accept all qualified applicants regardless of sexual orientation. Since they won't do that, it's clear that they are more frightened of gay people than they are of Osama bin Laden.

I feel sorry for them.

There have been many like James Dale. James used to be an eagle scout in the Boy Scouts of America.

Dale, who was also a volunteer Scoutmaster, spent a decade in litigation against the Boy Scouts of America after it kicked him out following publicity about his participation in a seminar as a gay man while a student at Rutgers University.

In 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' right as a private organization to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

"If I had won, it would have been a great thing for me," said Dale, now 33. "I lost, and I think it was a great thing for America." (story)

Letter reprinted with permission from collegiatetimes.com.

As a heterosexual man, I do not know how it feels to be discriminated against or hated because of my sexuality; however, I can only imagine the sense of rejection and isolation a homosexual must feel when his or her own president has publicly denounced gay marriages. To these people, I am severely apologetic.

I attended the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Alliance of Virginia Tech’s discussion panel on the need for allies last Thursday with an open mind, and what I discovered was a group of people filled with sadness and near hopelessness. A Tech faculty member (whose name I shall not include out of respect) remarked since she has come out, she no longer has the same rights she did a year ago simply because the person she shares her bed with has changed.

This struck me as something in need of change; a week later, President Bush declared marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.

I find it extremely ironic how the same stereotypical straight people who believe homosexuals are nothing but sex-hungry partiers are often the same stereotypical straight people who refuse to allow gays to marry. If we’re so disgusted by their supposed promiscuity, then why do we deny them the right to be legally committed as we are?

I challenge every American to ask why.

I think most Americans mistake their revulsion with the idea homosexuality is immoral. On what grounds is homosexuality immoral?

Religious grounds?

Even if true, the argument is not valid in America; our laws are made with the idea of fairness to all, despite religious views.

And don’t tell me straight marriage is an American tradition, because so was slavery. Sometimes traditions are in need of a change, and straight-only marriages are definitely one of them.

Wake up, America.

We built this country on the principles of liberty and justice for all, and now it’s time to live up to them.

Brent Keener
Sophomore, political science and philosophy
October 16, 2003

Letter reprinted with permission from collegiatetimes.com.

Now that “compassionate conservatism” has had its chance to weigh in on the question of equal rights for all, a rebuff is due (“Marriage should remain a union between heterosexuals,” CT, Oct. 15). Let me get this straight; you’re saying because you don’t find the concept of marrying another man satisfying, no one else should be permitted to do so? I may be heterosexual myself, but it doesn’t prevent me from seeing how indefensible this position is.

The first argument thrown down is always that the gay community is blowing things out of proportion. Essentially, people who argue this point are saying it’s the gays’ fault they are being excluded from common society, and that they have no reason to feel wronged by this.

The second argument used appeals to emotion by citing the fact “more and more children are growing up in broken homes where marriages have failed.” There is no evidence, first of all, that gays make poor parents.

Secondly, this argument appears to suggest that forcing the parents to stay in a bad or abusive relationship is going to work out better for the child than living with one good parent or a good step-parent.

The third argument generally made is that the American legal system is founded on biblical moral principles, and therefore since the Bible disapproves of gay marriage, it should be illegal. Even if this were the case, it would not be a compelling argument.

However, only three of the Ten Commandments describe acts which are in fact illegal: killing, stealing and bearing false witness. These three things are also illegal in virtually every society on earth, be it Hindu, Confucian or communist. The rest of them may be frowned upon by one’s Christian neighbors, as a gay marriage would be, but they are not illegal.

The fourth argument is that we should follow the “order of nature” in determining who is allowed to marry. This is patently absurd for a number of reasons. To begin with, animals do not marry; the argument here has nothing to do with reproduction, just marriage.

Besides, there are gay animals; there are animals which reproduce with members outside their species. Many male mammals maintain a “harem” of females for their personal use; and there are many, many animals that do not even take care of their young beyond fertilization. Nature is a decidedly poor place for the right to turn to for its defenses, since nature has no arbitrary moral codes.

The fifth main argument is by far the most obnoxious. It follows the classic “slippery slope” fallacy by claiming permitting gay marriages will open the door to polygamy or bestiality (which lends a whole new meaning to “animal husbandry”).

Despite the fact this is prima facie absurd, there are a whole host of legal complications that would make such things impossible.

Remember, the discussion is on legality, not whether you personally would be comfortable doing such a thing.

An interesting side-note: Bush scheduled the first day of “Marriage Protection Week” to fall exactly on the anniversary of the brutal murder of Matthew Shephard, the nation’s most famous hate-crime since Rodney King.

Considering how excellently it polarizes the country, it would be sheer naiveté to believe this is a coincidence.

The final point raised by the Religious Right is people of the same sex should not be allowed to reap marriage’s many legal and financial benefits because it somehow “cheapens” heterosexual marriage. As much as it is genuinely fun to keep those we perceive as different out of the proverbial treehouse, it is still quite simply immature.

Some of the more reasonable of them have proposed a compromise: the creation of “civil unions,” half-marriages in which the participants are awarded all of the legal benefits of a real marriage, just without the title.

The truly ironic thing is this concession completely destroys all of their earlier arguments about broken homes, the “order of nature,” and the marrying of inanimate objects because a “civil union” is functionally identical to marriage.

Essentially, their twisted concept of marriage has retreated back to nothing more than a word.

Since the legal aspects of marriage would be brought forth into an appropriately secular context, marriage becomes a purely religious activity.

If a heterosexual couple resents the religious right’s intrusion into the public sphere, they would be more than welcome to obtain a “civil union” with just as grand a ceremony and all of the legal benefits offered therein.

Marriage is the property of all, not just those who fit in with a narrow Judeo-Christian definition of “morality.”

To think we can disenfranchise a large segment of our population because we are uncomfortable with their leisure-time activities is no different than a Hindu condemning consumers of hamburgers or a communist criticizing a capitalist.

It’s all a question of dogma, and to press your fears and neuroses onto others is irresponsible and the true citizens of our glorious democratic state will not stand for it.

Anything less would betray the ideals of the United States of America.

Ben Kommor
October 17, 2003

Britain's Plain English Campaign has awarded Donald Rumsfeld the distinguished Foot in Mouth prize. Rumsfeld received the prize for "the most baffling comment by a public figure". Rumsfeld told a news briefing:

Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

John Lister, spokesman for the campaign, which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."

Rumsfeld beat out California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who said, "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman".

The first day of December each year is World AIDS Day.

As I write this I'm watching a program about how the Latino community is dealing with AIDS. What saddens me is how little we have learned about AIDS. We all know the facts about AIDS. We know that people who have HIV are just like any one else. They try to do the best they can day to day. But this disease still carries with it a stigma and is still known by many as a "gay disease".

As I watch this segment on AIDS in the Latino Community, it's sad that when people come out as homosexual their families immediately assume that they are going to die of AIDS. The one young latino man who came out to his mother said that when his mother found out that he is gay she said, "I wish you would die so we could mourn and just get on with our lives."

Another young man said, "I have a message for parents -- try to understand us, the young homosexuals. They suffer by not accepting us as their children. But we suffer from their rejection and from society's rejection, and some reach a limit, and take their own life because we are not accepted the way we are. And we search for something -- sometimes drugs, sometimes alcohol, to fill out that emptiness inside us. I speak for those who decided to commit suicide, and for the young people who are still suffering."

People with AIDS often have all these issues along with the stigma of AIDS. It is a disgrace that AIDS still has a stigma associated with it. How many people need to die before the stigma goes away? This is why I give the human race little hope for survival. We try to destroy what we do not understand.

I am the first to admit that I have a lot of baggage where AIDS is concerned. Most of my friends have died of AIDS. I went through a lot of mourning, then anger, and have come to a point of acceptance. I accept the fact that the world is the way it is. I accept that most of my friends died without the support of their families. I accept the fact that most had to make their own families, made up of their closest friends. I was honored to be part of their family. I remember them fondly and often. It is not them that I feel bad for. I feel bad for their families who didn't take the time to know their children when they had the chance. It is indeed their loss.

Today, AIDS is someone else's problem. And, to many in the United States, it is still a "gay disease". Even many in our own government still think this. That's a very dangerous attitude to take. There have also been recent reports that AIDS in the gay community is on the rise, mostly from "battle fatigue". It is an interesting phenomena in human nature that even when we are at our worst, we get used to the situation and over time, we treat even the worst with the ordinary.

But I also realize that those are my issues with AIDS. In Africa, it is very different. There, AIDS primarily occurs among heterosexuals. The worst enemy to fighting the disease there is the lack of resources, lack of education, and politics.