In response to my posting yesterday concerning the Foot Locker, Inc. incident against Kevin Dunbar, I am sending the following letter to the corporate headquarters of Foot Locker, Inc.

June 30, 2004

Director of Corporate Staffing
Foot Locker, Inc.
112 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10120

Dear Sir:

I have been a loyal customer to the Foot Locker for years. In fact, all of my exercise and running shoes were purchased at the Foot Locker. Unfortunately, all of that is about to change.

I read yesterday about the terrible experiences that a store employee suffered from one of your stores in Columbia, South Carolina. The employee’s name is Kevin Dunbar. He is gay, and was subjected to numerous verbal attacks and humiliation at the hands of your other employees, which included a store manager.

Upon transferring to his new store in Columbia, the store manager refused to shake his hand and greeted him with, “I heard about your shit, I don't want your faggot ass in my store.”

I understand that Mr. Dunbar has filed a discrimination suit against Foot Locker, Inc. I honestly hope that he receives the compensation that is due him, from suffering this abuse. No one should have to put up with this, and I am honestly extremely disappointed at your company for failing to adequately train your employees on acceptable behavior. Mr. Dunbar complained to his supervisor, and the harassment only got worse. That supervisor represented YOU!

I will never again set foot in one of your stores. You have lost a loyal customer. I have also posted the news article along with this letter on my website to alert others about this incident. Last month, the site received 826,242 visitors. This month it looks as if it will surpass that number.

I have also added the Foot Locker, Inc. to my “Boycott List”. This list consists of other companies who have been discriminatory in the past. If you have “your side” of the story, I’d be open to listening to it, but I have to tell you, it will have to be a pretty good argument that would support calling an employee a “faggot”.

Actions (or the lack of action) have consequences. Perhaps you can learn from this.

Sincerely,
Bill Cannon

A key electronics industry group has approved a significant standard for wireless broadband specifications known as "WiMax," giving a boost to a technology proclaimed as a breakthrough for cheap high-speed Internet access.

WiMax is essentially radio technology that promises to deliver two-way Internet access at speeds of up to 75 megabits per second at long range. Its backers claim that WiMax can transmit data up to 30 miles between broadcast towers and can blanket areas more than a mile in radius with bandwidth that exceeds current DSL and cable broadband capabilities.

As a result, some believe that it could slash the cost of bringing broadband to remote areas and potentially open the doors to new broadband competition, leading to lower prices and faster consumer adoption. (source)

I'm a wireless nut. It makes setting up a network at home a snap because you don't have to run wires all over the house to set up other computers. This is how I spend many of my evenings:

- Make a cocktail and relax (this is optional... I usually only do this if I've had a very stressful day)
- Have a nice dinner (out on the deck if the weather is nice)
- Make a nice cup of Earl Grey Tea with a bit of honey (very relaxing)
- Take my tea upstairs to my favorite recliner.
- Recline and turn on the TV... catch up on all the important stuff I've missed from my Replay TV.
- Turn on my Sony Vaio (wireless), and surf the internet.
- Try to strike a balance between trying to watch TV/Internet surfing, and paying attention to Max who seems to like sprawling out across my chest while I'm trying to type.
- End the evening by sipping on 20-year-old single malt Scotch whiskey (again, if the day has been very stressful... or just for the hell of it because it doesn't suck).

That's it. Not bad. I get two nice hours to catch up on the world happenings and relax.

Now, with the new "WiMax" that will be coming out, I will be able to get 75 megabits per second at long range. That's astonishing. I will be able to surf at my favorite picnic spot and instantly upload photos to the internet practically as I take them. Just for a reference in speed, the 75Mbps is many times faster than the typical cable or DSL connection and even faster than a super-expensive T-3 line (44.736Mbps).

If you love cats like I do, you can now show your true love of cats with these decorative magnets to place on your refrigerator. This is the official "Cat Butts Magnet Set"! This has NEVER been offered on TV or anywhere else for that matter.

Get yours while supplies last!!!

I read this disturbing story about a gay man who was harassed and finally fired from his job at The Foot Locker. I have shopped at the Foot Locker and have purchased shoes there in the past. But no more.

In case you should want to let them know how you feel, here's the corporate address.

Director of Corporate Staffing
Foot Locker, Inc.
112 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10120
(212)720-3700

Foot Locker, you are on my official boycott list! :)

(Columbia, South Carolina) A lawsuit was filed Tuesday accusing Foot Locker, Inc. of harassing and then firing a gay employee.

The suit alleges that Kevin Dunbar (pictured left), 26, suffered antigay harassment and discrimination at the hands of his coworkers, supervisors and customers.

Dunbar claims that when Dunbar formally complained that he was being harassed the discrimination grew worse. His suit says that he was transferred from one store location in Columbia to another, where his new store manager refused to shake his hand and said, "I heard about your shit, I don't want your faggot ass in my store."

"Once I became a target, every morning when I woke up and I was scheduled for work, I knew that my supervisors and coworkers would verbally insult and degrade me, probably in front of customers," Dunbar said Tuesday. "At best, they'd talk behind my back and make my every task twice as difficult -- just because I'm gay." [...]

In conjunction with the lawsuit, Lambda Legal launched what it calls a "Blow the Whistle on Foot Locker" campaign today, designed to activate people nationwide beginning with a series of town hall meetings set to kick off in Columbia after Labor Day. An aggressive post-card campaign also launched today will encourage thousands of people nationwide to complain to the company. (source)

This made my day!! The conservative Florida-based Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers, to prevent the State of Massachusetts from performing marriages for gay couples.

Today, it was overturned by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Liberty Counsel has said it would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And just a personal note here. Does anyone else find it ironic that they call themselves the "Liberty Counsel" when they want to deny a specific group of citizens the civil right of marriage?

BOSTON (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected an attempt by conservative groups and state lawmakers to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts.

The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs had argued that Massachusetts' high court usurped the power of the Legislature - and thereby violated the U.S. Constitution - when it ruled last year that gay couples are entitled to wed. (source)

June 29 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, citing free- speech concerns, blocked a federal criminal law that would bar commercial Web sites from making pornography available to children.

The justices, voting 5-4, said the law may unduly restrict access by adults to material that is sexually suggestive, yet constitutionally protected. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said an alternate approach, blocking and filtering software, may be a more effective way to restrict youth access to online smut.

"Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people,'' Kennedy wrote for the majority. (source)

This is good news. It's not that I'm an advocate of pornography, but I certainly am an advocate of free speech and free expression. If you start limiting what pornographic sites can offer, who will be the next target?

I also read that the way the law was worded, that even sites with gay content (such as this one) could be construed to be pornographic, or, a threat to children. Think about that. And think about the gay kid who is looking for information and has no way to obtain that information.

I also want to point out that this case lost by 1 vote! If Bush wins in November, we can expect to see the makeup of the Supreme Court change as justices retire, and not in a good way.

Oregon's Benton County decided awhile ago to stop issuing marriage licenses to all couples, straight and gay. This was to stay in effect until there is a statewide resolution to the question of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry legally in Oregon.

It is refreshing to see that some are trying to do the right thing. Straight couples in the county are now finding out what it feels like to be like us, where the county they live in will not recognize their relationships. I know what it feels like. We went to our town clerk in Coventry, CT to apply for a marriage license, and were told that according to state law, we would not be issued a marriage license. It was upsetting, but not unexpected.

What was somewhat unexpected to me is how it would make me feel emotionally after the fact. I was not prepared for that. I became depressed and felt like I was just a little bit less a citizen as I was before. It was like they took discrimination and rubbed my nose in it.

So yes, I do know how they feel. I wish I could say that I feel for them, but I don't. Not in the least. They have the option of going outside their county to get married, and when they get back home, their marriage will be recognized. What they are really fighting to have reinstated is the discrimination that existed before.

MONROE, Ore. -- Orin Nusbaum and Amanda Fanger set off recently to seek a marriage license and file a lawsuit -- all at once.

The two are the first to challenge Benton County's decision to stop issuing any marriage licenses at all, until there is a statewide resolution to the question of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry legally in Oregon.

But Fanger and Nusbaum, who are to be married in October, have filed a lawsuit claiming that Benton County Clerk James Morales is violating state law by not issuing licenses to heterosexual couples.

"It's a matter of principle," Nusbaum said. "We felt that somebody should step up to the plate." (source)

Gay pride and politics. Where do you separate the two? And can they be separated?

For me, every single presidential election that I've been able to vote in has been to put my energy into getting the guy elected who is "least bad". I have voted based on who I think will be best for the environment, people, families, and jobs. I have voted for who I believe will be the best leader for our country.

As a gay American, I have never been able to vote for any candidate who would strive for our equality, who would denounce hatred towards our community, or who would acknowledge our relationships and our need for the protections of marriage. And this year, that has not changed.

I'm a member of the Human Rights Campaign, and they have endorsed Senator Kerry for President as well, and they sent me a letter asking me, as a member, to support him as well. This is the quick, short letter I sent back to them. I received no reply to my letter.

Jun 22, 2004 2:22 PM

I received your email newsletter last night of your endorsement of Senator John
Kerry.

I've been with my life partner for 30 years now. My question is this: If Senator
Kerry just can't seem to bring himself to endorse full marriage for me and my partner,
why the hell should I support him?

Good question, isn't it? Civil unions just don't cut it anymore.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
A member of HRC

Am I supposed to endorse someone who won't even acknowledge that we are equal in our relationships, just to keep the present President from getting re-elected? I guess that is the strategy, but I know I'm not alone. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this presidential election year is no different than all the others have been, as far as my community is concerned. I had just hoped, with all the publicity over our relationships in the last year, that John Kerry could at least acknowledge us as equals.

I will end up voting for John Kerry, despite this issue I have with him. I know he will be better than the schmuck we have in there now. He has vowed to end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the military. We will see what happens with that one. I can see nothing happening once he gets in office and it will be just another broken campaign promise that we should all be used to by now.

I didn't do much for gay pride this month. This is of course Gay Pride Month. But I didn't attend any of the celebrations in Connecticut, Massachusetts, or New York. I don't like large crowds and for the most part, I don't connect to a lot of the politics of many gay organizations.

But one thing did catch my eye this year. For the first time ever, gay married couples have participated in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade. That's worth noting. It's more symbolic than anything else. It shows that our community has fully endorsed gay marriage along with many of our straight friends. People outside of the gay community, many of who view people in gay pride parades as a bunch of freaks, it will make little difference, other than to make them once again think about the issue of gay marriage. I suppose that has merit as well.

SAN FRANCISCO - The party still had its traditional leather-clad legions and dramatic drag queens, but Sunday's gay pride parade featured marchers even more radical - married same-sex couples.

Gay and lesbian newlyweds hoisting poster-sized reproductions of their marriage licenses had a starring role at San Francisco's 34th annual parade. They were joined by Mayor Gavin Newsom and others who helped promote same-sex unions in the history-making wedding march at City Hall earlier this year.

Newsom, 36, the straight, Irish Catholic Democrat who thrust the marriage debate onto the nation's agenda by directing his administration to certify marriages for gays and lesbians, shared grand marshal duties alongside veteran gay rights activists. (source)

I've been doing very little today. I got up at 9:30 this morning, but I don't feel so bad about that since I really didn't get to sleep last night until 2:30am. It seems that Max couldn't sleep, and when Max can't sleep, he needs someone to stay up it seems to entertain him.

We went to breakfast this morning at the Vernon Diner. It's not much to write about, but while we were eating, we saw Brandi, Jeremy, and Nicholas leaving. I wish I had known they were going. Maybe we could have had breakfast with them.

Kent is out mowing the lawn. It's an activity that I've vowed to never do again, although I will if I have to (i.e. Kent is away on a trip for two weeks). I had to do it when I was a kid and absolutely hated it then. Today, since I control my life, if I were in a situation of having to do it again, I'd "outsource" it and let some lawn service do it.

While Kent was out mowing the lawn, I went around the yard to see what was blooming. It's unbelievable around here now. There are so many things blooming and I've come to realize that I'm a flower nut. The picture above is a group of plants I put in years ago. They seem to prefer if I leave them along and not fuss over them, which is fine by me! The red flowers are Astilbe with the orange lilies.

In another month are so, the "gay lilies" will bloom. They are, of course, my favorite. You might ask, what are "gay lilies"? Are they a new variety ushered in with the new-found social awareness of the desire of gay people to be treated as equals? No. Not exactly. And they aren't exactly "out of the closet" either.

My "gay lilies" (pictured left) are in my back yard where no one can see them. I would prefer that they "come out" and display their wonderful colors, matched only by there unbelievably sweet aroma in the front part of our home. But, you can't tell a plant what it likes. They like the back, where they get just the right amount of afternoon warm sunlight.

The scent is so potent that when they flower you can smell them all around the house. It drives me crazy when I'm out on the deck surfing the web. It makes me want to pick them and bring them inside. I told you I was a flower nut.

It's nice to at least for a little while, not worry about the world outside our home. The worries of the world doesn't enter our home because we have more important issues to worry about, such as who started the cat fight and how we can peacefully resolve it.

Oh yeah... a few nights ago, we were getting ready to go to bed and what we think were two raccoons in our front yard got into a major fight. We could hear them snarling and growling at each other. It's funny how much information you can pick up in a sound. I could almost see the size of their teeth and claws in my mind just from hearing them go at it. I got up as much "he man" as I could muster in my voice and yelled out the window, "NOW STOP THAT!! BOTH OF YOU!!!". It only pissed them off more and I got the feeling that the only thing that would please them more than going after each other was to come after me. So, I decided to take the high road, and closed all my windows, and doors. I did ponder for awhile whether I should take a kitchen knife to bed with me just in case, but Kent talked me out of it. I think he had visions of getting stabbed if I had a nightmare about it. Well, we survived that, but what an odyssey it was!

The forums are back. They will stay apart of my site, but, as I explained in forums, other than posting to them occassionally, I will not be so active in them. They are there should people want to discuss topics with others. In the blog, I talk about what I want to talk about. In the forums, the topics are whatever others want to talk about.

I was reading some blogs from my fellow bloggers out in cyberspace and was blown away by an entry that Buck made about Rasputin over on Postcards From Nowhere (a very cool site by the way!).

Below is a picture of Rasputin and, from the Russian Museum of Erotica (it helps if you can read Russian), a picture of his pickled penis. And please, no letters from readers asking me why they would even think to pickle it (I suppose for the same reason they pickled Einstein's brain), or what my opinion is on how on earth it got that big! I knew there was a reason for me thinking that Russian men are hot.

Now I ask you, where else but the Internet would you find such information? :-)

Thanks again to Postcards From Nowhere.

I don't go to Andrew Sullivan’s website often. Andrew and I come from much different political backgrounds. I disagree with much of his political philosophy. But occasionally, he gets it right. Below are a couple of his entries that I think are very telling.

THE GAY LIFESTYLE

Here's a list of the occupations of the gay applicants for civil marriage licenses in Massachusetts in the first week:

Acceptance tester, Accounting manager, accounts payable manager, activist, activity director, advertising, administrative assistant, administrator, airline employee, anesthetist, antiques dealer, appraiser, area manager, architect, artisan, artist, arts administrator, assembler, assembly technician, astrologer, at-home mom, athletic coach, athletic trainer, attorney, audiovisual coordinator. [...]

Here's a challenge. Think of any straight person you know who does a job like this. Now imagine telling him or her that he or she has no right to marry, that his or her spouse is a room mate and his or her children can be taken away by relatives or the state at any time. That's what gay people live with every day. They are treated as sub-human and beneath full citizenship. That must end.

And finally, on President Bush's speech on AIDS:

BUSH ON AIDS

He spoke movingly and powerfully yesterday. History will credit him for caring about this issue far more than his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Maybe because it was my eleventh anniversary of finding out I got HIV but I was moved by his words. Except, of course, for his usual exception in his compassionate conservatism: gay men. The president managed to give an entire speech and - again - never mentioned one of the biggest groups in the country affected by it. Amazing. How do his speech-writers do it? To a black audience, he had a chance to help them confront the homophobia that has crippled the black community's ability to confront the epidemic. But, of course, Bush didn't. [...]

And yet, in one of the populations most at risk from this disease, Bush opposes any measures that would encourage marriage. In fact, he is waging a war to ban such marriages, and erase any incentives for gay men to stick together. Is Bush aware of this lacuna? If marriage cannot be a strategy for prevention among gays, then what is his prevention policy? He has none, because in order to have one, he would have to acknowledge that gay people exist - and that he is their president too. That he cannot and will not do. It's too depressing for words.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - One of two men convicted of murdering gay college student Matthew Shepard lost a bid Friday to have his life sentence reduced.

District Judge Jeffrey A. Donnell rejected Russell Henderson's contention that he was denied effective legal assistance during trial. He argued that his court-appointed lawyers were ineffective because they did not discuss potential appeals.

Henderson and Aaron McKinney kidnapped Shepard in October 1998 and tied him to a fence outside Laramie, where he was pistol-whipped, robbed and abandoned. The 21-year-old University of Wyoming freshman died five days later.

McKinney received two consecutive life sentences after being found guilty of murder.

Henderson pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping to avoid a possible death sentence. His current lawyer, Tim Newcomb, declined comment on the decision. (source)

Strike another point for justice. Maybe Matthew will rest easier.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An attorney for one of the soldiers accused in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal told the investigative officer Friday that the Army -- not his client -- "should take the blame."

In his final remarks at an Article 32 hearing, similar to a civilian grand jury, for Spec. Sabrina Harman, Frank Spinner said she "was caught in a very difficult situation as a young soldier."

"This young woman should [never] have been put in that environment," he said. "I think the Army set her up. I think the Army should take the blame." (source)

Ahh yes... someone should take the blame for it. Why not the Army? That's really part of the problem isn't it?

You get a prisoner, take him into a shower stall, beat the hell out of him because you were told that he's "combative", then he dies. Then, everyone tries to get their stories straight and say that he died of a "heart attack", despite the fact that the man is bleeding from his nose and ears.

Now, we are in the middle of the court martials for all the abuse that happened. It's her turn now, and her attorney is saying that the Army should take blame. This is interesting to me, because I thought that being a soldier was about following orders and giving commands. Part of that means that you are responsible for the commands you give. If you are receiving the commands, and they go contrary to Army regulations (not to mention the Geneva Convention), you make someone aware of the situation.

You know, the military has long said that having gays serve amongst them would threaten "unit cohesion". I would submit to you that unit cohesion has a much bigger threat than gays. Maybe this will be a wake-up call for the military and all our armed forces.

You don't do these deeds in a vacuum. You will eventually be made accountable for what you do, as an individual. That is what being an adult and a soldier means.

Spec. Sabrina Harman was there. And judging from the picture above, she doesn't look as if she's being "set up" for anything. She appears to be a part of this as much as the others. My advice to her is to own up to her mistakes like a soldier, and stop trying to slough off the part she had in the whole scandal. And if she's truly as delicate as her attorney is trying to make her out to be, she never should have been admitted to the armed forces to begin with because she's unfit to be a soldier.

There's a few interesting items in the news today. The State of California has decided to tell the Bush Administration, "thanks, but no thanks" when it comes to voting in favor of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Good news indeed!

SACRAMENTO - California's state Assembly voted yesterday to oppose a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is backed by President Bush, that would ban gay marriage.

Through a 42-27 vote, the Assembly also said it also opposed other federal moves to restrict rights of same-gender couples.

UNITED NATIONS – Faced with the prospect of a humiliating defeat, the United States abandoned its proposal to seek Security Council exemption for U.S. soldiers from possible war crime charges in future UN peacekeeping operations overseas.

Unable to muster the necessary nine votes in the 15-member Security Council, Washington jettisoned the draft resolution Wednesday following widespread opposition from an overwhelming majority of member states. [...]

"My government is under particular pressure not to give a blank check to the United States for the behavior of its (military) forces," Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters. (source)

I have to agree with that. Why is it that the United States feels that it should be treated differently or be held at a different standard from other countries? We torture prisoners, and we get caught. Now, we are trying to get out of taking the blame for it.

That doesn't speak well for our country not does it set a standard for which we can be proud. But then again, the Bush Administration has taken us to a whole new level of pride, and not in a good way.

But at least we can say that after so many lives have been lost, Iraq is secured and safe, which is a good thing since we are about to hand over power to them so they can enjoy their new "democracy". I would hate to think that our young men and women died for nothing.

The attacks in the cities and towns of central and northern Iraq show that the insurgents have achieved a level of co-ordination not seen before. They were able to strike at police stations and Iraqi government facilities from Mosul in the north to Fallujah and Ramadi west of Baghdad.

The attacks also show that the US army has an uncertain grip on swaths of Iraq. The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) even warns its own employees only to use the airport road at certain times of the day.

A friend told me about this site. It's called The Infinite Cat Project. The description on the site:

It all began innocently enough when a user on an Apple help forum posted a picture of his cat, Frankie, contemplating the beauty of a flower. Shortly afterwards another user posted a picture of his cat, Sammy, bristling at the image of Frankie on the monitor. I decided this was too much fun and advanced the concept as The Infinite Cat Project, which is, simply, cats regarding cats regarding cats.

I'll be happy to post a picture of YOUR cat as long as it is shown looking at a monitor which bears the image of the last image in the sequence. Send your pictures to me. All submissions become property of The Infinite Cat Project.

And, if you are into cat porn, try out LIVE NUDE CATS! :-)

President Bush proposed Wednesday that the executive branch assume significant control over the program that has been the backbone of federal assistance for Americans infected with AIDS.

Bush said that the $2 billion Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, which since 1990 has been the government's largest subsidy of medical and other services specifically for HIV-positive people in the United States, "takes too little account of the most urgent needs." He said the administration should have greater power to decide where the money is distributed and how it is spent, focusing more on paying for medicine and doctors' visits than on social services.

Bush made his proposals at a black church here during a speech that interwove themes of AIDS and religion. [...]

AIDS activists have complained that Bush has largely sought to freeze spending on the Ryan White act, and the president on Wednesday did not pledge any expansion of the program. (source)

I think it's very telling that the President made his proposals at a church that "interwove themes of AIDS and religion". I suppose it's all part of his "faith-based" crap.

And of course, if churches get their way with how the money is spent, I don't really see gay men and IV drug users fairing particularly well.

Bush laced his 31 minutes of remarks with biblical references, as he often does when addressing black audiences. When HIV-positive people begin to take antiretroviral drugs, he said, "there's a Lazarus effect -- and people, all of a sudden, say, 'I have hope.' " Bush, again, argued for religious groups to deliver more social services, saying, "People shouldn't fear the fact if there's a cross on the wall and an AIDS program in that building."

A "Lazarus effect"? Give me a break. Our President is a moron.

Romney argued against bigotry yesterday but fretted over a society "indifferent about having fathers and mothers." Only when society indeed becomes indifferent to the everyday reality of gay couples living among us will Romney's call for "tolerance and understanding" be realized.

I read that from a Boston Globe Editorial today. Romney has said in the past that he favors civil unions for gay couples, but not marriage. Now, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, he favors neither. The Federal Marriage Amendment leaves no room for civil union recognition, or any other recognition of our relationships.

You know what's sad? I get up, go to work, and try to live my life the best I can, just like any other American. It is so exhausting and demoralizing to hear all this crap about how we must keep gays from being able to commit to each other. I don't for the life of me understand why a marriage between two people who love each other is such a bad thing.

It makes it difficult to feel good about my country. It makes it difficult to have to worry what the hell will happen if one of us is in the hospital or one of us dies. It makes it difficult to basically feel like I am worth as much as the guy next to me who is wearing a wedding band married to his wife.

Does my country not care what it does to us when our President speaks of banning us forever from marriage and in the same sentence say, "but we should be compassionate"? Does he understand the concept of compassion?

I know I'm probably sounding like a complaining moron, but it all gets to me at times. Today at work I was on a project and the person I was with was telling me of his wife and their two kids. I asked myself, "Does he even understand how lucky he is, or does he take it all for granted?". It's all very disheartening.

Maybe for my own well being I should just give up on the hope of being married and say "fuck it". We are here on this earth such a short time. Kent and I have each other.

Maybe it should be enough that we can look at each other and know exactly what the other one is thinking, or that we can complete each other's sentences. Maybe it should be enough that if I try to think of my life without him, I struggle to find meaning. Maybe all of that should be enough, even if society doesn't think so.

WASHINGTON (AP) Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose state is the only one to recognize gay marriages, on Tuesday urged passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, even as the conservative who wrote a federal law denying recognition to such marriages said that law was sufficient.

Senate backers of the ban have predicted that gay marriages will spread like a ''wildfire'' across the country, eroding traditional marriage and voiding more restrictive laws in other states.

''It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue, it must now be confronted on a national basis,'' Romney said. (source)

Am I the only one who is getting tired of windbag Romney? To quote from Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." This dude is in serious denial of reality. He needs to move on with his life and let others try to be happy, despite the fact that many of the morons in the US Senate want to amend the US Constitution turning the U.S. into a country club of who will be admitted (given equal rights), and those who will be second class.

And all for the sanctity of marriage. I've got news for you folks. There is no sanctity left in marriage. Chew on that for awhile, because it's the truth. What you think is the sanctity of marriage is a 50% divorce rate, couples who are cheating on each other more times than not, and children who are caught in the middle of all of this. But you aren't concerned for them, the children, because they are in a home with a "stable relationship". Yeah right. You just keep telling yourself that.

Every time I hear that we should stop gay marriage because it goes against what the Bible says, I want to ask, "Yeah, well, does the Bible say anything about a priest who molests children? Does the Bible say anything about a church who goes out of it's way to hide the fact that many of it's priests are abusing children?"

To the Catholic Church specifically: You have worn out "children" as an excuse to stop gay marriage. It's very clear to all of us that you are not sincere when you state that you want to stop gay marriage "for the good of children" when you have done great harm to them already.

To the U.S. Senators and Representatives who want a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage: YOU are representatives to ALL of your constituents. Start acting like it. The greatest threat to the Constitution right now is YOU. By attempting to alter it to deny a selected segment of the population equal rights cheapens the document and cuts at the very core of why it exists. It exists because of what you are trying to do. It exists to keep an unpopular minority from suffering the wrath of the majority. But now you want to change the rules. You would do the document more dignity to simply burn it, rather than to turn it into your own personal view of what you feel the world should be.

To Mitt Romney: Does the sanctity of marriage include have more than one wife? You are Mormon. It wasn't that long ago that Mormon families consisted of one man with multiple wives. I'm sure you will distance yourself from that now because it won't serve your needs.

It's time that my community demand to be treated equally. Our relationships are real. They are intense. They are emotional. They are filled with deep and committed love for each other. And, if any gay couple can stay together for more than five years, given all the crap we have to put up with day in and day out, they damn well deserve civil marriage.

A US House subcommittee on Thursday (17 May) approved what would be the first federal law to specifically target Internet spyware.

The SPY Act, for "Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass," would oblige companies and individuals to conspicuously warn consumers before giving them a program capable of automatically transmitting information gathered from a user's computer. Though the bill carries no criminal penalties, and doesn't allows users to sue spyware merchants, anyone in the US caught uploading such a program without obtaining the consumer's consent could face civil prosecution by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Facing civil prosecution by the Federal Trade Commission should be enough to scare the pants off those who would distribute spyware. For those of you who don't know what "spyware" is, it is a method of collecting information about you right off your computer, without you ever knowing about it. The information can be anything from financial records, to attempting to find out your buying trends. As one maker of software designed to find and kill spyware says, "They can track your surfing habits, abuse your Internet connection by sending this data to a third party, profile your shopping preferences, hijack your browser start page or pages, alter important system files, and can do this without your knowledge or permission." Pretty scary stuff.

All of that aside, everyone one of you reading this must know this, YOU ARE AT RISK! And I'm not just talking about spyware, but a whole host of issues. We are talking viruses coming at your computer left and right. I got so tired of my virus program telling me when someone was trying to send me a virus (usually through email), that I told it to silently kill the thing without interrupting me. Every time I would get my email from the server, it was not uncommon for me to get 10-15 viruses coming in. So the first lesson is, if you are connected to the internet, you must have a virus protection program. There are some good ones out there, and I'm not going to put in a plug for one over the other.

Spyware is another problem. I have noticed that most spyware is very directed. It comes from some company that you do business with that seems reputable. A program will be installed on your computer, and will relay back information to the source that installed it. Usually you go about your business and won't even notice it. It used to be an annoyance, but if you get bombarded with spyware, it will eventually effect machine performance if not causing an outright crash. There are a few programs out there solely for the purpose of finding known spyware on your computer and destroying it. Here are a couple of the big players that deal with spyware:

ad-aware - a free version is also available
spybot, search and destroy

I have used both, although I am a bit partial to ad-aware. I run these everyday, and am amazed at all the stuff they find that was placed on my computer just from normal surfing.

Getting back to this act. If our government thinks it can honestly protect us from all the bad things on the internet, more power to them. At the end of the day, it really is going to come down to you, the internet surfer to protect yourself. To do that, there are a few things you can do.

1) Don't leave your machine wide open to trust anything the internet gives you. I am as conservative as I can be when it comes to my browser settings. Pay very close attention to what you are letting through.

2) You MUST have virus protection software installed. If you don't, you will get a virus. And it may be very unpleasant (can you say... complete computer crash), and, if you are really unlucky, the virus may take your email address, and broadcast it all over the internet, or send porn links to all your family and friends.

3) Get a program to deal with spyware. If you surf the internet, you have spyware on your computer, that simple.

4) Get a firewall. I use ZoneAlarm. It's a great product and worth every penny. Norton also makes a firewall that is quite highly rated, although I've never tried it personally. Basically, a firewall monitors all activity coming from or coming into your computer. For a program to gain access to the internet, you will have to grant that permission to the program. For example, if you want to surf the internet with Internet Explorer, the first time you tried to use the program after installing your firewall, the firewall software would ask if the action was ok to allow.

5) I see this a lot. People let their children surf the internet with no protection at all, and they don't monitor them. This leads to all kinds of problems. If you are going to let your kids on the internet, I would advise you to purchase a monitoring program such as Net Nanny. Also, if I had kids that wanted to surf the internet, they would do so with my supervision as well. There's just too many bad things out there they can get into, and pornography is the least of them.

But then again, do we really need any of this since our government is taking steps to protect us?

After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable. - Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader

It's an old story that some feel is just too tired to discuss anymore. I refuse to let this issue die and go away because of the principle of freedom itself. I did a bit of research on the matter and compiled a couple of charts.

The first chart shows the number of military personnel discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The second chart shows the total cost to us, the tax payers, for these discharges. The data was gathered from the Service Member's Legal Defense Network.

Brian Muller, 25, who served as a team leader on an Army bomb squad for eight years and had advanced training on weapons of mass destruction, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.

"I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," Muller said in an interview. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."

Muller, who was deployed to Afghanistan, Bosnia and also served on a security detail for President Bush, said he would have remained in the Army for the rest of his career if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy were changed.

"I wanted to serve my country -- I loved what I did," Muller said. "I wasn't the type that was flamboyant, putting my business out there." (source)

Abu Gharib won't be destroyed

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A military judge today declared Abu Ghraib prison a crime scene that cannot be demolished as President Bush had offered. He also refused to move the trial of a soldier accused of abusing inmates.

Col. James Pohl issued the decisions at a hearing for Sgt. Javal Davis, one of seven soldiers charged in the case. Another, Spc. Jeremy Sivits, pleaded guilty last month and was sentenced to a year in prison.

Pohl also was to hear motions Monday in the cases against two other defendants - Spc. Charles Graner Jr. and Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick II.

The judge turned down motions by Davis' lawyers to move the trial out of Iraq and to order a new Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

It puzzles me that we are thinking of destroying Abu Gharib prison now. If we think it should be destroyed, then why didn't we think that before we abused prisoners there? Why didn't we destroy it upon entering and taking over Iraq? Could it be that we are trying to erase the stain that we have put on it? Some stains will not go away.

Other news.....

Al-Qaida Cell Claims Insiders Helped N.J. Man's Abduction

The al-Qaida cell responsible for abducting and killing an American engineer says it was aided by sympathizers in the Saudi security forces, a claim that was denied by Saudi authorities.

Saudi officials were quick to respond. Saudi foreign affairs adviser Adel al-Jubeir said he thinks there's only a "very, very remote" possibility that terrorists behind the killing of Paul Johnson got inside help from the kingdom's security forces.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't trust the Saudi's. I've always felt that they had their own agenda and were playing both sides of the field. They can say that they are doing everything in the power to stop these acts of terrorism, but if you live in that region, is it wise to make yourself complete enemies of those groups who are doing the terrorism? They live there. It's not like they can pack up and move away if they alienate all their neighbors. Unfortunately, some of their neighbors are the ones who are doing these terrible deeds. So, I would imagine the Saudi's are thinking, "We are trying to keep the situation under control, but how much of my neck do I really want to put on the line for the U.S.? At the end of the day, they are just going to leave anyway."

Sometimes I wonder about the common sense of my community or it's "leaders". Now we are apparently picking on Mary Cheney (again) by creating web ads against her because she isn't helping our community by speaking out against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

We have to understand something. Mary Cheney was raised in the same household as Dick Cheney. Why do we assume that she's not going to be messed up or assume that she's going to see things our way when she was raised by an asshole a person like Dick Cheney. She may be in a committed long-term relationship with her partner, but it will never be discussed openly.

I believe people have a right to live their lives the way they choose. If Mary has somehow decided to be in the closet and enjoy all the pleasures that the closet brings, more power to her. I hope she can find happiness in that closet. We have to remember, she is not the one who is Vice President of the United States. Her worst crime and the most unfortunate thing in her life is being born into such a family where is it unforgivable to be who you are.

No amount of money she receives "to turn on her own community" is going to give her happiness if her personal life is in shambles.

The Equality Campaign, the Organization created to fight the Federal Marriage Amendment, is sponsoring millions of web ads against the Vice Presidents Lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney. [...]

The gay community is angry at Mary, a lesbian, for getting paid to help elect a Republican Administration who is supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment to forever stop gay marriage, by amending the Federal Constitution.

"Mary Cheney is an adult in a committed same-sex relationship, who is accepting $100,000 a year to turn on her own community. She is a grown woman, an executive in her 30's, and not a just a 'child' working for her father's reelection campaign," says Robin Tyler, Executive Director of "The Equality Campaign", of which dearmary.com and dontamend.com are two of its projects. (story)

June 20, 2004 Update on Marriages in New Paltz

A very encouraging story coming out of New Paltz, NY. The charges against Mayor Jason West have been dropped, and marriages for gay and lesbian couples are resuming there. Full Story

I also spotted this. We can expect to see a lot more of this happening.
Gay Couples Sue For Denial Of Marriage Licenses

Two same-sex couples married by a Unitarian Universalist minister earlier this year have sued the city and state for denying them marriage licenses.

Filed in state Supreme Court, the suit claims the Albany city clerk's office violated the couples' constitutional rights to equal protection when it refused to grant them marriage licenses. The action is the latest in a string of lawsuits aimed at forcing the courts to rule on the legality of gay marriage in the state.

I guess the real question here is, why would you want to work for an employer who openly hates your existence?

I work for a private employer, and the owners are Republican and have made no bones about that. We have over the years, sponsored functions to help out Republican candidates. The owners are also very conservative in their values.

I have been at the same place for 15 years now, and except for a rude comment here and there from stupid people, I get along ok. But this wasn't always the case. At the time that I started with them, Connecticut did not have any law on the books that protected the rights of gay workers. In other words, at that time, if an employer found out you were gay, they could fire you just for that. This is still the case in the majority of states.

Knowing this, I tried to keep a low profile and I tried to keep people from knowing anything about my personal life. I was "out" to my friends, but as far as work went, Kent did not exist. You can only keep up this lie for so long. Eventually, someone found out, and word leaked out that I was queer.

One thing led to another, and it wasn't long until the President of the company was calling me derogatory names and making snide comments about me in front of others. That eventually led to an altercation between me and him. Instead of punishing him, I was put on verbal notice (meaning, nothing went to my personnel file) that they were "watching me" and my actions.

I told my manager at the time that it wasn't my fault, that the guy hated gays. My manager looked at me and said, "I don't want to ever hear about this topic again. I don't want to know if you are gay or not because quite frankly, it sickens me."

After that, I spent a lot of energy staying low-key and if I spotted anyone that had a "problem" with me, I went the other direction. Then, a great thing happened. Connecticut was able to pass, after years and years of trying, an anti discrimination law. Which meant, if you are going to fire someone, you had better have another reason to do it.

After that, things gradually improved. After a time, we had our first training on sexual harassment. I remember it vividly because the guy who was giving me all the trouble got into a fight with the person giving the training. He basically saw it all as a big waste of time.

I was a very different person then. I know what it is like to be scared of being fired for being gay. I know what it is like to have zero ego and to feel like you are at the mercy of others (the word is called hopelessness). It was during that period of time I was having thoughts of suicide. I was extremely depressed. It was horrible. But you can't live your life like that. Living life in that kind of fear is no life at all. I had to tolerate it because no one would have hired me with something in my personnel file that said I was gay. They just wouldn't want to deal with it, assuming they weren't just outright homophobic.

And now, it seems that the Catholic Church in Massachusetts is having talks about firing anyone who works for them who marries their partner. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering who it is, but it's a shame that, for being an organization who is suppose to practice compassion, that they have none. The sad thing is, being a religious institution, they can pretty much do whatever it is they want. Full Story.

I had a good friend once, before he decided that he needed to "move on" so he could "grow more". I told him, "If you 'move on' and 'grow' too much, you might just find someday that you have no friends left." His name was Austin, and I loved him dearly. People have to find their way in life. Sometimes that may mean that they grow apart. I wish him nothing but happiness and the very best in life.

One of the arguments that I would have with Austin was the need for hate crime protections for gay people. He disagreed for the need for hate crimes. It wasn't a gay issue with Austin. He didn't feel the need for hate crimes at all, for any group, saying that all violent crimes are hate crimes.

Hate crimes are crimes that target a person or persons of a specific group. The victim of these crimes are not know by the one who commits these crimes. The impetus of the crime itself is hatred based on some perceived attribute of the victim (skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.). Not robbery, or anything else; just hatred.

I argued with Austin that there should be laws created specifically to target that kind of behavior, to discourage it. If you target the behavior that causes the crime in the first place and stop the crime, that would be a good thing.

I found this excellent article that defines what a crime consists of. It's one of the best definitions I've found.

An easy way to differentiate hate crimes laws from normal laws is to think of the same crime in terms of personal and impersonal motives. Murder is a good example. Murder most often happens because of personal motivations. If one comes home and finds one's husband in bed with his lover and one kills him (or the lover) such a crime is an act of passion. [...] This is why crimes of passion (such as second degree murder and manslaughter) are dealt with less harshly than premeditated killing (first degree murder).

First degree murder is another step removed; it requires the murderer to plan the crime in advance, even if that planning entails only seconds. Still, it tends to happen for personal reasons. [...] Due to this increased possibility of further crime, the penalties for first degree murder are significantly greater.

However, there is another kind of crime. If someone kills a black man for walking through a park at night because he is black, that is an impersonal crime. The person killing him doesn't know him at all, there is no way to distinguish between this black man and any other black man. This means that any other person with dark skin could trigger the same reaction. That is a hate crime. To many the answer to this is clear; there need to be harsher penalties for hate crimes in order to give people an additional deterrent. Similar to the death penalty, there is little evidence to show that it works, most likely for the reasons mentioned above, but the logic is sound. (source)

I'm honestly not sure that having hate crime laws would deter others from doing a hate crime. First of all, those who commit a hate crime probably don't stop to think that they are going to get an extra five years in prison for committing a hate crime, if they even know what a hate crime is. I just don't think they stop to analyze the situation that much. Their focus is on committing the actual crime itself.

I suppose the most valuable thing that would come out of being a protected group under the federal hate crimes law, is that statistical information on the number of hate crimes committed against gays solely based on hate would be collected. So, we would know how big a problem it is nationwide, along with statistics for individual states.

I believe hate crimes occur more than people realize. I'm just one person, and I can't tell you how many times I have been cursed at with anti-gay remarks from people who pass me on the street. I remember one time being on a lunch break from work. I had taken my car into a car wash. I finished, left the parking lot and was parked at a stop sign about to enter the road leading back to work. I had to stop for a bicyclist who was approaching. As he got close to my car, he decided to go behind my car, but just before he turned his bike to go behind, he shouted at me, "fucking faggot", and kept going as though nothing had happened. It gave me a chill to think that even though this guy didn't know me, that he would pass judgment like that. How did he know I was gay? I have no idea except I was wearing a light pink (more white than pink) dress shirt. I suppose from that that he could have assumed I was gay.

I know people like that are morons. But let's change the scenario just a bit. Let's say that I am walking home after work, and I live in the same area as work. I come upon this individual and he has a couple of friends with him. It's not hard for me imagine that with his attitude and the assumptions he made about me, that some incident would come out of this.

I think the hate crime legislation would shed light on these incidents. Maybe it wouldn't stop them, but it would at least show how big a problem it is. And I think the results would be very shocking to a lot of people.

I've been sick lately and haven't posted much. I didn't go into work yesterday because of some bug I picked up from somewhere... aches, fever, the normal yucky stuff. I spent yesterday in bed and slept about 9 hours during the day, then slept another 12 hours last night. I was freezing. My temperature was high, but once I got to sleep, I was fine. I feel a bit better today. I don't get sick that often, so I guess it's my turn.

But I always wonder... where did I pick up the bug. Maybe I'm just a bit strange that way. I count back three days because most bugs take three days to incubate I'm told. On Wednesday, I went to the dentist to get my new crown. It turned out to be the wrong color and had to be sent back, but during the process, they are in your mouth with tools and of course the new crown. I wonder how sterile all of that really is. They are suppose to sterilize everything with heat I believe, but when you walk in you don't see any of that. All you see are these tools laying out on the table.

The funny thing is, when she was digging around the tooth to get it ready to accept the new crown, I kept thinking, I hope all of this is sterile. I'm not sure at all that I got this from the dentist, but it was just an observation that I made.

Tomorrow is suppose to be a beautiful day out. If I rest up, I hope to take my camera out the the Laurel Sanctuary, not too far from where I live. The state flower is the Mountain Laurel, and the Laurel Sanctuary is a huge grove of Mountain Laurels. It should be quite spectacular.

I also hope to look into the T-Mobile thing. If you get a T-Mobile account, you can take your wireless computer into places like Starbucks along with other coffee shops and restaurants that offer wireless internet, and surf the internet in the comfort of your favorite bookstore or coffee shop. Pretty cool to be able to write and surf the internet all the while sipping on cappuccino. How decadent.

It appears the gay marriage issue is once again heating up in Massachusetts. Under fire this time is the 1913 law that prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples if their marriage would be illegal in the state they reside in. Since no other state recognizes marriage between two gay people, the law in effect prevents anyone who is not a resident of Massachusetts from going to that state to obtain a marriage license.

The law was originally put in place almost a century ago to stop interracial marriages.

Nearly 2,500 gay and lesbian couples applied for marriage licenses in the first week that Massachusetts extended the right to same-sex couples. Among them were 164 out-of-state couples.

Two lawsuits are being filed - one on behalf of about a dozen cities and towns and one on behalf of out-of-state couples. (full story)

Other resources:
Couples challenge 1913 law barring nonresident gay marriages

I'm home by myself again. Kent is in Pennsylvania on another trip. Yes, tonight is "gay pasta night" at Schmedley's, but it's 80 degrees out, and I just didn't feel like going out. You know how that is. Some nights you want to stay home and take it easy. For me, that means surfing the web, writing, watching TV, and paying attention to my cats - all at the same time! Cats never take a back seat to anyone or anything.

I've put the issue of what happened Monday night at work behind me. I know that a lot of people would like to see me do something, and if it happens again with the same person, I will. You have to pick and choose your battles, and this one would be a big one. Companies say that they have "zero tolerance" when it comes to harassment, but I think it's really more about covering their ass which many times means that they will not do what really needs to be done. And this person is of high enough rank that nothing would happen.

On to other things.....

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States. [...]

It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Is anyone surprised at this? I said long ago that this was a smoke screen the Bush Administration was putting up to use as an excuse to invade Iraq. I still think it all goes back to the humiliation Bush senior suffered when we first went to Iraq. It was discussed then if we would "take Saddam out", and Bush senior decided not too because "that wasn't our original objective". Never mind all the money we spent getting our troops there in the first place. Never mind that he and his deranged sons were torturing and killing his own people by the thousands.

Senate Reportedly Sets Mid-July Vote on FMA

It's not yet official, but press reports said the U.S. Senate is moving toward a July vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill, said the vote would happen in mid-July, just before the start of Democratic National Convention in Boston, Mass., where homosexual marriage is now legal.

The newspaper quoted Sen. Rick Santorum, the Republican Conference chairman, as saying that Republican leaders want a July vote, although they have not yet set a specific date. American Values President Gary Bauer reportedly said the vote would happen on July 15.

I didn't expect the vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment to come up so soon, but I think the timing is good. They don't have the votes to even get it passed and put before the President. It's a win win for those of us in American society who believe in fairness and basic decency. Speaking of decency....

Will Gays Finally be covered under the Federal Hate Crime Law?

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted 65-33 Tuesday to give gays and lesbians protection under the federal hate crime law, and officials said a debate was likely next month on a far more controversial measure to amend the Constitution with a ban on homosexual marriages.

Taken together, the developments signaled the full Senate is moving onto politically charged terrain less than five months before the fall elections, and came on a day that President Bush renewed his opposition to gay marriages.

"Before you get to marriage, you've got to get over hate, and today the Senate did," said Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, the leading Republican advocate of hate crimes legislation that has cleared the Senate three times in recent years but has yet to pass the House.

"Before you get to marriage, you've got to get over hate." My only question is, "Why?". The two issues have many things in common. At their core, they are both about basic fairness and equality.

Isn't it strange that after all these years, they are now seriously entertaining the idea of adding gay people to the list of those groups protected by the federal hate crime law? In past years, it came up and was quickly killed. And isn't it strange that it comes at a time when everyone is arguing for or against the inclusion of gays into the institution of marriage?

None of this is coincidence. Of that, I am certain. The argument has been made that gays are now being considered for the hate crimes law in an attempt to make it appear Republicans are not being intolerant, which may offend moderate Republican and independent voters. I agree with that.

I'll end with this quote. I read it on line today and it stuck with me...

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenberry

Last night around 5:00, I packed up my things at my desk, preparing to leave work and go home. On my way to my car, I stopped off at the restroom as I usually do, before my 17 mile drive home.

I go in, put my things on this table against the far wall, and proceed to the urinal. As I'm standing there, another man comes in to the next one over. I don't know him. I finish up, and go over to the sink to wash my hands. I usually wash twice because I hate germs and have this thing about cleanliness.

As I start to wash my hands, the other guy finishes, and proceeds to the wash basin. At that time, another employee comes in and starts talking to him. All the time, I am washing my hands thoroughly. Then, suddenly, the second man who entered the bathroom looked at me and said, "Hey, what are you doing in here?" I looked at him and said, "Excuse me?". He said, "Are you like cruising the bathrooms or something? What are you doing in here?". I looked at him with a stern look and said, "I'm washing my hands. What do you think it looks like I'm doing?". He then said, "Forget it", and they both walked out.

I dried my hands, and honestly felt violated. It took my a few minutes to realize what it was that he was actually insinuating, because it all happened so fast.

I'm "out" at work. People know I'm gay and for the most part, I haven't had a problem with it... recently. But then something like this happens. He was accusing me of cruising the bathrooms of the place I work for.

I went home, and by the time I got home, I was depressed, angry, and wanted to just "veg" in front of the TV. Kent came home, and could sense something was wrong. I said, "a bad day at work". He said, "What happened?". I said, "I really don't want to talk about it." And, we left it at that.

I could file a complaint, but does it really help? They would talk to the person, and I would be the "snitch". The whole thing disgusts me. It's not so much that I have a thin skin, because I don't. It disgusts me because this is a fellow co-worker that would think this about me, I assume because I am gay. Very disturbing.

What do they all have in common?

A bill that grouped the three together in Russia. I suppose that I should feel comforted that they didn't include necrophiliacs in with the group.

No matter if the state allows you to get married, you aren't married to the Federal Government, if you are a gay couple who received a marriage license from Massachusetts.

If my state married me, I would file jointly anyway and I would challenge the constitutionality of DOMA at the Federal level. Of course, I think many will do just that.

Falls Church, VA, Jun. 14 (UPI) -- A conservative policy group released a letter Monday from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that says same-sex couples cannot file federal taxes as marrieds.

"Only married individuals," as defined under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, "could elect to file a joint tax return," the IRS said in response to a letter from the Public Advocate of the United States. "Even though a state may recognize a union of two people of the same sex as a legal marriage for the purposes within that state's authority, that recognition has no effect for purposes of federal law."

"A taxpayer in such a relationship may not claim the status of a married person on the federal income tax return," the agency said. (source)

Apparently, prison life isn't agreeing with Russell Henderson so well. He was one of two people convicted in the death of Matthew Shepard over five years ago. Now, he's claiming his rights were violated.

I only have this to say to Russell Henderson: What about the rights you took from Matthew Shepard? What about the life you stole from him? I hope you never see life outside of the prison you live in.

(Laramie Wyoming) A Wyoming judge will hear arguments this week that one of the men convicted of killing Matthew Shepard should be given a lighter sentence.

Russell Henderson made a deal with prosecutors to void the death sentence and pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping in the brutal slaying of the gay college student in 1998. He is currently serving two life sentences.

With the help of a new lawyer he is seeking a sentence reduction claiming he was not given effective legal assistance during his trial.

Lawyer Tim Newcomb had earlier filed a motion saying his client's rights were violated after he pleaded guilty because the defense team allegedly did not discuss his right to appeal within 30 days. (story)

The second man convicted of Shepard's murder, Aaron McKinney, also is serving two life sentences for the killing.

During their trial the court heard that Henderson and McKinney, both 21 at the time, kidnapped, pistol-whipped, robbed and left Shepard tied to a fence outside Laramie in October 1998. The 21-year-old University of Wyoming student died five days later at a hospital from massive head injuries.

The trial was told that the pair targeted Shepard solely because he was gay.

A state district judge will hold a hearing on Newcomb's motion Tuesday in Laramie.

Assistant Attorney General Melissa Swearingen, in a brief to the court, said that Henderson fails to offer claim of error in the conviction process. That relief can come only when there is a strong suggestion of a miscarriage of justice, she wrote.

She also pointed out that Henderson pleaded guilty with no strings attached and understood he wouldn't be allowed to withdraw the plea if sentencing didn't go the way he wanted.

"The petition should be dismissed … because the ultimate relief Mr. Henderson is seeking is simply not available under Wyoming statute," Swearingen wrote. (source)

An excelent opinion piece from the Arizona Republic.

There is a reason why anti-gay forces desperately need you to believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice, a "behavioral problem."

If gays are born gay or otherwise have no choice in their sexual orientation, then bigotry is really all that is left at the root of efforts to deny equal rights. (story)

I have been to New Orleans, and I had a great time. It's a wild city with a lot of fun things to do there. But the older I get, the more I realize that when I go to places like Louisiana, that is trying to pull crap like this, that I'm just supporting bigotry and discrimination.

Kent and I were planning on going to Louisiana in the next few years for a vacation, because I told him what a great time I had. Great time or not, we will not be going there. I will not support this kind of behavior.

In case anyone would like to complain, here's the address:

Louisiana State Board of Tourism
PO Box 94291
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Phone: 225-342-8119
Fax: 225-342-8390
800-33GUMBO

Adley said Monday that his reason behind the language change has been widely misinterpreted and misunderstood by reporters. He said he offered it to keep the issue from becoming entangled with the homosexual rights debate.

That's bull. Adley offered the legislation specifically to prevent homosexual couples from taking advantage of the homestead property tax exemption. How stupid do they think people are?

Louisiana, you can keep your bigoted ways, and I will keep.... my money to myself and go places that are supportive of us.

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Language in a proposed constitutional amendment that could deny homestead property tax exemptions to homosexual couples may soon be removed from the measure.

The legislation — an overhaul of the homestead exemption provisions in the constitution by Sen. Reggie Dupre, D-Houma — was originally drawn up to ensure that widows and widowers who have adult children will not lose their homestead exemption.

But legislators led by Sen. Robert Adley, D-Benton, changed the language to state that people who co-own a home and who are not related — by blood, adoption or marriage — are not entitled to the exemption.

Adley said Monday that his reason behind the language change has been widely misinterpreted and misunderstood by reporters. He said he offered it to keep the issue from becoming entangled with the homosexual rights debate. [...]

The Louisiana Assessors Association made their position clear in a letter to lawmakers Monday, saying their should be only two questions to ask to determine homestead exemption eligibility: "Do the `person or persons' own the property? Do the `person or persons' occupy the property?" (source)

ALSO CONCERNING LOUISIANA

BATON ROUGE, LA—In a vote of 31 to 6, the Louisiana State Senate overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment outlawing both marriage equality and civil unions, altering the House version only slightly to put the measure to a popular vote in September, not November, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Kent is home now for a few more days. I'm getting so tired of all the trips he has to take, but I guess that's life. I like my space, but living alone so much gets old.

I made gazpacho yesterday. I was a beautiful day and I had soup on my mind. I was thinking of cold cream of asparagus soup. For some reason, asparagus sounded good to me. Then, it occurred to me that I hadn't made gazpacho in a couple of years. So, last night after Kent got home from his trip, we had cold gazpacho and fresh bread. We ate out on the deck, and it was so peaceful. Life is so awesome at times, when everything is right. I wish everyone could feel as I do during those times.

Work is ok for the most part, but I don't enjoy it much. I work for morons with no vision. It's important for me now to really keep work in perspective and to realize that it's not my life and doesn't define my life. I go to work, do my job, and for the most part, when I'm left alone, I enjoy the work itself.

What I really don't like doing is trying to tell management (who have no clue) what they should be looking at and what is important, when they have no intention of listening. I know that everyone goes through this, but I used to be passionate about my work. You can only be passionate when others aren't controlling what you want to accomplish. But enough of that. It's Sunday now, it's beautiful outside, and I'm going to make the best of it.

I'm going to investigate the TMobile thing. It's where you can connect to the internet at wonderful places like Starbucks, and Borders. With my Vaio which has a wireless internet card, with a TMobile account, I can connect to the internet once I'm there. Why would I want to do this you ask? Because cappuccino, pastries, and the internet were made for each other! :-)

I read that there are new leaks coming out now about the prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay as well as Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. This is always the case. I posted the photos that were released, but the majority of photos were judged as being too graphic for public consumption. That should tell you something about the severity of the abuse. New photos (very graphic!) were released on June 11, 2004.

On an up note, I posted a few new pictures from the wildflowers around my home (one of them is pictured above). I think I'm getting better with my new camera.

A draft report prepared for the University of California research program shows that despite official Pentagon assertions that the military takes anti-gay harassment as seriously as harassment against women and racial minorities, the military's policies and practices reveal markedly different enforcement and deterrent efforts for these three forms of abuse. [...]

...according to Sharon Terman, author of the new 39-page report, the Pentagon's policies and practices all demonstrate far more meaningful efforts on the part of the military to prevent racial and sexual harassment than anti-gay harassment. (source)

In my opinion, it's not going to be possible to stop the harassment of gay members in the military until the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is done away with. How can you stop harassment against something that you aren't even suppose to talk about? They claim that soldiers who are harassed for being gay, or should I say, being accused of being gay, have the right to complain to a superior office to report the harassment.

Now I ask you, if you were that soldier, gay or straight, would you report such harassment? Think about it. Before you know it, there may be an investigation against you for the mere mention of it.

This week Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), chair of the powerful Ways and Means committee, reintroduced a bill that would open the door to more extensive partisan involvement by churches, synagogues and mosques.

Now called the Safe Harbor for Churches act, the measure — a modified version of a bill soundly defeated in 2002 — was attached to a major tax bill without any fanfare, catching opponents by surprise.

In its new form, the measure would ease restrictions on religious institutions making endorsements and engaging in other kinds of partisan activities.

Specifically, the measure would allow church leaders to “unintentionally” endorse or oppose candidates up to three times a year without risking their tax exemption. (source)

This from the January 30th issue of the Southern Voice:

Oklahoma state Rep. Mike O'Neal, married with three children and the author of the state's proposed "Defense of Marriage Act," was charged with a felony in February for grabbing a woman's buttocks in an Oklahoma City bar; he was also accused of making lewd comments to, and chasing after, her.

And one of the sponsors of Georgia's sanctity-of-marriage constitutional amendment (introduced in January), state Sen. Bill Stephens, was divorced in 1991 after 15 years of marriage but then had the marriage no-counted ("annulled") in order to marry a Catholic woman in 1994, according to a public records check by Atlanta's Southern Voice.

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? Don't you prefer the days where good old gay bashing didn't hide behind something like the "sanctity of marriage"? I prefer honesty in issues, even from hypocrites.

Why Reagan ignored AIDS

College students born during the Reagan years ask: How could the president have done so little for so long while so many died? It wasn’t as simple as homophobia. It was politics. [...]

From everything that we can ascertain from the historical record, Reagan’s religious background, feelings, or beliefs had nothing to do with the political response to the AIDS epidemic. Rather, his appalling lack of leadership and vision—which led directly to enormous setbacks for HIV/AIDS research, discrimination against people with AIDS, and the lack of any comprehensive outreach for prevention or education work, thus adding to the already staggering tally of deaths—was a product of indifference, disdain, self-imposed ignorance, and a political capitulation to the rising wave of a new, staunchly reactionary and religious Republican constituency that was to reshape not only the party but the state of American politics.

This from the Salt Lake Tribune-AP, on May 11, 2004

In January, University of Utah hospital surgeons removed half the skull of Briana Lane, age 22 and unemployed, in order to save her life after an auto accident, but because putting the skull back in place was not quite an emergency, it was delayed by negotiations over cost.

The skull remained in a freezer for three months, with Lane battling serious pain (and wearing a plastic helmet for protection, feeling her brain "shifting" on her) while the hospital negotiated with the state Medicaid office, which pays only for long-term "disabilities." Her skull was finally reattached on April 30.

ok... I've heard all about watching costs and trying to work out an arrangement on how you are going to pay for those costs, but this is a little extreme. The lady was going to die and they don't put her skull back in place because they want to make sure they get their money?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm really not one who appreciates all the frivolous lawsuits that are filed daily in this country, but it seems to me that this lady has a pretty darn good case for one. Whether she went through a lot of pain or not, you don't hold body parts in limbo until payment is received.

But, maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

In San Francisco, the number of AIDS cases peaked during the Reagan administration. AIDS activist Rene Durazzo remembers it as a frightening time when "chronic death" seemed to pervade the city streets.

"The number of people dying was horrific. The disease was very visible - people were suffering and wasting," Durazzo said. "It was a very volatile environment, there was so much anger at the government for not paying attention."

Yes, it was like that and "chronic death" very much describes it. This is yet another article on Reagan's handling of the AIDS issue.

As one of the first physicians to confront AIDS when it began its rampage through the gay community, Dr. Marcus Conant lobbied the Reagan administration in 1982 to launch an emergency campaign to educate Americans about the disease.

It took the president five more years to publicly mention the crisis. By then, almost 21,000 Americans had died and thousands more had been diagnosed. Conant, who lost scores of friends and patients to the disease, is still deeply angry - one of many Americans who view Reagan's legacy in a harsh light.

"Ronald Reagan and his administration could have made a substantial difference, but for ideological reasons, political reasons, moral reasons, they didn't do it," said the San Francisco dermatologist, who now deals with a new generation of AIDS patients. "President Reagan and his administration committed a crime, not just a sin."

I just got back from lunch. I went to Subway were I got one of my favorites, the "baby spinach and chicken salad". I'm sitting there looking out the window in a nice, cool, and clean environment, reading all the weird happenings in the Hartford Advocate (no, not the sex ads!), when I see a Pepsi truck drive by. On the side of the truck, in big letters, "Try Pepsi with LIME!".

Now the question I have is, what the hell is happening to America? What is wrong with these people? Is this some sort of low-level attack over time from Al Queda to drive us nuts?

You see this is my pet peeve. I go to a restaurant, and if I order a "diet Coke" (always a "diet Coke" or a martini - never anything in between... I need to work on that, but that's another story), and they always say, "diet Pepsi ok?". I say, "Yes". They ask, "Want lemon with that?" I suppose they will now start offering me lime with it as well.

Now, here's the real question. Why would I want lemon with it if I didn't ask for lemon? Why would they even ask me? Iced tea I can see, but just because people often have lemon with their iced tea, why would you make the leap and assume that I would want lemon with my diet Coke Pepsi?

The same sort of thing happened three or so years ago at work. I can't work without coffee. In the morning, it is my life blood. Don't even talk to me about anything until I have my coffee. So one morning I come to work, go to the kitchen, and pour myself a hot cup of coffee. Someone has added cinnamon to it!!!!!!!!!!!! Who the hell would do that? The incident reminded me of the classic Dracula movie starring Christopher Lee who said, upon arriving back to his castle only to find that someone had put a big cross across the door to keep him from taking refuge in his castle, turns to the camera and says, "WHO HAS DONE THIS THING?".

I felt the same way. Who would do this to our coffee? Was it a terrorist attack? Was the world ending? Did I miss the interoffice memo that said, "we will now be putting CRAP in your coffee from now on"?

I had to live with it for three months and finally I could take no more. One morning, I slapped my coffee down on the counter (can you say.... drama queen?), and shouted, "I DON'T WANT THIS CRAP IN MY COFFEE ANYMORE! I DON'T WANT SUGAR. I DON'T WANT HORSE MANURE. I DON'T WANT INSECTS. I DON'T WANT KITCHEN CLEANER. BUT I ****REALLY**** DON'T WANT CINNOMON IN MY DAMN COFFEE ******* E V E R ******* (Joan Crawford moment).

Well, it stopped after that. From then forward, we had the same coffee day after day. I suppose it was only a matter of time for Coke and Pepsi to join the band wagon to add crap to their product.

Folks, simple is better. Why take something that works, and mess with it?

A Letter to My Best Friend, Steven Powsner On the Death of Former President Ronald Reagan
by Matt Foreman (Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force)

Dear Steven,

I so much wish you were here today to tell me what to do. You would know if it's right to comment on the death of former President Reagan, or if I should just let pass the endless paeans to his greatness. But you're not here. The policies of the Reagan administration saw to that.

Yes, Steven, I do feel for the family and friends of the former President. The death of a loved one is always a profoundly sad occasion, and Mr. Reagan was loved by many. I have tremendous empathy and respect for Mrs. Reagan, who lovingly cared for him through excruciating years of Alzheimer's.

Sorry, Steven, but even on this day I'm not able to set aside the shaking anger I feel over Reagan's non-response to the AIDS epidemic or for the continuing anti-gay legacy of his administration. Is it personal? Of course. AIDS was first reported in 1981, but President Reagan could not bring himself to address the plague until March 31, 1987, at which time there were 60,000 reported cases of full-blown AIDS and 30,000 deaths. I remember that day, Steven - you were staying round-the-clock in Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital caring for your dying partner of over 15 years, Bruce Cooper. It was another 41 days of utter agony for both of you before Bruce died. During those years of White House silence and inaction, how many other dear friends did we see sicken and die hideous deaths?

Is it personal? Yes, Steven. I know for a fact that you would be alive today if the Reagan administration had mounted even a tepid response to the epidemic. If protease inhibitors been available in July of 1995 instead of December, you'd still be here.

I wouldn't feel so angry if the Reagan administration's failing was due to ignorance or bureaucratic ineptitude. No, Steven, we knew then it was deliberate. The government's response was dictated by the grip of evangelical Christian conservatives who saw gay people as sinners and AIDS as God's well-deserved punishment. Remember? The White House Director of Communications, Patrick Buchanan, once argued in print that AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men. Reagan's Secretary of Education, William Bennett, and his domestic policy adviser, Gary Bauer, made sure that science (and basic tenets of Christianity, for that matter) never got in the way of politics or what they saw as "God's" work.

Even so, I think I could let go of this anger if this was just another overwhelmingly sad chapter in our nation's past. It is not. Steven, can you believe that the unholy pact President Reagan and the Republican Party entered with the forces of religious intolerance have not weakened, but grown exponentially stronger? Can you believe that the U.S. government is still bowing to right wing extremists and fighting condom distribution and explicit HIV education, even while AIDS is killing millions across the world? Or that "devout" Christians have forced the scrapping of AIDS prevention programs targeted at HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in favor of bullshit "abstinence only until marriage" initiatives? Or the shameless duplicity of these same forces seeking to forever outlaw even the hope of marriage for gay people? Or that Reagan stalwarts like Buchanan, Bennett and Bauer are still grinding their homophobic axes?

No, Steven, I do not presume to judge Ronald Reagan's soul or heart. He may very well have been a nice guy. In fact, I don't think that Reagan hated gay people -- I'm sure some of his and Nancy's best friends were gay. But I do know that the Reagan administration's policies on AIDS and anything gay-related resulted - and continue to result - in despair and death.

Oh, Steven, how much I wish so much you were here.

Matt

On November 20, 1995, Steven Powsner, died of complications from AIDS at age 40. He had been President of the New York City Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center from 1992-1994.

I've talked a bit about my feelings of Ronald Reagan and his presidency. Some of you feel that I have judged him too harshly. Perhaps I have. I only have my own experiences and feelings about what I went through while he was President. Maybe some of you think that he was wonderful.

I have also noticed some headlines creaping up such as "Gays still bitter over Reagan". Bitter? Well, yes I am because I think he has a lot of blood on his hands.

But you be the judge. Some highlights from the article:

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS. [...]

A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." [...]

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing. [...]

With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg, who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have raised money by campaigning against homosexuals." [...]

As millions eulogize Reagan this week, the tragedy lies in what he might have done. Today, the World Health Organization estimates that more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 alone.

Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' " (source)

So you decide if Ronald Reagan is the great man that everyone is trying to make him out to be. To me, he falls just short of being a Fascist. And just about the time that I think that comparison is too intolerant and too stern, I think of all the friends I had who are now dead. They died in a nation that had a president who felt that they were getting "what they justly deserved".

Well, since I'm posting more now, it's should be obvious to everyone that we are home from vacation. The photo on the left is us (Kent on the left, me on the right), taking a breather from our walk along the Maine coastline. We also have our photos published if you want to view them.

We went up to Ogunquit, Maine for a week. It's one of my favorite places to go. It's relaxing, beautiful, and the people are nice. Ogunquit is very gay-friendly. In fact, much of it's summer tourism comes from gay tourists.

Early on (12 or so years ago), I had heard of some "problems" with harassment of gays in Ogunquit, but I don't have that feeling anymore. The police will not tolerate it, and I think that is backed up by the residents that realize the money they are receiving from our community. Money talks.

Maine does not allow for gay marriage of course, but on April 28, 2004, Maine's Governor John Baldacci signed a bill creating domestic partnerships in Maine. The new law extends domestic partnership rights to heterosexual or gay adults who live together under long-term arrangements. It also gives domestic partners the same inheritance rights as a spouse when a married partner dies without a will (full story).

It's good to be home again!

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." - President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior. That pretty much sums up their opinion on the environment.

There are so many things I could add about the disgusting programs sponsored by President Reagan. His "trickle-down" economics that, as Ross Perot said, "the problem with trickle-down economics is that it didn't trickle-down". Whatever else you think of Ross Perot, he was right about that. During his administration, most people on welfare rolls, even while working, could not make enough money to fall above the poverty line. The "trickle-down" never reached them.

Then there's his complete lack of action to the AIDS crisis. I remember personally saying goodbye to many many friends who died of AIDS, and going on many marches for more action from OUR government on AIDS. And I remember standing in a large crowd at an AIDS demonstration. I was listening to the speaker and I suddenly broke down a wept at what was happening around me and wondered, why does my President not care about us? Why is he letting us die? Why can't he even see what is happening to us?

Far-right religious members of his administration constantly tried to stifle public comment at every possible turn on AIDS, fearful that it could generate sympathy for gay and lesbian rights. He let this happen and he endorsed this behavior. It all happened on HIS WATCH.

So you will excuse me if I don't share the sentiment that is going out on the air waves now about what a great man he was and all the great things he did for this country.

There is a word that describes his lack of action and compassion towards our community when we needed his help. It's called, genocide.

genocide - n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

So how will history remember Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney?

Though he has said nothing so incendiary as Wallace's segregation-forever statement, will we remember Romney as the politician who seems to be making a roughly equivalent statement about gay couples vis-à-vis equal rights as it applies to marriage?

It is nothing short of ironic that Romney is using against gay couples a 1913 law intended to prevent interracial couples from getting marriage licenses in Massachusetts. The law prohibits nonresidents from marrying if their marriage would not be legal in their home state.

Romney, stymied by the courts and failing to get the Legislature to enact an amendment to bar the marriages before a Supreme Court order would take effect allowing them, is using the law to prevent nonresident gay couples from getting Massachusetts marriage licenses. [...]

History will not be kind to Romney. And, barring a profound conversion, it shouldn't be. (source)

A very interesting opinion piece. I am absolutely certain that history will not treat Governor Mitt Romney with kindness. The only question is, how long will it take Romney to realize that he was wrong? I suspect it will happen in the later years of his life, as it did for Governor George Wallace.

The home of the Liberty Bell hopes to become a major gay tourist destination this year with a flashy national television ad campaign that begins running tonight.

The 30 second commercials, the first in the country to target the LGBT market in tourism, were the brainchild of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corp., which is sponsoring the ad campaign. [...]

"This is an invitation, that you are welcome here, because of what Philadelphia is and what Philadelphia has to offer, and because we have a strong gay community," Meryl Levitz, president and chief executive of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing told a news conference to unveil the commercials. (source)

I guess it's a nice thought, but if they really wanted to make gay travelers feel welcome in their state (and in Philadelphia), perhaps the citizens of Philadelphia should lobby their state Reps to legalize marriage between gay and lesbian couples.

There's just nothing quite like putting your money where your mouth is and nothing says "welcome" better than telling folks that their relationships are "equal" to everyone else. If they did that, we might even consider going to Philadelphia to get married.

Ronald Reagan died today. I feel nothing for him. I listen on the news at how great a man he is, and I'm probably going to receive angry letters for saying how I feel about him. But I have an understanding with this blog; I'm always honest about what my feelings are, and I don't sugar coat anything.

I suppose that Ronald Reagan did some good things in his administration, although it's not clear to me that what happened to the Soviet Union wouldn't have happened anyway. To make a long story short, Ronald Reagan ran his little presidency while we were getting AIDS and dying. He knew about it, but couldn't care less. He let people die, with no help what so ever from his fucking administration. In fact, during the entire eight years of his presidency, he never once publicly uttered the word "AIDS". Pathetic.

Then years later, after he left the presidency, and had nothing to lose politically, then he wanted to help. He was told by a bunch of people with AIDS that he could go to hell. When he was in a position to do something, he did nothing.

I feel no anger towards him anymore. Actually, I feel nothing. He went like so many of my friends went, after their minds had left them. What goes around comes around.

I saw this letter from a gay service member, and thought I would share it with all of you (source).

A letter by John R. Ball Jr.

Hello. My name is John Ball Jr. I served under "don't ask, don't tell" in the U.S. Marine Corps from September 1999 to September 2003. I was honorably discharged a sergeant. Since I got out, it has been very rough adjusting back to civilian life. I had at one point made a decision to reenlist and go back into the Marine Corps. I started the paperwork and was awaiting a response from headquarters.

While I was waiting, one weekend I went to Washington, D.C. to attend an event at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's second annual lobby day. There I saw a performance by Marc Wolf, "Another American: Asking & Telling." This was a very powerful play that really spoke to me. After the play, I spoke to many gay veterans. Some I talked to retired with honorable discharges and others were discharged without any benefits because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This really opened my eyes and made me realize that if the U.S. Government found out I was gay, they would not fight on my behalf or support me in any way.

It's not like I hadn't thought about this before, but it was just so real to me now. You could be the best soldier in your unit, with respect from all ranks in your chain of command. You could go to war, risk your life, help your brothers next to you. But when they found out you were gay, they would just kick you out in the middle of the street with absolutely nothing -- and sometimes even ask you for money for benefits they had given you.

I am a proud American. I shed tears when the national anthem is played. I get chills when I'm driving down the road and see Old Glory flying in the wind. I get angry when other countries do hateful things to the U.S. I gave four years of my life to serve this country out of the gratitude of my heart. Yes, I was honorably discharged, and my chain of command did not find out I was gay. Yes, I still have VA benefits. Yes, I still love this country and would not want to live any other place. But to think that uncle Sam could legally take everything away from me if he found out I was gay. To think of how I would have been treated. To think they could have taken away everything that I had. It really makes me think that gay and lesbian soldiers are fighting for freedom they do not even have. They are proud of this country and fighting for it, yet they do not share the same freedoms that they are fighting for. What sense does this make?

I loved the Marine Corps and would go back in a heartbeat. But it scares me to think that they can take away everything I've earned so fast. It made me very hesitant to reenlist. I know I am not alone. I know there are tons of soldiers, sailors and airmen out there who share the same trials and tribulations as I -- service members who want to reenlist but know they want to start living their life out of the closet.

That's one of the reasons I am writing this. Since then, I've been out and I've made up my mind not to reenlist. I constantly have thoughts about getting involved with the movement to lift the ban on "don't ask, don't tell." I'm not sure what I can do, or if my story would even make an impact. But if there is anything that I can do, just contact me and let me know. I am willing to give my time, energy and whatever I can to make a difference.

Thanks for you time,
John R. Ball Jr.

(Written in Ogunquit, Maine, 2:30am with the sound of ocean surf in the background)

It's rare in life to realize the completion of something monumental in the work of a life. Most people struggle through life from one thing to the next, never once stopping to think of what their thoughts have been; what got them there; what kind of person they have ended up being.

A few days ago, it hit me. It was enlightenment, if you will. It occurred to me that after a lifetime of struggle, self doubt, self loathing, that I had everything. I have a home, a mate in life that would always be there for me, financial security, love, and, most importantly, the ability to appreciate everything.

To my astonishment, the one thing that made this all possible was the one thing that I have spent my entire life despising. It is the one thing that I have blamed for most of the hardship, self-doubt, self-hatred, and despair that life has given me. It is being a homosexual. It is what it is. It is not being queer, gay, poofter, faggot, or any of the other emotionally charged terms that society has seen fit to bestow upon us. It is simply, to be accurate and non-emotional, homosexual.

This is what it has given me. It has given me the pain of being different; not a small thing when living with a species that hates anything different. It has made me the target and recipient of physical, and emotional violence. It has forced me to a place in life that suicide seemed to be my only option, three times. It has made me curse the very people who brought me back to life after my decision to end that life. How dare they! They are normal. What right did they have?

It has made many of my dearest friends suddenly want to walk the other way upon hearing about me being a homosexual. A friendship in college that I was developing suddenly ended when someone in my dormitory told him that I was a homosexual (faggot was the exact term they used). But he didn't come talk to me about it. That would have been too simple, too logical, and it would have given me, a faggot, too much dignity. No. He wanted me to feel shame and humiliation for being homosexual – even the absence of any further acknowledgment as a human being. He wanted me to feel something much worse; the absence of his friendship. So, he stopped talking to me. What heartless bastard would do this you ask? The answer is, all of you, depending on the time and place. That feeds on other things. Such as the psychological need to feel wanted and to be a part of things. He never talked to me again. I don't honestly know how many did this, there were so many. I lost count.

Others were more devious. They would call me in the middle of the night and ask me how much I charged for a blow job. Didn't they know that I could recognize their voice because one of them was the Resident Assistant (RA) on my floor? I could hear him and his friends laughing in the background. The next morning, they would say hi to me, barely able to keep themselves from laughing about it, and always with a smirk on their face. One even put his arm around me and asked me (in front of the others, of course), if I would drive out to the lake with him, presumably to give him oral sex. The others laughed. I turned the tables. When I put my arm around him and said, without cracking a smile or a hint of disgust, "That will be fifty bucks. More if the others want to watch." He quickly withdrew his arm from my shoulder, and was disgusted. The others looked away. I left, went to my room, and cried. Everything from high school was happening all over again.

I remember vividly being around a group of students in college in the cafeteria, when the subject of bisexuality came up. The subject quickly changed when one of the girls said, "You guys, bisexuality is gross." That was the end of that subject. I remember thinking at the time, "My God, I'm so glad that she doesn't know that I'm a full homosexual!" It would have been another lost friendship. And, maybe at the time that would have been true. When we go to Idaho next August, we will see her and her husband again. We are now friends. People can and do change.

Occasionally, I would meet another homosexual at college. We had a way of knowing each other, but we were all so scared at being "found out", that we rarely did more then exchange eye contact. It was sad in a way. My college life consisted of trying to do the best I could in my classes, all the while spending so much energy to try to keep a secret. This is probably the most profound part of gay life that straight people cannot comprehend. Not many I know have some secret about themselves that they spend most of their lives trying to keep from others. It does take a toll on the soul.

So now, after years of being away from that, why is my life so perfect? It's perfect because of what being a homosexual has done to, or should I say, for me. I always thought about it as a curse and something that I had to endure. And, when my life was over, the reward for going through a life of misery that others had subjected me too, would be everlasting burning in Hell for the sin of being homosexual. God loves all of us who do things such as beat up or kill homosexuals, and he's willing to forgive us for that because He hates homosexuals even more than he hates what we do to them. With religion, everything is a negotiation.

What has being a homosexual done for me? It has done for me what it did for Michelangelo. It has given me a view of the world that very few of my straight male counterparts can even comprehend. I look at everything differently. I realize that all the grief I went through as a young man for being homosexual was just the other side of the coin. Since I was able to survive my own attempts to end my life, and the attempts of others to attempt to kill me in high school, I have an appreciation for other things in life, such as a flower. Not the way most people do. People will look at flowers, say something lame such as "aren't they lovely", and go about their business. It seems a terrible insult that the parent plant sacrificed everything to make this happen. I think that demands more than the adjective of "lovely" being applied to them. I study them. I study the shapes, the smell (good or bad), the profound effect they are having on my senses, and their roll in changing the world by their presence here.

Being homosexual has made me realize that there is no difference between being in awe of some creature such a bee and marveling at what she does, or lying in a pool of my own blood after being beaten to a pulp wondering where I am, and why I should be feeling pain, but feel nothing. It's an odd sensation. Both are filled with wonderment and fascination. Why did this happen? Is this my role in life? Is this what I do? Is that my purpose? Was I in that place at that time to be beaten by this group of men to aid in their passage through life? Was that part of my purpose, or was I nothing more than food to fuel their hate? Am I fulfilling some need, just as the bee who goes about her business of fertilizing a flower?

Being homosexual has made me realize that there are those who have empty lives. I rarely go to newsgroups on the internet anymore. You can find anything there. I read some from a newsgroup talking about gay marriage. One man said, "I'm willing to give gay couples marriage licenses, as long as you get fifty couples together, and force them to give each other blood transfusions. After that, they can have their marriage licenses." I presume he felt that at least one person in the fifty couples would be HIV positive, or have AIDS. Everyone else in the group would therefore contract the disease, and eventually, there would be no marriages left from that group, because everyone would eventually die. And this, my friends, is why the human race is doomed. It has no ability to see beyond it's own hatred. As for the man who wrote this, I see a man who will never savor fulfillment in life, who will live his life consumed by such hatred, and at the end of his life only have his hatred as his companion. That's the thing about hatred, it doesn't like to share.

Being homosexual has given me the ability to realize that those who dislike or hate me are suffering from the disease of hate. And, that doesn't come at a small price. If they hate me, it will never stop with me. It will eventually pollute their relationships and their family. In the case of some, their children will inherit their hate, and it goes on and on.

They will never have the ability to be friends with whoever they choose to be friends with – no matter what, without other baggage being in the way, such as, what will other people think? It will never occur to them that in the very short time they will spend here in this life that extraordinary things could happen to them. They will miss it all.

They will never have the ability to openly and unapologetically weep at the passing of Mimi in Puccini's La Boheme. When Calif summons the Princess in Turandot to give him his three riddles to solve, upon which he will become the Prince and rule the Kingdom, did he ever stop to think of anyone but himself? He solved the riddles, only to enrage Turandot. He knew he couldn't win her love by force, so he gave her a riddle; announce my real name by sunrise, and you are free. Of course, throughout the night, she tortured and killed many, trying to make them tell her his real name so that her and her ancestor's would not have to be disgraced by being with the likes of him (or any man, for that matter). Despite all the killing, he declares that in the morning he will triumph. He declares this to himself, in one of the most stirring arias in all of opera; Nessun Dorma! All the time, you can hear in the back ground the sorrows and torture of people.

Everyone in the audience cheers at his determination of triumph. "At daybreak, I shall conquer! I shall conquer! I shall conquer!". I want to say to Calaf, "You fool. At what price do others pay for your victory, and what horrors are left to come? You sacrificed your father and others who love you for this? Their blood is on this victory of yours." How relevant is this you ask? I don't know, you tell me. We are at war in Iraq and have tortured people, all the while declaring in our arrogance that we will conquer. The only question left that I have to ask is, "...at what price, and what horrors are left to come?"

So, a few days ago, it occurred to me, "My God, Bill. You have everything. You have spent a lot of your life convincing yourself that there are things worth living for, over and over and over again, as if to convince yourself, as in a 12-step program for homosexuals. Suddenly, astonishingly, you believe it! Only, you are surprised at this."

A few days ago at work, we were talking about free speech. It has taken me a long time to open up to the guys I work with. I mentioned that people were coming to my site more and more, because of the Abu Gharib prison photos I had published. After I mentioned to one of my coworkers that I would probably be taking them down soon, he said that it was more important than ever that I keep them up because the news agencies were being pressured by the Federal Government to remove them, because it looked bad for the United States. It was a free rights issue. I mentioned that I didn't want to give Ashcroft a reason to shut me down. My co-worker said, "Bill, he can already do that for having a site that advocates a pro-homosexual activist agenda."

What is significant to me on a personal level is that this was openly stated with no attempt to sugarcoat it. And, it was not only okay with these two straight coworkers, but it was totally accepted. I realized that there was no judgment and they were letting me know, whether they knew it or not, that they are my friends, and it doesn't matter that I'm homosexual.

So now, I look at my life and realize that I have it all. I love what I am, I have a great partner who loves me, I have only a few friends in life, but all have shown that they don't care what I am, in fact they love what I am. I have a home filled with love. And, for the first time in my life, it hit me that I didn't hate myself for being homosexual. I love what I am and I love that it has given me the sight to see what others cannot see. That surprised me more than anything else. I never hide it. I don't think I flaunt it, but it seems easy to spot because I am just being myself. I have no desire, time, or energy to care about what others will think of me. I am just, me. And, that is a good thing!

I used to tell people that if I could be straight, I would be. That if I had kids, I would want them to be straight, because life is easier. But now, I realize how much I would be giving up. In essence, I would be giving up the most wonderful gift anyone could have; the unique ability to look at the world and see more of what it has to offer, in all it's good and bad.

Now, the only thing that will complete my journey would be marriage. The ability to put a label on what Kent and I have together and the ability for society to see us together and say, "A couple, not gay or straight, but a couple. We accept you. Welcome to our family."

Before I die, I want to feel that.