I just got home a bit ago from watching Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ. It was powerful and a lot of people were very moved by it. Many people cried and seemed stunned. I didn't know what to say after the movie. It was to me 2 hours of torture, humiliation, and finally, death. It was brutal, as I expected it would be. For the people who were so shocked, I don't know what they thought a crucifixion was. Perhaps it was just seeing it so graphically that it got to them.

To me, I see people do much of what was in the movie to each other. I see the worse in mankind at times, and I wonder how much longer we will be around. I look at the current controversy surrounding gay marriage, and I wonder if I'm the only one who hears the venomous dialogue directed at our community from homophobic religious freaks. Some of it is absolutely horrible. Many of them are the same kind of people who put Jesus on the cross. Scary.

I was working on a photo album on Friday night. I didn't put anything into it, but I left it wide open. It was set to the default setting when it was created and I failed to change it. I came home and found that some had uploaded some porn pictures to it. It's amazing to me that people could find it and upload to it in such a short period of time. Unbelievable.

It's been a busy weekend. It's really been the first time that we have had a few quiet moments to ourselves. I slept in this morning all the way to 9:00 and it felt so good! We went out for breakfast and relaxed.

I'm going to go see the Passion of Christ later with my friend Brandi. We will probably go to an early dinner and then the show.

One of my PC's also caught a nasty worm virus, but it picked the wrong guy to pick on! It's all but dead now, and I'm just cleaning up a bit.

I've spent a bunch of time debating on another site about same-sex marriage. If you are interested in the arguments, they are posted here. For the full text you can go to Fried Man.

Of all this talk about how we as a country can deal with how to exclude gays from marriage rights... I would like to point out that we are talking about Americans; law-abiding, tax paying citizens who are real people. They happen to be gay, and they happen to be in committed relationships that they care deeply about. I can't for the life of me figure out how granting them full marriage rights will effect the marriage of heterosexuals, not even Britney Spears. Oh wait, she's divorced now.

What are people so afraid of? These are civil marriages, not religious ceremonies. If you think the two are the same, you would be better outlawing the cheap marriages done in back-room chapels in Reno, or those performed by a justice of the peace. - Bill at February 28, 2004 05:32 AM

It's strange. We went to the Town Clerk of our town to apply for a marriage license last Tuesday. That same day, President Bush makes an announcement that he will support an amendment to the Constitution of the United States banning gay marriages. The timing of this is bizarre.

Some have asked if we are taking this too far. I'm been thinking a lot about that. Maybe we are going to fast. I don't have all the answers for sure. I only know what I feel inside (typing this as I listen to Maria Callas sing Madame Butterfly).

We have demanded to be treated as equal citizens, and now we have the President asking for an amendment. Some are thinking that we should just accept civil unions where we can get them, and be happy with that. It's understandable. These are scary times for our community and for America. It will take great resolve to see this through. But this is not the first time this has happened in this country, and I doubt it will be the last.

If we really want to analyze the argument of gay marriage and if we've gone too far, all we really have to do is to answer a few questions. Let's take the emotion out of it.

We can pull back and stop asking to be like everyone else. We won't have marriage benefits and we might have civil union benefits in the states or counties/cities/towns within the states that have been generous enough to give us some rights of marriage (assuming the state doesn't override those local ordnances with a statewide Defense of Marriage Act, as 38 states have already done).

Will we be okay with that, emotion aside. I won't even call us second-class citizens (an emotional term). Let just ask the question, would we be happy not having the same rights as other straight citizens? Maybe I'm wrong. I've focused on saying that we are the same as our straight citizens in that we are the same in terms of families that we have. Maybe I'm wrong on that. We are gay. Should we be separate from the rest of society? Should African Americans be separate because that have a characteristic that makes them different.

I'm totally serious and not being sarcastic. You see, I've never stepped back and looked at it from a non-emotional view because to me, my family is everything so I tend to react emotionally when someone else tells me that my relationship is worth less in the eyes of the law.

If a Constitution Amendment passes, would we regret it, or would our fight still be a just fight? I think the answer to that is yes. Even if an amendment passes, the fight was just and we should not compromise. I know what such an amendment would do and I agree that it would probably take a very long time to get rid of it. It is just as hard to get rid of an amendment as it is to get one added.

How long should we have to wait for our rights? Are they worth the fight? That's something each of us can only answer for ourselves. But, in my view, those who do not fight for rights that they deserve, do not deserve those rights.

Was freedom ever easy? We have the Constitution of the United States providing freedom for our citizens. Do you know how many lives and how much blood was spilled at the hands of achieving that freedom?

Not to be corny, but I'm suddenly reminded of a scene in a movie. It is from First Contact, the Star Trek movie (follow me on this).... The scene is where Lilly (from 20th century Earth) is trying to convince Piccard to blow up the Enterprise and the Borg who are on it in and effort to keep the Borg from taking over Earth. The parallel here is that the Borg are trying to destroy the future of mankind (read, our civil rights that we are fighting for. The Borg are all of those who want a Constitutional Amendment passed. Hummm, that would make President Bush the "Borg Queen"?). Lilly says to Piccard, “Jean Luc, blow up the damn ship!” Piccard turns to Lilly and says, "NO! We've given up too much already. We've made too many compromises. They advance... we pull back. The line must be drawn HERE, AND NO FURTHER!"

"The line", is... where does it end? How many states will pass DOMA's before we say ENOUGH!? How many rights and privileges will be stripped away before we say "The line must be drawn HERE, AND NO FURTHER!"? How many compromises do we accept and walk away from, saying, "thank you for what little you gave me... I guess as a gay citizen I should be thankful that you let me live here."

Is our fight for equality just? Do we risk everything and go forward demanding equality, even in the face of the leader of our country promising his support for an amendment to abolish what we seek? If they accomplish this, what's next?

My opinion (and now for the emotion); CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE! They are not compromises for something that we hope we can have someday. This is simple. This is an absolute. You have them, or you do not. You are first-class, or you are less than first-class. It is that simple.

As for me, I want to be very clear on this: I WILL NOT WAIVER ON THIS ISSUE. I WILL NOT PULL BACK. I WILL NOT COMPROMISE.

The President has drawn the line. So be it. Now we know where we stand and where he stands. Let him "bring it on". This amendment will not happen. Only 40% (according to the latest poll) are in favor of it. It won't even make it out of Congress. The ONLY reason he is doing this actually has nothing to do with us, which is what pisses me off all the more. This is pure politics.

The lack or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the lack of capturing Osama bin Laden are huge problems for this president. He needs a diversion. The anti-gay marriage amendment is all he has. It carries with it a lot of emotion and he's playing on that. He's trying to mobilize the radical right of his party. He will do that, but at the expense of much of his more moderate center. This is a grave error on his part. They will be able to see this "compassionate conservative" for what he is; a self serving coward who couldn't find his way to serve the greatest principle of the Constitution; freedom. He will do anything to save his ass. The American people get very squeamish when it comes to messing with the Constitution, as well they should.

Of course, the irony in all of this is that the Republican Party has always boasted about being for state's rights and having a less intrusive Federal Government. Now look at what they are doing. This amendment would dictate to the states what they can and can not do.

He has the amendment and the anti-gay rhetoric. We have ourselves and the truth. The truth has never changed; freedom is always right and is a just fight. We need to keep our eyes on the target. We need to show his true motivation behind this action, and that has nothing to do with marriage.

And now for the President's real legacy: $500 BILLION DEFICIT (projected this year).

Numerous conservative commentators have offered to support President Bush's proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage. Their willingness to amend the Constitution to address a social issue traditionally left to the states is puzzling, if not hypocritical.

When liberals sought to amend the Constitution to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment, conservatives whistled a different tune. (story)

"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation." - Jason West

There's big news coming out of New Paltz, NY.

It seems that yet another town is granting marriage to same-sex couples. This is indeed wonderful news. It's great to see courageous people stand up to injustice. On this day, twenty-one gay couples exchanged wedding vows on the steps of village hall.

NEW PALTZ, N.Y. (AP) - Twenty-one gay couples exchanged wedding vows on the steps of village hall Friday in a spirited ceremony that opened another front on the growing national debate over gay marriage.

As the ceremonies by 26-year-old Mayor Jason West were ending, the state Health Department asked the attorney general to seek an injunction "to prevent further illegal conduct by the mayor," a department spokesman said.

A call to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office was not immediately returned.

West, elected on the Green Party ticket last year in this village 75 miles north of New York City, joined Gavin Newsom of San Francisco as the country's only mayors to marry same-sex couples.

"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation," West said. (story)

Yet another town who is now performing marriages for gay couples. It's good to see. I will expect more of these to start happening.

Jason West, the 26-year-old mayor of New Palz, N.Y., says he will perform same-sex marriages in this college town starting Friday, Newsday reports.

"We as a society have no right to discriminate in marriage any more than we have the right to discriminate when someone votes or when someone wants to hold office," West said in a phone interview with the newspaper. "The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus." (story)

This is a letter written to President Bush from the father of five children. He wants all of his children to be happy and have the same opportunities in life, just as any parent should. You see, we do have friends out there, and some of them are conservative.

George W. Bush President, the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

I’m a 52-year-old lifelong conservative Republican, a Mormon from Utah who has lived and worked in New Jersey and Virginia for the past thirty years, and who voted for you in 2000.

I deeply appreciate the strong and effective leadership that you have shown and continue to show in most issues that affect our nation. I fully and enthusiastically support your actions in Iraq and in the war on terrorism in general. I also support your actions to implement a more enlightened tax policy that will lead to economic prosperity for all Americans. National security, the war on terrorism, and the health of the economy are vitally important issues to my family and me, and I’m very grateful for your superb service to the nation in these areas.

On the other hand, I’m deeply troubled by your statements and positions regarding the rights of homosexuals, and especially by the implication in your recent State of the Union address that you would support amending the Constitution to define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I believe this would be a monumental mistake, and I urge you in the strongest possible terms not to support any such amendment.

Excellent view point on what it means to be a "Levitican", and how some misinterpret the message of the Bible. I spotted this link on Shadow Footprints.

I know this is a bit crude, but it's the way I feel right now about what's going on.

This is the Hartford Courant article (requires registration) that appeared yesterday. It was a good article, that covered the scene in San Francisco, as well as what was happening in Connecticut. It features us going to our town clerk to ask for a marriage license (yeah, we really do look better than the pictures, but you can't pick and choose in a paper article). And, I'm sure I told her I was 27 instead of 49. Wish they could get my age right. ;-)

Vows In Uncertain Times
February 25, 2004
By DANIELA ALTIMARI, And LEE FOSTER Courant Staff Writers

Tom Hurlbut and Rick Rossi waited in line for eight hours to acquire their piece of paper.

For the Connecticut couple, the marriage certificate issued by a San Francisco city official reinforces a commitment they made 23 years ago. "Never in our lives did we think we'd be getting married," said Rossi, a 42-year-old middle school teacher. "We both got teary-eyed. It was very powerful."

Gays Sue Florida Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) - Dozens of gay men and women sued a Florida court clerk Wednesday in a challenge to the state's law prohibiting same-sex marriages. The lawsuit - apparently the first legal challenge to the law - names only Broward County Clerk Howard Forman, who issues wedding licenses for the county.

"An idea whose time has come can never be stopped," said Ellis Rubin, attorney for the 175 plaintiffs. "This idea's time is now." (story)

And this from Utah

(Salt Lake City Utah) Less than a week after the Utah legislature passed a bill which bans same-sex marriages and bars the state from recognizing civil unions, the House has approved a constitutional amendment to punctuate its disapproval of gay relationships. (story)

Golf Club to Mediate Dispute with Lesbian

(Atlanta-AP) -- The Druid Hills Golf Club agreed Wednesday to enter mediation to resolve a dispute with a lesbian and gay club member seeking spousal benefits for their partners. The commission ruled in January that the 1100-member club violates the city's anti-discrimination law. (story)

An interesting and disturbing article on the marriage amendment. I'm not sure what the writer means by saying right-wing law makers may add other matters to this proposed amendment that will make it more than simply a matter of marriage definition between a man and a woman, but it doesn't surprise me.

The polls show that over 2/3 of the country are against gay marriages, but to pass a constitutional amendment is a different matter. What is also troubling about this is that some of the right-wing law makers may add other matters to this proposed amendment that will make it more than simply a matter of marriage definition between a man and a woman. At a time when our president should be trying to solve our medical, financial, joblessness, and military problems, he has chosen to ignore the major issues of our nation in order to focus on what he considers an "easy-win" option. (story)

It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy. President Bush came to the White House pledging to unite us and is now seeking to divide the country for his own political gain. - Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe

All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign. - Senator John Kerry

If [Bush] really wants to help married couples, what he should be doing is helping them with their economic problems, their health care problems. - Senator John Edwards

President Bush will go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution. - Senator Ted Kennedy

These are the desperate acts of a desperate president who is going to try and drag this country through a cultural war to jump-start a failing campaign. - Cheryl Jacques, president of Human Rights Campaign

I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue. I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary. - Representative David Dreier (R-Calif.), chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee and a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000

Add your name to a petition to state:

"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness. We oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."

Add your name!

Today has been an emotional day for us. Today was the day that Kent and I went to our Town Clerk in Coventry, CT (where we live), to ask for a marriage license. Ironically, this is also the day the President of the United States backed a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

WASHINGTON - Acting to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever," President George W. Bush yesterday called for a constitutional amendment banning states from recognizing the unions of gay men or women as marriage.

The president, responding to a flood of gay marriages in San Francisco and a court ruling mandating them in Massachusetts, said, "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution ... honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. ... Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

He's not my President. Not any longer. He does not represent me. He is a disgrace to the Office of the Presidency. The democracy that the Constitution upholds will be diminished by this amendment. I know the amendment will not pass, but using this issue and entertaining the idea of amending that great document to support discrimination is a disgrace for what it stands for. And for what? Simply to stir up his party to gather greater approval in the polls... at our expense.

This is exactly why it is so difficult to change the Constitution; to keep morons like this from tampering with it for their own gains. But I digress; back to our story....

I called the clerk last week, so they had warning that we were coming. I also told the clerk that I would be bringing a reporter from the Hartford Courant with me, who wanted to cover the story.

I received a call around 9:30 this morning from the Hartford Courant reporter that was covering the story. She said that she would meet us there at 2:00 and would have a photographer with her. With the President's endorsement this morning of an amendment to the Constitutional banning same-sex marriage, the story has become a larger issue.

We met them right before 2:00, introduced ourselves, and talked a bit. At 2:00, we entered the Town Clerk's Office. I asked the lady behind the counter for the Town Clerk. She said that she wasn't the Town Clerk, but would get her. She left momentarily and came back, telling us that the clerk would be right with us. I said to the lady, "I guess that you all expected us, right"? She smiled and said, "Oh yes, we were."

A couple of minutes went by, and the town clerk entered the room, went behind the counter and asked if she could help us. I introduced myself. I said the following: "Hello. My name is Bill Cannon and this (pointing to Kent), is my partner, Kent Holsinger. We are Coventry residents, and we would like to apply for a marriage license."

With that, she asked to see our driver's licenses. We gave her our licenses. She looked them over and returned them. I assume she was checking our address to make sure that we were residents of Coventry.

She then thanked us for stopping by and said, "I would love to be able to issue you a marriage license, but according to state law, I am unable to issue a license to you." She then handed us a pamphlet entitled, "MARRIAGE LICENSE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT".

All during this time, the reporter was taking notes and the photographer was taking pictures like crazy. It was kind of surreal, actually. We left the room at that point and the reporter stayed behind to ask the Town Clerk further questions.

When they emerged, we left the building, and talked outside briefly. The reported said that the story would run tomorrow in all editions. She asked us why this was so important to us. I told her that equal legal protection was a large part of it. There is no way that we can get the same legal rights that straight couples obtain through marriage the way things are now.

But more important to me than that is that we want to be seen by society as equal citizens. We are now second-class citizens, but we don't pay second-class taxes. Everything else is equal, but when it comes to marriage, suddenly, we have second-class status. And, if anything happens, such as a hospital stay, or one of us dies, nothing is assured. Hospital visitation is not assured, survivor benefits will not be there, inheritance is not there, bereavement leave from work will not be there, on and on.

I then looked at the reporter and said, "We are your neighbors. We are your co-workers. We are fellow citizens in the community. We want to contribute equally to our communities. We also want to be of equal standing in our communities as citizens, and as a couple."

I then shared with her a written statement that I had prepared:

In our desire to be treated as equal citizens in the State of Connecticut, we applied today for a Certificate of Marriage from the Coventry Town Clerk, where we reside. In accordance with state law, we were refused a marriage certificate.

Marriage is a commitment. It is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. We have been a same-sex couple since October, 1975 and plan to spend the rest of our lives together. We do this today to show that we are just like you. We have a home, we love each other, we are devoted to each other, we work, we pay taxes, and we have the same hopes and dreams as anyone else. We want what is best for our family. We want the legal protection of marriage, and we would like our own state to at least recognize that as a family unit, we offer worth and stability to our state.

We worry about what lies ahead for us. If one of us should become sick or incapacitated, will the other be able to make medical decisions that married couples are automatically able to make? What will happen to the estate we have built together in the event one of us dies? Will the surviving partner be able to retain possession of the estate or will it go to the family of the deceased partner? Currently, we are viewed as “legal strangers” by the state and federal governments. We have no access to each others pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, or inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. We should end this discrimination.

Some argue that these rights can be gained by such documents as wills, power of attorney, along with other documents. I have seen such documents overturned in favor of the family of the deceased, leaving the surviving partner with nothing. I have seen cases where the surviving partner was denied access to visitation of his partner in the hospital because of family wishes. In some cases, when the hospitalized partner died, the surviving partner was not even allowed to say goodbye.

These issues are happening in this country everyday. With all the expensive legal documents that same-sex couples can obtain to try to protect the family they have created with their partner, the fact remains, there really is nothing that equals the protection of marriage. These legal protections have been incorporated over time into state and federal law.

Even civil unions pale in comparison. A civil union would be recognized in the state it was granted, allowing some or all of the rights of marriage, but only in that state. It would not be recognized in other states, or by the Federal Government. In addition, if you have a civil union in one state that allows them, then relocated to another state that has no such protection, you would loose your civil union.

Today we look back almost disbelieving on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants, or between blacks and whites. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny the right to marry to committed gay and lesbian couples.

We are not asking people to change their religious beliefs. There are many things about modern society that religious organizations do not endorse. For example, we did not ask the Catholic church or other religions to accept divorce or birth control when they became legal in this country.

We are only asking for equal treatment. We are asking for marriage, because there is nothing equal to marriage in terms of legal protection.

Whatever your views on San Francisco's issuance of marriage license's to same-sex couples, here are some excerpts from three separate columnists. It's interesting to see how others are viewing these events from other parts of the country:

Ruben Navarrette

A lot of Americans are seeing what's going on in San Francisco with gay marriages, and they're not pleased. They include President Bush, who signaled that he would support a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Such an amendment would be a mistake, and it won't square with the rhetoric about Bush being a compassionate conservative.
...
Let's agree on this much: No matter how badly some Americans would like the issue of gay marriage to simply go away, it won't. And for good reason. There are some pretty serious issues involved -- not just religious teachings and social norms but states' rights, equal protection and the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Full faith and credit does not dictate if the 1,000+ rights granted to marriage from the Federal Government will be granted.

Leonard Pitts

The most absurd thing about that argument is that it asks us to believe a man might have his choice of a sexuality that is accepted and one that will leave him open to ridicule . . . and he would take the second one. If that's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's definitely in the top 10.

Whatever causes a man to be gay or a woman to be lesbian is obviously powerful enough that they have no real choice in the matter. The people who have been flocking to Mayor Newsom's city did not decide to be gay. What they have decided is that they are human beings worthy of human dignity, and they are tired of waiting for people to get that.

Yes, we are tired of waiting around for people and legislative bodies to deal with it. Many in Massachusetts have said that the issue of gay marriage is a matter that the Legislature should deal with, and not judges. The problem is, for the last 10 years, the legislature of Massachusetts have promised to do something with "civil unions", and they have not. If the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had not made this ruling, it would not be dealt with they year either. It wasn't even on their agenda for this year, until they were forced to deal with it.

It's the same story here in Connecticut. That is why we are going to the Town Clerk's office tomorrow in our town. I want my state to tell me that I'm not worth as much as other citizens.

Jonah Goldberg

Fortunately, I have the answer for just such occasions: federalism. Under a federal system, each state can establish its own rules, within reason, for how it wants to live.

Liberals suddenly learned a newfound respect for the concept on the issue of gay marriage. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., touts the genius of federalism whenever he can, including on Fox News Sunday when he indicated that he thinks having same-sex marriage legal in some states but illegal in others is an acceptable compromise.

Conservatives are suddenly less enamored with federalism. For a host of reasons, many of them want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. I'm opposed to that. First, real diversity requires accepting that some communities will do things you don't approve of. Second, I favor civil unions and I can't get a straight answer -- pardon the pun -- on whether the proposed amendments would allow them.

AGAIN, WHAT ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Federalism is fine for the states - assuming that it is acceptable to allow some states to continue to discriminate against it's gay citizens, but, it says nothing to the 1,000+ rights and privileges granted to married couples of the Federal Government.

Am I the only one that understands that the Federal Government is a major player in all of this? Everyone wants to leave it up to the states. It's not that simple. If we want to leave it entirely up to the states, than ALL rights and privileges afforded to marriage by the Federal Government should be stripped from marriage. It's that simple; assuming that society wants to rid itself of discrimination against it's gay citizens. That's a big assumption.

The people who would like to see civil unions rather than full-fledged marriage for same-sex couples are the same people who would speak out against racism against African American citizens, while at the same time, they are saying, "I never drive through the black neighborhood". Suddenly, you question their motives. They will say anything to be politically correct, but they will never put actions behind their words.

Isn't that right, Congressman Barney Frank? I thank God for people like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who has the incredible courage to take these brave steps into a new frontier for our equal rights. He didn't have to do this. He could have been like you Congressman Frank, who did nothing year after year, to promote equal marriage rights in your state of Massachusetts.

He has given me hope that my life with my partner may be as full as any other couple. He has made me think that maybe there is some hope for the human race after all.

What the hell have you given us Congressman? You are such a hypocrite. You are such a... politician.

Story Source

Last August, I reported about discrimination agains gay couples by UPS. The case has been settled.

At the time, UPS had a "trailing spouse" policy, that covered the relocation expenses of an employee's spouse when an employee relocated. This did not apply to gay couples since, as the company stated, the couple was not legally married.

In August 2003, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against UPS on behalf of the couple. Just hours after the lawsuit was filed last year, UPS released a statement saying it has changed its policy to include domestic partners and that Kline's transfer application had been approved. That policy though was never made available to its employees, and Kline and Sories were forced to continue living 2,000 miles apart.

UPS agreed to provide the same job relocation benefits to employees in domestic partnerships as it does to its married employees.

(San Francisco, California) A gay couple who were forced to live apart for nine months today settled their suit against United Parcel Service. Daniel Kline, who worked for UPS for more than two decades, and his partner of 27 years, Frank Sories accused the company of discriminating against its lesbian and gay employees by not including them in a corporate policy that lets married employees relocate to another city to avoid having their families broken apart when their loved ones have job transfers. (story)

Story

A county clerk in Bernalillo, New Mexico says it has nothing to do with "politics or morals."

Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap says the county plans to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

She made the decision after asking for an opinion from the county attorney, who said New Mexico law isn't clear on the issue. He also says refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples could open the county to legal action. (story)

Jay Leno
And today, President Bush said he was troubled, troubled by gay people getting married in San Francisco. He said on important issues like this, the people should make the decision, not judges. Unless, of course, we're choosing a president. Then he prefers the judges.

Conan O'Brien
Today in the Oval Office, President Bush said he's troubled by all the gay weddings that have been going on in San Francisco. Yeah. Yeah, Bush says he's also troubled by Bert and Ernie's relationship on Sesame Street. It bothers him.

I was just made aware of this by my co-workers. Apparently, there is a flower shop in San Francisco who will deliver flowers to gay couples waiting in line to get married. The flowers are delievered to a random gay couple with best wishes on their marriage.

Call Flowers on the Bay at 888-217-9119 and order a bouquet to be delivered tomorrow at noon. (I found this information here)

Today a coworker of mine had a thought to send flowers to a random couple waiting in line at SF city hall.

He called a florist and they agreed to do it. He told them to deliver to any couple -- it didn't matter who -- standing in line to get married, with his blessing. The card will read simply "With love, from Minneapolis, Minnesota." Once they understood, they were very touched and thought it was a great idea.

He told another co-worker who did the same thing. And now we want to start a movement. Wouldn't that be cool if people from all over the country, gay, straight and otherwise, started sending flowers to the people waiting in line to get married.

Call it The Big Gay Bouquet call it Flowers from the Heartland. Call it whatever you want, but help us get this off the ground.

Call Flowers on the Bay at 888-217-9119 and order a bouquet to be delivered tomorrow at noon. And Tell all of your friends to do it.

Because straight or gay, we believe and we know many people who believe, support and celebrate the right to marriage. And we'd like to show it. We'd like to see all of the people standing in line with flowers of support from all over the country.

PS. Flowers on the Bay seems like a small shop and might get overwhelmed if this really did catch on. I have a feeling that any Bay-Area flower shop, perhaps even doing FTD through your local florist, could work.

More mayors seem to be supportive of gay marriages. This, after San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. So far, the following mayors have come out in support of gay marriages:

Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco. The city is currently performing gay marriages. Some 2,800 (and counting) gay couples have been married in the city in recent days. And yesterday, San Francisco sued the state of California challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. City officials claim that the ban violates the equal protection and due process clause of California's constitution.

Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago. He said he would have "no problem" if Cook County allowed gay marriages. "You have to point out the strength of this community, your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists," he said. "They have adopted children. To me, we have to understand this is part and parcel of our families and extended families."

R.T. Rybak, mayor of Minneapolis. He issued a proclamation in favor of treating gay couples the same as heterosexuals. A week ago, on national Freedom to Marry Day, Rybak issued his proclamation in Minneapolis. His deputy mayor, David Fey, lives with a domestic partner who is denied access to health benefits.

Rocky Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City. Mayor Anderson is an honorary board member of the pro-gay-marriage group Freedom to Marry, said San Francisco's efforts would allow more people to see the benefits of allow gay and lesbians to marry.

Daniel Stewart , mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. Mayor Stewart has also expressed support for same-sex marriage. Mayor Stewart is gay and said he recognizes that his support for same-sex marriage puts him at odds with many of his fellow Republicans. "But, as a gay man, I have to fight for equality," Daniel Stewart told the Press-Republican of Plattsburgh.

The Homosexual Agenda revealed.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's political director has told a group of prominent conservatives that the president would soon publicly endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Bay Buchanan, sister of former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told Reuters she was one of several conservatives who heard the message from political director Karl Rove two weeks ago.

"We were told by Karl Rove that the president would support the constitutional amendment -- not just that he would endorse it but also that he would fight for it," Buchanan said.

Specifically, Rove told an alliance of conservatives known as the Arlington Group in a telephone conversation that Bush would back the amendment being put forward by Colorado Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and that his statement would come "sooner rather than later." (story)

And this from andrewsullivan.com:

San Francisco files suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state's discrimination against gay couples in marriage. There is nothing illegal about this. But it opens a whole new front in the legal and constitutional fight for equal marriage rights. Not so long ago, I thought I had a handle on this movement. But now it has a life of its own. When freedom begins to emerge, its momentum is hard to stop. But it now seems almost certain that the president will try.

View state by state image.

Another awesome letter from the University of Connecticut newspaper, the Daily Campus. I like to see the pulse of student opinions on various issues. I thought this letter was right on.

Same-sex marriages harm no one, by Karen L. Bresciano

It is with great interest that I have watched the editorials and opinions go back and forth concerning same-sex marriage. The amount of emotion this topic generates is amazing to me when for so long gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have been forgotten or ignored.

In Joshua Terranova's commentary (Feb. 12, 2004) he calls into question Joshua Levinson's (Feb. 9, 2004) statement that Catholics would not "be forced to recognize same-sex marriage." Terranova tells us, "the government has no place, no place at all, sticking its nose into the relationship of the Catholic Church and its followers." Terranova is missing, perhaps intentionally, what I believe to be Levinson's point, which is that if the government allows same-sex couples to marry, the Catholic Church can still refuse to allow same-sex couples the right to a Catholic marriage. Therefore, the government is not dictating Catholic practice at all.

It's was nice to see not one mention of gay marriage in this mornings edition of the Hartford Courant. Don't get me wrong; you all know how I feel about this issue. It's just that, I've reached burnout on this. And, that's ok. This movement will go on and on and on, and if Americans are sick and tired of hearing about the subject (as many letters to the editor would indicate), they had better get used to it, because it is not going to go away.

The hard part for us of course, is hearing about all the awful things the homophobes (wait, they don't call themselves that) are saying about us in the press. Yesterday, President Bush said that he found the issue of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gay couples "deeply troubling". He'd better get used to it and move on, because if he keeps harping on this, he will have even deeper troubles than he already has. But, those are his issues, not mine. My feeling about Bush is that if we give him enough rope on this, he will hang his own political career as President. I think he will be a one-term President.

On a personal level, I called the town clerk of my town yesterday. I told her that we would like to apply for a marriage license. She said, "okay", and started to tell me what hours the office was open for business. I interrupted her, and told her I would be by with my partner, Kent, to pick one up. There was this uncomfortable pause. Then she said, "You understand that by state law, I cannot issue a marriage license to you and your partner." I told her I understood that. I also said that I would be bringing a reporter with me along with a photographer from the paper. She was a bit taken back by that and asked me, "Why would you want to do this?" I said, "I'm actually a very private person. I don't want to do this, and I really don't want to have my name in the paper. But, I have too."

She said, "Well, I can understand that, but you know that I have nothing to do with this situation. You really should be talking to your representative and the legislature." I told her that I had and for the last three years they were doing nothing; that the reason I was doing this was to let my legislator's read in the paper that yes, even out in my corner of the woods (out in the sticks), this was a relevant issue.

I told her, "There are many reasons for doing this. When I see some homophobe putting us down and then making a comment such as, 'if we let this happen, what's next, marrying your dog?', I feel that I have to act. And the topping on the cake was when Britney Spears married one night as a 'joke gone too far' to someone she hardly knew. She got divorced 55 hours later."

When I mentioned Britney, she laughed and said, "We all thought that was inappropriate". "Inappropriate!", I said. "What you call inappropriate is very degrading to couples like Kent and myself. What you are saying is that it's 'inappropriate' for Britney to do that, but when Kent and I, a couple who have been together for 30 years, tries to do it, we can't. You are saying that we are lower than what Britney Spears did. That's just wrong!"

Then I think she finally got it. She appreciated me being so honest. She did say that now that she has been made aware that we will be coming by, she would have to inform the Town Supervisor. She also wanted my assurance that it would not be confrontational. I told her it was fine to inform her Town Supervisor, and that it would not be confrontational, because I know it's not her making this decision.

So, it looks like next Tuesday is the day. Kent will confirm that with me, and I will let the reporter know.

SAN FRANCISCO -- After two judges declined to immediately end San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree, the mayor said the city would keep issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as conservative groups vowed to take their case to higher courts.

During separate hearings Tuesday, a pair of Superior Court judges ruled that they were not yet prepared to prohibit city officials from engaging in the collective act of civil disobedience that has allowed more than 2,600 same-sex couples to be married at City Hall since Thursday.

"There was nothing particularly compelling after today that makes me think that we should back off", Mayor Gavin Newsom said in announcing that the city would go on sanctioning same-sex unions until told otherwise by the courts. (story)

This from Fort Wayne.com. It's a follow-up to my previous entry.

The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were all too familiar with repressive governments, where the majority ruled with an iron hand and the minority had no rights. The expressions of individual rights found in the documents are unequivocal.

And now, as the issue of single-sex marriage becomes a nationwide issue, gay men and lesbians - people in society's minority -- want to enjoy the rights of the majority. Yet many Americans want to deny the rights of two consenting adults to enter into a union, to pursue the happiness others enjoy unfettered by discriminatory laws.

Opponents justify their fear by pointing to the changing - some would say declining - norms of marriage, saying gay marriages would hasten the decline.

If marriage as an institution is threatened and under fire, it is most certainly not because of gay marriage or civil unions. Gay marriage cannot be blamed for a trivializing of the institution, epitomized by Britney Spears' 36-hour Las Vegas marriage. Rather, a host of economic factors and changing societal norms have contributed to high divorce rates and children born out of wedlock.

Equal protection clauses
"... No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment

"The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." - Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 23

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

I'm tired of talking about gay marriage. It's degrading that it's such a topic for us. It's very draining wondering from day to day if all the marriages granted to gay couples in SF will be null and void. Or, will California further strengthen it's laws to make sure we will never be able to be married? Meanwhile, we all have to watch as the Republicans try to abolish any possible chance for marriage equality.

We each do what we can. I talked to some friends at work about the consequences of going to our town clerk for a marriage license. Of course, it would normally not be such a big thing; we go to the town clerk, ask for the marriage application, are turned down, and we go home. But our situation is different. We come from a small community. The Hartford Courant has expressed great interest in being there when we are turned away. They want to send a reporter and a photographer. That means, we will be in the paper, and from what my friends have told me, there's a good chance that the story would be presented in a very prominent place.

One friend warned me that I should take care not to involve the company that I work for. The owner is conservative on these matters and would not like his company name associated with this. My friend is probably right about that. At any rate, it's not my intention of involving my work place. Why is it relevant where I work anyway? If the reporter asks, I will simply say that I prefer not to mention that.

My friends also said that Kent's position at the university could be an issue, since we are really challenging the state, and he works for a state university. We talked tonight about that, and he doesn't feel that will be an issue. It's strange to me in a way; I'm usually the one who is ready and willing to stand up to injustice, but Kent is just as eager to do this as I am.

Another issue that we may have to deal with is how the town will deal with this. That will probably be a mixed bag. There are people here who have not been supportive of us, and there have been others who have been. We are going to go ahead with this with no regrets. Some things are worth fighting for at any cost. In this world, you fight for what you must have to maintain and foster happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

I just received this email from the Human Rights Campign, of which I'm a member. It is calling us to action for our marriage rights. I'm printing the exact email that they sent me, along with all the hyperlinks in tact.

Please take time to take action on this. We are fighting for our right for recognition of our most basic human right - the right to love in marriage who we have chosen for our life partner.

Marriage, HRC and What You Can Do

This is a critical moment in the movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights.

In the last several days, the media announced President Bush’s endorsement of Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s discriminatory amendment that would ban marriage rights for same-sex couples and could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples and their children.

Judge Leaves San Francisco Gay Marriage
This is great news from San Francisco!

For now, gay marriages can still be performed in the city. I must admit, I'm a bit surprised that the judge didn't stop further marriages from taking place but hey, I'm not going to complain.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP)--In the first of two such hearings, a state judge delayed until at least Friday a ruling on whether to block San Francisco from continuing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. ... Opponents are seeking to nullify the marriages and block the city from continuing to distribute the licenses that began last week under an order from Newsom. The newly elected mayor's decision to permit gay marriages, while still legally unsettled, has intensified the national debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. (story)

This from Richmond, Virginia
Legislation has been passed to allow employers to offer group insurance benefits to gay partners who live together.

They also rejected a measure that would have made state mortgage loans available only to married heterosexuals or blood relatives.

It was just last week that the House passed a bill that reaffirms the state's ban on gay marriage.

A spokeswoman for the conservative Family Foundation says it's "ironic" that the same lawmakers who voted to ban civil unions are giving away the "rights and privileges that go along with a traditional marriage."

Well, at least the Family Foundation is admitting that marriage has become a country club of civil rights that only heterosexuals should be allowed to enjoy. I guess that's something.

Washington State House Passes Gay Rights Bill

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- On the same day gay couples lined up outside a San Francisco courthouse to get married, Washington lawmakers took a more cautious step toward equal rights for gay people.

By a 59-39 vote, the state House passed a bill Monday outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment and financial transactions.

"It is NOT about marriage," Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, reassured House members. "It is not about a group of special Americans demanding something special."

Instead, said Murray, the sponsor of House Bill 1809, the bill would simply afford all citizens the right to "have a job, own a home, and participate in the American dream." (story)

It's just unbelievable. We are living in times that are very uncertain. Everything seems to be in flux.

I think it's wonderful that so many people were able to celebrate their love for each other. It's truly sad that so many in our world will do anything they can to kill this love. It seems that we live in a nation that would rather go to war over assumed weapons of mass destruction, than to let two people who love each other be accepted into society as equals.

A record 825 same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco on Monday, capping a five-day marriage spree that started when the city began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday. As the last couples waited to receive their licenses in the City Assessor's Office Monday, Assessor Mabel Teng announced that 2,464 same-sex couples had been wed.

"It's an overwhelming outpouring of love, of joy and of support," Teng told the cheering crowd.

"We are here to celebrate your love, to celebrate equality -- and we are here to support you," she said. "That's what city government is all about." (story)

I spotted this editorial in The Daily Campus, the student news paper at the University of Connecticut.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that within the next few months, the state legislature must recognize and allow gay marriages. The Daily Campus lends full support for the decision of the Massachusetts Court and hope the ruling will stand.

The issues of gay marriage and gay rights are turning out to be the fundamental civil rights debates of our time. Some consider civil unions as an appropriate substitute for gay marriage. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Court was correct in its decision because marriage provides equality and federal benefits. Civil Unions on the other hand, offer no federal benefits.

I spotted this editorial in a Madison, Wisconsin paper. Here it is in it's entirety.

Americans should pause for a moment to consider the phenomenon that has taken place in San Francisco over the past several days.

Last week, the city's newly elected mayor, Gavin Newsom, ordered officials to issue licenses to same-sex couples, declaring that he was merely ensuring equal treatment of gays and lesbians. City Assessor Mabel Teng started issuing the licenses and, by the tens, then by the hundreds and finally by the thousands, gay and lesbian couples started showing up to apply.

From Andrew Sullivan. He hit the nail right on the head.

When people talk about "gay marriage," they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses - available to atheists as well as believers. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civl partnerships, whatever - may alleviate real human needs, but, by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their own families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

I had to go to the dentist tonight for a cleaning. Gawd I hate those.

Anyway, on the way home, I got a call from a reporter at the Hartford Courant. They are very interested in sending a reporter and a photographer with us to the Coventry Town Clerk's office when Kent and I ask for a marriage application. Somehow, it seems more real now. I don't know what to expect.

Out of consideration for the clerk, it seems like I should warn them that we are going to come by and ask. It seems like it would be a bit intimidating for us to walk through the door, along with a reporter and a photographer.

Now, we have to set a date when this will happen. I didn't plan on a photographer being there. That probably means that our picture will be in the newspaper. I'm a pretty private person. I'm not really comfortable with this, but I think it is for the greater good. And hopefully, our home address won't come out. I worry about all the things that could happen. I suppose I worry too much.

There's some good news among all this negative coverage on marriage.

It looks as if at least one legislator in Rhode Island is planning on introducing legislation that will allow same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.

PROVIDENCE - A Democratic state senator from Providence, plans to submit legislation allowing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island when the Senate reconvenes on Feb. 24 after a week-long break.

"This is simply a matter of granting equal rights for every person in Rhode Island," said Rhode E. Perry. "In a society where we talk about respect and non-discrimination, it's hypocritical to have laws that specifically exclude someone from having the right to marry the person of their choice because of their sexual orientation."

The bill removes gender-specific language from the General Laws, which governs eligibility for marriage. It inserts language that allows any person to marry any other eligible person, regardless of gender. (story)

Okay... so I took a bit of liberty in that last quotation from Senator Prescott, but that's the way I feel.

CONCORD, N.H. - Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire, where same-sex marriage is already illegal, are pushing a proposal that would allow the state to disregard gay unions performed elsewhere.

The group of legislators points to neighboring Vermont and Massachusetts as reasons to pass the bill.
...
In New Hampshire, "We felt we were squeezed in the middle," said state Rep. Robert Letourneau, one of the bill's sponsors.
...
State Sen. Russell Prescott, the bill's prime sponsor, insists that current law does not explicitly invalidate same-sex marriages if legal in other states. "We felt we needed to bash the hell out of our gay citizens and further degrade their dignity and relationships do that more clearly," he said. (story)

I read this letter online from a man living in Utah, concerning the gay marriage bill currently before the Legislature:

I would like to comment on the gay marriage bill currently before the Legislature. As explained by its proponents, the rationale for the bill is that children cannot result from homosexual intercourse and, because of that, same-sex couples can't earn acceptance from the state, which must get something in return for its stamp of approval.

I have had a vasectomy, which means that I am no longer capable of producing children. By their logic, this should be reason for the state to deny me the right to marry. I have no worries about this eventuality, however, because I am not a homosexual. This exposes the obfuscatory nature of their argument. The real reason for the bill has nothing to do with procreation. It is homophobia, pure and simple.

Roland Kayser Murray

It just blows me away when I see something like this. It makes me honestly wonder if, as a society, if we are going to make it. I can't believe the things that go through some people's minds, and just when I think I've seen it all.

BRISTOL, R.I. - A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.

The application for the $50 award requires an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."

"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans. (story)

REHOBOTH -- As the main proponent of a controversial amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would forever ban gay marriages, state Rep. Philip Travis, D-Fall River, has found himself at the epicenter of one of the greatest political debates in recent history. ... "This is a question of lifestyle wanting to be equal to 4,000 years of tradition. This is not about being racist or anybody’s civil rights," he said.

Travis said his proposed amendment is not motivated by bigotry, or a desire to deny or strip homosexual couples of any rights. During the convention, Travis voted for three amended versions of his amendment that would have forbidden gay "marriage" but allowed some form of civil unions between gay and lesbian couples.
...
He claims that marriage is an ancient, socially crucial tradition that should be exclusive to heterosexual couples.

"We’re not changing anything. They’re (the Supreme Judicial Court and gay couples) changing that," said Travis.

"I’m saying, ‘Please, with all due respect, don’t do it to us. Don’t push your agenda on us. We don’t push our heterosexual agenda on you,’ " he said. (story)

Representative Travis, PLEASE!!! Don't say that legislators, lawmakers, and straight society as a whole haven't pushed their agenda down the throats of gay citizens. You are such a hypocrite.

So what has the agenda of straight society been? It has been to marginalize us from society. This is done in many ways. I hear it every time that gay marriage is discussed, then suddenly I hear some jerk say, "If we allow gay marriage, it won't be long before people will want to marry their dog." Do you know how degrading that is?

You further add insult to injury by pushing your hateful amendment out (YOUR AGENDA) to the rest of us.

Our "agenda" is to belong to the rest of society AS EQUAL CITIZENS. Can you even understand that? You have a brain. Use it! I have an agenda, that's true. My agenda is that someday, there will be no more straight vs. gay agenda. We will be equal citizens under the law. I hate the fact that people like you put me in a position of taking sides. Most of my friends are straight and totally accepting of me. This has nothing to do with which "side" I am on. I'm just not on YOUR side.

I hate to resort to name calling, but you sir, are nothing more than a common bigot. That is how history will judge you.

Bush's stance led mayor to act now
San Francisco mayor was only in office for 12 days when he attended President Bush's State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. He attended as a guest of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. He listened closely as Bush voiced his strong support for outlawing same-sex marriage -- with a constitutional amendment, if necessary. He felt he had to do something.

Not long after the speech, Newsom called his chief of staff, Steve Kawa, a gay man who was at home with his partner and their two children. "He told me that he wanted to do something,'' Kawa said.

Two weeks later, during a staff meeting, Newsom dropped the bombshell on his top aides: He wanted them to explore how the city could start issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Kawa said the mayor asked staff to gather as many legal briefs, news articles and other background information as they could. Added his communications chief, Peter Ragone, "He also wanted it done quietly.''

Within 24 hours, Kawa was on the phone with Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a San Francisco-based public interest legal organization.

Her reaction: "Oh, my God, you're kidding me,'' Kendell said in an interview Saturday. "It was a mixture of 'wow,' and 'oh s -- .' "

It was the first time, Kendell said, that a mayor of an American city wanted to take such an initiative. And Newsom, a straight Irish Catholic man married for two years, was the perfect politician to take on the fight, she said. (story)

This is a follow up from a story that I've been following. It concerns a gay student who was attending Jupiter Christian School in Florida. He was expelled after it was learned that he was gay. This is an update just out today. The original story I published is here.

Jupiter Christian School's bid to have a pending legal action over the expulsion of a gay student sent to arbitration instead of a trial was turned down this week.

Jeffrey Woodard was expelled from Jupiter Christian last summer over allegations that he had discussed his homosexuality with other students. The school said such conduct is contradictory to its biblical values.

I think President Bush is playing with fire if he insists on pursuing this constitutional amendment against gay marriage. The initiative is divisive, not only to gay and lesbian citizens, and those who support those citizens, but also among many Republicans in his own camp.

I know reports are saying that gay marriage will now be used as a "wedge issue" in the presidential campaign, but I would submit that any gains made in this venture would be minimal at best. In achieving these modest gains (capturing the votes of the religious-right-minded folks), you will also marginalize and alienate a large portion of Republican voters who are fair-minded. They may not favor or embrace the idea of gays being allowed to enter into civil marriages, but they are even more turned off by the notion of messing with the Constitution in order to impose the will of one groups against another. It's hard to argue that anyone would win in a battle such as that.

Imagine a vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage reaching the House floor this year. Now imagine Republicans voting against it. What kind of damage will that do the party in the November elections?

By advocating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, President Bush may energize part of his conservative base to work on the 2004 election.

But if such an amendment actually reaches a vote in Congress, as many think it will, it could expose deep divisions within the Republican Party. (story)

The President has bigger issues to deal with. If he actually dealt with them, he would find that he would gather much greater support within his party, than to put his efforts into a divisive constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

For example, many in his party are in shock about the cost of his programs. The President doesn't seem to have a problem running up bills for programs we can't pay for. A large part of the Republican base care more about tax and spending cuts than social issues such as gay marriage.

Bush has cut taxes but the expansion of government and spending has many economic conservatives in shock. As long-time conservative activist Paul Weyrich put it, "A survey of economic conservative leaders reveals that all of them believe that their supporters will stay at home this election. Some of them are even pining for President Clinton, who cut the deficit and did not expand the size of government."

And this from The Oregonian
Gay marriage ban is a loser

...understanding that Americans are unwilling to accept gay marriage isn't the same thing as believing it would -- choose your hyperbole -- unravel the fabric of society, undermine marriage or doom civilization. No one's been able to explain how gay marriage would sink our society, because there's no evidence it would.

Shamefully, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would engrave discrimination against gays into the U.S. Constitution. It would attempt to lock future generations into a prejudice that has already dissipated and that someday may disappear.

True, the amendment could be repealed at that point, but the mere battle to amend the U.S. Constitution would scar our country. Far from healing our differences, it would highlight and exacerbate them. No minds would change. But the fight would lavish energy and political resources down a deep divide in our nation. No matter what happens, huge numbers of citizens would walk away from the battle feeling diminished and disenfranchised.

Fighting the good fight? If Bush signs on to lead the charge to ban gay marriage, he'll be fighting an ugly retrograde battle. Both sides would caricature their opponents, gay-bashers would have their nasty moment to shine, gay progress would be set back -- and the greater cause of liberty and justice for all would be tarnished.

Maybe -- although we don't see how -- this battle would be a winner for someone politically.

But it would be a loser for our country.

If you were like me last week, you tried to get all the information you could about what was happening in the Massachusetts's Legislature in their debate over a state constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. All I could get from TV reports were somewhat scanty.

I found this story to be very fascinating. It goes into detail what happened before the clock ran out and the talks came to an end. It's a fascinating read.

Good night.

Today was a weird day. I started out my day, after a great nights sleep, by going to my usual place for Saturday morning breakfast (I'm a creature of habit). It was nice because when we went through the door, the owners said, "We were waiting for you to get here. We have over 100 people coming this morning for Valentines Day and we remembered to save a place for Bill and Kent." I was flattered, but more than that, I felt like I had a sense of family. It was nice.

We finished breakfast, came home, and I did odd jobs around the house. Occasionally, I would go on line and do a bit of web surfing. It was a bit disconcerting to me to see what is happening all over the world. I look on the internet, and I see gay couples getting married in San Francisco, Canada, Australia, and many other places on the planet. I'm proud of my community. With everything happening in the United States with gay marriage, we tend to think that everything that has happened is because of the recent events in Massachusetts. Whatever started all of this, gay couples are getting married all over the world. I had no idea it was this wide spread. Did we start this, or was it going to happen anyway? I know it sounds arrogant for me to ask that since we in the United States tend to think that we are the center of the universe, but I hadn't heard of this happening before.

I realize just how small this planet is. I also know what happens to the human animal when it gets desperate. And I think many in society are getting to the point of desperation in their quest to "save marriage" from us. I'm talking about those who will do anything to "defend marriage". I don't know how far they will go, but I think they can see that the direction of this battle is not favoring them.

Kent and I made a decision today. We are going to do what we believe in. We have decided that we will be going to our town clerk and requesting an application for a marriage license. We live in a very small town. We will be refused an application and turned away, I'm sure. I sent a notice to the Hartford Courant, the largest newspaper in the state, letting them know our intentions so they could cover the story, if they desire. That is up to them. We will be following through with our plans. Of course, I will let you all know what happens.

After being turned away, we haven't decided what we will do next. We have a few options I suppose. One would be to drop it and let it go. One would be to sit on it and be an example of a gay couple who was turned away, when and if this issue is ever taken seriously by the legislature of Connecticut. We've been told "any year now" for the last five years. The final option would be to take legal action against the State of Connecticut. Of course, if we were to do that, it would depend on our ability to find a lawyer who would actually take up our cause.

As much as I would like to do what I think is right and pursue legal action against my state, this is no small feat. It takes a lot of time, money, probably more energy than I have, and the possibility of a direct backlash against us. If the media covers it, we will be in the open. I don't know how we feel about that. It will take courage. Will we have the same conviction as Rosa Parks, who finally refused to sit in the back of the bus? Did it take courage to stand up to injustice and say "ENOUGH!"?

Absolutely. It took extraordinary courage.

Three hundred more couples rush to San Francisco to get married today to get married on Valentine's Day.

SAN FRANCISCO Feb. 14 — Gay and lesbian couples from across the country answered this city's Valentine's Day invitation to wed in an unprecedented spree of same-sex marriages that has challenged California law and sent conservative groups scrambling for court intervention.

About 300 people lined up Saturday morning outside City Hall to secure marriage licenses and then take each other as "spouse for life" in brief vows that have given San Francisco's seat of government the feel of a Las Vegas wedding chapel.

I think it's great but, as jonnyboyca pointed out in the forums, "My boyfriend of almost 4 years and I live about an hour away from San Francisco and we thought about rushing to SF to go get hitched too BUT we decided that to us marriage is something sacred and that when we do get married we'd like our friends and family to participate/witness our proclamation of love. So we will wait until we are truly ready."

I think there is a lot to be said for that. All of this is happened way too fast for most of us to be able to take in. The thought of being able to be married and to hold a marriage license is intoxicating, but it is what we really want. I think part of it is what we want. We want to be recognized as being equal in the eyes of the law and a simple piece of paper that says "Marriage License" on it is a big part of that, even though it is done in defiance of the law.

But, as Jonny points out, there is more to it than that. Kent and I could easily go to Canada and get married. In our case, since we have no friends around in Canada to witness our marriage after being together for 30 years, I think it would seem hollow to me. In the first place, when I returned home, it would only be a piece of paper; not recognized in any state.

In the second place, being married around strangers is not how I envisioned my wedding to be. I thought it would be a joyous occasion that I could share with my friends. Michelle suggested that I go and get married, then come home and have a celebration on my own turf. Perhaps that's the answer.

Eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses at Richmond Circuit Court on Friday as legislators voted three blocks away to pass a bill affirming the state's ban on gay marriage.

The couples, each clutching pink "bride" and blue "groom" application forms, were turned away by an official who told them same-sex marriages violated Virginia law. They were joined by more than 50 supporters in the courthouse.

"It's a heartbreaker to be rejected," said Mary Gay Hutcherson, who was accompanied by her partner of 10 years, Yolanda Farnum. "But it was empowering. I think we deserve a license from the state of Virginia. And I think someday we will get one." (story)

Gay couples in Texas plan to go to county clerk offices Friday to ask the state to grant them marriage licenses and acknowledge their unions.

Texas only recognizes marriages or civil unions between a man and a woman, but that won't stop Jerry Simoneaux, president of the Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston.

"When two people pledge to love one another and support each other throughout their lives that is good public policy," said Simoneaux, who has been with his partner for nearly 17 years. (story)

"I'm not interested as a mayor in moving forward with a separate but unequal process for people to engage in marriages," Newsom said in an interview Friday on ABC News' "Good Morning America." "I think the people of this city and certainly around the state are feeling that separate but unequal doesn't make sense." - Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom

I think I would vote for this guy for President of the United States. He couldn't do any worse than George W. Bush, and we'd have equal marriage rights.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Opponents of gay marriage went to court Friday to stop an extraordinary act of ongoing civil disobedience in which San Francisco has issued more than 150 marriage licenses to gay couples.

Weddings appeared likely to continue through the long holiday weekend despite efforts by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund to obtain a temporary restraining order that would prevent the city from granting more licenses. A Superior Court hearing was scheduled Friday afternoon.

Around the country, gays and lesbians emboldened by San Francisco's move and by the constitutional debate over gay marriage in Massachusetts went to courthouses Thursday and Friday demanding their own marriage licenses -- and getting summarily rejected, since every state in the nation bans gay marriage.

But in San Francisco, with the blessing of newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom, the county clerk has issued more than 150 marriage licenses to gay couples. Many of the weddings have taken place in quick civil ceremonies inside the ornate City Hall, and the building was to remain open Saturday in observance of Valentine's Day. (story)

And in response from Campaign for California Families: Foes Sue To Halt SF Gay Marriages

It seems that gay and lesbian citizens are getting married where they can, this time in Toronto, Canada.

TORONTO (CP) - Seven same-sex couples from across the United States were at Toronto City Hall on Friday to apply for marriage licences for a Valentine's Day trip down the aisle.

The Americans, who travelled from New York, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, Texas and California, will be joined by a Toronto couple for their nuptials on Saturday at an area restaurant.

"This is the sweetest Valentine's ever," said Brendan Fay, co-ordinator of the U.S.-based Civil Marriage Trail project that organized the trip. "Long after the sweetness of the chocolate and roses have faded, the sweetness of this Canadian gesture will last."
...
From July 2003 until the end of December, some 1,400 gay and lesbian people were married in British Columbia. Of those, 766 came from the United States. Another 613 were Canadian, and the rest were from other countries.

Ontario doesn't keep comparable statistics, but Toronto does. City records show that 14,700 gays and lesbians have been married here, 6,800 of them non-Canadians. (story)

Bob Little says, "The only change from the days of Abraham is that polygamy is no longer permitted." Back then, people were ruled by the Bible, not the Constitution. Exodus 31:15 clearly says that anyone who works on Sundays must be put to death. The reason we all blatantly disregard the Bible here in Pahrump is because it's not in our nature to murder hard working people even though the Bible clearly commands that we must.

By the same token my gay brother has been in a 17-year relationship with another man because it is not in his nature to be with women.

If you don't think homosexuals should get married, then don't marry one.

Sincerely,
MARY KLEIN

This is actually great news for our community. It means that after two contentious days of arguing about the best way to deal with our relationships, the legislature came up with nothing. Several proposals were put forth and they were all very narrowly defeated.

BOSTON - With the nation watching, a weary Massachusetts Legislature suspended debate on a proposed gay marriage ban Thursday after two days of tense negotiations, the slim defeat of three amendments and an angry late-evening walkout by dozens of lawmakers chanting "We want a vote."

The constitutional convention will resume March 11 when lawmakers will again grapple with the divisive issue that has placed Massachusetts in the national spotlight.

Under a ruling by the state's highest court issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin taking place across the state in mid-May. (story)

This is what our fight for equal rights is all about. Yesterday, in San Francisco, 95 gay couples were issued marriage licenses. (story)

The ceremony, arranged in great haste, was brief and held behind the closed doors of a dreary municipal office.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, a lesbian couple together for 50 years, stood facing each other and beamed when a city official pronounced them not husband and wife but "spouses for life."

They had not become domestic partners, or joined in a civil union. The couple, both pioneering activists in the gay rights movement, had signed full-fledged marriage licenses and been wed with San Francisco's official blessing, a momentous step that city leaders said has no precedent.

Word of the wedding - which took place after San Francisco's new mayor, Gavin Newsom, defied state law earlier this week and asked city clerks to remove all references to gender on local marriage forms - spread fast. By Thursday evening, San Francisco's ornate city hall had begun to resemble a one-of-a-kind wedding chapel as city officials married 95 gay couples who had rushed there to exchange vows.

"Today, a barrier to true justice has been removed," Newsom proclaimed.

I'm taking a bit of time off from what is happening in Massachusetts. I don't know about others out there, but there is something about that whole situation that is just a little too intense for me to deal with. I mean, they are talking about our relationships with the people we love and the validity of those relationships. It's just too personal for me I suppose.

I found this in a short search. I think we can expect this to happen more and more.

Two Gay Couples Denied Marriage Licenses In Beverly Hills
LOS ANGELES -- Two gay couples were denied marriage licenses Thursday in Beverly Hills, leading a local attorney to announce she will sue to challenge the ban on gay marriages in California.

San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couple
SAN FRANCISCO Feb. 12 — In a political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.

Gay and lesbian couples all across Florida lined up at their county courthouses to apply for marriage licenses Thursday morning and the courthouse in St. Augustine was no exception.

One-hundred people gather for same-sex registration in Minneapolis
(Minneapolis-AP) -- Fifty gay couples registered as same-sex domestic partners in Minneapolis today as part of the national Freedom to Marry Day.

Mayor R.T. Rybak issued a proclamation in honor of the celebration at Minneapolis City Hall.

The registrations in the city are currently the only option for same-sex couples that want to be legally recognized in Minnesota. Since last year, the process no longer requires registrants to work or live in Minneapolis.

Today's event comes at a time when some state legislators are pushing to amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriages.

Delegates advance anti-gay marriage bill
RICHMOND — The House of Delegates tentatively approved legislation today that affirms the state's ban on gay marriages, despite opponents' claims the measure unnecessarily repeats what is already law.

Del. Robert Marshall's bill comes as the Massachusetts legislature tries to compromise on language for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriages, but allowing civil unions.

Six couple applied for marriage license, but were turned down
FLORIDA - Gay and lesbian couples all across Florida lined up at their county courthouses to apply for marriage licenses Thursday morning and the courthouse in St. Augustine was no exception.

Six couple applied for marriage license, but were turned down. Same sex marriage is not legal in Florida, but the couples wanted to make a point that gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Same sex marriage is not legal in Florida, but the couples wanted to make a point that gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Bush Said to Favor Gay Contracts
WASHINGTON -- South Carolina Republican Congressman Jim DeMint says President Bush believes that state contract law can ensure some of the rights that gay and lesbian couples are seeking through marriage and civil union.

DeMint says the subject of contract law and marriage equality came up when he was traveling with the president on Air Force One last week. He described the conversation, first reported in the new issue of Time magazine, as politicians "shooting the breeze" rather than an in-depth policy discussion.

It sounds like second-class citizenship to me.

The Idaho House of Representatives passed the anti-gay marriage ban by a 53-to-17 vote.

The bill would change the Idaho constitution to say only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in the state. It needed 47 votes to pass. Only four republicans and 13 democrats voted against it.

The measure now goes to the senate where it is expected to face more opposition than it did in the house.

The legislation is being sponsored by House Majority Leader Lawrence Denney of Midvale and Henry Kulczyk of Eagle.

"Republican officials said Bush's decision to proceed was driven partly by his desire to start the general election campaign on a fresh issue, at a time when his credibility has been battered by questions about prewar warnings of unconventional weapons in Iraq, as well as gaps in documents about his National Guard service."

I guess that the rights of gay citizens is the "fresh issue". I can't even find the words for how disgusting that concept is to me. All we are is a political football to him.

I would very much like our President to have to look this couple (left) in the eye and tell them why they are not worthy of full civil rights in the United States. I would like him to tell them why they are second-class citizens in a country that boasts equal rights for all and "the land of the free". I would like him to explain to them exactly why it is that they are nothing more to him than a political football that he can use to further his own pathetic political career.

If he was man enough to do that, then perhaps I would have a little more respect for him.

Washington - President George W. Bush plans to endorse a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman following a Massachusetts court decision requiring legal recognition of gay marriages in that state, key advisers said yesterday.

Bush plans to endorse language introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) that backers contend would ban gay marriage but not prevent state legislatures from allowing the kind of civil unions and same-sex partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California.
...
The amendment's authors say it is a compromise that would not stop state legislatures from allowing civil unions. Gay rights groups disagree. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, which supports marriage rights for gays, said the "vague and sweeping language" of the proposed amendment's second sentence "is intended to deny any other measure of protection, including civil unions and domestic partnerships." (story)

Massachusetts Convention agenda items (begins today)
Massachusetts' proposed gay marriage amendment is the eighth of 10 items on the agenda for Wednesday's constitutional convention. Two-thirds of the lawmakers present would have to approve skipping over the other amendments to immediately take up the gay marriage question. The amendments on the agenda are:

1. Increase the term of the General Court (the House and Senate) from two to four years.

2. Devise a process for appointing House or Senate members if a terrorist attack leads to massive vacancies in the Legislature.

3. Raise the threshold for placing citizen initiative questions on the ballot by increasing the number of signatures required.

4. Institute the election of judges.

5. Abolish the governor's council (an eight-member group of councilors which approves all gubernatorial appointments) and give the Senate control over judicial nominations.

6. Set up a process for the appointment of a lieutenant governor in cases where the sitting lieutenant governor becomes governor.

7. Abolish the governor's council, without enshrining in the constitution who would take over its duties.

8. Affirm marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

9. Limit the content of appropriations bills.

10. Require biennial state budgets in place of the one-year budgets now in place.

A Victory!
New York State to grant same-sex unemployment benefit

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Under pressure from a gay-rights group, the state has reversed its two-year position that denied unemployment benefits to homosexuals who quit their jobs to follow their partners taking new jobs out of state, according to a published report.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that the state Labor Department's top lawyer has told the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board to reverse a ruling that prohibited unemployment benefits to same-sex couples in long-term relationships. (story)

It was found in a recent study by Forrester Research, that gay consumers are more likely to take advantage of technology in their daily lives than their straight counterparts.

I used to have a PDA. I now rely heavily on internet for a lot of things in my daily life. My PDA wore out, and I never felt the need to replace it. Kent can't seem to live without his. I liked the ability to read my email on my PDA, but responding to email without a keyboard is a pain in the ass. Plus, once you've created the response, you have to wait until you can sync up for the email to actually be sent. Of course, everything is evolving. Shortly, wireless PDA's will be the norm.

I think one obvious reason that gay people are more likely to embrace technology than straight people, is because the internet has done more to bring people together than any other force in our lives. For gay people, this is huge. Think about the gay person who lives in a location that is rural and somewhat isolated. No one knows he/she is gay and he/she wants or needs to keep it that way. That person can reach out and talk to others and still maintain privacy. In other words, the feeling of isolation lessens.

I can't speak for others, but it has caused me to feel more connected to the world. On the internet, you can choose where you will go that will be friendly and not have to worry about what might happen if you trust the wrong person, as in real life. I've made some great friends over the internet without worrying if they are "ok", as I would if I met them somewhere. Still, you have to be careful. The ability to be anonymous is comforting to some, but it also means that those who want to be deceptive can more easily do so.

Of course, as the internet becomes as common as a coffee maker, the statistics of who has internet and who doesn't will become smaller and smaller. I also think there is a huge difference in who uses the internet by age group. Younger to middle age people have endorsed it. Many older people have a problem accepting it, although my parents-in-law have concluded that email is pretty cool (as opposed to snail-mail).

In a recent study by Forrester Research, it was found that the gay consumers are more likely to take advantage of technology in their daily lives. Jed Kolko, principal analyst at Forrester stated that "Gay men and women are tech-savvy consumers who use the Internet and tech devices at significantly higher rates than their heterosexual counterparts for shopping, banking, entertainment, and community building."

Additionally, the Forrester study concluded that 80 percent of gay men and 76 percent of lesbians use the internet, while 70 percent of straight men and 69 percent of straight women are currently online. Gays are also one-third more likely to have broadband internet connections and have been online longer than heterosexuals. (story)

Kent is up and in the shower. Have to go make his coffee. Have a great day everyone!

I received this letter in the mail and am reprinting it here, with the writer's permission, along with my response. The name and email address of course, are removed.

Dear Bill and Kent,

I came across your website during research. I am so impressed with your comments, stories and linking editorials about your life together. I wish I could do the same with my partner, but due to legal issues, I am unable to express myself and my lifestyle. We have been together 6 years and I adore her completely. I could not ever see my life without her.

I have a question that my partner and I have discussed over many years. I would like to share it with you and see if you both have an opinion as to how you would feel if instead of a marriage law for gays and lesbians, there is a union law which recognizes the union between same sex partners but also includes recognition of any legal contracts made by the unioned couple the same as a heterosexual couple. This would mean that during the union, if the couple had a child, the child would be both parents. If a will was made which placed one as overseer and beneficiary, it would be recognized. Place of employment would be required to recognize the union for health insurance and compensation. And so on. .

Of all my gay and lesbian friends, none have expressed that marriage is the issue. It is the recognition concerning legal issues which have made gay and lesbian couples unequal in the world. The right to adopt, to be recognized in contracts as a couple, the right to have a choice when you die. (Read your article on "Why We Need Marriage").

My partner and I also feel that to change the constitution banning same sex marriages only opens the door for discrimination among other races and lifestyles. The constitution should remain freedom for all, and not a play ground for selecting which side one must be on. This reminds me of Hitler and his choices for a perfect society. Is this what our government is doing? I really try to hope that this is only a step to a long battle that eventually will lead to a joyous victory, as in the years of rights for blacks and women.

Anyway, I have taken enough of your time. But please let us know how you feel on this question if you have the time. Good luck with your website and your life together. I pray that someday, your webpages will be full of the laws of recognition instead of the pleas for equality.

My Response:

I have a few thoughts about gay marriages vs. gay unions.

Presently, there are laws at the state, local, and federal levels that apply to "marriage". In every single debate that I've heard concerning having "civil unions" and not "marriage", the Federal Government was never included in that argument. IF the Federal Government honored "civil unions" across the board and... IF every state honored a "civil union" granted by any other state and.... IF every municipality and town honored the "civil unions" of all the other towns, as they do marriage in every instance, THEN I would have no problem with "civil unions".

The fact is, they don't. The way the laws are set up now, there is no equivalent to "Marriage". In the eyes of the law, anything less than marriage is a second-class status. The scenario they (President Bush and Vice President Cheney) have painted is to allow the states to decide if they want same sex marriage or not. If we go that route, if you happened to live in a state that allows you to get married, that would be great. What if you move to a state that doesn't allow it? You would lose your marriage and the rights that come with it. Of course, in all instances, the Federal Government would not grant you any of the 1,049 rights and privileges that come with marriage. They know this and they don't want to deal with it because the ONLY WAY the Federal Government would allow that to happen is for them to allow "civil unions" at the federal level, and they aren't going to do that. They simply want the states to decide if they will allow same-sex unions so they won't have to deal with it.

My inspiration is Gandhi. He didn't settle for second best. There are absolutes in society that are not negotiable. Equal civil rights (as guaranteed by the US Constitution) is one of them. Always remember this: YOU have complete control over YOUR destiny. No one else can make those decisions for you. You can always express yourself and your relationship with your partner. Life is too short to live a lie just to satisfy others and make them feel comfortable.

Just my thoughts, and how I live my life.

All the best to you both!

Bill

This is why I'm a "home body". I love my little town and my life the way it is. Kent travels a lot. Don't get me wrong, we love those frequent flyer miles. This story is exactly why, especially after 9/11, that I hate flying. Basically, there are a lot of nuts out there. What are the odds that one of your pilots will be someone who has his own agenda that he is pushing?

This is the story of American Airlines Flight 34 on February 6. Roger Findiesen was the pilot of the aircraft. As the plane sat immobile, waiting for its slot to take off, Findiesen asked Christian passengers to raise their hands and said that "everyone else on board" might want to "make good use" of the flight. The implication was that non-Christians should learn about the Christian faith from the passengers who had raised their hands. He called non-Christians "crazy".

I don't know about you, but I would have demanded right then and there to be let off that plane! Findiesen said, "I felt that God was telling me to say something [to the passengers]." So who's to say that God was going to tell him to fly into the Chrysler Building in New York City, or somewhere in Washington, D.C. for that matter?

What Findiesen said, as best the stunned passengers could recall once they were able to move about the cabin and confer after Flight 34 took off, was this: "I just got back from a mission," Findiesen said after making a routine announcement about the plane being second in line for takeoff. "You know, they say about half of Americans are Christians. I'd just like the Christians on board to raise their hands."

In the suddenly hushed coach section of the airplane, a few nervous passengers raised one hand, most no higher than shoulder level, none above tops of the seats.

"I want everyone else on board to look around at how crazy these people are," the pilot continued, with an intonation suggesting he was using the word "crazy" in a positive, even admiring manner. Evidently addressing the non-Christian passengers, he concluded that they could "make good use of [the flight], or you can read your paper and watch the movie."

The movie on the flight was Under the Tuscan Sun, with Diane Lane and Sandra Oh as Lane's lesbian best friend. (story)

Point Two: They are now showing lesbian movies in flight??? I wouldn't mind seeing a Jeff Stryker movie at 30,000 feet. That would be different.

The following letter was written by a student at the University of Connecticut. It was printed in the school newspaper. I thought it was relevant here. It was published in today's edition.

"Freedom isn't always popular, but it's always just."

Same-sex marriage and the religious right, By Joshua Levinson

When I was a child, I used to believe with all my heart that the United States was the greatest country in the world, bar none. When I first saw the Statue of Liberty, I was awe-inspired by this tremendous symbol of freedom, and the welcoming words of our great country. I used to think our flag stood for freedom, equality and opportunity.

Now I read the news and can't help but think I was a fool.

Last week, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled civil unions were not an acceptable compromise to same sex marriages, which they defined as unconstitutional.

In one of the most eloquent and poignant remarks I've heard in a long time, the four judges who ruled in favor of same sex marriages said, "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was quick to respond with, "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

Senate Begins Work On Anti-Gay Amendment
I didn't think that the Senate would being work so soon to draft an amendment to the US Constitution, but it has started. This just out today:

(Washington, D.C.) The Senate has begun work on a bill to amend the US Constitution to prevent same-sex marriages and playing a key role will the former Texas Supreme Court justice who dismissed challenges to the state's sodomy law.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn (left) voted to throw out lower-court decisions that declared the state's sodomy law unconstitutional. The law was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

During his 2002 Senate campaign, Cornyn vowed if elected he do all in his power to prevent making violence prompted by a victims' sexual orientation a federal crime. Cornyn also is on record as opposed adoption by gay couples. (story)

On my way into work this morning, they announced that there was a protest yesterday against gay marriage at the state capitol.

They said that around 3,000 citizens from local Catholic churches showed up to protest against allowing same-sex marriages and advocated passing an amendment to the state constitution to prevent gay marriage from ever occurring in the state of Connecticut.

On the opposing side of the street were those who were advocating for equal civil rights for gay citizens. They said that there were only "a handful" of protesters for gay marriage (which I suppose explains why I never even heard that there was going to be a rally). It seems like somehow, we should be better organized than this.

One said at the protest, "The people of this state do not want same sex marriage." Well guess what, the majority of people didn't want inter-racial marriages either. The majority of people didn't want women to vote. The majority of people didn't want to end slavery. The rights of people should not and must not be held hostage to the whim of the people. The issue of civil rights is an absolute, and it should be dispersed equally, according to the Constitution that we all live under in this country.

That aside, I would like to point out the irony of all of this. Here, we have the Catholic church out there protesting against allowing same-sex marriages because it "wasn't created and designed by God". This is the same church who, for who knows how many years, allowed it's pedophile priests to prey upon young innocent boys, knowing full well that this practice was happening. Their solution was to move the priests around to get them out of the spot light and to pay the families off. What we ended up with were boys who grew into men who were scarred for life.

The Catholic Church has responded to it's priests molestation of boys by stating that they were going to stop allowing "gay priests" into the church. They have no clue about this. They don't even know that being a pedophile and being gay have nothing to do with one another. They don't even know that the statistics show that 90% of pedophiles identify themselves as being straight. Being a pedophile is a disease; it has no sexual orientation. Those priests did what they did because the boys were powerless to do anything.

And now, the church is saying that gay people are threatening the institution of marriage. How many marriages have they destroyed by what they practice? People [churches] who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

"I'm offended that my partner and I who love each other, who have a home together, who built a church together are not able to be married, and yet someone like Britney Spears is allowed to go to Las Vegas and get married as a joke," says George Chiem, supports same sex marriage. (story)

The far-reaching gay marriage ban could rob institutions such as Ohio State University of the edge they have in recruiting top talent, the university says.

Gov. Bob Taft signed the bill Friday, saying its adoption was urgent because the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could occur as early as this spring in Massachusetts.

Ohio's bill also prohibits state employees from getting marital benefits spelled out in state law for their unmarried partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Only state employees who negotiate such benefits in collective bargaining contracts will be allowed to get them. The prohibition does not affect local governments or private companies and universities.

Ohio State President Karen Holbrook lobbied the Legislature for protection against the prohibition for Ohio's public colleges and universities. The university, in a statement released after Taft's approval, said it was disappointed.
...
Taft, also a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said families and parents need an environment that offers "children, and ultimately our society, the best opportunity to thrive." (story)

Who would have known? A gay penguin couple???

Well, that's what Roy and Silo are. They have their home at New York's Central Park Zoo. I may just have to stop by and visit them. We do after all, have one thing in common!

I guess that kind of blows away the theory about homosexuality being chosen. I doubt that these penguins and all the other animals out there in homosexual matings ever gave one thought about which sex to choose. To them, it was just what it was; what came naturally. Hey, come to think of it... just like us!

Roy and Silo haven't a clue what Stonewall was. They don't much care to discuss gay rights either. And, don't dare ask them about same-sex marriage. All you will get is a blank stare. But, they are as together as couple can be.

Silo and Roy are chinstrap penguins and they reside at New York's Central Park Zoo where gay rights take a back seat to the occasional sardine.

Nevertheless they are completely devoted to each other and for the past six years have been inseparable.
...
Meanwhile, back at the Central Park Zoo, Silo and Roy are "necking" and having sex. Lots of sex. When they were offered female companionship, they ignored the ladies. And, it seems, the females aren't interested in them, either. (story)

And more coverage...

I don't get it. What's the bid deal over her exposing it. I want to say to people, "it's a breast people - get over it".

Besides, it wasn't that big. Just my opinion, but women's breasts aren't really my thing. It wasn't like it injured me or anything.

Justin Timberlake... well, it might get my attention if he did something. ;-)

I have my eye on May. Traditionally, we go to Ogunquit, Maine for a short vacation every year. I like the beach there and it has a lot of gay tourism. We usually go the weekend before Memorial Day when it gets crazy. I was thinking about going to Cambridge on our way up, getting married, and continue to Ogunquit for a mini-honeymoon.

Then, future plans.... Since we will be married, we will file a joint tax return to the state and federal governments. It is expected they will have a problem with that. I will then send them a copy of our marriage certificate from Massachusetts, proving our marriage. When the state of Connecticut refuses to honor the marriage, a lawsuit will be filed, based on a violation of amendment XIV, Section 1 and Article IV, Section 1 & 2 of the United States Constitution (see below).

Of course, this all depends on being able to find a lawyer with balls big enough to take on the government. It should be interesting. I've never had the experience of being in jail, but I suppose life is all about experiences.

United States 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.

Article IV, Section 2:
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Amendment XIV, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I have been thinking a lot about the gay marriage battle going on. I let it get to me at times and I get very emotional about it. It's hard not to take it personally.

It's not like bad things haven't happened to us before. We all have had bad things happen to us. For me, losing my friends to AIDS in the 80's was terrible. Yet, I was resilient. Even when gay bashers had struck close to home, I dealt with that. Yes, a lot has happened in my life, but I've always been able to deal with it pretty well.

So why is this fight for gay marriage different?

It's different because in the 80's when my friends were dying of AIDS, we knew that society hated us and wanted us to go away. When our government did nothing for those with AIDS, our community developed a strong network of support to help those with AIDS. Later, that same network was used to help another hated group of individuals in our society, IV drug users. I don't think we were that surprised that our government didn't help us, because deep down, we never expected them to help us.

But now, I thought things were a bit different. I know I've changed tremendously. There was a time that I avoided straight people altogether, as if they were all the enemy. We lived in the Castro and for us, it was a slice of paradise. As my friends died one by one, this slice of paradise was no longer paradise. It became difficult to just go day by day. You'd open the Bay Area Reporter (the gay paper in the neighborhood) and see four solid pages of obituaries. You would read through them to see how many of them were people you knew. It was depressing.

When we moved to Connecticut, I was burned out on San Francisco. I have never gone back since. It was no longer a beautiful place for me. My only thought was, "I just hope that I can find some place that I can work and have money for food". I know, I didn't have very high expectations of life then. I wanted to be left alone. I had accepted that I was on the lower end of the societal spectrum. I didn't ask to even be a part of society, just to be left alone.

Over the years, I've changed. As I've gotten older, I've developed a trust for people. Most of my friends are straight. Society seems friendlier to us now and we are talked about much more openly in the press and entertainment industry. We seem to have come into our own and have started to have a visible impact on society. That's exciting to me. For the first time in my entire life, I feel like I'm actually part of this society. So, to me, not being able to marry is a big deal.

When I get upset over the opponents of gay marriage, I keep reminding myself to keep things in perspective. But last night I looked at Kent, and realized that for me, things were in perspective. I said to him, "This is personal."

It's personal because what is really going on is that the opponents of gay marriage are really saying that they want things to be the way they were; where we were marginalized and not really a part of society. Think I am overreacting? Just look at what the governor of Ohio signed into law yesterday; a super DOMA for the state of Ohio. It's not enough that Ohio is denying marriage licenses to gay couples. Ohio went a lot further. They will not even honor civil unions or domestic partnerships honored in other states or jurisdictions. The sponsors to the law boasts that no rights that currently exist have been taken away from gay couples. That's laughable since they don't have any now.

It's personal that they think our relationship doesn't merit being part of the fabric of society.

It's personal when they feel that it's "ok" for "real family members" to come in and strip away the dignity, respect, and property from my life partner when I die.

It's personal when they call my relationship to Kent an "abomination" when crafting laws that embed homophobia and discrimination into civil affairs. So much for the separation of church and state.

It's personal when my own President of the United States stands before a microphone and tells the nation that he will support and endorse the efforts of those who hate us into corrupting the one document that is the very cornerstone of our society, the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is clear about equal protection, and now that some are getting around to actually enforcing it, some don't like what it has to say. Equal protection is good, yes, but NOT FOR HOMOSEXUALS! Just for them, we need a constitutional amendment excluding them from marriage.

Yes, it is personal. I am right to be outraged. We all should be.

Kent pointed this blog entry out to me. It's entitled "Why I Support Gay Marriage, and Why I Will Never Be Angry At Those Who Do Not".

I've covered this many times in my entries, but nothing brings home the real every day issues that we have to deal with because we can't marry. I'm reprinting part of this blog entry here. Much of it is exactly what I fear if something were to happen to one of us.

Back in the 80's, I made a lot of money, and actually had investments (as opposed to bills). I hired a pretty good asset manager, and he became one of my closest friends. He ultimately became the godfather to my oldest sons. His name was Steve, and he was gay and died of AIDS in the early 90's.

When he came out, he was fired by his parents from the family owned firm that he was a partner at; when he got AIDS, he was fired from his job at Drexel. As he got sicker, he couldn't always manage his medical affairs, and his parents - who had fired and rejected him, became conservators of his estate over his objections. He didn't want them to take control of his medical care, so he asked me to.

He'd been in a committed relationship for six years at this point, and his parents undid much the estate planning he'd done to ensure his partner's financial security; his partner couldn't do anything about it - after all, in the eyes of the law at the time, he was a nonentity. His partner couldn't legally control Steve's health care without a document; and because of the legal conflicts over the financial matters, Steve was concerned that it would be invalidated. So I took the legal responsibility. His partner made the decisions; I was the formal authority that the hospitals could use to validate it. Because his partner was, after all, a legal nonentity when it came to the legal authority over Steve's care.

Ultimately his parents lawyered up and attempted to get me removed. We'd have won, and I'd have gladly spent the money to win, but at the very end, Steve did what he should have done in the beginning, and married.

He married a casual lesbian friend, who managed his care for the last six months of his life, and when he died, took the remaining assets and left Steve's partner - the person who should have had them - destitute and alone.

You know, if you believe homosexuality is wrong, I can understand not doing business with Steve. I could understand not socializing with him, or even politely expressing your disapproval.

But I have a really hard goddamn time understanding why it is that his control of his dignity and assets should be stripped from him - and the man who he had lived with in a committed relationship for as long as I had been married to my first wife - because of it.

And so personally, I'll support gay marriage until it becomes legal. If we need to do anything about marriage in this country, it ought to focus on we straight people who seem to be doing such a bad job of marriage on our own.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Gov. Bob Taft announced Friday that he signed one of the country's strictest same-sex marriage bans into law and then issued a statement about what the act does and does not do.

"This is not a law of intolerance," Taft said. "I do not endorse, nor does this law provide for, discrimination against any Ohio citizen."

Taft said that it was necessary to safeguard Ohio's marriage laws because the Massachusetts Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, decided to redefine marriage in that state, holding that a denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.

This week the same court affirmed its decision, requiring the Massachusetts legislature to allow "marriages," not civil unions, between same-sex partners. As a result, Ohio could have same-sex couples who were "married" in Massachusetts taking legal action in Ohio to recognize that marriage and to obtain the resulting benefits. The law takes effect in 90 days. (story)

OKLAHOMA CITY -- One day after a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that paves the way for gay marriages in that state, Oklahoma Republicans renewed their call for action that would prevent same-gender marriages from being recognized in Oklahoma.

"This is probably the most important social issue facing America today," said Senate Minority Leader James Williamson, R-Tulsa. "We hope Gov. (Brad) Henry will join Republicans in a bipartisan effort to defend the sanctity of marriage in Oklahoma." (story)

UTAH lawmakers on Thursday continued debating Senate Bill 24, which would define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman and declares same-sex unions performed in other states or countries void and unenforceable in Utah. (story)

BOSTON — The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples - rather than civil unions - are constitutional, clearing the way for the nation's first same-sex marriages in the state as early as May.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion requested by the state Senate.

The Massachusetts court said any civil unions bill that falls short of marriage would establish an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples." Full Story

I'm sitting here watching "Gay Weddings" on BRAVO. So many couples don't have the support of their families, while others do. I'm watching "Dan" talk about an email he sent to his mother asking her to come to his up coming marriage to Greg. She said in her email that he had friends who would show up, and that she wished him the best. He started crying. This was the prayer at their wedding:

"Dear God, we do give you thanks for the lives of Dan and Greg, and especially the lives who have touched them to make them the men that they are. Lord, we also know there are people who, for one reason or another have chosen not to be here. We hope that you work in all of us, in our lives, in Greg's and Dan's life to let your love shine in them that no matter what happens they will continue to love their friends and their family. We pray this, in Your Name. Amen."

There is so much emotion that I have over this. I found myself crying with Dan. I guess this is relevant to us, because we have talked about going to Canada to get married. We haven't told any one in our families yet. We don't know how it will be received. My parents are dead. I don't expect anyone from my family to attend. I suppose Kent's family will not attend either, mostly because of the distance. I doubt that any of them would support it anyway. I hate that we have to go to a foreign country to get freaking married. IT PISSES ME OFF.

But, there's nothing I can do about that. My government has it's collective head up it's ass on this, and I'm not going to wait for them to get their acts together. When we get home, I don't know what will happen. Will we be married? I suppose we will be. Marriage isn't dependent on government approval I suppose, but I would be less than truthful if I said that it doesn't hurt. I love my country, but it's fucked up right now on this, and it's hard for me to feel a sense of pride for my country right now. That's sad, because I would have given my life for it. But now, I don't know. I just don't know.

I believe some time this year, Kent and I will be heading for Canada for our wedding. In all likelihood, it will just be us at the wedding. That makes me sad. It makes me sad because it's one of the few pivotal moments in our lives, and we will be alone. I won't make an announcement at work, because they wouldn't recognize it anyway. I won't tell colleagues at work, because it will probably be weird for them.

Being queer sucks.

The mayor of Cincinnati would like a repeal of a 1993 city charter amendment that made it the only U.S. city to ban enactment or enforcement of laws based on sexual orientation. (story)

So, what does that say to the governor of Ohio? He has promised to sign into law a bill that would not only prohibit gays from getting married, but would go further to deny recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Tourism officials say the charter amendment has cost Cincinnati more than $64 million in business since 1993 because organizations have chosen to locate their conventions elsewhere, due to a perception that the city is unfriendly to gay people. Cincinnati's amendment forbids gay rights activists from approaching city officials to lobby for any laws that would be based on sexual orientation.

So if it has cost the city of Cincinnati $64 million in lost business since 1993, how much will this super DOMA cost the state of Ohio if it becomes law?

Welcome to the computer age.

Last week, Jon Blake Cusack, from Holland, Michigan, had a son. The couple decided to name the boy "Jon Blake Cusack" as well. Usually, people would have named the baby "Jon Blake Cusack Jr.", to distinguish him from his father.

They decided to name their baby Jon Blake Cusack, 2.0 (pronounced two-point-oh). When their friends were asked if they approved, all the men thought it was "cool", with the women not being so impressed.

After little Jon Version 2.0 was born, Mr. Cusack even sent a celebratory e-mail to family and friends designed to look as though he and his wife had created new software.

The father wrote, "...there's a lot of new features from Version 1.0 [Mr Cusack himself] with additional features from Jamie'," he said. (story)

I like to think of myself as a pretty creative person, but I never would have thought of that.