A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a part of the U.S. Patriot Act that allows the FBI to demand company records from businesses without court approval is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the Bush administration's security policies on behalf of a John Doe plaintiff -- an Internet service provider company. (source)

I believe in liberal democracy, which is a democracy that worries about the tyranny of the majority, but it is the majority itself that must draw the lines. - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (found on CBSnews.com)

Just one question. If democracy is protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and the majority is making all the rules and drawing all the lines, does it really work?

Out of all the benefits that are available to people, I always thought that 401(k) was the most fair. For gay couples, I knew that property, inheritance, child custody, health coverage, and all the rest, was not automatically available to gay couples. We have to go through a lot of effort to protect ourselves, or at least try.

We have to craft wills in such a way that we hope they won't be challenged, because our relationships do not have the blessing of law.

We have to hope that the home we leave to our partners, a home that was purchased together, won't be sold to satisfy the whims of the family of the deceased partner.

We have to hope that the courts will treat our relationships with some sort of dignity, although we know that historically they have not.

Through all of this, I had thought that the 401(k) beneficiary designation was a sure bet. On all the other forms that you fill out for company benefits, you can add your "spouse", and "dependents". You cannot add your partner. It's just not an option. And my company has told me they have no plans to do that because "they can't afford it". Honestly, it's insulting because there aren't that many gay couples that work in my company. We all know the real reason behind it. I could sit here and say that my company is run by fat, wealthy, white, heterosexual men who have only one interest, to get richer. But that would make me sound bitter and whiny, wouldn't it? So, I won't say that. I'm sure the good old boys club at least got a good laugh out of me asking for the benefits, in writing no less.

The 401(k) I thought was different, because it didn't ask if the beneficiary is your "spouse". It didn't seem to care. Well, I was wrong.

I have Kent as my soul beneficiary to my 401(k). If we were legally married, upon my death, he would be able to roll my 401(k) over into an existing IRA, and pay no taxes on it until it is withdrawn.

Since we are not married, what Kent will end up with is the lump sum of my IRA, less 20% in taxes taken out before he sees a dime. In addition, Kent will not be able to roll my IRA into his to tax-defer it until his retirement.

Why? Because that is a benefit afforded by the Federal Government that will not honor gay marriages.

And just when I was starting to think that there was some sense of decency in this mess.

Social Security is even worse. When I die, Kent will never see one penny from my Social Security because he's not my spouse. I paid for that out of every single pay check I earn. Where will it go when I die? It will go to the Social Security fund to pay for other people's spouses who can get legally married.

Are you getting pissed off yet?

The word "spouse" is so pervasive in the state's Home Care policies that you can’t search the system using only that word. Hospitals and nursing home staff must be forced by an attorney to recognize the right of a domestic partner to visit or get information. Same-gender couples don't have the right to die in the same nursing home.

Pension plans aren’t required to pay anyone but a legal spouse after the death of the participant. A gay man can leave his 401K to his partner. But the partner will wind up with 20% less than if he were a she, and the couple had a legal relationship. By the way, the surviving gay or lesbian partner will not be able to take that 20%-less-helpful 401K and roll it over into an IRA. The widow next door can do that. But a 60-year-old who just buried his or her partner will be forced to shut everything down, pay the taxes, and figure out retirement plans anew.

The families we leave behind don't get Social Security spousal and survivor benefits. Same-gender families are, by the way, very helpful to the Social Security balance sheet. They call us "unmarrieds." We "unmarrieds" pay our fair share in, and our families can't get anything out. Our lifetimes of work are used to subsidize other people’s grieving kids and spouses. (source)

"There is no end to the uses to which this sensitive information will be put, nor any meaningful borders or boundaries limiting the flow of this data."

I'm always wary of the government wanting more information from us because I know eventually it will be abused and used against us. I remember the good old days when things really were exactly what they seemed. Today, when you make a purchase or make a decision that records a transaction, that data will most certainly be collected and studied in many different ways. Just look at the mail you get.

I get mail from companies all the time that I didn't even know existed. Where did they get the data? Sometimes it's not even data specifically on you. For example, how many times have you been asked when making a purchase what your zip code is? You ever wonder why they want that little piece of information? You ever wonder how such companies as Wal Mart decide where to put their stores? It's all from data collected telling them what we are interested in and where we are at.

Now, take that principle and apply national security and the Patriot Act to it. It's pretty scary stuff. After I finish this, I'm going to put my tin foil hat back on.

By subjecting most visitors to scans of their faces and fingers, the United States will this week expand a mass surveillance system that threatens freedom and race relations, a privacy watchdog says.

From Thursday, most visitors entering the United States will have to put each index finger in turn on a glass plate that electronically scans it, and to have a digital photo taken.

The United States says its US-VISIT program -- already in place for travelers requiring visas and now being rolled out more widely -- will add an average of just 15 seconds to entry checks and will enhance security.

It says the biometric data will be stored in databases, along with personal information such as full name, date of birth, citizenship, sex and passport number, and can be accessed by border, consular, immigration and law enforcement officials.

London-based rights group Privacy International said in a report on Wednesday that the scheme relied on flawed technology and opaque, error-strewn watch lists on which innocent people could find themselves wrongly identified as security threats. (source)

And that's saying a lot, because I can't stand copper colored hair on anyone! But, I have to admit, it works on Miranda. She's hot and it I were into women, I'd definitely be fixated on her!

This from the net.....

"Sex and the City" has taken on a whole new meaning for Cynthia Nixon.

The actress, who just won an Emmy for her role as Miranda Hobbes in the hit HBO comedy, is in a relationship with another woman, a source who works with Nixon told The Associated Press. (source)

Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon has been outed—sort of. Both the New York Daily News and The New York Post are reporting today that Nixon is in a relationship with another woman (who has not been named because "she's just a private citizen who would like to remain private," according to the News's sources).

What makes this more than the usual gossipy speculation about celebrities' love lives is Nixon's response when asked directly about the lesbian relationship for the Daily News article. "My private life is private," Nixon responded. "But at the same time, I have nothing to hide. So what I will say is that I am very happy."

With this statement, Nixon joins the growing number of lesbian and bisexual celebrities who are striking a careful compromise between coming out and staying in the closet. (source)

This is an excerpt from a letter on Metrotimes.com:

Proposal 2 would amend Michigan’s Constitution to provide that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

Those last six words are the problem. What is a “similar union” and how far does “for any purpose” go? What is clear is that those behind the amendment are so opposed to the “gay lifestyle” that they want to make sure that gay people can’t enter into civil unions, or achieve anything else resembling a normal life.

The theory that that will end gay sex is clueless. Any time society makes responsible and sensible behavior impossible, it just makes neurotic and irresponsible behavior inevitable. Nobody “chooses” to be gay. Most experts now agree people are born that way.

BOSTON - The reins of leadership in the Massachusetts House will change this week from a conservative opponent of same-sex marriage to a socially liberal gay rights champion, just months before the next round in the state's gay marriage debate begins.

Rep. Salvatore DiMasi, the Boston Democrat who is expected to be sworn in Wednesday, was a leading advocate for the state's 1989 gay rights bill, which barred discrimination based on sexual orientation, and a strong supporter of the state high court decision legalizing gay marriage this year.

Outgoing House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, who resigned the speaker's job after eight years to lead a biotechnology trade organization, is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage who sponsored a constitutional ban earlier this year. (source)

The following from the South End Newspaper:

Constitutional ban on gay marriage is a desecration to democracy

Sep/27/2004
By Sarah Ryley

The Bush administration says a ban on gay marriage is necessary to prevent “activist judges,” a term used with obvious annoyance and disgust, from redefining our marriage laws on a state-by-state basis.

The Bush administration knows that rulings made by judges, especially state Supreme Courts, hold precedent in subsequent rulings. As each judge makes the decision to declare marriage a constitutional right for everyone, the universal right for gays to marry becomes a closer reality.

“Activist judges” have changed America throughout our history; they’ve been there for individuals when every other facet of society seemed against the person.

Judges across the country stood up for black people during a time of intense segregation and oppression, even if the majority of the citizens didn’t think black people deserved rights.

“Activist judges” desegregated our schools, strengthened our freedom of speech, gave women the right to choose — there are countless examples of court rulings in our history that have changed the face of America.

The Bush administration and far-right Republicans realize that the judicial branch actually has the ability to overpower their agenda and so they seek to destroy it.

This is the first I've heard of that have publicly left the Republican Party. I wonder how many more will follow before the election.

Washington, D.C. Councilman David Catania, once the GOP's top fundraiser in the District, officially quit the Republican party Wednesday over its continuing attacks on gays. [...]

“For some time, the leadership of the Republican Party has been dominated - and I believe very adversely - by a single, narrow group of individuals, who show no interest or concern for issues that confront a diverse nation,” Catania said in his statement.

“The time has long since past for me to stop believing that by working within the Party, I can be an agent of change.”

“Empty words and rhetoric are all that are left of the once proud Republican Party and I am no longer willing to associate myself with it. I shall, therefore, continue my public service as an Independent.” (source)

Would someone explain something to me? I don't understand how someone could work for the Republican National Convention, be gay, and be ok with what is going on.

It turns out that Daniel Gurley, the National Field Director and deputy political director for the Republican National Committee is gay. He says, “I have no comment to make about anything. I have no comment about my work, or what I do. I, like anyone else, have policy disagreements with any number of elected officials. I don’t expect to agree with everything that everybody says.”

That's just not going to cut it Mr. Gurley. Today, in the United States of America, people are still losing their jobs for being gay. In 36 states it is still within the law to fire someone from their job because they are gay. Think about that. Your Republican Party is against ending this kind of discrimination all the way.

The gay and lesbian community is still not protected against hate crimes in this country. Your Republican Party is against passing laws that will make it a crime to target people for a crime specifically because of their sexual orientation.

I won't start on gay marriage. The Republican Party has little real interested in preserving marriage. Marriage has become a country club of who gets in and who doesn't, or, more precisely, who will gain the massive umbrella of benefits that come from civil marriage.

The platform includes a bolded section titled, “Ensuring Equal Opportunities.” The section leads with the sentence, “Our nation is a land of opportunity for all, and our communities must represent the idea of equality for every citizen.”

This doesn’t, apparently, include gay Americans.

“We believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage.”

“After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence , and millenia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.” (source)

A nice story about a 17 year old gay boy growing up in Oklahoma. Thanks Jon for sharing it with me. It's well worth the read.

You will have to register with the Washington Post to read the story, but it's free and fairly painless.

Part 1
Part 2

This comment was posted to my website. I pulled the comment because it was spam (it was trying to advertise a search engine), but I got a kick out of it. It is below:

Hi I saw you were talking about your cat ;-)

I'm a black labrador called Sam, and im chairman of ... [website omitted] (a search engine club for animals)

We have a major inequality problem with our species distribution and we would really like some cats to join.

We're having soooo much fun and we'd love it if your pets would join too!

Regards
Sam ~ Woof Woof!

Just when you thought the news from Iraq couldn't get any worse.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis — most of them civilians — as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry.

Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government.

Iraq ministry says coalition kills more civilians than insurgents do (Nancy A. Youssef, The Seattle Times, 25 September 2004)

Since the 10th of September, multinational forces have been responsible for the deaths of 1295 Iraqis; insurgents have been responsible for the deaths of 516.

Don't get me wrong. Now that we're there, we don't have any choice but to stay until Iraq is secure and peaceful. But I hope someone in the Pentagon can find a way for us to do that job effectively and quickly. It's clear that the White House can't do it, and it's not likely to be the Secretary of Defense either.

It's a lazy Sunday afternoon here. Kent just mowed the lawn. All the windows are open and the house is filled with the smell of freshly cut grass. I'm taking it all in. The leaves are starting to change color a bit and I, like them, am trying to hold on to the last signs of summer. It's a warm day, almost 80 degrees, but it doesn't feel that warm.

We went out to breakfast this morning as we always do. There were articles in the paper and commentary about the Boy Scouts. No doubt it has to do with their wanting to use Shady Beach. But when I saw the headlines, I decided that it was too nice a day to worry about anything. I closed the paper and started to people watch and day dream. I love day dreaming, contrary to what all my teachers told me to stop doing. “Bill, you will never amount to anything if you keep day dreaming...”. Some of the best ideas in the world have been thought about while day dreaming. Of course, I can't tell you what they are, because I'm too busy day dreaming.

As for amounting to something, well, I don't know if I amount to anything or not. People have said many times that I am an “interesting” and “unique” character. I think that's good. Of course, I suppose you could say the same thing about Klaus Barbie as well. But hopefully, I'm not comparable in character!

We are grilling pesto-marinated chicken tonight. I'm making a green salad and we'll have fresh bread and caramelized parsnips. It should be interesting. I like to try new things for dinner. And of course, a crisp Chardonnay will accompany it. So of you read this in time, stop by and have a bite.

By the way, I'm going to New York City in a couple of weeks. Is there anything at all to do there? ;-) I want to go to “ground zero” for the first time since 9/11. I'm sure it will be a very sobering experience. Other than that, I'd like to try out some different restaurants and clubs, not necessarily in Manhattan. The last time I was there, I had never had a martini in my life. I went into this bar, and the bartender asked me what I would like. I had no idea, so I asked, “What is that man drinking?” They both looked at me in astonishment and the man with the drink said, “Have you never had a martini?” I said, “No, can't say that I have.” The man then asked me to sit down next to him and he would introduce me to the different martinis.

Well, three martinis later, we are best friends. And yes, this was a straight bar, but just very friendly. We (Kent and a friend of ours) left the bar because we had dinner at DB Bistro Moderne, just a few blocks away. We had a great time.

Every single thing you do in life... matters.

Most of the actions we take in life we do without thought. Some people have likened our lives and the actions we take to that of a rock that is thrown into a pond. The point of impact of the rock to the surface of the water is the point of our birth. From that point, the energy of our birth radiates in the form of ripples moving outward from the point of impact. Is it that simple? Certainly not, but I do believe in the base assumption that our actions often have implications that we don't foresee and in many cases, don't even realize.

Sometimes, the impact the decisions we make aren't known until years later. And sometimes, at the point that we make the decisions, we don't realize that we are making a major decision.

I'm reminded of a decision I made years ago concerning my family. When a member of my family who I was very close to put an ultimatum to me to open myself up to my family, I decided that to make my life more tolerable at the time, I would distance myself from my family. I did that because my homosexuality was not well received by my family. I made the decision because I feel that all of us should strive to be happy in life. I could be part of my family, as long as I didn't talk about what I am or my relationship with Kent. To me, that would be living a lie. My dilemma was, how can I be happy with anything in my life if I'm too damned ashamed to be honest about everything I am?

The distancing of myself from my family was the correct thing to do, as painful as it was. I have regrets, however. I regret that it had to be this way. They have missed me growing into a man that I think they would like to have known. I have missed everything that has happened in their lives as well. When I went back to Idaho to see my family, I saw my two aunts. Both of them were quiet negative to me about being gay all those years ago, and were a big part of me divorcing myself from my family. But so many years have passed. One is close to eighty years old now, and I'm left wondering, why does any of it matter anymore?

I went to her home and she had invited others over as well. I was reminded that nothing had really changed. Kent was still thought of as “my friend”. The only thing that had changed is me. I now have confidence in who I am as a person. I'm no longer threatened by them. The other day at lunch, for some reason I was thinking all of this through. I had this strange thought that if something terrible happened to Kent, what would I do? Everything in my life here in New England is about us – our lives together. If that was no longer the case, would I leave this area and go back to Idaho to be around my family? What would be left here for me? What would be waiting there for me?

Of course, the clincher in all of this is that the impetus for the separation from my family revolved around a letter sent to me from my cousin. In that letter, she said, “You still have a family if you want one.” I reacted badly to that. I read it as, “You still have a family if you want one, as long as you can stop being such a damn homo”. It was actually quite unfair on my part. I knew that she was not homophobic. In fact, when she visited Kent and me in San Francisco, she marched with us in the gay pride parade, something that I had completely forgotten about after all these years, until she reminded me. But, in her letter, because of what I was going through at the time with my family, the meaning behind the letter was lost. To make a long story short, that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I didn't even answer the letter. I severed all ties from my family, with the exception of my brother.

Since I've returned from Idaho, I've been communicating with that cousin. The meaning behind that letter was about something completely different. It had more to do with things happening at the time in her life, but that is not the way I read it. It's odd that what caused the separation was a misunderstanding. But, the attitudes of my family, with the exception of that cousin, were homophobic. So, I guess there's a joke in there somewhere, but I can't find it.

I don't see this changing my attitude towards my family, but perhaps there is a future with me and my cousin. I'm open to that.

So when you write your ideas down in a letter, when you write your thoughts down in a blog, or even when you are talking to people, remember to choose your words wisely. Words are extremely powerful.

Finally, if you think someone loves you, give them the benefit of the doubt. They deserve that much.

We just finished dinner. I brought home some very sinful Mrs. Field's cookies and while we were munching on then, the doorbell rang.

Kent turned to me and said, "Oh shit! You answer the door, I can't deal with them."

I was surprised at his reaction. I would have thought that it was Satan and a few of his evil angels with him at the door. I peeked around him and looked towards the door, and it was just these two cute boys looking in at us.

I told him, "Why don't you go see what they want?" He said, "They are MORMON MISSIONARIES!!!$%$^$d@$#%" I don't see what the big deal is. I went to the door, opened it, and these two teenage boys were standing there looking at me.

I asked, "Can I help you?" One of the boys said, "Would you have a few moments for us to share a good message with you?" I said, "I'm all set. Thank you."

With that they said, "Ok, thank you." They turned to leave, and just as the second boy's eyes turn away from mine, I saw him wink at me. I'm not sure what that means because I'm a total ditz when it comes to body language, but maybe his good message was different from what Kent thought? I don't know.

But I realize that Kent has more baggage than I have about Mormon missionaries. We didn't have many where I grew up and he tells me that Mormons made up 85% of the population where he grew up.

The other thought I had was, how the hell did they get to our house? We live out in the boonies. They walked to our house, and they left on foot. Where to, I have no idea.

We respect the rights of all but we do not believe that marriage for gays is right for gays, right for America or right in the eyes of God.

We are conservative, family-oriented and proud same-gender-loving young black Republicans. Our issues are economic development, improving our community infrastructure and reversing the ongoing descent into poverty and hopelessness that we see all around us that is a direct result of 40 years of liberal Democratic social experiments that have created chronic dependency, despair, and the devaluation of our lives as opposed to the freedom, opportunities and resources that we know can make us better -- where does marriage for gays fit into this? - Anthony Falls, Spokesman for Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus

Source

"...as opposed to the freedom, opportunities and resources that we know can make us better -- where does marriage for gays fit into this?"

Freedom, opportunities, and resources have everything to do with marriage and the stability of gay relationships. Listed below are some of the major benefits of marriage that have everything to do with enhancing our lives. It's hard for me to believe that I actually have to spell this out to a gay group.

Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouse’s Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death.

Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. While some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is considered taxable income. When married spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free.

Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and a heterosexual spouse gets the stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of the estate.

Preferential estate tax treatment. The $1 million estate tax limitation doesn’t apply to married people: a heterosexual married person can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without owing one penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property.

Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance. Some enlightened companies - the Hartford was among the first – offer family discounts to gay and lesbian couples, but it is not yet an industry standard.

The other benefits given by marriage:
Insurance benefits through a spouses employer
Insurance discounts offered to married couples and related persons living in same household
Veterans/military benefits offered to spouses (education, medical care, housing loans)
Income tax deductions, credits and exemptions
Tax relief for natural disaster losses
Immigration of foreign partners
Witness and court testimony rights
Continuation of lease rights (renewal of lease)
Community property rights
Payment of wages for deceased partners and workers compensation benefits
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement
Consent to post-mortem examination
Right to make burial arrangements
Bereavement leave for partner, child, or partner's close relative
Family leave to care for partner or child during illness
Right to make decisions in medical emergencies ("next of kin")
Visitation rights for partner or child in hospital or other public institutions
Custodial rights for a seriously injured partner
Right to file a wrongful death suit
Tuition discounts/use of facilities
Company benefits/perks offered to spouses
Commercial discounts/incentives offered only to married couples or families
Joint child custody, adoption and foster care rights
Equitable divison of property, child custody, visitation rights and support in the case of divorce
The right to obtain domestic violence protection orders

The Republican National Committee has finally admitted that it was responsible for a mass mailing that claimed Democrats would permit gay marriage and ban the Bible. [...]

Friday, the New York Times reported that in an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokesperson for the RNC, finally confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.

"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue," Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

The mailing was aimed at evangelical Protestants, many of whom did not vote in 2000. The RNC hopes it can attract the group to the polls this November. (source)

Burlington, Iowa, will face no legal problems under a rule to make public the names of people and businesses that allegedly discriminate against gays and lesbians, the city attorney said. "I don't believe they could sue the city for slander because a third party files a complaint with the city," Scott Power said Wednesday. "I've never seen that happen.... Legally, I don't believe you could sue a city over a complaint that's filed." The city's Human Rights Commission voted unanimously to approve a new procedure to address sexual orientation discrimination. (source)

The constitutional amendment approved Saturday in Louisiana to ban same-sex marriage will wipe out New Orleans's benefits for partners of city workers who sign onto a domestic-partner registry, say attorneys challenging the amendment. "The only immediate direct effect of this amendment is to abolish the New Orleans domestic-partner registry ordinance. That is exactly what the people behind this amendment wanted," attorney John Rawls said. "They sued to abolish it and lost in court. So they stuck it in a craftily worded amendment." City attorneys have said they don't think the amendment will affect the city ordinance. Mayoral spokeswoman Tanzie Jones reiterated that Wednesday but said she did not know the legal basis for the contention and that city attorneys were busy with another matter.

Michael Johnson, a Shreveport attorney who has argued in favor of the amendment, said it adds a new argument to his challenge of New Orleans's domestic-partnership ordinance. "I think and would argue that a domestic partnership is, quote-unquote, substantially similar to marriage," said Johnson, who is affiliated with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian group. That suit was thrown out on grounds that the ADF plaintiffs had sued as taxpayers, but the policy did not cost taxpayers additional money. Johnson has appealed that decision. (source)

Lambda Legal is suing Foot Locker for allegedly firing and harassing an employee because he is gay. The case is being levied in South Carolina where the incidents occurred. But on Thursday, Sept. 16, protesters brought the issue to New York City.

About 15 Lambda Legal staff members and volunteers gathered outside of Radio City Music Hall, where New York Liberty was playing a home game. It was the last of six home games the Liberty played at Radio City Music Hall this season. (Liberty moved to the theater when the Republican National Convention occupied Madison Square Garden, their regular home.) [...]

The case against Foot Locker involves Kevin Dunbar, a young man who was an employee at a Foot Locker store in South Carolina. Dunbar alleges that he was harassed by coworkers and customers because he is gay. He alleges that he was ultimately fired because he complained about the harassment. That harassment is against the nondiscrimination policy in the Foot Locker Employee Handbook.

"Once I became a target," Dunbar has said in a statement, "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." (source)

My first post on this
My response to Foot Locker

I don't know if it will do anything, but I do intend to participate to every extent possible in the boycott. Here's the information in the October 8th boycott.

Organizers of the Boycott For Equality are expanding their nationwide walkout to include a coordinated cash withdrawal from the economy on October 8.

To demonstrate the need for equality in marriage and the workplace, straight and gay supporters will each take out $80 from their local ATM.

Boycott For Equality expects the action will exhaust the cash in many ATMs, leaving a reminder of gay economic power to all who try to use them throughout the long bank weekend.

To further drive home the lessons taught during the Boycott, participants should refer to the Boycott when communicating with their elected representatives, particularly when candidates ask for money to fund their campaigns.

"Let them know you participated in the Boycott," explained Boycott For Equality Co-Founder Dale Duncan. "Just take your ATM receipt, cross out your account number, circle your balance, write GAY MONEY on it and mail it to campaign headquarters in the postage paid envelope they provide. They'll get the message that nobody in America can be taken for granted." [...]

For that day, LGBT Americans and their straight allies are encouraged to withdraw from the economy in five specific areas:

1) Stay home from work. Do not generate payroll taxes, income taxes or
add to the economy. If you run a business, let your customers know by
closing for the day.

2) Withdraw $80 from your bank account at an ATM.

3) Don't shop. Do not generate sales tax or business revenue.

4) Hang up your cell phone. Your silence will affect your whole
communications network.

Source

View from Gelena Summit viewing the Sawtooth Mountain Range

Wildlife is friendly, especially if you have food!

Mountain range on our hike up to Alpine Lake

Alpine Lake, in the Sawtooth Wilderness Area

One of the many wildflowers I spotted on our way to Alpine Lake

An Osprey that Kent spotted on an early morning walk by Redfish Lake

Early morning at Redfish Lake dock before the fog has burned off

The "Gateway to Heaven", at the end of Redfish Lake

A brook we encountered on one of our many hikes

A rare view of Pronghorn Antelope grazing in a field

09/24/2004 Update: Bid Dropped To Remove Protections For Gay Workers

Social Security Administration officials are trying to remove language protecting employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation from the agency's labor contract, union leaders claim.

During negotiations on renewing the contract, SSA officials proposed eliminating a clause that allows gay, lesbian and bisexual workers to file discrimination grievances, said Witold Skwierczynski, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 220. [...]

SSA "does not and will not discriminate against employees for any reason," said Mark Lassiter, a spokesman. He declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations.

But union officials see the agency's attempt to revoke the protections as a move to reverse a longstanding antidiscrimination policy. "This administration is now attempting to permit discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals by removing protections from union contracts," said Andrea Brooks, AFGE's national vice president for women's and fair practices. (source)

Or I could title this entry, "I will kill gay men, but I shouldn't say that out loud where people can hear it".

Apparently, evangelist Jimmy Swaggart is now saying that he really didn't mean to say that he would kill gay men who looked at him in a romantic way. He said it "was a tongue-in-cheek statement best left unsaid". Really? You think?

I don't buy it. I think he knew exactly what he was saying and when it got published in blogs and the press, he just couldn't take the heat for it. If you think I'm exaggerating, put yourself in this scenario. You are kidnapped and taken to some remote place. You are tied up and left alone with Swaggart and his followers. Just how safe would you really be? Would your life be in danger? That's as plainly as I can put it.

Keep in mind that after he said, "If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died", his congregation offered laughter and applause, according to news reports. That just blows my mind. What follower of God would think that was funny? They are laughing at the prospect of ending another person's life. It baffles me.

9/29/04 - IRS asked to review Swaggart tax exemption after gay remark
My original posting on this
Other sources

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - A complaint filed with a Canadian broadcasting council has prompted evangelist Jimmy Swaggart to say he regrets talking about killing gay men in a televised worship service.

Audio clips purporting to be of the Sept. 12 Swaggart service have circulated on gay-oriented Web sites, with Swaggart saying "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry."

"And I'm going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died," Swaggart says, to laughter and applause from the congregation. [...]

Expressing regret, Swaggart is quoted in The Times-Picayune on Tuesday saying the remark "was a tongue-in-cheek statement best left unsaid. I won't make it anymore." (source)

I know there's been talk about re-examining don't ask, don't tell to see if it still works as flawlessly as it always has (sarcasm).

It's a tough dilemma. How can you serve honorably and continue to tell a big lie about yourself? Don't ask, don't tell I suppose works fine from commander to subordinate, but what about all the small talk that goes on between service members, such as that mentioned in this article?

I can see why gay people in the military just give up. It's not worth what it does to you. I did the same thing in my early life with my family and friends, lying all the time about being interested in girls when I had no interest. I can tell you, not only is it exhausting to have to watch every single thing that you say and do, but it also takes a real toll on your personal well being.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Brian Hughes served four years with an Army Ranger unit, including assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq, while keeping his homosexuality -- a potentially career-ending sexual orientation -- secret.

Hughes, 26, left the Army last month in part because of his frustration with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve so long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation and do not engage in homosexual acts.

Now enrolled at Yale University, Hughes said the policy forced him to lie to other members of his unit, who frequently bragged about their sexual exploits. Hughes said he found himself substituting "she" for "he" in stories so he could join in conversations.

"It hurt. I was lying to those people," he said. "I eventually withdrew and became quite anti-social because I didn't want to deal with it anymore." (source)

A sad story, but it is Idaho, a very conservative state where sexual orientation is concerned. By all accounts, this man is a good father to his children and has been part of their lives. Now, in this ruling from the Idaho Supreme Court, Mr. McGriff will be denied visitation to his children as long as he is with his partner. So unfair.

09/23/2004 - Gay Father Reacts To Custody Decision

(Boise, Idaho) The Idaho Supreme Court today upheld a lower court ruling that said Theron McGriff could not have visitation rights with his children while he lived with a male partner.

Theron McGriff and his wife, Shawn McGriff, divorced six years ago when he came out. Under the divorce agreement Theron McGriff got custody of the two children.

But, when he met another man, fell in love and the two bought a home together, Shawn McGriff went back to court claiming a gay relationship wasn't in the best interest of their two daughters.
Bonneville County Magistrate L. Mark Riddoch removed the girls from Theron McGriff's custody and gave them to his ex-wife. Riddoch further ordered that the children not visit Theron McGriff as long as he lived with his partner. (story)

McGriff appealed to the state Supreme Court.

In its ruling today the court said that sexual orientation cannot be the basis for awarding or removing custody, unless the parent's sexual orientation is shown to cause harm to the child.

But, it upheld the lower court prohibition on McGriff's visitation rights saying that his "living arrangements", and the children's exposure to it, had been shown to be detrimental and posed a valid danger of alienating the children's affection toward their mother.

The court also agreed with the lower court that the children's mother was best suited for custody of the children.

"The Idaho Supreme Court has articulated a wonderful principle which, going forward, will protect gay and lesbian parents," said Shannon Minter, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who represented Theron McGriff. "But they turned a blind eye to the record in this case."

Minter said McGriff is devastated by the ruling. (source)

Bill, sporting his 3-D glasses at the IMAX theatre in the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

We just viewed an awesome show on the Tyranosaurus Rex. I thought the damn thing was going to jump out and eat me.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (BP)--A state constitutional marriage amendment in Ohio has moved one step closer to appearing on the ballot after a state appeals court refused Sept. 20 to toss out petitions gathered by supporters.

The ruling by the three-judge appeals court panel said amendment opponents did not "demonstrate their right" to have the court toss out the thousands of signatures supporters collected to put the amendment on the Nov. 2 ballot. [...]

Ohio's amendment would ban both same-sex "marriage" and Vermont-type civil unions. (source)

Registered domestic partners in Santa Cruz County have more than 400 new legal protections to look forward to when The California Registered Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 goes into effect Jan. 1.

The law was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis last year but delayed to give the state’s more than 28,0000 registered domestic partners time to understand the sweeping effects of the new law, according to Bob Correa, executive director of The Diversity Center in Santa Cruz.

Federal law affords married couples nearly 1,000 various rights and responsibilities, including the ability to file joint taxes, share custody of children and own property together. In comparison, the state’s current law provides domestic partners only 16 rights, he said.

Correa heralded the new legislation, claiming, "It's a major change, a huge victory. Discrimination is not an option anymore." (source)

The new law will grant domestic partners the following rights and responsibilities:

Requires domestic partners to financially support each other.

Domestic partners legally liable for each other’s bills.

Both partners will be responsible for debts incurred during the domestic partnership and for property acquired during the partnership.

Both partners will be considered legal parents for children born into the union, without the need for legal adoption.

Domestic partners will be able to inherit their partner’s property and assets upon the other’s death.

Partners now may represent each other in legal proceedings and are protected from testifying against the other.

Gives partners the right to sue for wrongful death, the loss of consortium and to take other legal actions upon behalf of their domestic partner.

Domestic partners will now need to go to court to resolve child custody, spousal support and property division issues in the event they break up.

Will have to file a separate motion to dissolve their legal partnership, just like filing for a divorce.

Since domestic partners are considered jointly responsible for one another, the household income can influence critical factors such as public support, financial aid, health-care benefits and other income-driven benefits.

(Houston, Texas) A man fighting to keep the home he shared with his late partner is looking for a new place to live after a Harris County court ruled that same-sex partners have no rights.

William Ross says he and John Green, who died in January 2003, were partners for 71/2 years. (source)

I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died. - Evangelist Jimmy Swaggert

Source
Full Story

The following is an excerpt by Michael Gross, an actor who is well known for his role as the father on the television series "Family Ties."

I admit that blame-shifting does have its rewards. Nothing could be more satisfying than to think that gay men and lesbians -- not we -- are responsible for the shameful rate of failed marriages in the United States. If, as the Rev. Jerry Falwell claimed, they were indirectly responsible for the attacks of 9/11, they might be capable of anything!

But the first casualty of shifting the blame is often common sense: the rapist blaming his crime on the immodest dress of his victim; a defense lawyer assigning his client's murder spree to a Twinkies diet; or a Talib concluding that his obsession with a woman's bare ankle is best addressed by blowing up a pair of 1,500-year-old Buddhas.

If the conservatives are right and we've become a society of whining victims -- fighting for a spot on "Oprah" and blaming others for our troubles -- then let's stop rebuking homosexuals for the sad state of conjugal bliss and pass some laws that really make a difference.

How about a constitutional amendment to deny marriage to any couple that did not take a mandatory, government-sponsored prenuptial class? Or denying divorce to any couple that did not submit to a minimum of six months of twice-weekly marriage counseling sessions? Sterilization for any heterosexual man who abandons his children? A tax deduction for joining Promise Keepers?

I understand the moral outrage of those who invoke the biblical injunctions against homosexuality, but if we're not going to observe its equally no-nonsense penalties for adultery (i.e., stoning to death), maybe the fairest thing to do would be to leave the homosexuals to themselves while we put our own houses in order. I can't imagine they'd botch the job any more than some of us have.

The people who come up with stuff like this truly scare me. It never ceases to amaze me how sick some people can be.

How do they know there will be "no after-effects"? I could certainly seeing something like this causing cancer or some other genetic disease down the road. This is a new weapon. How can they make that claim?

Microwave weapons that cause pain without lasting injury are to be issued to American troops in Iraq for the first time as concern mounts over the growing number of civilians killed in fighting.

The non-lethal weapons, which use high-powered electromagnetic beams, will be fitted to vehicles already in Iraq, which will allow the system to be introduced as early as next year.

Using technology similar to that found in a conventional microwave oven, the beam rapidly heats water molecules in the skin to cause intolerable pain and a burning sensation. The invisible beam penetrates the skin to a depth of less than a millimetre. As soon as the target moves out of the beam's path, the pain disappears. [...]

"The skin gets extremely hot, and people can't stand the pain, so they have to move - and move in the way we want them to," said Col Wade Hall of the Office of Force Transformation, a body formed in November 2001 to promote rapid improvement across all of the American armed services. (source)

What if the people can't move? What if they can't get away? I guess they become microwaved and just cook? That's barbaric.

"It's in the Bible. It should be in the constitution."

Enough said, I suppose.

At times I feel as though this is where the mentality of this country is. Of course, they won't put everything that's in the Bible into the constitution; just the parts that don't condemn THEM.

NORWALK, Conn. -- City officials are considering denying a permit for the Boy Scouts to use a beach for a recruitment drive based on the parent organization's policy of barring homosexual members.

Mayor Alex Knopp has asked the law department to determine whether there is legal precedent to deny a Boy Scouts troop use of Shady Beach. Knopp's request came after members of the Common Council's parks committee told Scoutmaster Greta DeAngelis last week they would vote against issuing her a permit for a three-hour campfire and recruitment program Oct. 24. [...]

Emanuel Margolis of Stamford, legal adviser to the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, said he believes Norwalk would be denying the Boy Scouts their constitutional rights.

"I think it's a fairly simple question of First Amendment rights and principles," Margolis said. (source)

Yes but, isn't Shady Beach a public beach? If I remember correctly, the State of Connecticut has an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation.

The Boy Scouts of America has argued this point all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they won the case. They won because the court saw them as a private organization and therefore, had a right to discriminate against any group they did not want in their organization.

Fair enough. But when public lands and public buildings are being used as in this case (things that I, along with other gay people help to fund by our tax dollars), state law should dictate that the Boy Scouts should not be able to use such land or resources.

They chose to discriminate and won their case. Now, they are trying to make the claim that they are being discriminated against because they can't use public land. You can't have it both ways.

The national organization chose to continue with their discriminatory policy. They should be willing to pay the price for that policy. The gay scouts and gay scout leaders that the Boy Scouts kicked out of their organization paid the price for it.

Write to Mayor Knopp and let him know what you think of this.

This from the bluelemur.com:

Congressman David Dreier, a Republican congressman from California who has repeatedly voted against gay rights measures is said to be gay himself, and at least three MediaNews Group newspapers are said to have instructed its reporters not to ask questions about the congressman’s sexuality or how it relates to public policy. [...]

Hustler also released a letter sent to the editor of a newspaper in Dreier’s district which suggests that the paper deliberately worked to keep Dreier’s sexuality and his positions on gay issues off the front page. [...]

Hustler also says the media has played along in a charade to preserve the Dreier’s heterosexual facade. They released a copy of a letter written by Hustler Features Editor Mark Cromer and mailed to Phil Drake, city editor of the MediaNews-owned San Gabriel Valley Tribune, which inquires about editorial guidelines governing the coverage of Rep. Dreier.

When questioned by phone Tuesday, Hustler named two other MediaNews papers which had been sent similar letters: the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Pasadena Star News.

MediaNews Group is run by conservative media mogul Dean Singleton, who, in 1996, donated $500 to Colorado Senator Wayne Allard [R]. Allard was a cosponsor of the Senate version of the Federal Marriage Amendment, an amendment which would have constitutionally banned gay marriage. [...]

The 52-year-old single congressman voted for the Marriage Protection Act in July, a measure that would have stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing gay partnerships. Dreier did not vote on the latest amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage, and said he was against it.

Dreier, a Christian Scientist, also voted for the original Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and a measure that banned gays from adopting in Washington, D.C. He has a 92 percent favorability rating from the Christian Coalition, and was elected with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Not really a surprise here, but I thought I would post the bad news anyway. It just seems alarming to me that in a country that we say is free that voters can actually vote to take the possibility of greater rights away from a group.

I'm no lawyer or judge, but common sense would tell you that the concept of that flies in the face of what freedom means.

It also raises the question, do we even need the Constitution anymore? I mean, if the voters are going to vote on who has rights and privileges and who doesn't, why do we need to burden ourselves with worrying about what is constitutional and what is not? We can just have a vote on everything from gun control, to energy issues, civil rights, and all the rest.

I'm actually serious. If you can have a vote on what to put into your constitution thereby defining what is unconstitutional, why have a constitution? It no longer serves a purpose. A constitution is a guide on what is permissible and what is not, legally. If you are deciding that in general elections, everything is up for grab.

NEW ORLEANS -- Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of up to 12 such measures on the ballot around the country this year.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 78 percent of the vote, and support for it was evident statewide. Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, was the race relatively close, and even there the amendment was winning passage. Turnout statewide appeared to be about 27 percent of Louisiana's 2.8 million voters, somewhat low for a state election. [...]

John Rawls, a lawyer for Forum for Equality, reiterated the group's contention that the amendment does far more than stop gay marriage and that it could affect many private contracts between unmarried couples, gay or straight -- a claim its supporters dispute.

"I am disappointed that so many Louisianians either did not read the amendment or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway," Rawls said. [...]

Similar amendments to ban same-sex marriage are on ballots in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Petitions in Ohio are still being verified. (source)

Good news for all the gay couples who were able to get married in New Paltz, NY. Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group, is trying to get all the marriages nullified. Supreme Court Justice Michael Kavanaugh didn't go for it and said that the names of all the couples would have to be named in the case.

The conservative group has vowed to do just that and to appeal the ruling. But for now at least, the marriages stand.

A state judge in Albany has refused to invalidate same-sex marriages performed in New Paltz, while still preventing village officials from performing more same-sex unions without marriage licenses.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Kavanagh ruled the couples would have to be named parties to the case with the right to be heard in court, and the lawsuit has failed to do that.

Matthew Staver, head of the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, said yesterday the group plans to name the couples and try to have the marriages invalidated. (source)

We have more damn gadgets and toys than you can shake a stick at. Side note to Bill: stop using slang phrases for all those folks other than Americans who won't understand them.

Kent has a birthday coming up on October 15th. He had a Sony Clie which is a hand-held organizer for appointments, calendar, notes, email, and all the rest. It would sync up to his email system and was very convenient for him. The Clie started to fail a few times and certain features were no longer working. He had used it daily for two years, so we've certainly got our money out of it. The problem is it can't be replaced because Sony no longer makes them or supports them.

Since this was dying and he just simply couldn't live without one until his October 15th birthday, he just had to get it now. So we got the the Tungsten T3 (I know, sounds like a Terminator model number. It's made by Palm and is their top of the line (along with top of the line price). I think when everything was said and done, it cost around $550.00, along with an enhanced memory card, and some other "goodies" that he couldn't live without.

As we were leaving the store (we couldn't buy on line because we needed instant gratification), he was quick to remind me that this only counts as his birthday present and should no way be confused with his Christmas present, which is yet to be determined.

I must admit it is cool. The unit actually pulls apart and expands into a fuller screen and supports all the Microsoft Office programs as well. I viewed an Excel spreadsheet with the unit expanded and orientation changed to landscape, and it looked very nice.

Disclaimer: please don't assume I'm pro-Microsoft! I hate them as much as the next person but hey... if it comes with it... So no angry emails, ok? End disclaimer.

I'm ordering my new car next weekend (car I'm getting is pictured on the left). I lease a car and the lease is up. For the last six years (two 3-year leases), I've had a bright red Honda Accord two door Coupe with racing strips, and I've gotten tired of the police following me all the time because I'm driving a red car. As my boss told me once, "Bill, the car is moving even when it's parked!"

So this time, I'm getting a Honda four door Sedan (reeks of middle age, but still red, but not as bright a red), but it is highly upgraded to give me all those little things in life that I simply can't live without, such as a navigation system to tell me where the hell I am and when to turn, because my sense of direction totally sucks, and (and this is really important with our cold winters), heated seats for both the driver and passenger. It will also come with dual climate controls and 6-disk CD changer, along with satellite radio.

Another recent development is a new cell phone (left), and an mp3 player with noise reduction headphones (right).

I thought that since one of my hobbies is photography it would be kind of cool to have a better cell phone, that just happens to have a 1.2 megapixel camera. Ok, I know it's not the greatest camera and can't even begin to compare to a full fledged digital camera, but it's actually not bad in a pinch. Of course, to accompany that, I got the Wireless Headset that works up to 33 feet away from the phone. I've had hands free headsets in the past, but the always involved plugging a wire into the phone, and I would end up not using it and holding the phone while driving. The wireless headset is easy. I just turn it on, and the phone is aware that I've just gone wireless. After a minute of having the headset on my ear, I don't even notice it anymore. It's kind of like wearing contact lenses. After they are one, you forget about it.

The mp3 player actually happened before I left for Idaho. I thought it would be nice to be able to completely block out reality with this little device, should reality become a little too intense for me. It worked like a charm. I can take all my favorite CDs, copy them to my computer's hard drive, and then upload them to this mp3 player. It will hold a total of around 120 CDs. Currently, I have about 40 CDs on it (what I took to Idaho), and an audio book.

OK... time to get in the shower and then we are off to our Saturday morning brunch ritual at Monet's Table.

This speaks for itself. It saddens me the extent that some will go to work people up. And it saddens me that they use our community to accomplish that. But, I keep telling myself one thing that has always been true in my experience. Finding enlightenment means that you will have to suffer the darkness. Before hatred can be conquered, it has to be confronted. Those of us who are brave enough to stand up to bigotry and intolerance face a difficult road. This is what we are up against.

WASHINGTON - Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn't aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. "It wouldn't surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage," Gillespie said. (source)

I have been doing a lot of thinking about America, and a lot of soul searching about myself.

The dilemma for me is this. Why have I been so damn bothered about the whole gay marriage issue? It has really made no sense to me. Don't get me wrong. I would love nothing more than to marry Kent. I will be with him for the rest of my life. We are happy together. We have made a home together. He is my life partner and soul mate. Few people find that in this world.

So in that light, yes, I would like to get married. But me not being able to get married is not the worst thing that has happened to me in my life. Not even by a long shot. I have had the hell beat out of me because I'm gay, disowned by my family because I'm gay, had insults shouted at me from time to time for being a "fag", and many other things that seems to be part of what being homosexual is in America.

So it's no great surprise to me that America hates gay people, and gay men in particular. I've never understood whey many straight men find gay men despicable, but will get all excited at the prospect of seeing two lesbians having sex. Hello! It's still a couple of homosexuals going at it! But I digress.

If it is no great surprise to me that America hates homosexuals, why is it so very difficult for me to understand and deal with so many Americans thinking that the end of the world will be at hand if Kent and I get married?

The answer has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. I've accepted that people such as myself will not be accepted in America, at least for another generation or two. I've come to terms with that and I expect that. What I really am having a problem with has nothing to do with America's treatment of homosexuals, but rather the concept that in America today, it is okay if a segment of our population is treated by a separate standard.

Get over the fact that this group happens to be homosexuals for a minute. If the group were Asians, as an example, or Blacks, would it be acceptable to say to them, "You can't get married."? I don't think so. I can understand the concept of saying that, but America has been through this already. Black people used to have to sit in the back of the bus. They used to have to drink from separate water fountains and use separate bathrooms. And, not so long ago, they could not marry white folks. I thought that we were beyond that in American general society. I say general society because the only other place this kind of discrimination is today being practiced in America other than the general population is the U.S. Military with don't ask, don't tell.

The problem I'm having with the different states passing legislation against gay marriage and the President of the United states trying to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, along with many other representatives and senators, is the notion that any group, ANY GROUP, can be singled out as being less than equal to others. And furthermore, it is not only acceptable but desirable that this happen.

That scares the hell out of me. I'm left wondering, where is the outrage among Americans concerning this? Are they willing to let this happen? What group will be next? Can they not see beyond the obvious that the real issue is not about preventing homosexuals from being married, but rather an issue of equality? Are we all that stupid and that easily lead? If we are, I would submit to you that the war on terror has already been won, and we are not the victors.

On a personal level, I have many straight friends. Actually, most all of my friends are straight, many of them married. They all say things like, "How can they do this?", or "I think it's terrible that there is so much hatred in this country." Only one of these people have said that they are going to do everything they can to stop this. Only one. Apparently, none of them are concerned enough about the concept of inequality to get up off their butts and start making calls to their Congressmen, the President, or their local state representatives. Perhaps it's apathy. Perhaps they feel that there are more pressing issues at hand, such as getting their nails done, walking their dog, or the war in Iraq. I can understand that I suppose.

And herein lies the problem. How do you get people to care about anything, as long as their own little world is intact? It's a tough question. It is now three years after September 11, 2001 and do any of us really give a damn that we are no safer now than we were then? Does anyone care that the President and Senator Kerry are so busy slamming each other's war records that the real issues that effect all of us are not being talked about?

I don't give a damn what happened thirty years ago with these two men. I really don't. I don't care if they smoked pot and did hookers on Saturday nights. I do care about what they can do to stabilize this country, but no one wants to talk about it. And, when the two of them do spar over an issue, the arguments are so filled with inaccuracies passed off as fact, that the dialog becomes nothing more than cheap shots that accomplish nothing.

How can they get away with this? Because America is uninformed and misinformed, and we like it that way. And if the Constitution of the United States gets in the way of what we want, we'll simply change the sucker. No sweat. We will not be stopped by stupid wording such as....

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. [...]

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is from the Constitution of the United States of America. It really doesn't work for us anymore, so we are going to ignore that part and hopefully soon, put our own amendment in that says that we really don't have to treat our citizens equally.

America is in trouble more than it knows. I'm not talking about a President who doesn't seem to know or care where the line of separation of church and state is (why should he care when we don't?), or the Congress, who get red eyed and frothy at the mouth at the mere mention of gays or terrorists. I'm talking about people no longer caring about America. And that will be our end.

In the America that I grew up in, Americans actually did care for each other and cared more for our nation than ourselves. When did we lose that?

This NASA image shows Hurricane Ivan captured from an altitude of about 230 miles by Astronaut Edward M. (Mike) Fincke, looking out the window of the International Space Station (AFP/NASA)

(Santa Barbara, California) A study of gays in the military released Wednesday concludes that gays and lesbians are serving openly in the Middle East without undermining unit cohesion or the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When gays are out, they report says "greater success in bonding, morale, professional advancement, levels of commitment & retention and access to essential support services."

The study, prepared for the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, also found that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has a negative effect not just on gays, but on those around them, by creating an atmosphere of dishonesty and distrust as well as disrespect for the law and the principles of integrity that are essential to military service.

The study, by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, is titled "Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

It says that the official ban on open gays in the military impairs the capacity of gay troops to develop bonds of trust, minimize stress, prepare for deployment, focus on their mission, advance professionally and access support services, including medical & psychological consultations. (source)

Shocking, isn't it? It's common sense really. I could be wrong, but I think that most people in the military really don't have a problem with gays in the military, as long as you do your job.

I think the people who really have the problem with gays in the military are the Representatives, Senators, and the President, who seem to want to keep this policy in place.

There was an interesting article on CNet called Keep hot-spot hackers at bay. Most of what the article talks about is obvious, at least to me. Where internet surfing is concerned, my policy is simple: TRUST NO ONE!

I have never been one to pay for internet surfing outside my home, with the exception of motel rooms when I'm on vacation. I will usually search for a motel that has wireless internet. For this reason, I don't go to Starbucks or Borders and pay for the T-Mobile HotSpot service. I just can't bring myself to do that. I do however, love Panera, partly because the do provide FREE WiFi! I like their sandwiches and the atmosphere of the place. I even have my own little table in the corner that I go too, which even has a convenient plug for power.

I first go to the counter to order my sandwich, take everything to my table, and eat. After lunch, I boot up my Vaio. It instantly knows that it's at Panera because it's been on their network before. I get their sign on page that basically asks me to play nice and that they're not responsible for anything, other than your sandwich. It is also an unsecured and wide open access point. That means, it is up to YOU to make sure that you are secured. There are a couple of things that I personally do to try to ensure that I am practicing safer surfing.

First of all, as the article pointed out, you should take note who is there surfing. Think about it. If you are leaving some store and going into a dark parking lot, would you not look to see if there are others present and if so, do they look suspicious? I do the same thing at Panera. If there are a bunch of brats surfing, I make a mental note of that.

Secondly, you MUST MUST MUST have personal firewall protection. I happen to use Zone Alarm, and I configure the firewall to trust nothing unless I approve it.

I limit the number of folders I share. I share only to facilitate file exchange on my home wireless network.

Finally, when I'm in a public place and have my computer on, if I'm not surfing, I turn my wireless access off, as the article suggests.

I do one other thing that most users would not do. I don't put anything that is extremely critical or sensitive information on a computer that has access to the internet. I use a USB Flash Drive to accomplish this. It's completely off line until it's connected to my computer. And, I usually turn off wireless connectivity when it is connected.

One final and very important point. Don't take for granted the fact that free WiFi is being offered. Places like Panera that offer free WiFi pay a price for that access for you, their customer. Do them a favor. If you are going to park in their place for free internet, buy their products! It's the fair thing to do.

Happy surfing!

That's the headline in today's Washington Post, and this is the lead paragraph:

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.

Registration (free) is required to read the whole article, but here are the key points.

"Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates."

"His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts."

"And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated. For instance, Bush said in his speech that he would continue to try to stabilize Iraq and wage war on terrorism. The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost."

A bunch of liberal propaganda, right? Wrong. The estimate of $2 trillion for Social Security comes from a 2001 report of the Bush-appointed Social Security commission that studied the cost of adding private accounts to Social Security. The administration itself estimates that making the tax cuts permanent will cost nearly a trillion dollars over 10 years.

We can't afford four more years.

I read this article about the "gay agenda" that was very negative and distorted. It's no surprise that it comes from The Daily Press, based in Virginia. I should also mention that this is an opinion piece from the former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, therefore not necessarily the opinion of the paper.

It's an opinion on the "gay agenda" from 1980's. Does it not occur to the opinion writer that maybe things have changed a bit since then? But before I get started, I would like to tell you in a nutshell what the real gay agenda is all about.

It's simple really. We want equality. That's all. That's all it is in a nutshell.

Many don't want us to have equality, so they wrap it up into this thing called the "gay agenda", as though we are trying to take over the country and turn all of the little straight children gay so that we can all be happy and have sex out on the streets at 2:00 afternoon every Sunday after tea.

We are not the dark side. We want equality. Ok, now the article.

Judging by readers' responses, my recent column criticizing gay activists for outing not only legislators who oppose their agenda, but also legislative staffers, has stirred up a hornet nest. Some critics insist I've simply conjured up the notion of a gay agenda.

The gay agenda is not a secret document. It was first published in a 1985 article by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the gay magazine Christopher Street. There was no initial enthusiasm for this agenda in the gay community. In fact, some gays considered the proposed tactics fraudulent and demeaning. But a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy galvanized many activists.

He is talking about the Bowers vs Hardwick case, in which in August 1982, Michael Hardwick (now deceased) was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the privacy of his bedroom. The police showed up at Hardwick's apartment for something completely unrelated and asked Hardwick's roommate if they could talk to Michael Hardwick. The roommate took the officers to Hardwick's bedroom, where they saw him having sex with another man. He was arrested on the Georgia sodomy law. He challenged the law, and lost before the Supreme Court on a 5-4 decision against.

So I suppose part of the "gay agenda" is fighting for the right to be left alone, and have the right to privacy in your home and to carry on with your personal relationships that involve the consent of another adult person. I think most Americans would agree with that. Why is this part of the "gay agenda"? This should be basic rights afforded to each of us.

On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court reversed it's 1986 ruling and struck down the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law.

To the activists who established the gay agenda in the 1980s, anyone who opposed them was a bigot and a "homohater." All critics must be "jammed" through a psychological linking technique used with success in anti-drinking and anti-smoking ad campaigns.

Perhaps that was the case to some extent. But you have to also understand those times. I was there. I know. It was like everyone was against us so I suppose the people who were against us conveniently put all of that into a nice neat little package and called it the "gay agenda". And, I actually do think that most people who were against us were bigots in the traditional sense of the word. They didn't know us as people. We were lumped altogether into one big group, and called "fags", "queers", "dykes", and a host of other unsavory names. And when AIDS came along, many of them would say stupid bigoted remarks such as, "I don't want my tax dollars to go towards treating those people. If that isn't bigotry, would someone please tell me what it is?

Bigotry - The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

If the gay agenda were confined to a positive public relations campaign to improve the image of homosexuals, there would not be so much opposition to it. But the agenda is as hateful as the attitudes of the alleged bigots that the activists set out to confront.

Those who seek to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, meaning the union of a man and a woman, are not bigots. Neither are they all latent homosexuals, as Kirk and Madsen claim.

Well, from my personal perspective, I have been with my partner for 30 years now. People such as yourself are trying to prevent me from having a marriage to my partner. But that's not enough. Many regions of the country, such as Virginia, are going further than that. They don't want people like us to even be able to enter into a "domestic partnership", a "gay union", or to have any legal form of recognition, what so ever. What would you call that? I call it bigotry and is at least very mean spirited.

I'm trying to get married to my partner of 30 years. We want to say to people, we are committed to each other, we own a home, we are good neighbors, we pay our taxes, and we obey the laws. We do all the things that good citizens do. Why is it that you can't see this as an effort to "improve the image" of homosexuals? Is it because we want to get married? Does that throw a wrench in the works for you?

The activists' strategy has worked - after a fashion. Movies and television routinely portray their lifestyle positively. Reporters now frequently refer to policies that gays oppose as "gay-bashing." Yet, the in-your-face tactics of these activists, especially the outing of legislative staffers, turn many off. Gay activists have now launched a campaign to dig into the personal lives of all legislators who supported Virginia's 2004 law banning civil unions. They are looking for any rumor or suggestion of questionable private conduct so that these despised lawmakers can be outed - whether the allegations involve homosexual conduct or other behavior that might prove embarrassing.

You know, I used to be totally against "outing" another human being. I felt that it was a violation of that person's privacy. At some level, I still have an issue with it. But, when some legislator is voting on legislation that is geared to prevent me from having my family and writing that prohibition into law, I have a problem with that. Especially when he is going out and picking up gays in bars after work. For those hypocrites, I have changed my opinion. I see nothing wrong with exposing them for the hypocrites that they are.

The irony is apparently lost on these radicals that the right to be left alone - the centerpiece of their campaign - no longer extends to those who disagree with the gay agenda.

Oh please! The "right" is not leaving us "alone", as you put it. We want basic equality - NOTHING MORE. Equality means that all citizens have the same rights and privileges in law. If the state and federal governments had kept their hands off marriage and not afforded the institution of marriage over 1,000 federal rights and 655 state rights (in my state of Connecticut), I wouldn't have an issue with heterosexual couples keeping the word marriage all to themselves.

When rights were tagged onto the institution of marriage, it ceased to be merely a religious institution. It became a civil contract with rights and privileges associated with it. Certainly my partner and I who have been together for 30 years meet that requirement.

I'll meet you half way and make you a deal. If you can convince the state and federal governments to strip away all the benefits they have given to marriage, I'll sit down and shut up and never mention marriage again. You might have a problem convincing those who are married to give up those rights though. Once the rights are gone, heterosexual couples will actually have to worry about hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, power of attorney, tax issues, and all the rest. Just like gay couples have to deal with now.

So I challenge you. Try it. Get rid of the rights afforded to marriage and see how green the grass is on our side of the fence. Until them, sit down, shut up, and deal with it. We are here to stay and we will eventually be EQUAL. And I'm not even a "gay activist" saying this. I'm just an everyday American who was thrown into this fight when our beloved President and others like him decided to make a federal case of my relationship.

I think that each person ought to be judged by their heart and by their soul and by their contribution to society. Group-thought will "Balkanize" our society, and I have rejected the politics of pitting one group of personas against another.

Governor George W. Bush in a 1999 interview, responded to a question about tolerance toward discriminated-against groups, including homosexuals. (source)

A Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld a new state law Wednesday that is poised to give gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the legal benefits and responsibilities of married spouses.

Dismissing arguments of two groups that sued to have the law struck down before it takes effect Jan. 1, Judge Loren E. McMaster ruled that assigning privileges such as alimony and parental status to same-sex couples does not violate a voter-approved measure that holds California can recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. [...]

The law, in fact, gives same-sex couples all the duties and privileges of marriage available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes. [...]

Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, said his group would appeal Wednesday's ruling.

"McMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman," Thomasson said. "The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name." (source)

It has always been my opinion that most who are against gay marriage are really against any acknowledgement of a relationship between two gay people.

We frequently hear that what the anti-gay marriage folks are saying is that the problem they have with gay marriage is that it is called marriage. They want the word marriage to be reserved for a marriage between a man and a woman.

Now, California is setting up a domestic partnership bill that will give gay couples the same rights and privileges that heterosexual married couples enjoy, but not call it marriage.

The anti-gay marriage groups still don't like it. In other words, the argument was never about the word marriage. It had to do with any civil recognition for the relationships that gay couples have. They have shown their cards.

I guess this would be part of Bush's health care plan? I may have to read it in depth now. (source)

I had the strangest dream last night. We went to New York City to have dinner at a nice restaurant and to go see Phantom of the Opera. Yeah, I know, it's been out forever and everyone including Saddam Hussein and Jacqueline Kennedy has been to see it, but what the hell, it's a dream, so go with it.

We show up to dinner, and they take us to our table. Each table has a chandelier over it, and a rather nice big one at that. The lighting is low. This is a fancy restaurant, and for the maximum comfort of their guests, they happen to have beds next to the tables. You can get in bed and rest while they prepare your dinner.

They seat us at our table and there is no one in this large dimly lit dining room, except for two other people who seem to be waiting on the couch next to our table. They look a bit shifty to me, but I'm told that they are waiting for the rest of their party to show up. When I start undressing to get in bed, they quickly leave with a look on their face that usually comes from me showing big willy in a restaurant (it's a dream, remember?).

Well, it turns out that when I got into bed, I got into wrong bed. I got into the twin bed closest to where I was at the time. My bed was the queen bed (it figures) to the left. "Always to the left" the waiter said. I said, "Ok, just like I like my politics!"

This bed was much nicer. It had orchid and parsley colored striped sheets, I suppose a symbol of things that usually go on the table in a nice restaurant. Although that doesn't describe why my twin bed had drab white sheets. Maybe that was the table cloth?

Anyway, I go to sleep. The trip from Hartford to NYC is so exhausting. I drive to Stamford, get on the train in Stamford (basically, a trip to hell filled with a smattering of homeless people and drug addicts along the way) because I refuse to drive in NYC, and go into Grand Central Station. From there, the world is yours! The city transportation will take you anywhere. So, once I got to the restaurant, I was ready for a nice nap.

I wake up sometime later, and the room is completely dark. I'm thinking, "Oh great, I slept through dinner time and they closed the restaurant with me still in it!" I say, "hellllloooo". No answer. I say it louder, and finally I hear Kent's voice. He's sitting up on his bed keying something into his Clie' (a Palm-like device that is just as annoying as a Palm). He half-answers me as though I'm bothering his concentration.

Then, some of the chandeliers very dimly lit up and I realize that they are all on motion censors and go out if there's no movement, which makes sense because everyone could be sleeping. So I get out of bed, stretch and make some movement and our 180 piece crystal chandelier dimly lights up.

Our table is ready and they are about to serve....

"BILL! IT'S TIME TO GET UP", I hear this annoying voice scream at me. I said, "I am up. I'm waiting for dinner." Then I realize that it's six in the morning and Kent is awakening me. I'm disappointed. What were we going to have for dinner?

America is in real trouble.

I suppose I should try to at least make an effort to start this entry out in a more positive tone, but I honestly think that this is the darkest period this country has ever had in my lifetime.

We now have a President who really has only three things in his arsenal to use for holding on to the presidency for four more years.

1) He has declared a "war on terror", and because of that, we are safer.

2) He is the only one who will defend marriage from those nasty homosexual couples who want to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage.

3) Kerry's war record.

In the "war on terror", we are told by the Bush Administration that we are safer now than we were on September 11, 2001. Yet, Osama bin Laden, the target we designated at the time as being the one responsible for the attack on America, is still at large. We went into Iraq in our quest to capture Osama bin Laden. Whatever happened to that?

At some point we changed our focus from going after bin Laden after we discovered that he was no longer in Iran. That is when we changed our focus towards the President of Iraq. It didn't seem to matter to our current administration that the very man they said was responsible had escaped. We were going to stay in Iraq and find the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) that we were absolutely sure they had. We had hard proof, according to our intelligence that Iraq had WMD's. We were told that America was safer because we were going after those responsible for terror.

When WMD's could not be found in Iraq, the administration eventually concluded that there were no WMD's, and that the intelligence was bad. Still, Osama bin Laden has not been apprehended. In fact, we have no idea where he is. Do you still feel safer?

The administration made a half hearted attempt to get the consent of the United Nations. When that failed, we went ahead anyway. And then, later when WMD's were not found in Iraq, we had the nerve to go back to the U.N. and ask for money and help to clean up the damn mess we made. What do we have to show for it? We have the mess that is still lingering in the air from Abu Gharib, and we have created so much hatred for America all over the world by alienating former allies.

Today, the President would have you think that we are safer because of our actions in Iraq. He has no problems what so ever with wrecking the environment, with being the President who is responsible for the fastest increase in the national debt in our nation's history, or in dividing us from each other for the sake of his own political advancement.

This is nothing new. Politicians have always done this. I had put a lot of faith in the new generation of voters because from my perspective, they seem to be more accepting of disenfranchised people and offer a new fresh outlook on our country. Yet, they seem to be easily led. They believe what they are told at face value without doing their own thinking or their own research. It's frightening really.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, the only reason the President is making a huge issue of this is to rally his conservative base. I would have thought that most Americans could figure that one out. Admittedly, I am extremely bothered by his attitude towards gay people. I have a lot personally at stake. But I'm putting that aside. What I find very unsettling in the America we live in today is the apparent acceptance of singling one group of citizens out and literally treating them as second-class citizens.

What Americans should really be asking themselves is this. If it's that easy to denigrate one group of citizens and write discrimination into state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution, which unpopular group will be next?

And most unsettling is the fact that in states across this nation in November, the voters will be deciding by ballot box, whether or not to take away the right to marriage for gay couples. In so doing, they will be taking away their right to inheritance, hospital visitation, child custody issues, adoption issues, and over one thousand other rights and privileges associated with marriage. And this seems ok to the majority of Americans. This is not protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and it certainly is doing nothing to protect marriage. If the protection of marriage were really the issue here, looking into the reasons for the 55% divorce rate among heterosexual couples might be a good place to start. Yet, no one sees any of this.

Americans have become sheep. We will buy into anything our fearless leader tells us, regardless of what other external things are telling us. We will believe that he is doing a great job lowering unemployment when we hear that 144,000 jobs were created last month. Yet, when we look around in our own communities, we know people who are unemployed now and unable to find jobs. Yet, we will believe our president, despite the fact that the average real wage of American workers has actually fallen over the past year, even though the economy has grown by 4.7 percent.

This is why I'm scared. I'm scared not so much for myself or my community. If people don't want to let us get married, that is what will happen. We can't stop them. But, with all the other issues affecting so many more people in this country, gay marriage and John Kerry's military record are the last things we should be talking about! Neither the President or John Kerry are talking about the issues. Why are we, the American people, not demanding that they do so?

I'm concerned because it was all too easy for our government to pull this off. It was all too easy for them to wage a war without any hard evidence, just as it was easy for them to dismiss the fact that Osama bin Laden got away.

And, to pull attention away from his failed efforts to justify a war built upon lies, our President pulls out his emotion ladened trump cards: saving marriage from the gays and John Kerry's military record. Mr. President, you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house. Were you in Vietnam? What about your military record?

And, the deception worked, judging from a recent poll.

If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.

Let's keep on believing him and everything he tells us. Who knows, maybe it will keep working. You think?

Same-sex couples won a second victory today when a Thurston County judge ruled that the state's ban on letting them marry is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks said he would not decide, however, whether the Legislature could choose to create "different kinds of domestic unions or partnerships" called something other than marriage, as a state attorney had requested.

Hicks ruled that the state cannot give a privilege such as marriage to one group of people and not to others without good reason for the discrimination.

He said that while encouraging more family stability is a legitimate interest, the ban on same-sex marriage does "not even bear a rational relationship to that interest." He said the law more likely "weakens family stability when we consider what family really is" -- something no longer limited to a man, a woman and a child.

Hicks found that the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriage to one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. (source)

Full Story

New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6. (source)

Well, as the old saying goes, "It's not over until the fat lady sings", but this is a bit depressing.

President Bush has no real clue where he is leading this country. He has accomplished one thing. He has divided this country more than any other president in my memory. I read an interesting article in the Hartford Courant this morning from Ellen Goodman, a syndicated writer in Boston.

He's [Bush] seen as unwavering because he simply disavows any turns in the road. In a powerful acceptance speech rife with distortions, the same resolute, persevering, backboned president who went into Iraq claiming weapons of mass destruction now defends the war as one of liberation. In Bush's head, al-Qaida and Saddam are still connected. And anyone who worries that Iraq is breeding more terrorists than it had to begin with is suffering from what Zell Miller called "analysis paralysis." (source)

It's no secret. I haven't been writing as much since I returned from Idaho. I've been asking myself why. I think that returning to Idaho was a bigger shock to me than I realized. I've written on this site about things that happened during my early years in Idaho. I believe that we have to make the best out of life and move on. We all have things that happen to us that are unfortunate. We have to move on and look for what is important if we wish to build a good life for ourselves.

I believe all of that. I do. And the thing is, I thought that I had done that. But being back in my home town where some of worst things in my life happened, it made me realize some things.

I realize first of all that those events that happened so many years ago did happen. They are real, and I realize that I'm very angry about it. The anger is fresh now and I have to find some place to put that away.

Secondly, the person that I was is gone. He was the one that should have had resolution to these events. It is not possible now. What do I do with that?

Thirdly, the people there are in a time warp. I realized this when I talked with John, a man that I went to school with. We were good friends in high school. He started talking immediately about old memories and what it was like "back then". He had nothing new to share other than, "the place has changed a lot, but you can see that". Is this time warp they are in their own version of Hell? Do they have any idea that their lives are so small and they've done nothing with their lives? One could argue that my life is also small. I have not taken my career path in music in order to stay with my partner. But, I have traveled, lived in many very different places, and I do try to be involved in the world and to be active in trying to make the world a better place to live, for all of us.

John (my friend from Emmett), told me that he was married and had grown kids now, and he proceeded to ask if I were married. I said no. I told him I wasn't because the office was full of people who I knew wouldn't understand, and I didn't want to embarrass him. But after I got back home, I wrote John a letter explaining my life a bit.

Hi John.

This is Bill Cannon. It was good to see you again a couple of weeks ago. I have to apologize for just dropping in on you like that. I try to stay in touch with my friends from the past as well as my present friends. As I told you, I now live in Connecticut. I've been talking to a few people over the years online to try to stay in touch.

I was told by one of them that you now work for (name omitted) in Emmett. He sent me a link to the website for (name omitted). That was like six months ago. At any rate, I remembered the logo. I was driving through Emmett, and toured around a bit, seeing all the changes. On our way out of town, I spotted the (name omitted) sign on the left and had to stop to see if you were in. I didn't plan it, it just happened.

It was good to see you again. You haven't changed much but you seem to be more outgoing now than when you were a kid. I think I am also.

A few years ago I called you. I don't know if you remember that or not. You told me about your life and about being married to Teena. I had heard that you married a long time ago to Teena. You told me about your kids. And, you asked me if I was married. I said "no", but that's not really true. It bothered me at the time but I said nothing because I didn't feel you would understand.

Then, when we talked in Emmett a couple of weeks ago, you asked again if I was married. I said, "I have a partner". I quickly changed the subject.

I know how people in Idaho can be. I value your friendship John, and I want to be honest with you, even though I know that that honesty may cause you to not want to talk to me again. I am with someone. We've been together for 30 years now, this year. This is the hard thing to tell you John. The fact is, I'm gay. I always have been. My partner's name is Kent, and we have a home together in Connecticut.

Now that you know, I hope we can still be friends. I'm still the same old Bill that I always was. Nothing has changed. I've lost so many friends because of this and it's caused me to be very selective who my friends are. I no longer make friends easily. I choose them very carefully.

Anyway, I wanted you to know the truth. Friendship demands the truth. I didn't come to the class reunion because I didn't want everyone wondering why I wasn't married. I thought that would be torture. I don't know how you feel about gays. I hope at least for one gay, you can understand why it was hard for me to tell you.

I hope that you will understand and still be my friend.

Bill

That was sent on August 21, 2004. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that I haven't heard from him, and I think I should conclude that he no longer wants me as a friend. I suppose not a great surprise.

I left that place to find a new place for myself. I ended up in a place where I made new and dear friends, only to see them die of AIDS. When it was over, I wanted to leave San Francisco because it had become an ugly dark place, polluted by death. I said to myself, "I came here to start a new life, and for what? FOR WHAT?"

We moved to Connecticut to basically start over. But returning to Emmett, Idaho a few weeks ago has made me realize after all these years that it was all for a reason. Gaining my friends, and loosing my friends did not equal out to zero. What I ended up with was a profound knowledge of life itself and so many secrets of the human spirit that so many people will never understand or know. I also realized that I am no wuss! I am resilient and brave. And that took me close to forty years to realize.

God I am so lucky to have experienced that. Many of the people I lost spent their last breath with me. I remember Richard. I was called to his apartment. It was time. I walked in and others said, "He wants to say something to you." He could hardly talk because he was so weak. He couldn't get out of bed, so I laid down next to him. I put his arms around me, and I put my arms around him. That was what he was waiting for. With one breath he whispered to me in my ear, "I love you." His breath was gone. He voice was gone. He was quiet. And I whispered back, "Forever." That is the most profound definition of friendship. How can I say that it was for nothing? I laid there holding him and crying, with his dead warm body in my arms.

Will people in my home town who reminisce about what happened thirty years ago have a clue to that. No, they won't. They will always be simple, and they will never know the difference.

The very notion that these were American citizens getting sick and dieing and America not giving a damn or caring about it will not be understood by them other than the usual conservative diatribe that comes out of southern Idaho; they were queer, they deserved it, or kill a fag for Jesus, or AIDS is God's answer to homosexuality. I could go on and on, but the point has been made. And John has made the point once again by his lack of response to my letter.

So I say, let them have their ignorance. The loss is truly theirs. Perhaps this is what makes us equal. Perhaps I should consider this my revenge. They have the quandary of why people who have half a life don't come back to their high school reunions. You can share with them what your life is now, but only if it fits into their very narrow view of the world and what you should be.

I have enlightenment and I have PRIDE. Through it all, I still have hope that some day America will be able to see beyond our differences and care about us too. Some day.

I have to admire those who can do it, but I would never be able too. If you are in the military during these times, there's a possibility that you can be called up to serve in Iraq, or some other dangerous place. That comes with the territory.

What shouldn't come with the territory is having to hide who your family is. As far as I'm concerned, that is a price tag that is too high. If my country is going to ask me to risk my life for my country, fine, but it is going to have to deal with me kissing my partner goodbye when he departs for his mission. A "platonic hug" just isn't going to cut it.

Katy and her partner were still teary-eyed from the exchange of a promise to spend the rest of their lives together -- made just hours before one of them was to ship off to Iraq for more than a year. But when the two women said farewell at the base, all they could share was a platonic hug.

Even as Americans debate whether it's right to legalize same-sex marriage, caution remains a fact of life for servicemen and -women communicating with a gay or lesbian partner back home.

"We still sign our e-mails with 'I love you,' " even though the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy makes it risky, said Katy, 24. Like others interviewed for this story, she spoke on the condition that her full name be withheld, for fear it could be traced to her partner. If her partner were "outed," she could lose her job and the free college tuition that enticed her to enlist in the first place.

So Katy tries to be discreet with the care packages she sends. She is guarded in her phone conversations from Iraq. And she knows that if something were to happen to her partner overseas, the armed forces would not be contacting her.

As far as the military's concerned, "If you're a same-sex couple, your family doesn't exist," said Tony Smith, an Air Force veteran and gay-rights advocate. "That's the bottom line." (source)

In a lawsuit that has had more lives than a cat, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked the Kansas Supreme Court to undo a prison sentence that will keep a young man behind bars for 17 years as punishment for consensual oral sex with a male peer.

Matthew Limon and a fellow student at a live-in school for developmentally disabled youth were caught having oral sex in February of 2000. Limon, who had been in trouble for sexual antics in the past, was charged with an adult felony. Had he or his friend been female, however, the heterosexual teens would have been given a slap on the wrist under a statute, called the "Romeo and Juliet" law, that forgives consensual sex between heterosexual teens in the same age range. Instead, Kansas judges threw the book at Limon, then 18, sentencing him to jail until his mid-thirties. (source)

Another reason we need marriage rights. A sad story.

HOUSTON A gay man is asking a judge in Houston to let him claim a portion of his partner's estate -- just as a heterosexual spouse could. But attorneys for the late man's son say Texas law does not recognize a probate claim brought by a gay partner and the estate belongs to the family.

William Ross says he and John Green, who died in 2003, were partners for more than seven years.

Green left no will saying who should get his townhouse, another home under renovation in Katy and stock worth 88-thousand dollars. (source)

Further sources

The ad (required broadband) from the Log Cabin Republicans that CNN wouldn't air because it was "too controversial".

Personally, I just don't get the Log Cabin Republicans. They are gay Republicans and still support the Republican Party, even after the party's platform formally supports a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a reasonable guy. I just don't get it.

I suppose you can say, I don't vote for President based on one issue, and I don't. I think the Bush Administration sucks on just about every other issue as well. It's just that when my President says that my family sucks and is second rate, it's kind of hard not to take that personally.

Log Cabin Republicans, think about it. Do you really want to support this platform?

Follow up Story (09/02/2004): Home Depot Announces Gay Partner Benefits After Pet Fury

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- The Human Rights Campaign today condemned Home Depot, Sprint, Ecolab and Waste Management -- all Fortune 500 companies -- for offering their employees pet insurance but not domestic partner health insurance. (source)

I don't happen to do business with Sprint, Ecolab or Waste Management, but I have done business with Home Depot. But no more. This just goes to show how stupid some corporate policies are. I could get pet insurance for my cat but I couldn't get it for my partner? Come on! That's damn insulting.

We need to support our community and if you still put your hard earned money into these companies, what does that say about you? More importantly, who will help you when it happens to you?

We should all let them know what we think of policies like this when we are made aware of them, if not through direct letters to the company, then by taking our business somewhere else.

It's amazing to me how some of these stories come to life. I can understand that someone is bigoted and against gay people. Recently, the State of Virginia passed a law that forbids not only gay marriage, but gay unions in that state. The law became effective on July 1, 2004.

Representative Edward Schrock (Republican) was one of the representatives to vote for that measure (HB 751), along with numerous other anti-gay legislations. He has also supported the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that is responsible for thousands of discharges from the military of gay personnel. Representative Schrock has decided not to seek re-election. Some believe that it is because of allegations made on a web log posted August 19, that Schrock is gay.

Gordy said he was upset that a Web site forced his boss to leave public office. He questioned whether the accusations from BlogActive.com - run by Michael Rogers, a Washington-based gay activist - would help the gay-rights movement.

"I don't get their point, and how it actually helps them in the long run," said Gordy. "I think it's a bad way to try to influence decision makers. It will only in the long term hurt their own agenda."

Gordy said politicians are going to be afraid to associate with gay people for fear that they will be accused of being gay.

"When you accuse people of being homosexual because of people you hang out with, people you talk to on the phone, out on the street," said Gordy, "even if, let's say, a straight person goes to a gay bar to hang out with a gay friend and they're a member of Congress - basically what they've done is they are putting a wedge between straight people and gay people." (source)

No, the point isn't that we make it uncomfortable for politicians to "hang out" with gay people. The point is that if in fact Rep. Schrock is gay, he has been practicing blatant hypocrisy, and he should have been exposed. It's interesting to me that he has decided not to fight the allegations. It's almost as though the allegations might be true. If they are true, the rulings that the representative have made in the past are truly unfortunate. Or, as one writer put it:

But Schrock’s case does have disheartening aspects: If he is gay or bisexual, it means that he’s been practicing a hypocrisy that’s off the normal political charts, arguing relentlessly against gay rights, opposing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” disparaging gays in the military, cozying up with the moralists of the party’s hard-right.

Whether we’ll ever know for certain might depend on whether Schrock decides to answer the allegations more openly. It’s pretty much his prerogative now that he’s walked away from the fray. He doesn’t have to say another word if he so chooses.

But we do have a right to wonder if we’d been misled by what Schrock has said through the years as opposed to what he did, or whether he has allowed the electoral process to be suborned by an activist with a chip on his shoulder by deciding not to fight back. (source)