September 2004 Archives
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 RyleyThe 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)
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
"...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)
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.
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
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.