"I think more damaging than the exact wording, was the signal [the president’s remarks] sent to legislators around the country. We knew that legislative leaders had been holding back from pushing forward with any legislation and sadly, within hours of the president’s speech, we saw the most onerous of them pass the Ohio Senate. We now have places like Ohio turning back the clock not just on gay marriage but on basic civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans." - Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans

State Sen. C.J. Prentiss (D-Cleveland), who voted against the measure, called the bill "the most draconian violation of many rights" and tried to add a bereavement amendment to the measure at the last minute that was eventually tabled.

"Since I believe that everyone is human, has a heart, can cry, I thought my colleagues would have said ‘yes’ to the bereavement bill and not expose their homophobic feelings, but I was wrong." - State Sen. C.J. Prentiss (D-Cleveland)

"I don’t think it should be against the strong public policy of the state to show respect and a little bit of tolerance for all people, and that may include people who make a strong commitment to one another and who happen to be of the same gender." - Attorney General Jim Petro

When signed by Gov. Taft, Ohio will become the 38th state to pass some sort of DOMA measure. (story)

Good article, especially in light of what is happening now in Ohio. I've believed a long time that the FMA's motivation for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman wasn't because they wanted to "save marriage", but rather a bigoted, mean spirited hatred of the only minority left they feel they can get away with marginalizing.

It's funny to me that one of the principles that conservatives claim to endorse is the desire to have less government involvement in the day to day lives of people. Yet, they are driving the constitutional amendment to prevent gay partners from getting married. It's hard to imagine anything more intrusive than that.

So why aren't the FMAers backing Mr. Hostettler's bill?

Because protecting state's rights and protecting marriage are not what this movement is all about.

In its current form, FMA is nothing but a punitive anti-gay measure, plain and simple. And realization of this fact is fueling growing opposition to FMA among conservatives, including Christians. But don't take my word for it; read it in their own words at www.lawfullywedded.com.

In any event, what's the rush to pass the FMA this year?

I'll tell you. Because proponents know that every year more and more younger folks join the electorate who don't share the same anti-gay sentiments of their parents and grandparents. If FMAers can't pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment this year or next, they sure as heck won't be able to pass one in five or 10 years. (story)

I've talked about Fred Phelps before. He is head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. The group has tried to erect monuments in Casper, Wyo.; Boise, Idaho; and Topeka, Kan., to Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998 because he was gay.

Well now, he is doing the same thing, except this time he is targeting Jim Wheeler, a 1997 graduate of Cedar Crest High School and the subject of the film "Jim in Bold." Jim was a talented gay artist from Lebanon, PA, who committed suicide in November, 1997 at the age of 18.

The proposed monument would read, in part: "In Loving Memory of Jim Wheeler, Entered Hell November 17, 1997, at age 19, A Suicide Who Defied God's Warning." All I can can say about this group is that I hope they get what they deserve. (story)

The poem reprinted below reflects some of the pain and confusion Jim suffered as an openly gay teen in the small town of Lebanon, PA. According to his mother, Susan Wheeler, it was written after "some of the kids in gym class had pulled him out of the shower and peed on him." It wasn't easy for me to read. It reminded me a lot of my teenage years when the exact same thing happened to me after school.

Jim in BOLD

in the age of the COMPUTER where the internet
CONNECTS us all and we all struggle in the
World wide web to become Unstuck from the futuristic fact that if your Modem isnt on then
you better not expect a fax from your faceLESS
CONtinent and doesnt even Closely resemble the
description that they gave iresemble my face and i
found an outlined face amid all the stereotypes
sexual slurs catcalls and whispered Secrets iam i am
i am Jim i am boy I am tall i am fairhaired i am a
poet a painter and if i dare to call mySELF aa artist
I will i am sensitive i am ANGRY i am in love i am
In hiding I am OUT of the dark celluloid closet Yes
i am a HOMOsexual i am gay i am a queer a sissie
a faerie a Fag a punk i am a QUEENie i am a girl AT heart
a freak a follower a LEADER a PERFECTionist a slob
an optimist and a Pessimist a quaker and a nazis
i dont try to hard in school butt im good in english
and ifall aSLEEP in math class i want to run real
fast but no ONE will take a chance and pick me for
their team i want to sing real loud in a Rock and roll
band but i knat get the words out i want to be noticed
however i want to isolate MYSELF cause isolation brings
genius make me famous cause i sure want to be but its also
cool to be anonymous and top secret iwant to be popular i
want lots of friends but i know id get really annoyed with the
phone ringing all the time and NON stop would really KILL my
nerves im way too sensitive and i cry when i Watch the simpsons
Im awfully mean a lot Of the Time because people really Piss
me OFF and i love my family like they were my best
friends but my house is so stressful with seven kids and
two dogs way over the national average i want to leave
Home but im scared to be alone i want to tell a certain
person that I dont want to be aLONE and that i love Him
but the long forgotten art of SPEECH just wont work iwant
a job that pays the bills i want lots of money but id
rather paint the world with vibrant colors and hues
i want to travel and see things that i only see when
im tossing and TURNing in my bed trying to fall asleep
knowing my alarm is Going to RING any second and I BETter
wake Up soon if im going to learn to drive to run to sing
to think to paint to grow to be but my car of ambition
is withOUT a Key so I just SIT and wait in my quiet
room in my noisy House in my sleepy town in the keySTONE
state in the superPOWER country in the polluted world
etc etc etc etc THINKing contemplating wishing dreaming
SCREAMing HISSING living loving HUGging kisSING Yelling
CRYING dying listening HEARing Touching smelling tasting
Seeing believing missing MYSELF until i receive a divine
message mayBE from somewhere way up above and if i believe
in the christian god then id say that god spoke to me telling me its better to be Hated for WHAT you
are then loved for what Youre NOT thank
you mohammed for publishing my profile
for printing me printing jim Jim in
BOLD Me in Bold IM IN BOLD

This is something you would expect to come out of Kansas (which is why I don't live in that God-forsaken place).

Judge Henry W. Green Jr. wrote that legislators could justify differing penalties for homosexual versus heterosexual sodomy in many ways, including greater health risks or an attempt to "encourage and preserve the traditional sexual mores of society."

Apparently in Kansas, AIDS (I assume that is what the good judge is alluding to) is apparently still viewed as a disease that homosexuals get.

The ruling by Kansas' second-highest court rejected an appeal by Matthew R. Limon, who was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for having sex when he was 18 with a 14-year-old boy in 2000. He was convicted of sodomy.

Had Limon's partner been an underage girl, he could have been convicted of unlawful sex under the state's ''Romeo and Juliet'' law and sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison. (story)

I read this on Clack and had to laugh at the ingenuity of some people. Total genius.

It seems that Google is up and arms about what they feel is an infringement on their trademark. A company named Booble (http://www.booble.com) has set up a search engine like Google, except it only searches adult sites.

Things are looking up in Massachusetts! I am still somewhat worried about Governor Mitt Romney's endorsement of an amendment to the state constitution against gay marriage. Perhaps he will soften his stance a bit. Polls have shown that the people of Massachusetts are equally devided on the issue of gay marriage.

LOWELL, Mass. - Leaders of the Massachusetts Democratic Party have voted to back a resolution supporting same-sex civil marriage, just two weeks before lawmakers are scheduled to decide on a constitutional amendment to ban it.

The nonbinding voice vote Thursday by a majority of approximately 200 members ignored deep divisions within the party on the issue.

But state party chairman Philip Johnston said it sends the message that "we support protecting the rights of these individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us." (story)

Ohio Senator Jay Hottinger
Senate Building
Room #138, First Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 466-5838

"In closing, I would like to emphasize that this bill is not about grandstanding, gay bashing or demagoguery. It is about clarifying and protecting Ohio's definition of marriage between one man and one woman."

Sometimes I wonder if I just don't get life. I wonder if I'm just very naive. I understand that there are bigots in this society that hate us. I suppose I can even understand why some of them hate us. I try not to take it personally because I know that in 99% of the cases, their attitudes are based in ignorance. They hate gays, but many have never even met a gay person. They have nothing to judge from except what they've been told.

Sometimes, we encounter people who are more harmful. They are people who hate us, but are in a position of power. They use that position of power as a weapon against us. If they had their way about it and it didn't cost them a political price, I'm sure that many of them would like to outlaw us and put us in prison. I'm truly convinced of that. I'm convinced that there are monsters among us. Of course, we all know this. And, I'm not saying that the monsters are always against gay people. Just look at 9/11 and the monsters that attacked us that day. On 9/11/2001, we were all one people because it seemed as though we were united against the enemy of terror.

Now, the dust has settled, and memories of Osama bin Laden have faded. After 9/11, I never would have thought that gay people would be viewed as a bigger enemy against the norm of society than Osama bin Laden, but that is what has happened.

We see everyone going crazy and trying to pass laws all over the United States against our relationships and our families. The people behind these hateful and divisive laws say that they are defending marriage. What they are really doing is setting us apart from the rest of society. I should make a distinction that we are talking about civil marriage, as apposed to religious marriage. The laws that are being passed effect civil marriage and who can be married.

The Ohio senator who drafted the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act not only drafted a bill that defines marriage as being "between one man and one woman", but goes further in prohibiting civil unions or domestic partnerships from being legally recognized or formed. It also "prohibits the recognition in Ohio of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into in other states or foreign countries."

MY RESPONSE SENT TO SENATOR HOTTINGER
Dear Senator Hottinger:

If your bill is not about gay bashing, why include in it a prohibition on civil unions? That would not even include the name "marriage". It seems to me that your real interest is denying gay couples any recognition what so ever in terms of the law.

That's very punitive and has nothing to do with marriage. I say that we need more honest politicians. Perhaps we need a bill on that. If you hate gay people so much that you feel that you just can't bring yourself to giving them anything, just say that. You would gain more respect by being honest and let your feelings known.

If your intentions were to "save marriage" from the gays, then do that by defining marriage as "one man, one woman". Only a gay basher would go further and prohibit gay unions or domestic partnerships. Your bill did not have to go that far to protect marriage.

SENATOR HOTTINGER'S COLUMN
As I write this week's column, it is the day after the Ohio Senate passed House Bill 272, the Defense of Marriage Act.

This is an issue I have been working on for the last seven years since I first introduced a Defense of Marriage Act in 1997 as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives. I also introduced it as a member of the Ohio Senate in 2000, but it was not until this week that the issue, currently sponsored by Representative Bill Seitz, was finally voted on by the Senate.

I loved this story. It argues that perhaps the financial loss from not being able to marry is not that big a deal.

Read it. It's extremely well written and thought out.

Measure to expand rights to gay couples dies again in House

Here we are denying economic security in a committed relationship where people are craving responsibility. - Rep. Alice Madden, D-Boulder, CO

This was another defeat for same-sex parents. The bill that died in the Colorado legislature would have offered co-parent, or second-parent, adoption rights to gay and lesbian couples. It would have allowed their children to be protected by both parents' health insurance, Social Security benefits and inheritance.

You know, I can understand why people are bigoted against gay people. I can understand that with education we can fight that bigotry. But, it's hard for me to understand why they would carry that hatred to the children of gay couples. It's detestable. The children of gay parents are just as deserving of those benefits as other children.

If I were a gay parent in that situation, I would consider a lawsuit against the State of Colorado filed because my children were being denied equal protection under the law, based on the United States Constitution:

Amendment XIV, Section 1, United States Constitution:
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.

Clearly denying the children of gay couples the same rights and privileges afforded other children is not granting them equal protection.

For the second year in a row, a House panel killed a bill that would have given same-sex couples the right to adopt one another's children.

The outcome wasn't a surprise - the bill was assigned by the House leadership to the Information and Technology Committee because it is heavy with conservatives.

Anti-gay groups such as Focus on the Family ignored the hearing, as they did last year, knowing there would be no reason to testify.

That didn't stop Rep. Alice Madden, D-Boulder, who has watched her bill die on 7-4 votes for two years running, from trying. But even fellow Democrat Carl Miller, of Leadville, voted against the measure. (story)

And another letter.....

REGARDING THE Jan. 26 City & Region news story "Gay marriage opponents rally across state": Those who object to the Supreme Judicial Court's decision to allow gay marriage analogize it to Roe v. Wade. In terms of context, a better analogy is Brown v. Board of Education.

I spotted this letter on boston.com and thought I would share it with you.

I get so frustrated reading letters like the one from John Kerekes last Sunday ("Reporting on gay lifestyles," Jan. 25). From all I've read, being gay or not (which I'm not) is something that is determined without the least bit of volition. One either is or isn't. Can you consciously try to become attracted to another male? I doubt that!

01/27/2004 - follow-up story

This morning at 9:00, in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, the nation's first domestic partner registry opened for business. It is the first such registry created directly by voters, giving gay and straight unmarried couples the right to officially register as partners.

Ironically, Ohio may well become the 38th state to enact a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the state. The act would not only outlaw gay marriages, but would make it illegal to recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Five couples were in line at 9 a.m. when the Cleveland suburb began its registration program, approved by the voters in November.

"There we go," said Larry Shaw, parks and recreation commissioner, as he notarized the first registration for Nancy Thrams, 59, and Fran Twomey, 47.

There were balloons and television cameras to capture the moment and cheers from friends of the couple.

"It just feels great. It feels equalizing," Twomey said.

The recognition is not binding on courts, governments or private companies. But supporters hope it will make it easier for couples to share employment benefits, inherit property or get hospital visiting rights. At the same time, opponents fear it could one day undermine marriage. (story)

This is just too bizarre. After all this talk about President Bush pushing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, I read this bizarre story.

It took place at a meeting involving President Bush and Scott Reid, a senior aide to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. After small talk with Reid, President Bush said to a surprised Reid, "Well, you got a pretty face."

And, the president wasn't done. "You got a pretty face," he said again. "You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway."

The other Scott is Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary.

The Canadian Scott is 35 and ruggedly handsome. The American version is balding and chubby.

"I didn't know what to say," Reid later told reporters.

"When a Texas Republican says you've got a pretty face, then I guess there is just no way around it."

Another Canadian in the room suggested that if Reid had been a woman Bush might have found himself in a sex discrimination suit and the subject of a Congressional inquiry. (story)

Connecticut churches unite to oppose same-sex marriage legislation

And so it starts in our home state of Connecticut. I suppose after Ohio passing their Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it will be our turn. I can see it coming now. We probably have the legislature to pass it and we all know that our Governor would pass it. But, he has his own problems to deal with at this time.

I just hope this goes no further than it has. This new coalition plan to rally at the state Capitol on February 8. Well, I will be there to meet them. I may be alone, but I'll be there. I'm getting a bit old to do this activist stuff, but I'll make an exception in this case.

BLOOMFIELD, Conn. -- Nearly 3,000 people from Christian churches across Connecticut gathered Sunday to organize opposition to legislation that would give marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Connecticut Coalition of Churches, which sponsored the event, described the gathering as a "chance for Christians to unite in support of relevant social issues and the enduring message of the love of God," in addition to opposing same-sex marriages.

Coalition members plan to rally at the state Capitol Feb. 8.

The issue of same-sex marriage and civil unions died in last year's legislature. Proponents said they did not have enough time to gather support for a compromise bill that would grant more legal rights to gay couples. This year's legislative session begins Feb. 4. (story)

I spotted this letter on the Arizona Republic. I thought it was a cool letter telling people what gay people already know; that being gay is not chosen.

After reading the letter in The Republic on Thursday "Keep sexual preference to yourself," I was reminded of a comedian who said, "If homosexuality is really a choice, what's the sales pitch?"

It's nice to see Christian values being put to use. I don't feel like a "sexual pervert". I guess it's good that I'm not Catholic or I would take it personally.

I suppose it would be comforting to be able to call 90 percent of a segment of society "sexual perverts", and feel like you are being a good Christian. I'm not that comfortable speaking for God.

From the story: A new Roman Catholic cardinal has raised a storm in Belgium - and division within its Catholic hierarchy - by declaring that at least 90 percent of lesbians and gays were "sexual perverts."

"I simply say what thousands of people think. I am willing to write in my own blood that of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of 5 to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are just sexual perverts." - Cardinal Gustaaf Joos

Follow-up Stories
1/28/2004 - Cardinal faces suit over 'pervert' remark

It's amazing the logic that people are using to create laws against gay marriage.

I got a kick out of this article because it shows the absolutely absurd logic used by some to pass such laws. It shows how scared and insecure they are.

Faced with a $500 million budget deficit, an education system in crisis, prison overcrowding, drought and more, key members of the Arizona Legislature decided to take bold and decisive action - on something completely unrelated.

They drafted an "official postcard" to Congress in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. State Rep. Warde Nichols, who didn't state if an "official postcard" from Arizona has a picture of a jackalope on it, said, "When we have attacks on the traditional family unit, we have to let Congress know that we support a constitutional amendment to define marriage."

Attacks? As a member of a "traditional family unit," I consider any attack a serious matter. So I asked Rep. Nichols, a Republican from Chandler, exactly how same-sex marriage would be an assault on my family.

Microsoft chief Bill Gates has vowed to make spam emails obsolete in two years’ time, sources confirmed tonight.

Mr Gates admitted spamming, which usually relates to pornography, pyramid schemes or financial scams, was innovative.

But, he revealed that Microsoft was investigating three solutions to rid in-boxes from the clutter of unsolicited bulk emails. (story)

Thank God for Bill Gates! Hopefully next year he will come out with a package that will solve world hunger.

I'd be happy with an operating system that didn't crash all the time or one that wasn't full of security holes.

At a lunch on Friday, part of the World Economic Forum here, speakers were invited to answer a simple question: what advice would they give the next president of the United States?

"Listen to others," said Thierry de Montbrial, head of a French policy research institute. Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, said: "Look around the world. And remember the impact of your power."

These two remarks evoked some of the profound mistrust of Washington in Europe and many other places, and the sense of impotence against American might that was conjured up by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the campaign against terrorism. (story)

Now I ask you.... when has America said that we were superior to everyone else in the world? Except of course, us telling the UN to go to hell in the Iraq affair and that we would really like everyone's help in repairing Iraq to a livable environment now, as long as we call the shots... other than that, when did we ever say we were better than everyone else?

Freedom is never achieved by forcing another society to be like our society. Freedom must be chosen by the people, or it means nothing. One mans freedom can be another mans tyranny.

I've been sick as a dog for the last four days and haven't really felt like blogging, let along surf the internet. I'm reminded of a line from Victor/Victoria when Robert Prestion, who is sick in bed with a head cold says, "There's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold".

When I go to see what's happening out in the world, and this is one of the stories that I came across.

Despite laws already barring gay marriage, legislators in at least nine states - including Arizona - are pushing for new, more sweeping measures in hopes of preventing any ripple effect from laws and court rulings elsewhere.

...

"This is a political attack, motivated by fierce anti-gay opponents who want to slam us again and again," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "They are not just looking to suppress gay marriage, but to deny gay people any measure of legal protection and human dignity."

In all, 37 states and the federal government have Defense of Marriage acts that say marriage can only be between a man and a woman. (story)

It's hard to keep cool about everything when there are so many people out there who simply can't stand that we are here. This isn't so much about protecting the precious state of marriage (such as it is). It's more about certain people in our government at the state and federal level who just can't stand the fact that homosexuals might actually have equal social status with everyone else.

I also get annoyed when these same people lump us all together as "homosexual activists" trying to get "our agenda" passed. We want to be part of society as an equal, no more, no less. If that makes me a "homosexual activist", the I will take that title with great pride.

What keeps me going is this...

Remember when all the states had sodomy laws that were largely used to prosecute gay people? Even states that included sodomy against straight and gay people, instances of straight people doing sodomy was largely ignored. Well, with one sweeping decision, the Supreme Court nullified all of them. In every state, the sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional.

At first, I was stunned at hearing the decision. It didn't hit me until later that the decision wasn't just about a case that took place in Texas. The decision didn't just judge that case to be unconstitutional. The decision said that the prosecution of sodomy was an invasion of privacy. It was ruled unconstitutional everywhere, with one decision.

The same thing will happen with gay marriage. It really doesn't matter what kind of hateful legislation the bigots (yes, I purposely call them that) in power pass. Nor does it matter how many states do this. In the end, when this reaches the United States Supreme Court, with one decision, DOMA at the state and federal level will be nullified.

Of course, this will take courage. The judges of the Supreme Court will probably be labeled "activist judges" (as President Bush referred to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the State of the Union speach) who are not doing the will of the people. The fact is, their job was never to do the will of the people. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and enforce it. If the will of the people were the law of the land instead of the Constitution, we would still have slavery, inter-racial couples would still not be able to marry, and women would still not be able to vote.

When the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ordered the state legislature to allow gay people to marry, it was the real beginning of the battle. Other states are now passing legislation that will only allow marriage between heterosexual couples. This truly sets gay couples in a second-class status. No one who is being honest would be able to deny that.

The next real test will come once Massachusetts has concluded their process. A civil union-type arrangement is being tossed around to see if that will satisfy the court. But that is not what the court demanded the legislature do. I suspect that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will decide that marriage is marriage - there is nothing less or more, and title of marriage is everything, as far as legal issues are concerned.

Of course, once this has happened, the real test will begin. Despite all the DOMA laws in place, the Constitution demands full faith in carrying out contracts and arrangements made in other states. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this point:

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

DOMA at the state and federal level will not survive those statements. This is black and white. The Constitution simply is not friendly to the concept of creating a second-class standard for any of it's citizens.

My friends, this battle is over before it even gets started. We have already won. And that is why the conservatives are so steamed about this. It's just a matter of time at this point, and they know it.

The American Family Association posted an online poll last month asking its constituents their position on gay marriage. The claimed that when the poll was completed, they would send the results to Congress showing them that the American people do not want or support gay marriage.

Well, the results were not what the American Family Association expected. So, they are nullifying the poll altogether. (story)

The conservative organization supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and it planned to forward to Congress the results of the poll, which it expected would support its position, as evidence of Americans' opposition to gay marriage.

But the AFA never counted on the power of the Internet. And once the URL to the poll escaped its intended audience, everything went haywire. As of Jan. 19, 60 percent of respondents -- more than 508,000 voters -- said, "I favor legalization of homosexual marriage." With an additional 7.89 percent -- or 66,732 voters -- replying, "I favor a 'civil union' with the full benefits of marriage except for the name," the AFA's chosen position, "I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and 'civil unions,'" was being defeated by a 2-1 ratio.
...
Of course, no such poll can be said to represent an accurate picture of popular opinion. But, clearly, the AFA had hoped Congress would take the numbers it planned to produce as exactly that kind of evidence.

Now, Smith says, his organization has had to abandon its goal of taking the poll to Capitol Hill.

As Martha Stewart would say, "It's a GOOD thing!"

I spotted this on the Stanford Daily. It shares my belief on gay marriage.

By Vinni Intersimone

Watching the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, I held the modest assumption that the state of the union would be discussed — how wrong I was. Instead of an articulate statement on America’s progress toward its ideals of liberty, freedom and equality before the law, I was smacked across the face with a tongue-tied sermon urging a war against the educational freedom of youth and the equality of gay citizens.

I am taking some sick time. I was feeling poorly last night, like warmed over blah. This morning I woke up and my sinuses were absolutely on fire. I could hardly breath, and when I stood up, almost fell on the floor. It sucked. I took Aleve for the pain - yes I do have much strong stuff (narcotics-prescribed, of course), but I would like to stay reasonably alert if I can.

I was reading this story about this 17-year-old student from Vancouver, British Columbia, named Mike Rowe.

He registered Mikerowesoft.com to front his part-time web site design business in August 2003. Three months later, he received an e-mail from Microsoft's lawyers, asking him to transfer the domain name to Microsoft. They offered to pay him a "settlement" of $10, which is the cost of his original registration fee.

However, after the case received widespread coverage on the Internet, Microsoft acknowledged that it may have taken things too far and promised to treat Rowe fairly. A representative of the software company told ZDNet UK: "We appreciate that Mike Rowe is a young entrepreneur who came up with a creative domain name. We take our trademark seriously, but maybe a little too seriously in this case." (story)

OHIO
What the hell is going on with Ohio? What is their problem with their gay citizens? It's all over the internet what they are doing.

After seven years of debate, lawmakers moved closer Wednesday to passing a law that would bar Ohio from recognizing same-sex marriages and keep some state employees from getting benefits for their domestic partners.

A Senate committee approved the measure Wednesday morning, and it was likely to go before the full Senate as early as Wednesday afternoon. If a version that passed the House last month is not amended, the legislation would go to Gov. Bob Taft, who has indicated he supports it.
...
Ohio may be only the second state, besides Nebraska, that would prohibit benefits for state employees' unmarried partners, said lawyer Michael Adams of Lambda Legal Defense. (story)

I suppose I can understand a state passing a law outlawing gay marriage. Many other states have done this. But, to further say that they won't even acknowledge or allow benefits for domestic partners carries it a bit further. It has the effect of being a punitive measure against gay couples. It's unnecessary, and it's mean spirited.

Where is the compassion of people? The "Christians" who are behind this effort, should step back, take a good long look in the mirror, and ask themselves, "Is this what I want to be?"

Back to bed for me.

Yes, we ended up watching it (I recorded One Tree Hill, I'm not stupid!).

As many have pointed out, the speech was a re-hash of his previous three years in office - nothing new. He spent a lot of time asking Congress to renew old provisions that were due to expire, such as The Patriot Act. Much of it was a repeat of past State of the Union Addresses. He mentions 9/11 several times to reiterate that we are "at war with terrorism".

Mr. President, we are past that now. You do nothing to address larger issues that we are facing, such as THE FUTURE. How are we going to leave Iraq without another tyrant filling the gap? How are we going to mend the fences of the allies that you yourself tore down. And what about the trillions of dollars that you have added to our deficit. I guess the real question is, can we afford you for four more years?

You constantly talk out of both side of your mouth. You say you support our troops and the great job they are doing, while at the same time reducing their pay.

Mr. President, you say that you want to protect marriage, but you won't even come out and say what you are trying to protect marriage from. You want to make it look as though you are fighting bigotry by saying that "each individual has dignity and value in God's sight". You should start showing that by at least acknowledging us.

President Bush: The outcome of this debate is important - and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

Andrew Sullivan had a good follow up to this that echoes my sentiment exactly:

It's a nice sentiment, and I'm sure the president means well. But if the president really meant it he could have said something else: "The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual - whether gay or straight - has dignity and value in God's sight." But the president wants the credit of being tolerant without talking the real talk, let alone walking the real walk. If gay people have dignity and value in God's sight, why are we unmentionable? Why are we talked about as if we are some kind of untouchable? Why in three years has this president not even been able to say the word 'gay' or 'homosexual'? The reason: because Bush will not confront bigotry outright. He wants to benefit from it while finding a formula to distance himself from it. That's not a moral stand. It's moral avoidance. Still, the good and important news is that the president hasn't endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Family Research Council is mad as hell.

I was referred to this site via email. It had some interesting content. I'd like to share a couple of the videos that were on the site. I especially like the one with the kids. Make sure you have your volume on.

The Patriot Act

What are we teaching school kids?

Damn it!!! I just noticed that the President's State of the Union address is on at the same time as One Tree Hill!

Let me think about this a bit... President Bush or Lucas and Nathan.

I suppose I should do the American thing and watch his speach, but I have no desire to see him let alone hear him once again say that he believes that "marriage should be between a man and a woman". So, if I happen to catch what he said in the paper tomorrow, that will be good enough for me.

When I was in a book store recently, I went through the usual computer books to see if anything caught my eye. On my way back to the cafe for a cappuccino, I noticed an article in one of the magazines. I forget the name of the magazine now. The article basically said that gay couples are better off without marriage. Their rationale was that with marriage, it's not an easy thing to just up and leave. Sure you have equality from a legal point of view, but the writers of the article questioned whether young gay couples would think through the consequences of getting married.

What was interesting to me was the total lack of mention for gay couples who have been together for half their lives who want to be married for life. It's as if that concept didn't even occur to the writer. If the gay community is looking at marriage as a way to just gain legal equality, the issue needs more thought. To me, it is much more than that.

Marriage is first and foremost a way to dignify the relationship two people have for one another. It is a way to publicly have that relationship acknowledged. That is important to me. It is a way that we say to society, "we matter", and "we are a valuable part of the society we live in". Secondarily, the legal rights afforded to marriage follows.

If young gay couples are going to get married after dating for three months, only to divorce two months later after it sets in how difficult relationships can be, than their marriage was never any better than Britney Spear's recent 55 hour marriage.

I suppose that is my biggest fear. I do believe that we will eventually gain full legal marriage status, but will we know what to do with it? I suspect there will be many of us who will get married and then break up and divorce. In that sense, I suppose we will be no different than straight couples at that point. It seems to me that marriage should be more than that.

Jay Leno: "The New York Times is reporting that conservative groups are demanding that President Bush support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in next week's State of the Union address. You know, gay marriage is not the problem. How about a ban on celebrity marriages? That's what we need."

SHE WAS at Winston Churchill's side during Britain's darkest hour. And now Charlie the parrot is 104 years old...and still cursing the Nazis.

Her favourite sayings were "F*** Hitler" and "F*** the Nazis". And even today, 39 years after the great man's death, she can still be coaxed into repeating them with that unmistakable Churchillian inflection.

Many an admiral or peer of the realm was shocked by the tirade from the bird's cage during crisis meetings with the PM. But it always brought a smile to the war leader's face. Churchill bought Charlie - giving him a boy's name despite the fact she was female - in 1937.

She took pride of place in a bizarre menagerie of pets including lambs, pigs, cattle, swans and, at one point, a leopard.

He immediately began to teach her to swear - particularly in company - and she is keeping up the tradition today.

The blue and gold macaw is believed to be Britain's oldest bird. The title was previously thought to belong to 80-year-old Cokky the cockatoo. But it can be proved Charlie is at least 104 and was born in the 19th century.

Peter Oram bought her for his pet shop after Churchill died in 1965. But he was forced to move her into his home after she kept swearing at children. For the last 12 years, she has lived at Mr Oram's garden centre in Reigate, Surrey.

Centre worker Sylvia Martin said: "If truth be told, Charlie is looking a little scruffy but she is very popular with the public. We are all very attached to her."

James Humes, an expert on the late PM, said: "Churchill may no longer be with us but that spirit and those words of defiance and resolve continue."
(This story from mirror.co.uk).

There was an interesting article published in The Berkshire Eagle on gay marriage in Massachusetts. I'm reprinting it here.

It makes sense, as aides say he plans to do, for State Senate President Robert Travaglini to postpone a February 11 vote by the Legislature on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the Supreme Judicial Court hasn't weighed in again on same-sex marriage by that date. A postponement would erect at least a temporary barrier to an amendment that is mean-spirited and prejudicial, and anyway referenda are a lousy way to make law. But any such delay should not be necessary, for the SJC ought to quickly reiterate its ruling that gays must be allowed to marry in the commonwealth, and a lesser "civil-union" law, while helpful to same-sex couples, would still leave them second-class citizens. The court was right to declare that marriage laws mean little if they do not "include the right to marry the person of one's choice." Equality under the law is not negotiable.

I've been thinking about a pattern that happens time and time again where our community is concerned. I'm talking specifically about the gay community, of course. We've always been second-class in this country. Think about it.

Time frame, 1950's. At the time I was born, we weren't even second class. I watched the movie Far From Heaven a month or so ago. It took place back in the 1950's, and was quite realistic. No one talked about gay people or even "homosexuals" then. It was a sickness. When this mans wife caught him with another man, her world completely fell apart. Her response was, "There have to be doctors around who can do something about this." Ironically, it took place in Hartford, Connecticut, close to where I live.

Fast forward to 1982. Dr. Tom Waddell develops what are called the Gay Olympics. It wasn't long before the International Olympic Committee sued the Gay Olympics because of the use of the word Olympics. We lost the case. The Gay Olympics from that time on had to be called the Gay Games. Yet, there are all kinds of different groups who openly use the word Olympics and get away with it.

Fast forward to 1985. By this time, GRID (gay related immune deficiency syndrome), which will later be called "AIDS", is thought to only effect homosexuals. Because of this, the government (Ronald Reagan) chooses to do nothing to fund educational programs or hospice programs. The networks that are developed to fight AIDS in this country are done through the gay community. Ironically, years later, that same network is used to help another group of people that the government wants nothing to do with: IV drug users.

Fast forward to July 28, 2000. U.S. Supreme Court rules that Boy Scouts of America can discriminate against scouts and scout masters who are found to be gay. Anti-gay groups had hoped that a victory for the Boy Scouts would further fuel their efforts to secure broad exemptions from civil rights laws that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. The majority of the citizenry of this country does not challenge this. No one cares.

Present day. In 36 states, individuals can legally be fired from their jobs, or denied access to housing, educational institutions, credit, and public accommodations simply because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT). It is an absolute disgrace to the face of human rights in this country that we still do not have legal protections at the federal level that makes it a crime to fire someone solely because they are gay. We are not included in the protected groups stated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet, each time this comes up in Congress, it is a "controversial issue" that we should have the same legal protections. This is shameful.

Gay partners can not be married in any of the 50 states. Gay partners can try to mirror the legal protections afforded legal marriage only after the drafting of very costly documents and legal fees. And, when all is said and done, the documents do not carry the same weight as legal marriage. They just don't. Second-class citizens.

Gay partners in Vermont can be granted a civil union, which grants them the same state rights as those who are married. It is not honored in any other state or country. If you move away from Vermont, it will not be recognized. And, it is not honored what so ever at the federal level.

Furthermore, every single Democratic candidate for President knows that any state-sponsored civil union will not be honored at the federal level, and that is OK with them! None of them, not one of them deserves our vote. Howard Dean knows this fully well. He has no excuse. He knows damn well that if the issue of marriage for same-sex partners are left at the state level, there will be at best a few states who will give us marriage rights. Second-class citizens.

In the media, it is still open season for our community. Let's look for a moments at sports celebrities:

Todd Jones, Baseball: "I wouldn't want a gay guy being around me. It's got nothing to do with me being scared. That's the problem: All these people say he's got all these rights. Yeah, he's got rights or whatever, but he shouldn't walk around proud. It's like he's rubbing it in our face. 'See me, Hear me roar.' We're not trying to be close-minded, but then again, why be confrontational when you don't really have to be?"

Garrison Hearst, Football: "Aww, hell no! I don't want any faggots on my team. I know this might not be what people want to hear, but that's a punk. I don't want any faggots in this locker room."

Jeremy Shockey, Football: The Howard Stern radio show, Shockey was asked on-air by producer Gary Del 'Abate if he thought there were any gay players in the NFL. "I don't know, I don't like to think about that. I hope not," Shockey said. When asked if he ever dealt with any gay teammates on his college football team, Shockey gave a somewhat confusing answer: "No, I mean, if I knew there was a gay guy on my college football team, I probably wouldn't, you know, stand for it." Stern's sidekick Robin Quivers replied: " How could you not stand for it? What do you mean?" Shockey said, "You know, I think, you know, they're going to be in the shower with us and stuff, so I don't think that's gonna work. That's not gonna work, you know?"

Julian Tavarez, Baseball "Why should I care about the fans? They're a bunch of assholes and faggots here.''

Goran Ivanisevic, Tennis "Then I hit another second serve, huge. And that ball was on the line, was not even close. And that guy, he looks like a faggot little bit, you know. This hair all over him. He call it. I couldn't believe he did it. Hey, sometimes I watch the TV, and then I see the guys when they throw the racquets. They throw it like a faggot, you know. They throw it not to throw it. When you throw the racquet, you throw the racquet. I mean, you break. Sometimes doesn't break, thanks God. But you throw the racquet. You don't throw it and it's going like this. You have to smack the racquet, you know, or you have to get anger.

Jason Williams, Basketball Williams, Sacramento Kings guard, was fined $15,000 in March for making ethnic and gay slurs at a Golden State Warriors' fan. The player said the fan, Michael Ching, called him a "skinhead'' and "racist,'' charges Ching denied. According to the Sacramento Bee, the third-year point guard allegedly responded with the following: "Are you a fag?" "Are you gay?" "Do you remember the Vietnam War? I'll kill y'all just like that." Williams then pretended to be aiming a rifle and emitting a "rat-a-tat-tat" sound, according to witnesses. "Just like Pearl Harbor," he is said to have added. While Williams apologized for his specific anti-Asian remarks, he couldn't bring himself to using the word "gay.'' "I did not intend any disrespect to the Asian community or any other community," Williams said in a written statement. "I was wrong and I apologize."

John Rocker, Baseball "Imagine having to take the 7 train to (Shea Stadium in New York) looking like you’re (in) Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It’s depressing."

You get the drift. The list goes on and on, and sports stars are never really held accountable for their remarks. Don't get me wrong, it's a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinions. But, substitute "fag" for the "N" word, and that would not be acceptable. Heads would roll. But yet, it's ok to denigrate our community. Second-class citizens.

There's an article on it on Up & Coming Magazine that talks about it:

Two weekends ago Joe Horn, of the New Orleans Saints, pulled out a cell in the end zone and used it as part of his celebratory dance; the same day, Matt Millen, GM of Detroit, verbally assaulted Kansas City wide receiver Johnny Morton with, "You faggot! Yeah, you heard me. You faggot!" during an altercation after the Lions/Chiefs football game.

We all know that if the same GM, who is white, had called the player, who is black, the "N" word, he'd be cruising Monster.com right now, and rightfully so. But as it stands at press time, Millen hasn't been fined, while Horn is $30,000 lighter. Where is the outrage? Where are the special interest groups? Where are the protesters? Why is Detroit - which has been known to riot when its hockey team wins a Stanley Cup - still standing?
...
Take "gay" out of those sentences and replace it with "black," "asian" or "latino" and imagine the public outcry of injustice. We are decades removed from the civil rights struggles of our parents, and yet we aren't removed at all.

The most frustrating issue for me in all of this is that there is really nothing I can do about it without the outrage of the American people over this issue. And, there is no outrage. It is still totally acceptable to laugh at our community, make crude jokes about us and our community, and even in parts of the country, go out and bash a few fags for "sport". In many parts of the country, the police will do nothing. Why should they? They hate gays equally and there are no hate crime laws on the books. It's open season.

Most Americans, although they have nothing per se against gay people, will not make the injustices that our community face an issue they want to be bothered with. It doesn't effect them personally, so why bother.

I will tell you why they should bother and why it is their issue. Because, if there is an injustice against one segment of our society, it is an injustice to the freedom for all citizens. And that should be everyone's issue!

I try my best to be proud of my country, but that's very hard to do when we talk about being a democracy on one hand, and on the other hand there are law abiding, tax paying citizens who are not legally equal to others.

That is simply wrong.

It's colder than hell here! I know.... most places are colder than hell, be we are talking below zero and winds howling along at 30mph. It sucks, especially for us folks who's idea of a nice climate is 85 degrees in the tropics.

This picture appealed to me since I'm a cat person. It gave me nice thoughts of being some place warm in the sun. Of course, I would probably go to a nude beach where I didn't have to worry about all the attire, but to each his/her own.

This photo compliments of our friend, Zoe.

Nothing new here. The President is going to spend $1.5 BILLION to promote traditional marriage - money that could be spent feeding hungry people in this country, helping the homeless, or helping with education. Instead, he wants to spend it to satisfy some of his right-wing supporters. It's a big waste of money and energy.

It's really odd to me that conservatives are usually for less spending and a less intrusive government. This President seems to want to bring the government further into our lives and doesn't seem to have any problems what so ever spending money that we don't have. Have you checked our deficit lately?

The Bush administration is calling for Congress to approve a $1.5 billion program to promote traditional marriage.

Religious conservatives say the plan doesn`t go far enough and want the president to declare his support in the Sate of the Union address for a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage.

The Bush plan which is said to one of the key points of his re-election campaign, would earmark the money to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages." Most of the money would go to couples in low-income areas.

"This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base," a presidential adviser tells the New York Times.

The federal money would be available only to heterosexual couples. Under the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act, marriage is defined for federal program as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

The plan has raised concerns by the Human Rights Campaign.

"The proposed plan acknowledges that marriage offers greater stability, security and financial compensation, and that is good," HRC political director, Winnie Stachelberg told 365Gay.com. "The problem is that those legal protections are being denied to gay and lesbian couples."

"While the administration recognizes the value of marriage it is unfortunate that rather than extend them to all Americans those rights are denied to same-sex couples." (story)

Also covered on Andrewsullivan.com.

Hummmm... I just took the "Straight Acting" quiz over on straightacting.com and these were the results:

Your score is 138

LEVEL 7 -- VERY FEMININE

It's kinda assumed 'Oh, yeah he's gay'. Your consistent behavior leads anyone you come in contact with to think that you're more than likely a fun loving homo boy. You're the life of the party and your hands are moving and talking as much as your mouth. You clothes are so perfect that sometimes they look fake.

Well, I think that's a bit severe. I wouldn't say that i'm very feminine, but I have been told by many that I have "feminine characteristics".

I read this on Stupid Evil Bastard, and once again am still in disbelief of how dumb people can be (not since last week when Steve Irwin took his baby to a crocodile feeding was I so astonished).

This from BBC News:
A man is recovering from minor injuries after jumping into the lion pen at an Argentine zoo and taunting the animals.

Lucas Tomas, 22, was said to have held his jacket like a bullfighter's cape at one of Buenos Aires zoo's two lions.

The lion, Quique, reacted by pouncing on him and repeatedly biting at him. TV footage showed the animal on top of him, visibly biting him at least once.

This reprinted from News of the Weird:

In November, the county attorney in Burleson, Texas, filed a misdemeanor charge against Joanne Webb for selling two vibrators, which are illegal if they are intended for "stimulation." Although many adult stores in Texas keep the police away by posting signs calling the inventory merely "novelties," an officer in Burleson said Webb's are certainly "obscene" because he can tell that just by looking. Mere possession of vibrators is not illegal unless a person has six or more. Webb sells the vibrators by staging Tupperware-type sales parties ("Passion Parties") in private homes. [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11-18-03]

This is an interesting view of marriage in general. I admit that I've often wondered if we would all be better to just abolish marriage at this point.

Let's face it, in it's current state, marriage at the civil level only manages to separate people into classes of citizens - those who can get married (straights and celebrities who get married on a whim) and those who can't (gay and lesbian couples). It also ends up costing a lot of money to taxpayers in the benefits it reaps.

Maybe the civil institution of marriage is too expensive and only serves to be devisive at this point in time.

You ever have those days when you just don't really connect with anything? Well, today was one of those days for me. I got a fair amount done, but my mind kept wondering around. Maybe it's a mid-life crisis?

I read this article on air passenger security. You know those awful color codes they have now? They are suppose to let us know when there is a heightened security alert.

Well, this article says that as early as next month, the Bush Administration will order the establishment of databases on all air passengers. Each passenger would be assigned a color code, designed to alert officials on the level of risk you pose.

Precautions in the name of air security are about to taken to a level unimaginable in the United States only a few years ago.

The Washington Post reports the Bush administration is expected to order as soon as next month the first step in setting up databases on all air passengers, to be used to color-code each air traveler according to his or her potential threat level.

Passengers coded red would be stopped from boarding; yellow would mean additional screening at security checkpoints; and green would mean an only standard level of scrutiny.

Airlines and airline reservation companies would reportedly be forced to turn over all passenger records to U.S. government officials, who struck out in a trial program was based on voluntary surrender of airline industry data. (story)

from limecat.net

Are now online. After working most of the day getting the forums online, it's time for me to go to bed. Give them a try. You might just like them. Click on the image above, or click HERE to go to the forums.

If you want a topic added for discussion, just send me an email.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.

O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president.

He likened Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts from a CBS interview to promote a book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty."

To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world. The weapons have never been found. (story)

If you are going somewhere, say the store, you are probably going because there is something there that you want, right? We've been to the moon. Now, we are talking about going to a planet that is less hospitable than the moon, with nothing to offer us. It's not a place that will support life. So my question, is.... is it worth the money, effort, and possible lives it would take to make this happen?

WASHINGTON - Returning astronauts to the moon and sending them on to Mars can be done, but doing it -- as President Bush will propose next week -- won't be easy technically or politically and it certainly won't be cheap.

Getting there involves leaping lots of technological hurdles, including designing new spaceships, creating a permanent lunar base and perhaps turning lunar ice and the martian atmosphere into rocket fuel.

Space experts say those challenges can be overcome. But they're less sure about the human challenges: Can the human body stand long periods of low gravity in an environment prone to deadly solar radiation? Can the human mind withstand extreme isolation for at least 18 months at a time? Can an ossified and graying NASA still do the job? (story)

Of course, it will take a lot of money to make that happen. No problem! We've got the money!

And -- most important -- are Congress and the country willing to invest $130 billion to $240 billion in the project? Last year's tax cuts, by comparison, are expected to reduce federal reserves by some $135 billion this year.

Government officials and outside experts who have seen the proposal said Bush would call for a gradual program of research and development, freeing him from putting a specific price tag on a decades-long project that would not come to fruition until long after he was out of office.

Very convenient. The next guy in his office can deal with it. I think a better idea would be to make an outpost on the moon. Perhaps the President would like to try it out for size and live there?

I guess the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree...

Vice President Cheney stated that he would support President Bush if he proposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. (story)

"What I said in 2000 was that the question of whether or not some sort of status, legal status or sanction, ought to be granted in the case of a relationship between two individuals of the same sex was historically a matter the states had decided and resolved and that is the way I preferred it," Cheney told the Post.

In the interview with the News, Cheney said that is still his opinion.

I have news for you Vice President. If you pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, you take away that option at the state level. In other words, it would no longer even be an option for the states to consider.

Basically, Cheney, Bush, and the Federal Government doesn't want to deal with this issue of letting gay citizens be equal in the eyes of the law. A constitutional amendment will make all of that go away, at least for this administration. And the state's won't have to worry about it either because they will have no choice but to obey the constitution.

I still give a constitutional amendment little chance of passing. But this rhetoric that is coming out of the Bush Administration on this issue is only showing the kind of self righteous bigots they are. If I were Cheney's lesbian daughter, it would be the end of my relationship with him. It's the ultimate insult to you as a person for someone else to tell you that you aren't worthy of the rights that everyone else has.

And this from Canada, who is now re-thinking it's stance on gay marriage.

Another gay student has dropped out of high school because of the failure of school officials to stop the harassment.

Ryan says that he is going to go for his GED. It saddens me because he is putting his education in jeopardy and his future. Instead of dropping out, he really should be seeing a lawyer. (story - video)

If you feel strongly enough to tell school administrators how you feel about this, contact them at:

This is the letter I sent to the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent:

It seems very sad to me that a young man felt that he had no other action to take for his own safety than to drop out of your school. You have failed to uphold your duty to ensure safety for ALL students, gay or straight. Every student is entitled to an education.

Ryan Myers has now dropped out of your school to pursue his GED. This will put his future education at great risk, not to mention his future opportunities.

If I were Ryan Myers, I might drop out to ensure my safety, but the next person I visited would be a lawyer to file a lawsuit against your school district for the damages being done to my future. It is my hope that Ryan does just that.

If you wanted the harassment to stop, IT WOULD STOP!

I have also mentioned this on my website in a hope that others will know the standard, or lack thereof, that you aspire to.

I love Ellen Goodman! She has a way of cutting right through the chase and getting to the heart of the matter. On the quick marriage / annullment of Britney Spears to Jason Alexander:

Early one Vegas morn, after watching that romantic classic, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," these hometown friends looked at each other and, according to Jason, said, "Let's do something wild, crazy. Let's go get married, just for the hell of it."

Off they went to the Little White Wedding Chapel with Britney in her baseball cap and jeans. After 55 hours, the "I dos" became "I don'ts," the vows were annulled and assorted folks chimed in with the same thought: Hey, a man and woman can get married on a lark, but when a committed gay couple wants to make it legal, they're accused of wrecking the institution?

E.J. Graff, author of "What Is Marriage For?" put it a bit more gently, "God bless 'em, they're allowed to be foolish while lesbian and gay couples who are committed aren't taken seriously."
...
Now repeat the question family law professor Martha Minow asks: "Is this the moment to stand back and ask not who should get married but how to get married?" Should we be more worried about thoughtless, instant, throwaway marriages than same-sex marriages?

As for the idea that same-sex marriage somehow disparages heterosexual marriage? We can put that to rest. Who needs gay couples when you have Britney and Jason?

If it weren't so sad that so many committed gay couples are still in legal limbo, this would be laughable. All I can do is take a deep breath, and wonder why, after I read crap like this, that so many are worried that gay couples are going to be the end of marriage.

Legal considerations aside, the more stories I read like this, the more I wonder if marriage is something I want for myself, or my relationship with Kent. What we have is honestly better than that.

I'm printing the entire story from Ellen Goodman below. This is also covered in my forums, if you'd like to have an open discussion of it.

Britney Spears aids gay marriage
Weekend fling illuminates flaw in 'sanctity' defense
by Ellen Goodman

BOSTON -- Who would have believed that Britney Spears would end up striking a blow for gay marriage? I'm not talking about the pop star's fleeting moments with Madonna. I'm talking about her fleeting hours with Jason Allen Alexander.

Life is uncertain and can be dangerous. That's a message that a bar owner received one morning when he opened a letter he received along with his other mail.

Carl Fox is the proprietor of the Crazy Fox Saloon in Newport, Ohio, said though he's often been the target of gay bashing, he has never hesitated to speak out on issues affecting homosexuals like himself. The handwritten letter he received Dec. 27 might change that.

It began, "Congratulations! Your name has been added to our hit list. We watch the enemies of the people. There will be no place to hide when a turning point comes."

Alongside the venomous quarter-page anti-gay rampage, there was a hand-drawn religious cross bearing a swastika and the German phrase "wendepunkt." The translation, according to detectives, means "turning point." Beneath the cross were the words, "Race, God & Country."

The anonymous letter made a series of grotesque threats against homosexuals, prostitutes and "drug addicts -- and drunks" and warned that Fox was being watched and needed "to be exterminated and burned."

A faceless photograph of a man pointing a gun, carried the handwritten admonition, "Hey man, This slug's for you!" (story)

I've been following this story for a bit. I would have thought that after 9/11 that fire fighters would be a pretty tight group of guys. It involves 40-year-old fire fighter Robert Walsh who was repetitively smashed over the head with a metal chair December 31 by FDNY employee Michael Silvestri after he allegedly called Walsh an anti-gay name. They anti-gay harassment of Walsh had been going on for quite some time.

Walsh retaliated by saying Silvestri rigged the FDNY system to earn extra overtime pay. The two men proceeded to argue, when Silvestri smashed Walsh repeatedly in the face with a heavy metal chair.

During the attack, Capt. Terrence Sweeney and his crew sat in the Staten Island Firehouse Recreation room and watched television "as if nothing was happening," law officials said.

According to a report in the Daily News Walsh lay bleeding on the floor of the firehouse for over 30 minutes before Sweeney and one other firefighter finally took Walsh to Staten Island University Hospital.

Sweeney told the doctors Walsh has fallen down a flight of stairs. Back at the station house, the firefighters, under orders from Sweeney, cleaned up evidence of Walsh's skin and blood.

Near 9:00 PM, Sweeney returned to the station house and recorded Walsh's injury in the official law book as an "accident."

Around midnight Walsh's condition took a turn for the worse, as doctors put Walsh into an induced coma to place an air tube in his lungs so he cold breath. As required by law, administrators at the hospital called the FDNY headquarters to report the injury.

Shortly after 3 a.m., NYPD arrested Silvestri, when Sweeney told them the incident was not an accident and Silvestri was to blame. (story)

Walsh is in critical condition at Staten Island University Hospital's north campus. He sustained multiple facial fractures, including a broken nose and jaw.

Robert Walsh	Robert Walsh, after attack	Michael Silvestri

I'm seeing this come up more and more. When I went to school, harassment of gay students is just something we had to tolerate. I was told to just shut up and deal with it. One counselor even told me, "that's what you get for going against God's law". I even worked for her as a student helper.

Today, the courts seems to be listening to students when the school districts won't. It's a good thing to see. Perhaps we will see fewer students who are gay dropping out of school or doing other self-destructing things. Money talks. If the message gets out that school districts will pay the price for turning a blind eye to harassment, things will change. (story)

More on this story

Other news on this story:
Groton students speak out at state gay youth forum

It's strange how things evolve over time. Time has a way of turning everything around.

Way back in 1982 the United States Olympic Committee sued a nationally renowned competition featuring gay athletes for using the word "Olympics". This suit against the Gay Olympics, filed less than three weeks before the event's scheduled opening at Kezar Stadium, was successful – which is why the event is now known as the Gay Games.

The founder of the Gay Olympics, Dr. Tom Waddell (1937-1987) nearly lost his home as a result of the suit while he was suffering from the effects of AIDS.

"[The committee] basically kicked us when we were down," said Jeff Sheehy, coauthor of San Francisco's domestic partner legislation and former president of the Harvey Milk Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered Democratic Club. Sheehy points out that the USOC didn't choose to sue the Special Olympics, the Nude Olympics, the Police Olympics, the Dog Olympics, or other groups that use the word "Olympics" in their titles.

BASOC representatives are treading gingerly around the issue. "We realize that those wounds haven't healed," Cribbs said. She pointed out that Olympics authorities are now cracking down on any infringing uses of the term.

"This is not about politics, nor was it about being against the Olympics per se," Sheehy said. "It's about unwanted and unwarranted behavior against a community." (story)

The evolution of this story is that, after all these years, we have cities who are bidding on who will host the Gay Games. The Federation of Gay Games (FGG) originally selected Montreal two years ago, but contract negotiations broke off in November. Now, Los Angeles as well as Chicago are now bidding for the games.

Would the Gay Games even want to be part of the Olympics at this point? We still have the Police Olympics, booty olympics, Yale Physics Olympics, Special Olympics, Dog Olympics, K9 Olympics, Ancient Olumpics, Santa Olympics, and the Frog Olympics, and the list goes on and on.

The Olympic Committee has done nothing to go after others using the name "Olympics". The way I see it, not having the Gay Games as part of the "Olympics" is their loss, not ours.

History of the Gay Games

It seems that Fred Phelps is at it again. First, he tried to erect monuments in Casper, Wyoming, Boise, Idaho, and Topeka, Kansas. The monuments would hold a plaque that read, "Matthew Shepard entered hell October the 12th, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's warning, 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination' -- Leviticus 18:22".

All three places have rejected his requests. It seems that he is now setting his sights a bit lower. (story)

Phelps has sent the Topeka Parks and Recreation department a $250 check to have a memorial message placed on a bench in Gage Park.

Memorial plaques on park benches and picnic tables generally are a token of expression of love for family and friends who have died. But, Phelps want his brass plaque to say "Matt Shepard in Hell. He Defied God's Law."

"That's a memorial and it is most appropriate," Phelps told the Topeka Capital-Journal. "It's a message, of course, we have borne all over the United States for almost 13 years now."

Parks and Recreation director Rogers Brazier that he will return the check and not allow the memorial park bench unless the city attorney's office told him and the department that they "absolutely have to."

"It would be because of the content of the message," Phelps said. "That's exactly what the Supreme Court says government cannot regulate. Once you allow memorials and messages of one kind, you have to allow all of it."

He has a point there. In fact, most of his immediate family members are lawyers. I've seen his daughter on the Ricki Lake show (now don't start with that - I hardly ever watch that stuff!). The show was about gay kids. All his daughter could do was to tell each guest that they were "an abomination". I didn't get the impression that there was a lot of intellectual thought going on there.

On a side note (not that it's the hot issue here, but it's important to mention), her hair SUCKED (looked like an ostrich sat on it) and her total lack of fashion sense was appalling!

I thought this was interesting since I went to the Grand Canyon last year. If you have ever been there, you know that it's bigger than life. If I had seen this plague, I can honestly say that it would have offended me to have someone sticking their religion in my face.

Some critics say the National Park Service has caved to pressure from conservative and fundamentalist Christian groups, accommodating their requests to post or alter materials. But National Park Service officials deny the accusation.

In the national park's bookstore, the hardback book, Grand Canyon: A Different View, is for sale. Just weeks after the book went on sale at the park's bookstores in August, public comments started coming in, said park spokeswoman Dawn O'Sickey.

A few weeks before the book went on sale, Scripture-bearing displays posted at the park also caused debate that led to their removal and return.

Plaques quoting the Bible were first placed at scenic points of the canyon's South Rim about 30 years ago by the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary.

Among those who question why the book was offered for sale at the park in the first place is Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit group of federal and state resource workers.

"This is a book that by its cover it shouts out, 'This is a biblical interpretation of how the Grand Canyon came to be in only thousands of years,"' said Jeff Ruch, director of the nonprofit group. "This is a decision to approve, in essence, a religious book."

Grand Canyon officials left the book on store shelves but referred it to the National Park Service headquarters for review.

Officials there are preparing to draft a letter telling Grand Canyon administrators the book makes claims that fall outside accepted science, so it likely won't be restocked, said David Barna, a spokesman for the National Park Service.

"To me, this is a decision you can make that has nothing to do with religion," Barna said. (story)

I didn't even know Jonathan Brandis that well. He was on SeaQuest and I just happen to watch that once or twice. It never did much for me. It was kind of like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, that came out a long time ago.

Jonathan Brandis was a good looking actor who, on November 24, 2003, committed suicide by hanging himself. He was found by friends and was still alive. He died the next day at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He left no suicide note.

So, how did I come across this news? I heard about it after checking one of the sites that I have linked to on my site. The site is called morons.org. A reader to the site submitted a letter entitled "Only morons commit suicide". The sub-title to the letter read, "Former teen idol Jonathan Brandis killed himself a few months ago. What a moron. What a mean spirited, selfish, cowardly moron.".

Have we come to a place in society that we can simply dismiss someone as a "moron" because they've reached such a desperate place in their life that they find no way out but to end their life? If that's the case, I'm honestly not sure who has the biggest problem - the one committing suicide, or our society.

What makes this the act of a moron is that Jonathan Brandis committed suicide.

In a past life, I was a clinical social worker, specializing in Crisis Psychiatry.

So, I know from personal, professional experience: people kill themselves.

Sometimes, I remember thinking (before burnout caused me to abandon that career and run like hell to a career far less emotionally stressful in the IT world), well, yeah, I understand. Like, the guy that was dying slowly of emphysema: life was just so painful to live (literally, physically painful) that he committed suicide not only to escape his pain, but to spare his poor family from having to care for him 24/7. And there were the truly mentally ill - the ones who had demons, voices speaking to them, hallucinations - yes, in that situation, I think I, too, would kill myself...to escape.

But I don't and don't wish to understand celebrity suicide.

Well, if you don't even want to try to understand celebrity suicide, perhaps you shouldn't write the letter in the first place calling Mr. Brandis a "moron".

My take on this is that, without knowing what Jonathan Brandis was going through or what demons he was battling, I would have to be a moron to pass judgment on him. I'm sad that he apparently didn't reach out to someone, or felt that he had no one he could talk too. But, I also know that severe depression can alter your reasoning and thinking process. It's all too easy and too simplistic to simply conclude that someone who gave up all hope and ended his life is a "moron". Life isn't that simple. (story)

This letter spells out the down side of marriage that gay couples would face. I think there is some truth to what he says for some gay couples. Assuming that gay couples do eventually gain equal marriage rights, some will probably want to get married just to be equal. That would be a mistake. In the past, if gay couples wanted to separate, they just went their separate ways. With marriage, you can't just do that. If your mate decides to take you to court, he or she would be entitled to whatever the law says you are entitled to. That could be significant.

First off, if same-sex marriages are treated exactly the same as the other kind, this means they are no longer civil unions, in other words, simple contracts. So divorce becomes a problem.

Ask anyone who's been divorced and you will discover that divorce is not a zero-sum game. Nearly half of all varied-sex marriages end in divorce, and shrinks say the same-sex ratio may be higher, given unfamiliarity with spousal duties and responsibilities. Gays and lesbians may not be prepared for divorce court and being taken to the cleaners.

For people like Kent and me, marriage would be wonderful. There is no doubt in my mind that we will be together until one of us dies. So divorce is not a concern. Marriage would give us the legal protections we are after, as well as giving us the sense of being equal to our married heterosexual friends.

The other side of marriage is that it creates business. Canada is reaping the rewards of gays getting married. This begins with the fee for the marriage license, along with all the legal fees for getting married. In addition, I've read several articles talking about the huge increase in business for caterers as well as wedding planners.

These questions and complexities, I believe, are a major reason why some straight folks are hot for legalizing same-sex unions. Many of these are lawyers and judges, and most of them are Democrats, although rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans think pretty much alike on the issue. Here we can follow the money trail. (When in doubt, always follow the money trail.)

Both Democrats and judges (until they reach the federal bench) get most of their money from lawyers, who have replaced Hollywood and Wall Street as major funders. And trial and divorce lawyers are beginning to realize that same-sex marriages could be a legal bonanza for the profession.

For many, it's all about money. It's funny that those who are so worried about protecting marriage have said nothing about all the lawyers who are profiting from marriage issues. I suppose gay couples will have to pay their dues as well, if or when we are allowed to get married.

...and there's still controversy in some parts of the country on whether it should be permitted for gay folks to be able to adopt children. Go figure.

This year has been interesting. Earlier in the year, there was discussion about the photo of Michael Jackson dangling his infant son over the edge of a balcony. Everyone was up and arms about that. I thought at the very least it was reckless and dangerous. I also thought it could be cause for taking the child away from him for obvious child endangerment.

Just a few days ago, this picture was taken of 'Crocodile Hunter' Steve Irwin holding his infant son, Bob, while feeding a giant crocodile with a dead chicken at Queenland Zoo in Queensland, Australia, January 1, 2004 (story).

He may be an expert on wild crocodiles, but expert or not, a wild animal is unpredictable, and he just needlessly subjected his infant son to danger. When Steve Irwin takes on a venomous snake or a wild crocodile, that's his business. But with this, his infant son had no say in the matter.

I watched the video of this as well. After this photo was taken, the crocodile went back into the water. Steve then put the baby down on the ground next to the croc's pond. You could see the croc coming back towards the baby. Steve then picked the baby up. So stupid. The things people do for press.

Onward.... Things are good, except that Kent's father went back into the hospital for an irregular heart rhythm. It seems to be ok now and he is being discharged from the hospital now. It's been a tough Christmas for them, but at least they were here and we could take care of them.