It’s true... I couldn’t find my way out of a paper bag if my life depended on it. So when Kent and I take day trips around the state, it doesn’t really take too much to get me lost. One time, I went to see a friend in Manchester, Connecticut (the “black hole” of the state). I was lost for almost two hours just trying to find my way back home! When I finally came upon a freeway sign, I was on the other side of the University of Connecticut at Storrs, Connecticut.

So now, I don’t worry about it. We both decided that my sense of direction is so horrible, that we bought a car that at least knows where it is. “Take the Next Right... In half a mile, take the first left.” You get the idea. It talks in a masculine, somewhat aggressive, yet understanding voice. And no matter where I am, I can just say, “Go Home”, and it will take me home. Kinda like those red slippers did for Dorothy!

Gay men employ the same strategies for navigating as women - using landmarks to find their way around - a new study suggests.

But they also use the strategies typically used by straight men, such as using compass directions and distances. In contrast, gay women read maps just like straight women, reveals the study of 80 heterosexual and homosexual men and women.

“Gay men adopt male and female strategies. Therefore their brains are a sexual mosaic,” explains Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist who led the study at the University of East London, UK. “It’s not simply that lesbians have men’s brains and gay men have women’s brains.” (source)

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Complete marriage rights for homosexuals may be a better choice for Connecticut, say Vermont gay rights advocates who have been living with civil unions for five years.

Although the civil union system Connecticut legislators are considering would extend all state rights and responsibilities for married heterosexual couples to gays and lesbians, same-sex couples still could not get married.

And that’s the problem, said Beth Robinson, one of the attorneys who argued on behalf of same-sex couples in a 2000 lawsuit that resulted in Vermont becoming the first state to recognize civil unions.

“There’s no question that law creates a separate box for same-sex couples. It sends a message that says you’re not quite equal, you’re not quite worthy,” she said. “That affects our kids. That affects our families. That affects the couples.” (source)

Separate and somewhat less than equal. Yeah, that’s something we should all strive for. Second best.

I guess this is why I find the whole idea of civil unions so repugnant. Ever since Vermont put civil unions in place five years ago, there has been no push in the state of Vermont towards full marriage for gay couples. Will the same hold try for Connecticut? I guess time will tell, because it looks as if we are heading towards the same conclusion as Vermont.

Do we hold out hope that someday we will have full civil marriage, or do we strive to push the Federal Government to honor civil unions from the states that allow them? Of course, I feel that we should go for civil marriage and dump civil unions altogether. That’s my preference.

Whatever we go for, we need to understand that until the Federal Government honors our relationships and our families, the BIG TICKET ITEMS are at the federal level, such as access to your partner’s Social Security benefits should one of you die, access to 401K funds without taxation, joint tax returns, and all the rest. Here are just a few...

Retirement
When a husband or wife dies, the surviving spouse can move money from the deceased’s retirement plan into his or her own plan without taxation or limitations. But because same-sex couples are treated as strangers under the tax code, a same-sex surviving partner incurs significant penalties and restrictions when transferring a deceased’s retirement plan.

Two retirement options in which many American businesses and employees invest are 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. In both cases, a federal law called the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) allows a surviving spouse to roll over, or transfer, the deceased’s IRA or 401(k) plan into his or her own plan. The plan, then, continues to grow without being taxed.

Surviving same-sex partners, however, are unable to roll over their partners’ plans into their own and are heavily taxed on the money they receive. This is because same-sex partners are typically restricted to receiving the benefits in lump-sum payments, which has considerable disadvantages.

Continued Health Insurance
When a married heterosexual employee loses or leaves a job, employers are required to offer the employee - and his or her spouse - the opportunity to pay for continued health coverage for up to 18 months, under a federal law called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, or COBRA.

But when a gay or lesbian employee loses or leaves a job, federal law does not guarantee the employee the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, even if the employer-sponsored plan originally covered that partner. This is true even though it is the former employee, not the employer, who pays the premium for this temporary coverage.

Social Security Survivor Benefits
Although gay and lesbian Americans contribute to Social Security throughout their working lives, their families are denied the same benefits heterosexual Americans receive upon the death of a spouse. Specifically:

* Partners who are Retired or Disabled are denied surviving spouse benefits because they were denied the right to marry.

* Partners raising children are denied Social Security surviving parent benefits because they were previously denied the right to legally marry.

* Children may also be denied Social Security surviving child benefits if the deceased parent was barred from securing a legal relationship to his or her child through second-parent adoption.

This loss of income can be substantial. For example, surviving partners who are 60 years old will lose an average of $9,780 a year - or approximately $166,000 if they live to the average life expectancy of 77. (Based on Social Security Administration calculations that Social Security survivor benefits averaged $815 per month in 2002.)

If there are surviving children, the loss of income is potentially even greater. For example, when a working parent was denied the opportunity to establish a legal relationship to his or her child through second-parent adoption, that child will also be denied the right to Social Security survivor benefits upon that parent’s death. This could translate to a loss of $900 per month, or $10,000 per year, for a child whose parent worked for at least 10 years and earned at least $50,000 in the last year of his or her life.

Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits
As a growing number of employers offer domestic partner benefits, gays and lesbians are discovering a hitch - domestic partner benefits, unlike health benefits provided to married heterosexual couples, are taxed as income. As a result, gay and lesbian employees take home relatively less income than their married heterosexual co-workers who perform exactly the same job.

For example, a gay or lesbian employee earning $40,000 a year and receiving domestic partner health insurance benefits toward which the employer contributes $250 a month would owe income and payroll taxes on a total of $43,000 in income at the end of the year.

A married heterosexual employee earning the same salary and receiving the same health benefits for his or her spouse would owe income and payroll taxes on only $40,000. (source for this data)

Having the state honor the relationship in whatever form is nice, but it just really doesn’t cut it. If something happens to one of us, there are so many ways the Federal Government will screw us over because they see us as legal strangers.

On the heels of a new report by the Government Accounting Office showing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has cost taxpayers more than $200 million since its inception in 1993 a group of congress members has announced plans to introduce legislation to end the ban on gays in the military.

More than 10,000 service members have been discharged over the last 10 years under the policy according to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Since 9-11 the number of gay discharges has dropped which SLDN says is an indication that when the nation’s security is at danger the military turns a blind eye to gays serving in the armed forces. (source)

Well, we all pay for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But as I read this article, I was also listening to the news on a different topic, that of “stop loss”. Because of “stop loss” soldiers who have completed their tour of duty can be called up for duty several times after their military careers are over. They are unable to leave the military because when President Bush declared that the United States was in a state of “nation emergency”, stop loss kicked in.

Except that is, for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. You can still be kicked out of the military for being gay. I know the essence of the policy is terribly unfair and unjust and has been the destruction of many military careers. But after listening to these soldiers who are going back to Iraq for a second or third time, you have to wonder if the gay soldiers who have been kicked out are the lucky ones.

I honestly believe that our government doesn’t care about our troops. I’ve always been against the war in Iraq, but I’ve always supported our troops. I feel for what they are going through. I feel that to our government, they are nothing more than a number, and that’s a tragedy.

It’s a tough fight. We all have to just keep on going. This was just one setback. There will be more for sure. But with each setback, it will show even more our determination and the gross injustice of this inequality.

ITHACA, N.Y. Feb 24, 2005 — A judge has ruled against a group of same-sex couples who challenged the state’s anti-gay marriage law after they were denied marriage licenses.

The 25 couples sued the city of Ithaca and the state last June, arguing that the law contradicts a 2002 New York statute outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [...]

“Social perceptions of same-sex civil contracts may change over time,” Mulvey wrote in his ruling. “If that day comes, it is within the province of the Legislature to so act.”

The couples’ lawyer said they would appeal. (source)

I suppose after Abu Ghraib, none of this should come as a surprise. One can hope that the lives of women in Iraq would improve over time. But, once we leave, I have little hopes of that happening. If they couldn’t even be protected from our troops (some of whom have allegedly raped some of the women), the people who came to “liberate” Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, what hope do they have after we leave?

I can’t even imagine what their lives must be like. To be abused in this manner, but to know nothing else or have hope or even knowledge of what life could be.

LONDON -- Nearly two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, women there are no better off than under the rule of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, the human rights group Amnesty International said on Tuesday.

In a report entitled “Iraq -- Decades of Suffering,” it said that while the systematic repression under Saddam had ended, it had been replaced by increased murders, and sexual abuse -- including by U.S. forces.

Washington promised that the overthrow of Saddam would free the Iraqi people from years of oppression and set them on the road to democracy. But Amnesty said post-war insecurity had left women at risk of violence and curtailed their freedoms.

“The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women’s freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work,” Amnesty said.

“Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some women detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped,” it added. (source)

The following letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant is being reprinted here, with the author’s permission.

The Honorable Governor Jodi Rell
State Capitol
210 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1535

Dear Governor Rell:

My partner and I have been together nearly 16 years. Whether we actually do marry, or not, is not as important as being in a class of people considered worthy, acceptable for who we are, recognized eye to eye with nothing held back from us. Please try to understand our very real sense of being underclass so long as the civil right to marry the one person we love is denied.

Making “civil unions” available, even if attempts are made to extend all the marriage rights heterosexual couples enjoy, is not acceptable. Being required to eat in the kitchen rather than the dining room establishes two classes. Besides that, having access to civil unions would amount to a virtual dead end so far as legislation is concerned. Legislators and the public would be of the mind:

“We’ve taken care of them, now let’s get on with our work,” and it would take years to get equal marriage rights on the calendar again.

I am aware that you have spoken out against equal rights for same-sex couples. When you pledge allegiance to the US flag and uphold the US Constitution remember that quite a group of law-abiding and country-loving citizens are waiting--albeit impatiently--for a new day. It’s time to put away your fears and do what you can in the name of “liberty and justice for all.”

Sincerely, and with hope,
Dorothy J. Many
Windsor, CT

Thank you.

Lobbyist, Connecticut Gay Rights Group Split

Betty Gallo, the lobbying voice of the gay rights movement in Connecticut for two decades, has broken with the gay community over its all-or-nothing push for a same-sex marriage law. [...]

Word of Gallo’s decision to drop Love Makes A Family, a group she helped found, from her stable of progressive clients circulated among state lawmakers Tuesday, the eve of a judiciary committee vote on civil unions for same-sex couples. [...]

“Without a doubt, she is the most respected ‘white hat’ lobbyist, meaning a lobbyist who only pushes issues she believes in,” said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the judiciary committee.

“This is devastating, just devastating. I struggled for two months over how I could do this,” Gallo said, referring to arguing against civil unions. “I just couldn’t do it.”

Lawlor said he and his co-chairman, Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, will attempt to have the judiciary committee today endorse a civil-union bill that would extend marriage rights to gay couples in nearly every aspect but name.

He applauded Gallo’s decision to drop Love Makes A Family.

“Good for Betty - and too bad for Love Makes A Family,” Lawlor said.

“I was very surprised that Love Makes A Family, at the urging of some national groups, took the position of marriage or nothing. That’s a big mistake. My advice was to say you are for marriage, say civil unions aren’t good enough, but stop there.” [...]

“We respect her,” Stanback said. “We are grateful for all the help she and her firm have given us over the years.”

Stanback said the state’s gay community has a special responsibility to the national gay rights movement: Connecticut is one of only nine states where same-sex marriage has not been precluded by a constitutional amendment or other legislation.

A court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, coming on the heels of a civil-union law in Vermont, raised the bar, Stanback said.

“Our movement has evolved. The world has changed very quickly on this issue,” she said. “The state of Connecticut does not need to go through civil unions to get to marriage. We think our state is ready for marriage.”

Gallo, after conducting a legislative head count, disagreed.

She said she was able to lobby this year in good conscience for same-sex marriage, but could not abide her client’s direction that she also try to convince lawmakers that a vote for civil unions would be a setback to homosexuals or “a political dead end.”

“I don’t believe that,” Gallo said. “I was saying things to legislators that I didn’t believe for the first time in 28 years.”

A civil-union law would extend significant rights to gay and lesbian couples, and it is possible to achieve that this year, she said.

Gallo said she agreed with Love Makes A Family that the capstone of the gay rights movement in Connecticut should be winning the right to marry.

“I think this legislature will give us marriage - not this year, not next year,” Gallo said. “But, eventually, they will.”

I think it’s too bad that Betty Gallo wasn’t able to see the bigger picture here. I found this article very irritating in many ways. Anne Stanback is right. If civil unions are approved in Connecticut this year, there’s no guarantee that the legislature will be willing to visit this issue anytime in the near future.

And let’s face it, the only reason that the legislature is entertaining the idea of civil unions is not out of any desire to be fair. There is a looming court case over the State of Connecticut. Seven gay couples are suing the state for equal marriage rights. This happened in Massachusetts as well, and the end result was the Supreme Judicial Court issuing a directive to the legislature to change state law to allow gay couples to get married. The Mass. Legislature was unable to do that. They tried to settle for civil unions and asked the court if that would suffice. The court said, in a word, “No.”

The legislators in Connecticut are scared to death that the same will hold true here in Connecticut. So, they are trying to be preemptive in this action. This year, they are probably going to offer civil unions. There are people voting for this who would never have been caught dead voting for this, prior to what happened in Massachusetts. So, let’s cut through the crap and stop saying that they want to do the fair thing.

As I told Representative Lawlor, this civil union bill is unequal treatment and no one, other than the legislators, want this bill. Gay couples don’t want it right alone with the people trying to protect family values, and I never in a million years would have thought that we were on the same side of anything. Of course, we want the bill to fail for entirely different reasons.

They want to “protect marriage”. We want equality. So, if the civil union bill does pass, Kent and I will have no part of it. We will not settle for second best, even though this bill would address many of the legal concerns we have. You don’t negotiation with civil rights. Either you have them, or you don’t. Either you are equal, are your are not equal.

One thing got my ire up. When Representative Mike Lawlor said:

Good for Betty - and too bad for Love Makes A Family.

I was very surprised that Love Makes A Family, at the urging of some national groups, took the position of marriage or nothing. That’s a big mistake. My advice was to say you are for marriage, say civil unions aren’t good enough, but stop there.

It prompted this letter from me.

Continued from Connecticut Civil Unions, Part I

“Good for Betty - and too bad for Love Makes A Family. I was very surprised that Love Makes A Family, at the urging of some national groups, took the position of marriage or nothing. That’s a big mistake. My advice was to say you are for marriage, say civil unions aren’t good enough, but stop there.”

Dear Representative Lawlor:

Those are your words. You feel that civil unions are a compromise to civil marriage. It isn’t. Why should my partner of 30 years have to eat in the kitchen when there is a dining room that everyone else (heterosexual married couples) can eat in?

It’s not fair and you know it. You say that our wanting equal rights is “a big mistake”. Equality is NEVER a big mistake. Time will tell if you and others are honestly sincere about returning to this issue in the future. Here is my prediction:

You and your colleagues will pass a “civil union” bill this year (separate but more-or-less equal, something that will never be recognized by the Federal Government), and pat yourselves on the back for “doing the right thing”, knowing full well that this has nothing to do with EQUALITY.

Next year, the issue is dead. Having, in your minds, given us “equal rights” from this “civil union” bill, none of you will want to return to this issue next year. I will, right now, bet you $100 that next year the legislature will not even be looking at a marriage bill for gay couples. In fact, I would extend that bet to three years out. By this I mean that it is brought to the floor and voted on. Will anyone, such as yourself, take it upon yourself to bring a gay marriage bill to life?

In the meantime, if a civil union bill is passed this year, my partner and I will not be participating in this charade for justice and equality. We will never apply for something that is second-best. THAT IS NOT EQUALITY.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT

This was his response to me.

Hey, Bill, as a matter of fact, I myself will bring a marriage bill to life next year.

Mike Lawlor

I responded:

Dear Representative Lawlor,

Please understand my passion for gay marriage. I’m not questioning your motives or your integrity. I believe you to be an honest and fair man. And, I do believe that you will try to bring a marriage bill forth next year for gay couples. What scares me is your ability to give the bill a hearing, if no one else wants that to happen. I know just from hearing the legislators this year and some of the rhetoric that has taken place, that they want this to go away. If we get civil marriage this year, I personally do not believe we will see a bill giving gay couples equal REAL marriage (and not second-class “civil unions”), for another 10-15 years. I honestly believe that.

With all of your best intentions (and I do believe that you want to bring a bill forth next year for full marriage), I don’t believe you will be able to do that. A year is not a long time. If you honestly feel that we can’t pass a gay marriage bill this year, what makes you think the political climate is going to change enough to let it happen next year?

I’m 50 years old this year. That means I’ve been with my partner since I was 20 years old. How much longer should I have to be second-class in this “free” society of ours? If we can’t have marriage this year, or next year, will the legislature at least put through a bill giving us second-class taxes?

Whatever else people think of Betty Gallo, I don’t honestly see what there is to “applaud” (your term). Supporting civil unions is supporting a separate and less than equal system. I don’t know how anyone can be proud of that.

I am grateful for what you are trying to achieve, but anything less than EQUAL is not equal. And, that is simply wrong.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT

New York City officials are halting efforts to identify the remains of those killed in the 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center.

The city’s medical examiner's office says it has exhausted DNA technology that allowed it to match bodies and body parts to the list of the dead. The office says it has nearly 10,000 bone and tissue fragments it cannot identify.

No remains have been found for 1,161 people killed in the attacks, more than 40 percent of the 2,749 people killed overall. (source)

The following letter on gay marriage was submitted to The Daily Campus, the student paper at the University of Connecticut.

Gay marriage poses no threat By Emily Groff

The past several days have been momentous for gay rights activists. First, Feb. 13 was the one-year anniversary of the first gay marriages in San Francisco.

Sunday, Fox broadcasted an episode of “The Simpsons” featuring gay marriage and England announced the passage of a bill granting “same-sex couples the right to form legally binding partnerships” on Monday.

Although President George W. Bush reiterated his commitment to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in his State of the Union address, there is a clear difference between the views of the political establishment and popular culture. As America was the last developed country to end slavery and remains one of the last with the death penalty, it appears we will be the last to recognize gay rights.

This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table. - President George W. Bush, February 22, 2005

It’s been a busy day for me. I worked from home today and got a lot done. Life is going well. I’m losing weight and feeling good about life. I’m getting in shape and going to the health club about five times a week now. Why do I go so much? Is it for the adrenaline high?

Sometimes, my writing doesn’t reflect how well my life is going. Sometimes, it doesn’t come through that my life is better now than it ever has been.

I write a lot about the challenges that gay people face in this society. I think about all the awful things that are said about us out in the open now, every day, and I think to myself, “We’ve made things worse for ourselves by pushing for equality.” But, I realize that the awful things they are saying about us were always there, behind the scenes, under everyone’s breath. The hatred was always there. And if any one of us had the courage to be who we really are, what would happen to us? Many things are possible. One possibility would be acceptance. One possibility would be to be shunned and lose your friends. One possibility would be that you would be injured. One possibility would be that you would be killed.

There are many ways for the hatred to show itself. But at least now, the hatred has a place to go. The more that people are talking about it out in the open, the more difficult it will be to do violence against us. Why? Because the more of us who are out, the more people will realize that they actually do know someone who is affected by violence and who is hurt by all this awful rhetoric. Also, I believe that the majority of people in this country really do want to be fair and just. I believe that when this argument has played out, equality will win the day. I believe this because I think tomorrow will be better than today. I’m an optimist.

This week has been a tough one for me because two straight married couples that I know, good friends of mine, have told me of their intentions to separate. Actually, one is getting a divorce, and one is starting the process of separation. Both couples are legally married. Yet, both are throwing away the one thing that Kent and I are fighting like hell to get, marriage. We went through the humiliation of going to our Town Clerk to get this piece of paper that says we are married, only to be turned down.

I know that marriage does not mean that everything will be easy and make the relationship work. I’m simply trying to come to grips with the fact that so many simply choose to walk away from the marriage. For whatever reason, Kent and I have stayed so strong through so many very difficult things in our lives. Everything has been against us, every step of the way. Yet, we want the one thing that half of heterosexual couples seem to have little regard for. It’s puzzling.

I guess I have a very narrow view of what gay is, or maybe I just live in a world completely different from others. I would never that even thought that Shrek or Shrek 2 had any gay overtones to them. When I watch movies such as this, it never even occurs to me. To get my attention in a movie to demonstrate that it’s got a gay character in it, you pretty much have to kiss and do the sex thing to get my attention. Suggestive eye contact isn’t enough for me because to me, that could simply imply, “Wow! I love your hair!”

I think what concerns me more than Shrek 2 having anything in it that could possibly be construed as “gay content” or a “gay character”, is the fact that there are people out there who are so super sensitive to anything gay (as though it’s some disease), they will make it gay, even if it isn’t. Does that qualify for some sort of phobia?

At any rate, now I have to see Shrek 2 to see what it’s all about. I saw the first one (by mistake I might add), and never went to see the sequel.

Shrek 2 is the latest animated film title to be “outed” by Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.

On its website the Traditional Values Coalition is warning parents about the cross-dressing and transgender themes contained in the hit DreamWorks feature, now on DVD.

“Shrek 2 is billed as harmless entertainment but contains subtle sexual messages,” says the coalition, which describes itself as a grassroots inter-denominational lobby with more than 43,000 member churches.

“Parents who are thinking about taking their children to see Shrek 2 may wish to consider the following.”

The article then proceeds to describe one of the characters, an “evil” bartender (voiced by Larry King) who is a male-to-female transgender in transition and who expresses a sexual desire for Prince Charming.

In another identified scene, Shrek and Donkey need rescuing from a dungeon by Pinocchio and his nose, which is made to extend as an escape bridge by getting the wooden boy to lie about not wearing women’s underwear. (source)

Moral of the story: People with long noses are evil. Women’s underwear is evil. People with long noses who actually wear women’s underwear are the Spawn of Satan (especially if that person happens to be transgendered). I’m sure somewhere in the Bible, it says so.

You know... a country who actually values all people the same way.

(London) Same-sex unions will become legal in the UK in December, and the British military has begun sweeping changes to prepare for them.

Legislation to create civil unions will go into effect on December 5. The first partnerships will therefore be in place by Christmas after the 15-day waiting period has passed, the government announced Monday.

The new law will allow gay and lesbian couples to sign an official document in front of the registrar and two witnesses and will offer almost all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

In line with the government’s announcement the Royal Navy has become the first branch of the services to say it will welcome lesbian and gay personnel to stay in family quarters once they have registered their unions. The other branches of the military are expected to follow suit. (source)

On one tape, Bush explains that he told one prominent evangelical that he would not “kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?”

Wead said on the tapes that he heard that Bush had promised that he would not hire gay people.

“No, what I said was I wouldn’t fire gays. I'm not going to discriminate against people,” Bush said. (source)

That was from a taped recording of a conversation then Governor Bush had with Doug Wead, a friend of the governor at the time. Bush said he would not fire gay people and would not discriminate against them. But, he didn’t say if he would hire an openly gay person. It goes both ways.

The following is from a transcript in which the President gives support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. - President George W. Bush - February 24, 2004 (source)

I remember the date well because it’s the same day that Kent and I went to the Town Clerk of Coventry, Connecticut to ask for a marriage license. We were refused.

It’s a bit hypocritical to say on one hand that he won’t bash gays, then later (when he’s President) support a constitutional amendment making all gay couples second class citizens.

I know I keep harping on this, but it drives me nuts that he will say and do anything to get elected and to keep his numbers up as high as they can be, without regard to integrity. How can anyone like that be trusted? Why doesn’t America see that? Are we simply so starved for leadership that we will follow anything?

NEW YORK - Pictures of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan posing with hooded and bound detainees during mock executions were destroyed after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq to avoid another public outrage, Army documents released Friday by the American Civil Liberties Union show.

The results of an Army probe of the photographs were among hundreds of pages of documents released after the ACLU obtained a federal court order in Manhattan to let it see documents about U.S. treatment of detainees around the world.

The ACLU said the probe shows the rippling effect of the Abu Ghraib scandal and that efforts to humiliate the enemy might have been more widespread than thought.

“It’s increasingly clear that members of the military were aware of the allegations of torture and that efforts were taken to erase evidence, to shut down investigations and to humiliate the detainees in an effort to silence them,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said.

The Army did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment. (source)

I’m absolutely certain that Abu Ghraib was just the tip of the ice berg. Why else would the Army have evidence destroyed? It amazes me that we let our government get away with this. A few soldiers are being punished, but they are just the scapegoats to make us feel that this issue has been addressed. This all came about and had the blessing from a much higher authority.

I find it interesting that a court would order that after separating from her partner, a lesbian who adopted the children would have to pay child support, yet, cannot obtain marriage under state law.

I would argue that, in the absence of marriage, she has no parental rights to the children. That may seem cruel to some, but I happen to believe that marriage puts a lot of those protections in place along with a lot of the obligations for child custody.

Here, the court is basically saying, “We won’t allow you to get married, but, we are going to hold you to the adoption.” That’s unfair. I would challenge it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

This is exactly why we need marriage. Marriage would not always work in our favor. If the lesbian couple had been married, this would not have been an issue. She may not have liked the fact that she was responsible for paying support, but she would have opted to get married. Also, in an emergency situation, there’s no guarantee that a hospital would honor the adoption, especially from a same-sex partnership.

There is no substitute for marriage in these matters. The court, in this decision, has said once again that our relationships will be honored, when it is convenient to do so, without giving us the benefits of marriage.

INDIANAPOLIS Feb 19, 2005 — A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman’s biological children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

The woman adopted her partner’s children in 1997. A few years after their breakup, she tried to vacate the adoption. Around the same time, the children’s biological mother, who had remarried and divorced a man, filed for child support.

A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the woman who adopted the children must contribute to the cost of raising them.

“Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties,” Judge John G. Baker wrote in a 22-page ruling.

“That person may not simply choose to shed the parental mantle because it becomes inconvenient, seems ill-advised in retrospect, or becomes burdensome because of a deterioration in the relationship with the children’s other parent,” the decision said. (source)

First we had the “twinky” defense, and now I guess we have the “Zoloft” defense. Dan White, a former supervisor of the City of San Francisco, was convicted of killing in cold blood Mayor George Moscone and fellow supervisor Harvey Milk back on November 27, 1978. Harvey was gay. During the trial, Dan White’s attorney argued that Dan was not of his right mind because prior to committing these murders, his entire diet consisted of junk food, specifically, Twinkies.

This became known as the “Twinky Defense” and over time, there have been others, such as the “homosexual panic defense” that argues that a homosexual (usually a man) was murdered because he made “unwanted sexual advances” towards another man. This is still being used today. The man who committed the murder was driven, because of this homosexual panic, to commit the murder because he was so terrified of homosexuals and the sexual advance, that he had no other recourse than to violently murder the homosexual. I good example of this was the result of what happened on the Jenny Jones Show.

But now we are in the midst of yet another kind of case where the defense attorney is arguing that his client murdered his grandparents because he was on the prescription antidepressant Zoloft. This is not the first time this antidepressant has been blamed for this. I seem to recall other cases (although I am unable to cite them) where similar things have happened with this drug. Years ago, Zoloft was prescribed to me during a time I was going through deep depression. The drug made me extremely irritable and it seemed that every little thing annoyed me. I did research at the time and found that on two occasions, others had committed murder because of the use of this drug. I remember Kent and I talking about it at the time. A short time later, I refused to continue taking the drug. For me, I thought it was unsafe. I knew I would not harm another human being while in my right mind, but we all have to understand that these drugs are geared to effect exactly that, the mind. And, they are powerful.

Another issue that brought me little comfort during my time of being treated for depression, was the fact that my psychiatrist would always start his explanations of how the drug worked with “... we THINK it works by...”. In other words, the medical community really does not understand the human brain well enough to know exactly how these drugs work.

Given that, and the fact that we as a society are medicating ourselves more than any time in history, doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Given my past experience with Zoloft on a personal level, I can understand how it would change someone to such a degree to drive them to do some act that was not in their nature to do while in their normal state of mind.

I’m not say this to defend this young man, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison. But I don’t think we can so easily explain this away, if we really want to be fair.

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- A 15-year-old boy who claimed the antidepressant Zoloft drove him to kill his grandparents was found guilty Tuesday of murder.

Christopher Pittman hung his head as the verdict was read after about six hours of deliberations. He was sentenced about an hour later to the minimum of 30 years in prison with no chance of parole. [...]

But prosecutors called the Zoloft defense a smoke screen, saying the then-12-year-old Pittman knew exactly what he was doing three years ago when he shot his grandparents, torched their house and then drove off in their car. (source)

(Little Rock, Arkansas) A bill that would have forced schools to use only books that omitted any reference to gay families has failed to win the endorsement of the Arkansas’ Senate Education Committee.

The committee cast a 3 - 3 tie vote. The bill needed at least four votes to move to the Senate floor. It had already passed the House.

The legislation would have applied only to new textbooks purchased by school districts.

The sponsor of the measure, Rep. Roy Ragland (R-Marshall) said the bill was designed to block efforts to promote a gay agenda in schools.

“From my perspective, the agenda is coming from the other end of the spectrum,” Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, chairman of the committee, said before the vote.

Last November Arkansas voters overwhelmingly endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state. As well, the state is appealing a ruling that struck down a law barring gays from becoming foster parents. (story)

The Texas Board of Education in November approved new health textbooks for the state’s high school and middle school students only after the publishers agreed to change the wording to depict marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (story)

Legislation pending in Alabama would go even further. The bill, if enacted, would bar any representation of homosexuality in schools, libraries, and state funded universities. (source)

And they say we have an agenda. Their agenda all along has been to rid us from existence, viewing us as a scourge upon mankind. That haven’t been able to do that. So, they use everything in their arsenal to make our lives miserable (pass legislation that has it’s basis in religious doctrine, such as the Bible that brands us as an abomination) and, when that fails, try to make it look like we don’t even exist (bar any literature in the libraries that make even the slightest mention of gay people in society).

If there is anything close to evil in this world, it is the complete and utter stripping of someone publicly of the gifts that he or she can bring to enrich the lives of others in society. All of this to profit not God, but the narrow minded view of those who hate us.

“Holy One, convict those who are using their power not to lead or to guide but to harm the gay and lesbian citizens, a small minority in this commonwealth.”

That was the prayer offered by Rev. Debra Peevey of the Journey of the Heart Ministries in Reston, Virginia. It was the invocation to open Friday’s House of Delegates floor session.

In her prayer, Peevey took note of legislation the House has embraced this year to ban same-sex marriage and make it difficult for gays to adopt children. [...]

That didn’t sit well with conservatives in the House. The usual “Amen” chorus at the end of the prayer was noticeably muted.

“I thought it was very inappropriate myself,” said Del. Kathy Byron, R-Campbell County. “This individual basically said we were using our power to harm gay or lesbian citizens.” (source)

It amazes me the amount of hypocrisy some lawmakers have. I would say that when a legislative body puts forth legislation that keeps marriage from being a reality for our community, thereby giving us only second-class status, that it is harmful to gay and lesbian citizens. The rejection from that is having it’s toll on our community. I think they should be held accountable for that. I think they should understand the message they are sending to people and to the young gay people out there who are trying so hard to secure happiness in their future.

I think it is important to point out that they would rather have children remain without homes rather than have gay and lesbian people be able to adopt those children. That would have been the law of the state had some more enlightened lawmakers not done their part to defeat this mean spirited piece of legislation.

I honestly don’t understand how they can sit back and come up with all this crap legislation that is so degrading to our community, then turn around and take offense when someone suggests to them that they are harming our community.

So many people with no sense of compassion. It’s sad.

The Virginia bill targeting gay people for adoptions or being foster parents is dead. I actually thought, with the state of affairs in Virginia, that the bill would pass. Perhaps they are starting to feel a bit dirty from all the awful rhetoric they are putting out.

(Richmond, Virginia) Legislation that would have required social workers in adoption cases to determine whether applicants are gay was turned turned down Wednesday by a committee of the Virginia Senate.

The decision by the Courts of Justice Committee means the bill will not get to the Senate floor for a vote.

“This thing comes awfully close to being pretty bigoted, so I can’t support it,” said Sen. Richard Saslaw (D-Fairfax).

The measure passed the House of Delegates last week but only after many of the anti-gay provisions were deleted. (story)

The bill, as originally introduced by Del. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun) would have prevented gays from becoming either adoptive or foster parents. (source)

I found this letter to be very interesting. I used to look at Virginia and wonder what was going on with the state. It seemed that it was turning into some kind of Nazi state, at least in terms of trampling on the rights of it’s gay citizens. Over time, many gay people have been moving out of Virginia to try to find a place where they can live freely and follow their pursuit of happiness. Virginia offers these people little help in achieving it. With no protections of civil liberties for gay citizens, such as the right to not be fired for being gay, the state constitutional amendment looming over the state at this time, and most recently, a bill that will make it illegal for gay couples to adopt children or for children to be adopted if there is another individual in the house who is gay.

It’s hard to believe that today this is happening because I’ve been around long enough and have fought these same battles 20 years ago in California. In some parts of the nation, little progress has been made. And, after the Virginia legislature passes it’s constitutional amendment putting gay citizens in their rightful place (second class), they can all pat themselves on the back at the end of the day and once again go back to living in their little land of OZ.

Gay-marriage foes are defending a long-held notion: Intolerance

Allowing gay unions will strengthen society, not weaken it - Date published: 2/15/2005

VIRGINIA’S proposed marriage amendment is an attempt to short-circuit the debate about marriage equality and America’s growing acceptance and understanding of gays and lesbians.

This amendment affects the lives of real human beings. The 2000 census found gay couples in every county of every state in this country. They are your family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow Americans. Most of them are fine, decent, hard-working citizens who are trying to make the American dream work for them. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and their relationships deserve the same support as heterosexuals’.

The need for love and companionship is common to all humanity, including gays. This amendment will not stop gays from forming long-term relationships.

Denying marriage equality will prevent them only from protecting and caring for their families. What kind of moral value is that?

What did people do before the Internet? For that matter, what did cavemen do for entertainment? Was it all about surviving and hunting? Seriously boring. They didn’t even have an X-box let alone XM Radio. Their version of blogs were writing on the cave walls. I would have died an early age, probably of boredom.

Today, all kinds of people blog about all kinds of subjects. I never considered myself a “journalist” in any sense. I merely write about what I feel at the time. My writing is highly opinionated so, unlike a journalist, I have no pretense of being “fair and balanced”. My writing is what it is, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. People who come here to read know they are reading my viewpoint.

Also, unlike journalists, I have no legal protections for what I write, although, many journalists today would also say their legal rights as journalists are being eroded over time as well.

Depending on whom you ask, bloggers are either “citizen journalists” who are democratizing media, or bloviating loudmouths posting ill-formed opinions on personal websites between trips to the fridge. They are victimizers when they assault the news organizations they love to hate, and victims when they are treated as “real media” by litigious companies out for blood. [...]

To the Electronic Frontier Foundation, bloggers are “online journalists” who should be treated as print reporters under the law, or a “pack of wolves hacking at their keyboards with no oversight, no editors and no accountability”... [...]

In the end, maybe irritable gossip zine Gawker has it right. Editors there have referred to blogs as the “medium beloved by ’citizen journalists’ and ’14-year-old girls’ alike.”

But should bloggers receive protection under the law as regular reporters? (source)

I don’t know the bloggers they are referring to, but this blogger talks about his real-life situation and also gives opinions on different news articles of the day. And I ALWAYS cite my source if using someone else’s work. My life is not so exciting that I know the next target of Al Qaeda, post it to my blog, but don’t want to reveal my sources. But let’s say that there was such a case, perhaps a bit less extreme. Something I knew about, posted it, made others aware of it, and some government agency wanted to know my source of information. Would I have to give it up, or could I claim that I’m a “journalist” and say that I’m protected?

To me, the argument seems ludicrous. I am no journalist, and I would never claim to be, but that’s apparently not the case with many bloggers out there. Even journalists are no longer able have protection against being forced to reveal their sources.

Two journalists facing jail for refusing to reveal their sources had their appeal quashed yesterday. A panel of three judges panel ruled unanimously that they had no constitutional right to withhold the identity of their contacts from a criminal investigation.

The case has wide-reaching ramifications for freedom of the press in the United States. (source)

I think that is unfortunate because why would anyone talk to a journalist now without guarantees that their identity will be protected? This is a huge blow to freedom of the press and will have huge implications on what issues will come to light in the future. That directly effects us.

For bloggers, we never had this protection, although some have tried to claim that we did.

...contrary to conventional wisdom, journalists don’t have these protections. The press has been under assault from the legislative and judicial branches for the past 40 years. These constitutionally protected privileges have become essentially meaningless to reporters and, by extension, everyone else. Bloggers simply can’t count on the law to protect them from the law. [...]

Most ominously for the blogosphere, Judge David B. Sentelle, in addressing reporters’ privilege, asked if it protected “the proprietor of a web log: the stereotypical ’blogger’ sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the world wide web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? (source)

Well, now I’m wondering if someone has surveillance set up on me (looking out my window for cameras pointed at my house). I do often blog in my pajamas (silk, no less! - deep navy blue with little beige diamond figures), or in the buff (if you are really lucky and it’s in the middle of the night)*.

Besides, I will admit that I have times where my I feel my writing is quite good. There are other times that it’s not so good. I am not a professional journalist. As such, I don’t have to go through twenty rough drafts to publish here. I spell check and proof read it. Beyond that, how good the writing is depends very much on my mood. It’s tough to worry about writing well if you are depressed and down (and no, I’m not saying that I’m always depressed and down). But, being depressed and down is also legitimate and does it not also have a place in the writing, if it effects that writing?

What journalistic standards would a diary have to adhere to? What I write would go into a diary or personal journal. The only difference is, I share my journal with the world.

...would it not be possible for a government official wishing to engage in the sort of unlawful leaking under investigation in the present controversy to call a trusted friend or a political ally, advise him to set up a web log (which I understand takes about three minutes) and then leak to him under a promise of confidentiality the information which the law forbids the official to disclose?”

The judge seems concerned that bloggers (in pajamas, no less) might be used by their sources. (source)

Well, for my blog, I suppose the only way I could be used by someone else to leak information before it became public would be something on the order of someone informing me that Jennifer Lopez is secretly dating a man who is gay, but she doesn’t know it, and neither does Hollywood. And, I would tell my source that I would never reveal their identity EVER! (unless I was tied up and they used electricity or reptiles). Then, all bets are off.

* disclaimer: this does not imply that I sleep “in the buff” (naked) nor does it imply that I do not sleep “in the buff” (naked).

Conn. could take lead on gay marriage issue
This is the year, or at least it should be. 2004 had plenty of surprises. The Red Sox won the World Series after a sloppy mid-season. George W. Bush broke the Washington Redskins rule and got a second term in office. So why shouldn’t 2005 be the year that a small, East Coast state fond of Republican governors and hawkish Democratic senators makes American history and, working through the legislature, gives full equal marriage rights to the almost 8,000 gay and lesbian couples who live, work and pay taxes there?

Gays lobby for marriage over civil unions
Only 21 miles from her Canton doorstep, gay couples in neighboring Massachusetts can wed. The psychological impact of living so close to the first state to end marriage discrimination has been huge in Connecticut.

Just two years ago, Horne and Otto would have happily welcomed having their state offer Vermont-style civil unions, which carry all the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. But no longer.

And neither is the Connecticut gay-rights group that the couple belongs to. In a gutsy and principled move, Love Makes a Family recently took the very public -- and controversial -- step of telling legislative allies that it wants marriage and won’t support civil union legislation.

Marriage licenses denied to gay couples
Valentine’s Day is a popular day for people to get married. For others it’s become a day to make a political statement. Today some gay and lesbian couples are heading to city hall to try and get marriage licenses.

Reverend George Chen and Reverend Julio Flores have been together for eight years. They own a home together and consider themselves to be married. But in the eyes of the law they are not.

“For us marriage is a sacrament,” says Rev. Flores. “Gender is irrelevant. People marry who they love.”

Connecticut doesn’t recognizes same sex marriage, but Flores and Chen are trying to change that. They want the legal benefit and rights that go along with marriage.

“Medical care, pension, inheritance, all sorts of things are tied up in the marriage law to which same sex couples are denied,” says Rev. Chien.

Washington -- A federal agency’s efforts to remove the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” and “transgender” from the program of a federally funded conference on suicide prevention have inspired scores of experts in mental health to flood the agency with angry e-mails.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that is funding the conference on Feb. 28 in Portland, Ore. On the program, at least until recently, is a talk titled “Suicide Prevention Among Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Individuals.”

Everyone seems to agree the topic is important. Studies have found that the suicide risk among people in these groups is two to three times higher than the average risk.

So it came as a surprise to Ron Bloodworth -- a former coordinator of youth suicide prevention for Oregon and one of three specialists leading the session -- when word came down from SAMHSA project manager Brenda Bruun that the contractor running the program should omit the four words that described precisely what the session was about.

Bloodworth was told it would be acceptable to use the term “sexual orientation.” But that did not make sense to him. “Everyone has a sexual orientation,” he said in an interview Tuesday. “But this was about gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders.” (source)

Maya Marcel-Keyes, the lesbian daughter of conservative Republican Alan Keyes, who is currently featured in an exclusive interview on Advocate.com, appealed to several hundred people at a rally in Annapolis, Md., on Monday to provide more support for gay and lesbian young people who have been deserted by their families and too often wind up being victims of violence on the streets. In her first public appearance since her sexual orientation began to attract public attention, Marcel-Keyes said she was motivated to speak out because of the illness and recent death of a high school friend who was thrown out of the house by his family and by her own relationship with her parents.

At home, “things just came to a head. Liberal queer plus conservative Republican just doesn’t mesh well,” she said at the rally, sponsored by Equality Maryland to protest a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and support bills aimed at guaranteeing more rights for gays. “That was making my life a little bit turbulent,” she said. (source)

I can see why her life would be very turbulent being a lesbian in the home of Republican Alan Keyes. Here are some memorable quotes from Alan Keyes:

“In a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship. That means it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure. The word pleasure in Greek is hedone and we get the word hedonism from that word.”

“You have intervened in order to try to personalize the discussion of an issue that I did not personalize. The people asking me the question did so and if that’s inappropriate, blame the media. Don’t blame me. If my own daughter were a homosexual or lesbian, I would love my daughter, but I would tell her she was in sin.” (source)

Well, apparently, you will have that opportunity Mr. Keyes. Since you made those statements, your own daughter has come out as a lesbian. Now, I suppose you can shun and turn her away as well.

The point I’m trying to make is that when people make derogatory and hurtful statements about gay people, they really should stop and think that maybe some of those who they consider good friends or perhaps even members of their own family, may be gay or lesbian, and are afraid to tell anyone for fear of losing the friendship.

I myself can not count the times that such a thing has happened to me. I trusted the person who I called friend only to have him or her turn around and say some horrible thing about what they think about gay people.

At that point, the friendship has problems. I can try to keep the friendship going and avoid the subject altogether, which is really futile because sooner or later, they will find out. But what has died at that moment in the friendship is trust. Once trust is gone, the lifespan of the friendship is in jeopardy.

Alan Keyes released a statement Monday night saying, “My daughter is an adult and she is responsible for her own actions. What she chooses to do has nothing to do with my work or political activities.” (source)

She’s your daughter. Does that mean nothing to you? If it doesn’t, you will lose her. And, you deserve too.

Further reading:
Anti gay bias hits home

This from Virginia... but will any of them listen?

Discrimination sits a little sourly on the stomach when it’s your own flesh and blood. Del. Dick Black illustrates how personal experience breeds contempt for injustice, as well.

Black, a Loudoun County Republican and one of the most socially and fiscally conservative members of the House, emerged as a surprise champion of indigent defendants this year.

A former judge advocate in the military, Black knows firsthand that prosecutors and defense attorneys need roughly equal resources. Save for his military experience, he might never have noticed the startling mismatch in legal services for Virginia’s poor.

Too bad Black’s personal empathy quotient doesn’t overlap with Cheney’s.

If it did, Black might have been a little less willing to damn lesbian and gay parents with outlandish claims about child abuse on the floor of the House of Delegates last week. [...]

As passed on a 71-24 vote, the bill requires pre-adoption investigations into whether “the petitioner is known to engage in current voluntary homosexual activity” or is unmarried and living with an unrelated adult.

The bill doesn’t say the adoption can’t occur.

But the new language comes right after a section requiring investigators to consider whether the birth parents are morally unfit. There’s not much doubt what the legislature intends. [...]

To have such families tarnished and made fearful by wild accusations and mean-spirited laws feels intolerable. These are not dry statistics or theoretical debating points. They are real people, watching horrified as the General Assembly encroaches further and further into their lives. (source)

This is a follow-up story about the gay pinguins. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I want them to be as they are, but they are endangered. I would hate to see them go extinct. It's odd to me that they can't be artificially inseminated.

A German zoo which suspects its entire male penguin population might be gay has now said the birds can remain as same-sex couples.

Humboldt penguins are an endangered species. So when the six humboldts in Bremerhaven failed to breed, the zoo became concerned.

The penguins had been observed trying to mate with each other, and spent months sitting on stones trying to get them to hatch.

Tests revealed all six penguins were male, so the zoo flew in four females from Sweden.

Director Heike Kück said they wanted to see if the birds were really gay, or just lacking in opportunities.

Gay groups around the world deluged the zoo with angry emails and phone calls. The zoo now says its penguins have shown no interest in the new arrivals.

They say the same sex couples are too well-established, and the males can remain gay if they choose. (source)

Original Story on 02/13/2005

Kent sent me this very disturbing article in the Hartford Courant this morning concerning some of our Senators and Representatives.

A state senator offered a limited apology Monday for calling homosexuality a sickness - a position abandoned 31 years ago by the American Psychiatric Association.

Sen. Thomas A. Colapietro, D-Plymouth, apologized for his choice of words after being confronted by an openly gay colleague, but he did not recant his opinion.

“It’s a sickness, I think,” Colapietro said in a story about same-sex marriage published Saturday by his local newspaper, the Bristol Press. “It’s not a cure for the sickness allowing them to marry.”

Colapietro was quickly criticized on an Internet bulletin board devoted to Bristol-area politics and in person Monday during a conversation with Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, who is gay.

“I feel bad they took the word ‘sick’ as derogatory,” Colapietro said Monday. “It wasn’t meant that way.”

Calling homosexuality “sick” is not derogatory?

What do you really say about someone who is so out of touch with the whole subject of homosexuality that they call it an “sickness”? Part of me wants to say, “Bill, don’t even waste your breath trying to explain it to them. Someday they will die and someone who can actually THINK will take their place.” Ok... I know that also sounds intolerant, but you get to a point that you don’t even want to waste your time with these morons. Unfortunately, they get a vote on the marriage bill. Truly very unfortunate.

Senator Colapietro, I don’t know you, so I do not have the benefit of what you are like as a person to judge you. So, I will simply say, you are a bigot, sir. What you said was bigoted and mean spirited, and you should be ashamed for bringing disgrace to your office. It’s now up to you to prove to me that my opinion of you is wrong. I’ll be watching for that in the papers, although I doubt I will see anything.

Michele, who could not be reached Monday, told the Bristol Press he saw no reason to broaden the definition of marriage. “They already have the same opportunity to get married, just probably not to the person they want to be with,” Michele said. “Everybody can’t have everything.”

Apparently, I have a different definition of marriage than Rep. Michele has. I always felt that marriage was a commitment of people who were in love. Is this not true? Is it more desirable to have homosexuals marry someone of the opposite sex than to have them marry the person they love?

Are some people so blinded by prejudice that they can’t even see this simple truth? They say that gay couples who want to marry will somehow damage marriage. It would seem to me that what he just proposed would damage marriage more than anything else. Yet, this is what they propose.

What frightens me more than this is that there are many people in our society right now who would agree with everything these two representatives said. Some of these people have gay people working for them. We may encounter them on the streets, at the market, and in many other situations. What are people capable of doing who hold that kind of biased against our community? I guess it’s really not hard to understand why there is so much violence against our community. You would think that a representative would hold a higher standard than that.

(New York City) Fifty-six clergy from across New York state representing a broad range of denominations took advantage of Valentine’s Day Monday to issue an open letter supporting same-sex marriage.

The letter says that gay and lesbian couples should have access to civil marriage and the legal rights and protections that come with it.

Signers of the letter said that marriage for same-sex couples as a religious rite was a decision for denominations to make on their own, but were clear in stating their belief that government should not be withholding the legal rights and protections of marriage from same-sex couples that it provides to other families.

“To deny those rights is to engage in discrimination”, the letter states. “Discrimination is immoral.”

The fifty-six clergy were from faith communities that include American Baptist, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Jewish (Reform), United Methodist Church, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Buddhist, Metropolitan Community Church, and Unitarian Universalist. (source)

I agree with that. Of course gay couples should have civil marriage, with all the benefits and rights of marriage. I also agree that religious denominations should continue to control their destiny. That means that they should have the right to deny anyone a marriage in their church. I have seen many of them do this for straight couples. I will probably get some heat for that opinion, but it’s very consistent with the principles upon which this country was founded. And, it’s consistent with the separation of church and state.

Religion in this country wants to claim marriage as it’s own. The fact is, religious marriage and civil marriage have been separate for quite some time, ever since the state and the federal government started bestowing rights and privileges to the institution of marriage. Once that happened, it also became a civil institution. As such, all citizens should be allowed to enter into civil marriage.

Some would say that all citizens now have full access to marriage, that it’s not being denied to gay couples.

Conservative Member of Parliament (Canada) Jason Kenney says gays have every right to marry whoever they want -- as long as it isn’t someone of the same sex. [...]

“The fact is that homosexuals aren’t barred from marrying under Canadian law. Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they’re a man and a woman,” Kenney said. (source)

But I thought that marriage was all about love and commitment and having society endorse and support that commitment. I’ve heard others in the United States make this same statement. And here I thought that I was unable to get married, that marriage was not available to me.

He’s right. I can go find some woman that I don’t even know, pay her enough, and I can probably be married within two days. And society will give us all the state and federal benefits of marriage, along with their blessing.

Now I ask you, how does that benefit society? Is it better for me to do that and have marriage without loving that woman, or to be married to my life partner of thirty years?

Apparently, for some, that’s a tough question to answer.

On the same day that the California Supreme court invalidated the thousands of same-gender marriages performed in San Francisco, marchers took to the streets declaring the courts decision null and void. Here are a few photos from that day.

This is America. The land of the free. The land of equal opportunity... For some of us.

Not much to report today. I woke early and was sick all last night. I have some bug that’s going around. Fever is the worst. I woke up at 2:00am and was shivering. I couldn’t get warm. I got up and took some Aleve, but it didn’t work. It felt like it was 20 degrees in my bedroom. Fever is a weird thing. I finally gave up trying to get warm and got into a hot shower to break the fever. It worked. After 20 minutes, I was finally warm again. I went back to bed and collapsed. And Kent managed to sleep right through all of this. :)

I woke again at 5:30 and couldn’t sleep. When Kent woke up, I was able to make a nice breakfast. We had poached eggs, smoked salmon, toast, coffee, and juice. But the rest of the day was kind of blah for me, which is too bad because it was really beautiful out today. I’m feeling a bit better this afternoon, although I still have a bit of fever.

Friday, I had lunch with the guys I work with. We also met another guy who used to work for me. When we met and sat down for lunch, he looked at me and said, “Bill, you've lost weight!” Boy, did that make my day. But then it occurred to me, how could he tell because I had this heavy winter coat on. I thought, he must be seeing a difference in my face. I told Kent about it. We pulled up a picture of me before I went on the diet, and you can see a big difference. It’s amazing. I make it sound like I’m really big. It’s not that bad actually. I’m just not happy about myself, so I’m trying to change that. It’s one of my New Year's resolutions.

A crowd of 3,000 gay men and lesbians packed into the San Francisco City Hall rotunda on Saturday for a raucous event that became as much a pep rally for the mayor as a commemoration of the same-sex marriages that were performed in the same venue one year ago.

The wedding licenses Newsom’s administration issued for four weeks last winter were later invalidated by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that Newsom had exceeded his authority in allowing gay couples to marry. In December, the underlying case addressing the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was heard in San Francisco Superior Court. That court is expected to issue a ruling any day.

Though Newsom was widely criticized for helping to energize a conservative electorate and re-elect George Bush, he has said he has no regrets and has continued to strike an unapologetic tone in his public comments. He took aim yesterday at President Bush, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California who said after the election that the push for gay marriage was “too much, too fast, too soon.”

”I’ve never felt more resolved,“ Newsom told the crowd. “I don't care what happens to me, I care what happens to you and to this country.” (source)

The number of U.S. military members discharged for making it known they are homosexual declined last year by 15 percent and has fallen by nearly one-half since 2001, the Pentagon said Friday. (source)

Of course they are dismissing fewer gays from the military. They need them for the war. But after Bush’s little war in Iraq is over (or when they get killed), it will no longer need the gay soldiers.

My question is this. Gays are discharged from the service if it becomes known that they are gay, as stated in the rules of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. One of the founding arguments of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was to maintain “unit cohesion”. It was argued successfully that allowing openly gay service members to serve in the military would damage that unit cohesion. So, don’t they need unit cohesion in time of war? Or could it be that having gays in the military was never hurting unit cohesion. Perhaps it was always about simple bigotry.

You think? Do you feel used yet?

This is a very small step forward in an extremely conservative state. Utah has elected an openly gay man to the Utah Senate. Granted, he won by only three votes, but maybe that is progress.

Gay activist appointed to Utah Senate

SALT LAKE CITY -- The first openly gay member of the Utah state Senate was sworn in Monday. Addressing colleagues in one of the most conservative legislative bodies in the nation, Democrat Scott McCoy, 34, said his sexual orientation will not define his work as a lawmaker.

“The fact that I am gay is certainly one of the characteristics with which I have been endowed by my creator and it is an important part of who I am as a human being,” he said. “But it is certainly not the only characteristic that defines me, just as none of my colleagues can or should be reduced to any one of their many characteristics.” [...]

McCoy was selected by party delegates over the weekend to finish the remaining two years of a term vacated by Democratic Sen. Paula Julander, who resigned because of health problems. Julander had asked that her husband, Rod, be elected to finish out her term; McCoy beat him by three votes. (source)

02/15/2005 Update - German zoo says penguins can stay gay

This is kind of a cute story about pairs of gay penguins. The zoo keepers have been wondering why no little penguins are coming along. It turns out the the majority of the penguin pairs are gay. And yes, I do happen to think that they are a very handsome gay couple, for penguins.

A German zoo has imported four female penguins from Sweden in an effort to tempt its gay penguins to go straight.

The four Swedish females were dispatched to the Bremerhaven Zoo in Bremen after it was found that three of the zoo's five penguin pairs were homosexual.

Keepers at the zoo ordered DNA tests to be carried out on the penguins after they had been mating for years without producing any chicks.

It was only then they realized that six of the birds were living in homosexual partnerships. [...]

But introducing the Bremerhaven penguins to their new Swedish friends may not be as successful as hoped after earlier experiments revealed great difficulties in separating homosexual couples.

In case they show no interest, the zoo has also flown in two new male penguins “so that the ladies don't miss out altogether”, Kueck added. (source)

After trying to get them to mate, there were protests from gay and lesbian groups. We know what persecution feels like. The penguins are just being who they are. I say, leave them alone!

A plan by a German zoo to test the sexual appetites of a group of suspected homosexual penguins has sparked outrage among gay and lesbian groups, who fear zookeepers might force them to turn straight.

“All sorts of gay and lesbian associations have been e-mailing and calling in to protest,” said a spokesman for the zoo in the northwestern city of Bremerhaven on Friday. [...]

“Nobody here is trying to break-up same sex pairs by force,” the zoo’s director Heike Kueck told public broadcaster NDR. “We don’t know if the three male pairs are really gay or just got together because of a lack of females.” (source)

And finally, the results of trying to get the gay male penguins to mate with females. I found this under a headline called “Penguins stay fairy” from an Australian news source. And yes, I do find the title offensive.

The female penguins were flown in especially from Sweden in an effort to encourage the Humboldt penguins at Bremerhaven Zoo to reproduce.

But the six homosexual birds showed no interest in their new companions and remained faithful to each other.

Zoo director Heike Kueck said: “The relationships were apparently too strong.”

A keeper confirmed that the male couples had adopted rocks, which they guarded like eggs in their caves. (source)

I say, take some of the rocks away, and give them some real eggs so they can adopt their own little ones. I bet they would make good parents.

I honestly don’t understand why they are so surprised that the President is going back on his word here. After all, this President has lied about so many things. Why should this be any different?

When you make deals with someone of questionable moral character, you shouldn’t be surprised when he stabs you in the back and runs with what he can get from you (your votes).

They got exactly what they voted for. If it weren’t so painful for all of us to have to deal with in the next four years, I would say to them, you got exactly what you deserved. But, we are all stuck with it.

President Bush may pay a price for pandering. Social conservatives are disappointed that Bush is making Social Security reform and economic issues his priority while essentially ignoring one of their chief goals: passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Some religious conservatives say the “political capital” that Bush has claimed as a result of his re-election should be spent on promoting a marriage amendment since, they believe, they played a vital role in the victory.

A coalition of major conservative groups recently warned Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, that some of the capital could be at risk unless the president pushes Congress to approve a marriage amendment.

“We couldn’t help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side,” the coalition, called the Arlington Group, said in a letter to Rove. (source)

Democrats are not for gay marriage, but “we are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people,” he said. (source)

Funny, but I thought that Howard Dean said that was absolutely for giving gay couples the ability to marry. I remember him being one of three Democratic presidential candidates would wanted marriage, as opposed to civil unions, for gay couples. Now, he’s saying that is not what the Democratic Party wants.

He further states that the Party “has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people.” Well, I’m sorry, but that means giving gay couples the ability to enter into marriage, which will give them all the federal benefits (over 1,400 of them) of marriage. That is “equal rights” Mr. Dean. So Mr. Dean, if you truly believe that (I’m very skeptical), you should come out and say that, and stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I found this story to be encouraging. Massachusetts attorney general Thomas Reilly is now in favor of keeping same sex marriage in Massachusetts and has vowed to fight attempts to overturn it. It’s encouraging, because he fought to prevent gay marriage from happening in the state a year ago.

Maybe when people see the issues involved, it changes everything. He said today, “Once rights are given, they should not be taken away.” That’s good, but, if it is the right thing that people have these rights today, wasn’t it always the right thing to do?

BOSTON – The state attorney general, who played a key role in state efforts to fight the legalization of gay marriage a year ago, now says he favors same-sex marriage and will oppose any efforts to ban it. [...]

“Once rights are given, they should not be taken away,” Reilly told The Boston Globe for Saturday’s editions. [...]

Members of the state’s gay and lesbian communities remain “furious” with Reilly, said Susan Ryan-Vollmar, editor of Bay Windows, New England’s largest gay and lesbian newspaper.

“When the subject comes up of Reilly running for governor, it runs from, ‘Over my dead body’ to ‘He is going to have to really grovel,’” she said. (source)

It’s a strange time right now. Everything seems to have changed over the last three years. America is divided over so many issues and our community seems to be on the outs with everyone. It’s not that I haven’t survived challenges before. It’s just that, there seems to be no resolution to this problem of just not feeling like I belong to America anymore. Is this still my home? Do I have a place in this country? Should I care so much about society not caring about what I have with my partner? Maybe there are bigger issues involved.

So, I am anxious. I know I’m not alone and I know there are a lot of people even outside the gay community that feel this way also. I read that gay people in Virginia are leaving the state to set up their home in more tolerant states. Not surprising. I suppose I would do the same thing.

I have lost friends over where we are at today. I have changed, and maybe they have changed as well. Whatever has happened, it is no longer viable for me to be friends with anyone who feels that I have no right to marry my partner. Period. Does that seem small of me?

This is no small issue for me. Those who know me know that I would not dismiss a friendship lightly. But, this is one thing that strikes to the core of what I am as a human being. When people say they don’t support that, they are not and probably never were my friends.

They are saying that I am not an equal citizen to them. So, as far as I am concerned, they are not my friends. Perhaps they never really were. Does this make sense?

I’m writing what I have been thinking for the last few months in a matter of a few paragraphs. I have bitched and moaned about it. It’s tiring and it wears you down. Every time I check the news, I come up with something new. In the last five minutes of a search:

6-year term for killing gay man sparks anger. Six years. Is that what the life of a gay man who is murdered goes for these days?

Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage moved forward this week in Virginia, Alabama and Indiana. Nothing new here. Tomorrow or the next day, it will be the same, but the names of the states will have changed. That’s all.

Through all of this, I’m reminded that I, along with many other people, mean little to America. The constitutional amendments against allowing us to marry our partners have said that loud and clear. Is there a place in America for us anymore?

Maybe. I think we have to try to make that place and try to imagine that someday, we will again be part of America; an America that wants us and values us. Not an America who takes advantage of us as a community. Our challenge is to keep love and understanding within ourselves. I remind myself that it is easy to hate. And, I simply will not allow myself the luxury of hating those who hate us. If it is wrong for them to do it to us, it is wrong for us to do it to them.

They do not understand us because it is easier to hate us for threatening marriage. The irony is, we have a lot to bring to marriage. We were never the enemy of marriage, but they have made us so. There’s nothing we can do about that.

So what’s next? I don’t know. Like a lot of you, I go through my day wondering what the next bomb dropped will be. What state will be the next one to vote us into second-class citizenship? Can everyday Americans even understand what that feels like? Do they even care?

Again, I don’t know. I only know myself. I only have my own inner strength to guide me through life. I can’t control others. I will try to be myself honestly and openly. If that means that I will someday come in contact with a gay basher who will vanish me from this earth, as they did the man mentioned above, that is what will be. But at least, they will know who I am.

I used to wonder what people would think of me who read this. Most of you I don’t know. But, over time, people in my personal life who actually know me, people I work with and personal friends, have found this blog. I did not tell them about this blog because I write about my innermost thoughts about my life. They read it. I wonder what they will think of me? Will they think that I’m weak? Will they think less of me? Will they think that I’m crazy? Should I be less honest? If I am less honest, why do this blog? I say what is in my heart and these days, I do know that it is very dark. I am sorry for that. It is my way of resolving what is happening in my life, of bringing equality to an equation that has only darkness on each side of it.

It looks as if something will happen in Connecticut this year, but probably will be in the form of a civil union. The legislators have said they will revisit next year to see about full marriage. We’ll see. I’m skeptical that will ever happen. I don’t even know if our governor would sigh a civil union bill.

I do understand that I’m different. But I can’t for the life of me understand why that is such a terrible thing to so many people.

This from Virginia

V-Day marriages won’t occur for everyone

Date published: 2/10/2005

It’s almost Valentine's Day, and the news is carrying stories of love and marriage proposals among heterosexual couples.

But let’s not forget the large number of marginalized people who are not able to marry although they are very much in love. And these are very good people, I might add.

Why do we single out a group of people to hate? (And I think “hate” is the correct word to use.)

I am ashamed of our legislators in Richmond who have spent so much time this session trying to find more and more ways to hurt homosexual people. Why?

Shame on this state, where individual freedom is part of our heritage. But then hate is also a part of our heritage, isn’t it?

Jane Ellen Kravetz

This From Indiana

Stonewalling gay couples

Thu, Feb. 10, 2005

Defenders of the marriage amendment to the Indiana Constitution should end the rhetorical charade that their campaign is about protecting marriage. The first section of Senate Joint Resolution 7 defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The second section, however, reads: “Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

It is time now for the resolution’s backers to cease delivering twaddle that this crusade isn’t about gay bashing. Truly, it is now apparent more than ever. The second section attacks homosexual couples by voiding the possibility of civil unions, an acceptable compromise for both sides to consider. Furthermore, the language unreasonably constrains a future, possibly more progressive General Assembly from offering civil unions or legal rights to gay couples, thus clearing the air that is now polluted by the current crop of Hoosier lawmakers.

Supporters of the marriage amendment, please delete the second section. This amendment tells gay couples to hide or find a new home because they are not welcome.

A small sign, but a “gay activist” was elected to the Utah State Senate. For those of you who know Utah, a highly Mormon state, this is really quite incredible.

SALT LAKE CITY - With his parents and partner looking on, activist Scott McCoy was sworn in as a member of the Utah Senate on Monday, becoming the first openly gay member of one of the most conservative legislative bodies in the nation.

The 34-year-old Democrat called the moment historic, but stressed that his homosexuality will not define his work in the Senate.

“The fact that I am gay is certainly one of the characteristics with which I have been endowed by my creator and it is an important part of who I am as a human being. But it is certainly not the only characteristic that defines me, just as none of my colleagues can or should be reduced to any one of their many characteristics,” McCoy said. (source)

Cambridge, Mass. - A year after he decided to issue marriage licenses to same- sex couples, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom showed no indication of shying away from his cause. Tuesday, he took it to Harvard University, casting his fight for nuptial rights for gays and lesbians as another step in the U.S. march toward the expansion of civil rights.

“This is really about discrimination ... about denying people equal rights and equal protection,” Newsom told an audience of more than 500 students, faculty and activists at Harvard, likening his campaign to legalize same-sex marriage to the movement in the 1940s and 1950s to legalize marriage between blacks and whites. [...]

“My name is Gavin Newsom and I reelected George Bush.”

The audience responded with roaring laughter.

Instead, Newsom blamed the Democrats for what he said was a hypocritical approach of supporting gay rights privately but attacking it in public.

“I can’t stand my party right now. They offend me,” he said. “I have no interest in the majority of the Democratic Party that becomes Republican Lite.” (source)

Gavin Newsom will always be a hero of mine. There are a few individuals in that boat. Jason West, the Mayor of New Paltz, NY, is another one. Both of these straight men stood up to incredible scrutiny to do the right thing and make a stand against bigotry. They both stand to lose everything. So why do it?

There are just some people who radiate light, through their deeds. They do this because it is their nature to do this, no matter what. When I am down and out about being a gay man, facing the obstacles that we face today, I look up to them for strength.

I am gay, so in a real sense, this problem, whether I like it or not, belongs to me and my community. These two men chose to make this fight their fight, and they didn’t have too. Talk about courage!

An interesting Opinion piece over on Newsday.com...

But here’s the main point: Whenever the question of gay marriage arises, politicians of all stripes have a fearsome new weapon at their disposal, a weapon that can knock their rivals to the left or right as needed.

If you support gay marriage, you can be labeled as a chronic liberal - a charge that comes in handy for opponents in places like South Dakota. Meanwhile, if you have doubts about a helter-skelter rush to allow gay marriages, you can be labeled reactionary - a charge that comes in handy in places like Manhattan.

I think gay marriages should be legal. I hope the state Court of Appeals or the State Legislature acts to allow them as soon as possible. And I cannot for the life of me understand why a small army of pro-marriage Republican evangelicals would deny that right to gays.

But I hate the way this issue has been co-opted. It’s the new abortion debate and stem-cell imbroglio rolled into one. More than a humanistic movement, it’s a political cudgel. And that’s a shame. (source)

He seems to be right, marriage rights for gays do seem to be the “new abortion debate”. Stem-cell research is even a notch down from it. It’s an extremely exciting time for our community. I have to keep telling myself that. It’s also a very scary time for our community. It doesn’t feel good to be in the spotlight all the time, especially when there are so many people looking at that spotlight that want us booed off the stage.

Politically speaking, this issue more than any other (Iraq a possible exception) has politicians scared to death. Bloomberg has had his problems politically. He’s about as exciting as warmed over spaghetti. I’m sure he didn’t want this to happen anytime soon. But now he will have to deal with it, for better or for worse.

Even though I personally would like him to embrace the judges decision and I would personally like him to welcome with open arms gay couples into marriage, I know that he made the right decision. If he had welcomed this decision without a challenge, you can bet the exact same thing would have happened in New York that happened in California. Hundreds if not thousands of couples would have tied the marriage knot, only to have it possibly overturned later. Who needs that?

I’m sure he will take a hit for his decision. But if we think rationally, I think he made the right decision. We need clarification on this, so it won’t come back and bite us in the ass later.

For the record, I’m still not a fan of Bloomberg, but I feel he was right in this decision. He has said that he personally thinks that gay couples should get married. I don’t honestly believe he is sincere in that (he hasn’t been on the side of domestic partner benefits in New York City). He’s a politician. Of course he’s going to say that. He has little to loose in saying that (although he would disagree with that). After saying that, he can conveniently say, “What do you want me to do? My hands are tied.”

Just more of the same bigotry from Virginia. Read on if you want too. I post it here because it is my hope that after I’m gone from this world that a news fragment of what happened in these states survives to show what people were really like when we were struggling to be equal.

As one delegate said, “We’re just here piling on like a bunch of schoolyard bullies.”

RICHMOND, Va. -- The Virginia House approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, despite a warning from the state’s first openly gay legislator that the measure will one day prove as shameful as slavery and segregation.

The House voted 78-18 in favor of a resolution similar to one easily approved in the Senate on Monday.

If negotiators can reconcile the two versions this year, and the measure passes both chambers again next year, it will be put to the voters in November 2006.

“Today is one of those moments for which we shall one day be ashamed,” said Democrat Adam P. Ebbin, who is gay. (source)

It is time to open a new chapter in our relationship, and a new chapter in our alliance. America stands ready to work with Europe on our common agenda, and Europe must stand ready to work with America. After all, history will surely judge us not by our old disagreements, but by our new achievements.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice addresses European intellectuals on US foreign policy in the world, at Paris Science Politique Institute (source)

Wrong!

Why must Europe stand ready to work with America when America told most of Europe to take a flying leap? Honestly, I wouldn’t give our arrogant country lip service for how we’ve treated others. Now that the war in Iraq is going badly, we suddenly want Europe’s help.

For a smart person, Rice says some of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.

Ms. Rice told her audience of students, teachers and current and former French officials that Americans and Europeans have had their greatest successes when they refused to accept an unacceptable status quo and put their values to work for the cause of freedom.

Did it ever occur to her that the U.S. policies may have been “an unacceptable status quo” to Europe? She just doesn’t get it, and neither does her boss.

Other Interesting News...
Brushing your teeth may help to reduce the risk of stroke and heart attack, research has suggested.

Baby size linked to cancer risk

India Begins Human Trials of AIDS Vaccine

People with too much time on their hands

O God, I could be bounded in a nut shell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams - Hamlet, William Shakespeare

It’s 2:11am. I can’t sleep. I can’t get yesterday out of my mind. Why did I go to that place? The last time I was there was in the first fight for the gay rights bill that we currently have in this state. In that fight, we lost the bill by eight votes. It eventually passed, but the process took a toll. There was so much hate there. People who talked who didn’t want us to have civil rights argued that it would be the end of decent life in the state if normal citizens were not allowed to fire gays from work just for being gay, deny them housing, access to public accommodations, and all the rest. The bill eventually did pass and life did go on in Connecticut. The sky didn’t fall as they predicted.

Yesterday afternoon, a committee at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford were discussing the fate of two bills. One gave same sex couples the ability to have Vermont-style civil unions, and would be called a “civil union”. The other bill gave same sex couples full marriage and would be called a “marriage”, having no difference in name or otherwise, to what is now heterosexual marriage. Both bills could die in committee and never have a hearing in the full body of the legislature.

I listened to two open statements. One from Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut and a leading opponent of gay marriage. The other one from Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, who supports only marriage for gay couples, and does not support anything less, such as civil unions.

I had heard Brian talk before because he’s been in the news a lot. His argument is that this will be the “last straw” for marriage, an institution that has seen so many assaults on it in the last thirty years. I’m sitting there wondering, “How is that my fault? Why should I go through this because someone who got married decided 55 hours later that it was a mistake? I didn’t contribute to this problem marriage is having.”

I knew what Anne was going to say. Her organization has taken the stand that anything less than full marriage is simply not equality. I share that view. I don’t want a “civil union”. It’s degrading that I can’t be a fully equal citizen.

One of the conservative representatives was having a hard time with this (I will not mention his name because I don’t want repercussions from saying this so publicly). He wanted to know why we couldn’t settle for civil unions. His argument was that it takes time for people to understand these issues. He himself could not come to terms with giving us marriage. He said this in the committee and warned Anne that if we (the gays) kept on this course, his fear was that we would end up with nothing.

The round of questions for Anne finished. After she stepped down, the conservative representative left the room. I followed.

I went up to him and thanked him for trying to understand. He said, “Bill, I am trying to understand. Do you share Anne’s view of this, that you won’t settle for civil unions. I have to tell you, I will not vote for marriage.” I said, “Yes, I share that view. We both know that anything less than equal is not equality.” He said, “I know there are a lot of people who need these rights.” I said, “My partner and I are seeing a lawyer and spending money to try to get the really important rights given by marriage...” He interrupted me and said, “That’s no guarantee. Anything can be overturned. I know that there are couples like yourself who need these rights. How long have you two been together?” I replied, “Thirty years.” I proceeded to tell him what it has been like for people I know and what some of my nightmares have been. I feel my voice tighten during this and it’s hard to speak. I fight through it and I feel tears dropping off my cheeks. I am angry at myself. Of all the people to show vulnerability too, this was the last person I wanted to see this. He shook his head and said, “I’m afraid if you go for the whole thing (marriage), you will get nothing.” I said, “I have nothing now.” We parted.

I collected myself, and went back into the room.

A gay couple, together for 15 years were now talking, as a couple. They talked about their son Eli, who is two and a half years old. They are scared of what he will go through if they are not able to have full marriage. They worry about benefits. Even though one partner, who covers the other one with his benefits package because his employer (Columbia University) honors domestic partners, they still pay taxes on the premiums they pay for this, while married people do not. Columbia requires a copy of a marriage certificate to allow them as “married”. That can’t provide this. The committee was taken aback by this issue of being taxed on a benefit that marriage protects straight couples from. The civil union bill would not prevent this from happening. They continue to talk about Eli, as one of them fights back tears.

I’m sitting there listening to this and simply think to myself, “I hate how we are treated.” I get up and leave the building. I go back to work, even though there’s only an hour left. I work for the next two and one half hours frantically, trying to get it off my mind.

I go home to cook dinner for Kent. And, until I went to sleep, I was able to not think about it. But it came back in bad dreams. I’m not sure anybody understands how awful this feels, other than other gay couples. I’m not sure I’ve described it very well. How do you put into words what the knot in your stomach feels like as you wake up from sleep gasping for breath?

Well, it’s our time in the sun. I am scared that this isn’t going to go well, but I have to think positive things, and hope for the best.

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The battle over same-sex unions is set to resume at the state Capitol and gay rights activists say this session they want the big prize: marriage.

Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, said her group has no plans to lobby for civil unions -- a legal institution parallel to marriage. She said it makes no sense considering gay and lesbian couples in neighboring Massachusetts can say “I do.”

“We don’t support civil union,” Stanback said.

“We have an example of full equality just a short drive from our doorstep,” she added. “Same-sex couples have now been marrying in Massachusetts for over six months and the only result is safer, more protected families.” (source)

I did well at the gym this morning. I managed to burn 450 calories with aerobics, and then did free weights. I feel good!

I just got a call from Kent. He is in Boston now on his way home from Germany. He's on the Massachusetts Turnpike which will mean he will be home around 3:00 today. It will be nice to see him again.

I’m making chicken cacciatore for dinner. It’s a production because I make everything from scratch. So, I have to get going.

On the way home from the gym, I took a small drive around Coventry. I’m including a few photos below. It’s a beautiful day out, sunny and warm.

Ice fishing on Coventry Lake

Waterfall near Coventry Center

Top of spillway

River below spillway

You ever wonder what the purpose of life is? It’s a puzzling thing for me, wrapped up with all kinds of contradictions. And, to me, there are different layers to it.

At the top most layer, you have nature. The wilderness, the surroundings. It is the only pure thing that I have witness to. It is pure in my sense because it carries no judgments one way or the other about you. You exist in it’s domain, and are totally on equal footing with every other living and non-living thing on the planet.

On the next layer down, you have the sub-classes; plant, animal, mineral. Again, no judgments. You are what you are.

On the next layer down, you have sub-classes of plant, animal, and mineral. At this level, we see judgments being made in the different sub-classes of plant and animal. This is where “natural selection” takes place in my world. The strong live, the weak (or exploited) die. Whole species are wiped out because they cannot compete. Man has had a huge effect at this level because our actions have aided in the extinction of countless species of plants and animals (exploitation).

On the next layer down, we are within a sub-class of a species, for example, a species of bird, or humans. We are, at this point, fine tuning the dynamics of what happens within the species. There are two judgments happening at this level. The first is the judgment our planet will have on us for our actions. If we ruin the planet environmentally, it will damage our chances of survival, along with other species. So, the top-most layer will judge us. At our immediate level, we will judge others of our kind. In the wild, the weaker will parish, carrying on the stronger genes within that species.

Humans are different from other species in that there is a level of intelligence that drives our actions. Because of this, we can hold judgment over species, as well as those within our species.

On the next layer down, there are sub-categories within a species. Higher animals with intelligence, humans, gorillas, and the like, have set up sub-classes within their ranks. It is at this level that I struggle everyday. Unfortunately for me, I am in a lower class of this sub-category. At this level, there are desirable levels and there are undesirable levels. Mine is an undesirable level because it has been defined that way, or judged to be so by those in the desirable category.

The only way out of this category is for those in the desirable category to somehow see and understand that I have traits that can add value to the whole. Unfortunately (for me), in the grand scheme of things, this process can take several generations to complete it’s judgment. In the meantime, some of us will live our lives the best we can and live in a sub-class status, with whatever breadcrumbs we can strive to get.

What gets us through this problem? For me, a few things...

our inner strength
keeping perspective in our place in the world
the people who view this judgment as being wrong (our friends)
the hope that tomorrow will be brighter and maybe the judgment will come soon, and be in our favor and...
if that doesn’t happen, maybe those in our class who come after us will have a better life than we had

Of course, the real question in all of this is why. Why is there this innate desire or need to sub-class people within our society. It must be something that has been passed down by environment or perhaps it is are very nature. The darker side. We can make ourselves feel better about ourselves by making others feel that they are less.

It’s an empty victory because, when all is said and done, society as a whole loses out on the potential of those in the sub-class who are just trying to survive and have a decent life (somewhat happy and fulfilling) from day to day. This has nothing to do with monetary issues and wealth. It has to do with the really important issue of what it’s like to have a damaged spirit from receiving the rewards of being in an undesirable sub-class of people. Once that has happened, it is part of you for the rest of your life. The fact that I woke up this morning with this on my mind if proof of the damage that has been done.

If tomorrow I were totally equal in this wonderful society of ours, I would never forget that I am now equal because others have deemed me to be so. I have no inaliable rights. The privileges I have been given to be equal can be taken away at any point in time at the will of the people - the majority. Despite the fact that there are laws in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority, it’s all just a play on words. As we are seeing now, those words can easily be overridden to protect something else from the undesirables... say marriage... or adoption.

So, it would seem that laws mean little. They are in place to serve not all the people, but the people in the majority. And if you are in a minority who is viewed as undesirable, God help you. If you don’t believe in God, all you have is your strength of character to give you value. It’s a hole you can’t dig your way out of.

I could pretend that I am a happy happy gay man, like the one’s portrayed in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, but that’s not my reality. This blog is about the real life experiences of me, a gay man living in America. It is built on truth and what my life is from day to day.

The one thing that has meant most to me in this world, that has gotten me through so many difficult experiences, are my friends, both gay and straight. Some of them I haven't yet met. They have left comments of support and encouragement on my blog, and I feel like they are dear friends now. They have made all the difference.

You have to wonder what is going on in Virginia.

First they are trying to pass (and most likely will pass) a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. They further said that civil unions or anything that approximated marriage would not be honored in the state as a recognized relationship.

Now, they are trying to put a lid on gay couples who are willing and able to adopt children.

You know, this happened once before, and this is exactly how it started in Germany when the Germans started stripping the Jews and other groups of their rights, one by one. No one said anything. And we all know where that went. But this is a state. Do the people of the State of Virginia have no decency?

What will they try to do next, pass a bill that requires all homosexuals in the state to wear pink triangles?

RICHMOND, Va. A bill that would make it difficult for homosexual couples to adopt children advanced in the House today despite concerns about how it would be enforced.

Whether couples are practicing homosexuals would become part of the background investigation for adoption if the legislation becomes law.

Arlington Democrat Robert Brink ridiculed the bill by asking if investigators would look for show tunes or Judy Garland CD's in the petitioner's home to determine whether they were homosexuals.

The bill’s sponsor, Loudoun Republican Richard Black, countered concerns by saying the investigators would ask neighbors, look at police records and inquire of the prospective parents. He says it is just going to be an additional area of scrutiny.

The gay adoption bill faces a final House vote early next week. (source)

Did I go to sleep and wake up on another planet? Here, in the ISJ, is a story about a politician - Sen. Edgar Malepeai - who is not afraid to take a stand against what is politically correct (hating gays) and recognizes that the constitution is a document that historically protects rights and grants powers (instead of one that takes them away).

Oh wait, I am definitely on Earth, as I see that this senator is a Democrat and not one of those Republicans that are pushing the politics of hate, divisiveness and exclusion of the Bush administration.

Thank you, senator, for checking your religion at the door (where it belongs) on the day that you voted against amending the Idaho constitution to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Also, thank you for stating the obvious: That this is an issue about discrimination (against gays) and not protection (of marriage).

How refreshing to see a politician so honest and unafraid. It is gems like you that make Idaho the Gem State. Highland High School and Pocatello, be proud!

Now, senator, try convincing your fellow legislators that Idaho has much bigger problems that need to be addressed than the threat of how two people who love each other choose to conduct their lives.

John Jakupcak,
Pocatello

Does anyone else think that it's ironic that, at the same time our armed forces are risking and losing their lives to protect personal freedoms abroad, legislators in our nation and state are working diligently to limit personal freedoms here at home?

We, as a nation (supposedly), stand as a model for freedom and morality. Yet, how can we say that we fight for freedom around the globe when our "moral values" prompt us to limit personal freedoms for some of our citizens for no other reason than discomfort with a misunderstood lifestyle? In our nation's history, the only U.S. constitutional amendment passed that placed limits on these personal freedoms - Prohibition - was quickly repealed, but not before fertilizing the soil for organized crime. Many states have had laws and constitutional amendments on their books - such as those opposing interracial marriage - that we look back upon as archaic, oppressive and inconsistent with the ideals of a free society. It saddens me to know that Idaho is considering legislation that promises future regret and/or embarrassment. Nonetheless, since history tends to be a good predictor of the future, I hope that those who are directly affected or just plain offended by such efforts will remain optimistic, since the freedoms for which our nation stands ultimately will prevail.

Steven Lawyer,
Pocatello

Source of these letters

Maxwell, taking his daily afternoon sun bath.

Mimi, taking a big yawn between naps on the new down satin and velvet comforter I bought for the guest bedroom.

Mimi, a cat with a view.

Me, with Maxwell, between naps.

I love winter! I do I do I do!

FORT HOOD, Texas Feb 2, 2005 — Sgt. Javal Davis knew all along he was wrong to step on the hands and feet of prisoners at Abu Ghraib on a warm night in November 2003. None of his superiors told him to do it, he said, he simply snapped under job stress.

Davis, a former guard at the Baghdad prison, recounted daily mortar attacks and hostile detainees armed with homemade knives. On the night in question, he said he got mad when a female guard was hit in the face with a brick thrown by a prisoner.

“It just got to me,” he told a judge Tuesday. “I just lost it.” (source)

You know, this is the first soldier I have heard who has done the honorable thing. He has admitted truthfully his involvement in what happened at Abu Ghraib Prison. I admire that.

This story became available on February 2, 2005, just a few days ago. Since then, Sgt. Davis has been sentenced to six months in a military prison, reduction in rank to private, and a bad-conduct discharge. The bad-conduct discharge is a severe punishment. Many people do not realize this. It means it will most likely follow him the rest of his life and will be a factor in future employment, among other things. He also will not be eligible for any governmental benefits, such as health care from VA facilities or educational benefits.

FORT HOOD, Texas Feb 5, 2005 - Sgt. Javal Davis doesn’t have to serve much prison time for abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003, but once his incarceration is over, so is his prized career as a soldier.

A nine-man Army jury on Friday sentenced Davis to six months in a military prison, reduction in rank to private and a bad-conduct discharge.

The jurors deliberated more than five hours to arrive at their punishment for Davis, a former Abu Ghraib guard who admitted stepping on the hands and feet of handcuffed detainees and falling with his full weight on top of them. (source)

It’s a sad thing to see some young man’s career ruined by something like this. He was there and one thing that we have to realize is that sitting here and writing about it is a far cry from what this man went through. He was there. I was not. One of his fellow soldiers was hit in the face with a brick thrown by a prisoner. How would I have reacted? I’m sure with anger. What would I have done? I’d like to think that I would have been professional and kept my composure about it all, but I can’t make that assumption. A lot of factors go into what it’s like to be in a situation where you are in a hostile environment where you can be killed in an instant if you ever let your guard down. Day after day, that has to grind you down and fatigue you. When that happens, anything can happen. The smallest things can set you off.

So, I’m honestly not surprised at all by what Sgt. Davis has said, and I do understand, to the point I can understand, what may have been going through his head when he participated in these deeds.

But the blame really doesn’t belong to him. The blame belongs to an administration that put it’s soldiers in a situation of having to deal with these situations without adequate planning, resources and equipment, and the number of soldiers in the country.

And, the blame falls with us. ALL OF US. We allowed this administration to do this, to lie about the reason we invaded this country in the first place. “Weapons of mass destruction” was simply a smoke screen. In fact, there were plans to take out Saddam Hussein before 9/11 ever happened. The attack on our country was merely a convenient smoke cover. We have not held this administration accountable for the lack of ANY weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. It’s as if we don’t give a damn.

In the mean time, the careers of the soldiers who did this are ruined. Some of that is valid, but it’s no excuse to not go after the real culprits in all of this; President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and yes, Colin Powell. Colin Powell has been a huge disappointment for me. Early on, he told the President, “If you go into Iraq, you will own this war.” Meaning, if it turns out that there was no cause to gut the country, the President would pay the price. But guess what, it doesn’t work that way in Washington. This President and his administration can lie their way out of anything, because we will not hold them accountable.

And when it looks as if there may be a price to pay for anyone in the administration, it’s always good to say, “But we’re protecting traditional marriage from the gays... and what about all of my faith-based initiatives that I’ve put through, all the while respecting the line of the separation of church and state? Oh and also, did I say that the war is Iraq is hard work?” It all works for him.

When the abuses of Abu Ghraib were made public, I was outraged. In fact, I took the photos of the abuses, and published them on this site. The photos are getting a huge number of hits. I did not do this to humiliate my country. I did this because I believe America cannot go into a country touting freedom, only to end up being the oppressors. We must be better than this and I remember a day when we were better than this.

Many of the comments left with the photos are filled with hate and disgust. I have chosen not to edit them. Perhaps there is value in having people air their misgivings and frustrations. But one comment did get my attention, and is really the reason I am talking about this:

From: just a soldier (Tue Feb 1 15:43:03 2005) I was at the abu gharib prison, I understand what happened there was taken to far but take into consideration the abuse our soldiers were put through apon capture, at least there heads werent chopped off.

What most people dont understand these prisoners were the worst of the worst that is why they were at this facility. Many of them killed or took part in the killing or maiming of US soldiers. If any information could be gained that could have saved my life, i’ve got no problem with humiliating a bunch of criminals.

You go ahead and pitty these terrorist that we were sent to protect iraq from to begin with. Its a different story though when an iraqi police officer sneaks a pistol in to the prison and someone you know gets shot because of it. It is easy for those who have never been to war to judge the action of those in the actual war.

The lower enlisted are being hung out to dry, but you expect a general to take the fall.

My response to the comment:

From: Administrator (Bill) (Tue Feb 1 23:09:47 2005) I’m not trying to paint one side of the story here. I do wish you had left your email address. I was touched by your comments and do think we need to hear from the soldiers as well.

I wanted your email address because I was going to offer to place a full article written by you on the site. If you read this, please consider it and send me your address.

I also feel the hateful rhetoric displayed in some of these comments is truly unfortunate. I try to have the site provide information. The ideas expressed are my own, but I do try to learn from others. And you are right, I wasn’t there and I do not know what happened. I would like you to describe it, if you would.

The administration tried to side step the issue by saying that the prisoners at the prison were the “worst of the worst”, suggesting that, even though these disclosures were bad, the prisoners somehow deserved this punishment.

My question is this. If the prisoners were the “worst of the worst”, why is it that 90% of them were released after this scandal broke out? The reason that was given when the prisoners were released was that, at the time they were first captured, there was a lot of chaos in Iraq, and that they herded up people they thought were bad people. It later turned out that the 90% held in Abu Ghraib, and put through the torture, were innocent. At least, there was no evidence to charge them with anything. And if we really do want to install democracy in Iraq (at lease, our definition of it), than we have to at least accept that, in the absence of evidence, the people released from Abu Ghraib, were innocent. We can’t just lock up people and torture them for no reason. Or can we?

Even with that, the administration said, “In times of war, bad things happen.” That statement is as stupid as the President saying over and over during the presidential debates that the war in Iraq is “hard work”.

“In times of war, bad things happen.” And we, the American People, let him get away with that. To dismiss what happened at Abu Ghraib as “bad things happen” is just not good enough. Or is it? We turned around and re-elected the man again to a second term in office, ALL BUILT ON LIES.

This is democracy?

Other reading on this:
Army Spc. Charles Graner convicted in Iraq prisoner abuse
Support Our Troops
Amnesty Condemns US for War on Terror Torture
U.S. Soldier Gets 8 Years for Iraq Jail Abuse
Living in the Land of OZ

UPDATE 02/05/2005 - NYC to Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

It’s about time we got some good news! I wonder if this will have an effect over the charges being reinstated against Jason West? At least, today is a good day for justice.

A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal.

Gay rights activists hailed the ruling as a historic victory that “delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers.”

“The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law,” said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case for five couples who brought the lawsuit. “Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they’re entitled to get them the same way straight couples do.”

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of the same sex.

The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, “We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options.” (source)

Other reading on this

Judge clears way for gay marriage
The Beginning of the End of DOMA
Same-Sex Marriage In New York

And yet another state is passing laws to keep marriage, and even civil unions, from us.

(Pierre, South Dakota) Legislation to ban gay marriage in South Dakota met with little opposition when it came to vote in the House, Thursday.

State law already defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman. South Dakota, in 1996, became the first state to pass a so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

But, the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Elizabeth Kraus (R-Rapid City), says because courts in other states have overturned similar laws South Dakota needs to ensure that can be prevented.

The proposed amendment is two sentences long and blocks not only marriages but also civil union between gays.

“Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota,” is the first sentence of the measure. The second sentence: “The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized.”

The House voted 55-14 to pass it. (source)

The gay basher is feeling that 15 years in prison for beating another man with a baseball bat is too severe? He should feel lucky the man didn’t die.

It’s scary how things can get out of control so easily. Kent and I went to Coventry Pizza a year or so ago. It’s actually kind of a hole in the wall, but the food is good, and it’s usually very friendly.

On this occasion, we sat at a booth. Directly across from us were two families. They were at tables that had been put together to accommodate their large numbers. The two men who were head of the two families, sat in chairs closest to our booth. I would say they were around 25-30 years old.

We ordered our food. I noticed that one of them kept looking over at us. I notice these things because when you’ve been harassed a lot and beaten up for being gay, you never let your guard down again. So, I was keeping an eye on them. All my senses were on alert.

Then it happened. I heard one of the men lean over to the other man and say to him, “I think we have a couple of fags sitting next to us.” I thought to myself, “Here we go again.”

But then something really cool happened. His friend who he told this to, the other man, looked at him with disgust and said, “I don’t believe you said that.” His friend looked at him as if he couldn’t believe that his friend, that he probably thought he knew so well, would end up defending a couple of “fags”. He said to his friend, “What the hell did I say?” His friend said back to him, “Just drop it now!”

That was a wonderful moment for me, because it really demonstrated to me that there are people, straight people, out there who will come to our defense and speak out against bigotry and hatred. And, you never know where you are going to find them.

Some of them, such as Jeff, post to this website. I honestly think that they are the most wonderful people in the world, because it’s easy to go with the flow of society and hate gays. It is. Everyone does it. But to be put to the test, when a friend of yours shows bigotry, and you stand up to him and risk your friendship for someone who is in a despised minority, that is courage.

Perhaps this man has a brother who is gay, or a sister who is lesbian. Maybe they were beaten or harassed. I don’t know. But somewhere along the way, he learned that bigotry and hate is evil.

And, if he hadn’t stood up to his friend’s bigotry, perhaps Kent and I would have experienced something similar to the story below.

A Newport man was sentenced to 15 years in prison Thursday for beating another man outside a gay-friendly bar in Newport -- but not before trying to withdraw his guilty pleas.

Campbell Circuit Judge Leonard Kopowski rejected Stephen Ard’s request to go back on his plea agreement, saying he had no legal basis to do so.

Ard, 38, previously pleaded guilty to charges of assault and endangerment. The charges said he attacked Matthew Ashcraft of Independence last June 26, following a dispute outside Woolly’s on Monmouth.

Prosecutors had reduced the charge of assault from first-degree to second-degree in exchange for Ard’s agreeing to a 15-year sentence. The terms of his guilty pleas allow him to be eligible for parole after serving 20 percent of his sentence, instead of the normal 85 percent for a violent crime.

But when his time for sentencing came Thursday, Ard asked to withdraw his plea. He said he felt pressured by circumstances to enter the pleas, and thought 15 years was too stiff a sentence for his crimes.

Witnesses say Ashcraft intervened as Ard and another man harassed Woolly’s customer Leon Hughes outside the bar. Ard and the other man fled the scene, but police said Ard returned with the baseball bat and struck Ashcraft several times.

Ashcraft is not gay, but he said he has several friends who are, and he was accompanying them to Woolly’s. He told The Post he had to step in when he saw Hughes being harassed outside the bar. (source)

You get what you ask for. The people of Ohio wanted this archiac and hateful law passed. I sincerely hope that it comes back to them in cases like this to bite them in the ass.

To try to get a domestic violence charged overturned, his lawyer has raised a wider issue, claiming a conflict between Ohio’s new constitutional amendment defining marriage and the state’s domestic violence law.

Opponents of the amendment banning gay marriage, among the nation’s broadest, feared the measure would be used to try to curtail all sorts of rights for unmarried people, and they say the domestic violence case in Cleveland is one such attempt. (source)

I don’t feel like writing. I was going to write about something, but it’s one of those days where I can’t focus on anything. Everything I read about is too depressing. Or maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m depressed and the world is normal.

Kent is in Germany, and I miss him. I’m going to have a nice hot cup of tea, wrap myself up in a nice warm blanket, and go to sleep. Tomorrow will be a better day.

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Criminal charges against New Paltz Village Mayor Jason West for marrying gay couples were reinstated Wednesday by a judge who said public officials cannot pick and choose which laws to obey.

Twenty-four misdemeanor counts were filed against West after he married a series of gay couples last Feb. 27 in the Hudson Valley college town of New Paltz. But the charges were dismissed last summer by a town court judge who said there were constitutional problems in banning same-sex marriages.

Ruling on an appeal from prosecutors, Ulster County Court Judge J. Michael Bruhn said the criminal case against West was not about the constitutionality of gay marriage, but whether West lived up to his oath of office to uphold the law. Bruhn wrote in his decision that under the town court’s logic, a mayor may “ignore and flout” a law he believes is unjust or unconstitutional.

The case will now go to trial in town court, barring a settlement or a successful appeal by West’s lawyers. West faces fines and up to a year in jail if convicted on the misdemeanor counts of solemnizing marriages for couples without a license. (source)

Jason did what he felt was the fair thing to do by marrying gay couples. As Jason said, “If I told those the gay couples, ‘No, I can’t marry you because you’re gay,’ I’d be violating the state constitution and I’d be violating my oath of office.”

If convicted, Jason could spend up to one year in jail. This is what I’m going to do. I’m going to call Ulster County Court Judge J. Michael Bruhn and ask him that if Jason is convicted that I spend that year in jail instead of him. That is what I can do. This is an injustice and I’m willing to do my part for him. He is one of my heroes, and I don’t have many heroes. Maybe the judge needs to hear that.

It’s so strange that being older gives you more courage to do things that you would never risk yourself over at a younger age. It’s an interesting observation.

Just the looks on their faces, just the absolute joy of finally being able to be equal. That is the highest moral calling I could possibly imagine. - Jason West

May 27, 2005 - Updated entry.

Do I watch the State of the Union address tonight, or not?

On one hand, I feel that it is my duty to watch, as an American citizen. On the other hand, I would be listening to someone speak as my President, when he is no President of mine. I did not elect him. I think he is an absolute buffoon. And, he has made it absolutely clear that, as a gay American, he doesn’t want to represent me. There is no love loss.

So, I’m going to watch something else, more entertaining and more thought provoking. Say... Smallville. I hear that someone on Smallville is going to finally learn the powers of Clark Kent. That’s much more enlightening than this State of the Union address is going to be.

Besides, I already know the state of the union. The President will say that our state of the union is “strong”, yet, we have never been more divided as a country in recent history, and he shows no interest in uniting us.

He will say that we are “winning the war on terror”, as we see more and more of our boys come home in body bags every day.

He will say that we are seeing “free elections in Iraq”, and that “democracy is winning” around the world, without mentioning that it is our brand of democracy that we are peddling to the people of Iraq, whether they like it or not.

He will say that we need to protect marriage against the gays, yet will never mention the 55% divorce rate or the frivolous marriages doled out on TV for the sake of entertainment.

He will say that we need to abolish Social Security so that people can be assured that they will have a retirement. Yes, I’m sure the stock market is a very secure place to play with your retirement money. Just remember, for every dollar you make, someone else will be making two dollars off your money.

He will say that we are a compassionate nation because we gave $30 million (later revised to $300 million because $30 million made him look like we weren’t pulling our weight) for the tsunami disaster.

My community has seen how compassionate he is. When I think about it, I get that warm-fuzzy-tingly feelin’ all over.

You see, you didn’t know I had the script he was going to be reading tonight, did you? So there’s really no reason to listen.

Good morning!

A few things this morning in the news that warrant mentioning... I call them “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” First the good (such as it is)...

D.C. Council Moves Toward Rights for Gay Couples

Washington (AP) - The D.C. Council is moving toward giving gay couples many of the same rights as married couples. But they stop short of endorsing gay marriage or civil unions.

It seems ironic to me that our nation’s capital would strive to recognize gay couples. I say strive, because when it really comes down to it, it’s a half-assed attempt for them to not feel so guilty about the total lack of legal support for gay couples.

Win or lose, I guess they will be able to say, “Well, we tried.” I used to take violin lessons from a violin master years ago. I couldn’t get a technique that I was trying for. I worked on it for weeks, and when he finally laid into me for not getting it, I said to him in disappointment, “I tried!”. He got in my face and said, “There is no TRY! You DO, or you DO NOT! All of life is this way!” He pissed me off so much that within a day of heavy concentration and discipline, I had the technique accomplished. No one tells me what I can’t do (except for getting married)!

Now the bad...

UTAH - Bill for cohabitants is shot down

Despite the support of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and the public, lawmakers have balked at granting cohabiting adults - gay or otherwise - marriage like rights.

Senate Bill 89 went down to defeat Tuesday with 18 senators opposing it and only 10 in favor.

“It’s time to call a spade a spade,” said Equality Utah Vice Chairman Scott McCoy. “This is not about their worries about Amendment 3. This is about the fact that they don’t want to do anything that would be beneficial for gay people.”

SB89 would have established a “mutual dependence benefits contract” form and required the Utah Health Department to keep track of such agreements, including rights of hospital visitation, end-of-life decision-making power and property inheritance rights. [...]

“We’re disappointed,” Huntsman Legislative Liaison Mike Mower said, shrugging. “This is something that we have been supportive of. Since the first days of Gov. Huntsman’s campaign, we felt it was a good opportunity to advance basic rights for all Utahns.”

I guess I should just say, “It’s Utah. That’s the way it is there. You didn’t expect enlightenment from the state did you?”

And now the ugly...

I was driving home last night, and listening to Larry King Live (transcript). He had a panel of evangelical ministers on his program to talk about different social issues. They talked about the war in Iraq, “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, how women are killing their unborn children through abortion, God’s punishment for all the sins that we have, gay rights, gay marriage, and gay adoption (my gay adoption poll).

Not surprising, there were two issues that dominated the show; gay marriage and abortion. They want abortion stopped, of course, but did say they felt that there would be a civil war of sorts if the law were ever overturned. I think they are right on that one.

It was tough to listen too. When it came to gay adoption, they said that two gays should never be able to adopt. One of them asked Larry, “Would you like your children raised by two men or two women?” Larry said, “I’d rather have them raised by two men than by two people hitting each other or two people screaming at each other or two people cheating on their income tax or two people cheating on each other, YES, I’d rather have them raised by gays.”

I never knew Larry King thought this way. I found myself saying out loud, “You Go Larry!!!”.

B. LAHAYE: ...And I want to make it clear right here, we’re not angry at homosexuals, really aren’t. We love homosexuals and we want to help them. And I know of hundreds...

KING: Why not let them live as they wish?

B. LAHAYE: Because...

KING: Why should the government care? The faith can do what it wishes. Why should the government care?

B. LAHAYE: We would like to rescue them from dying at an early age of diseases prevalent.

KING: How about male-female diseases?

B. LAHAYE: Well, it’s not killing off the population like it is with the gay community. Having children get the AIDS and it just goes on and on and on.

I wanted to tell Larry, “Talking to these people is about as effective as talking to a door knob.” It’s true. You will never win and they will never listen.

Although Brian McLaren, Founding Pastor of the Cedar Ridge Community Church, offered the most insightful thought of the evening, when responding to a caller to the program.

CALLER: I was raised in the Christian faith, and I also happen to be a gay man. And I just heard one of your panel members say that there’s no hatred towards the gay community, but that’s not how I see it. All I see is hate. And didn’t Jesus preach love? Aren’t we to love one another?

KING: Brian.

MCLAREN: Yeah, I am very sympathetic with your call. I see, even though we might say that people don’t individually hate, the language of culture wars -- war is a hate word. So I think we’ve got to get away from that kind of language. And I think one of the greatest things that Christians can do, especially Christians with the name evangelical, would be to start making some friends and invite their neighbors over, and get to know someone who’s gay, get to know someone who’s very different. And not to just fix them or argue with them, but really to understand them as a neighbor.

He’s right. I honestly don’t know if they hate us or not. I think an overwhelming majority of the religious right and evangelicals do indeed have an intense dislike for homosexuals. But, that is my perception, so that is my reality.

Every single time I am confronted with a law that keeps my family from having equality, the law has it’s roots in religion, every-single-time. And behind the people who are driving the law, is the far right religious folks.

To me, in my everyday life, that is hateful. It is hateful because through law, I am being diminished, and they don’t care. Do you honestly think that the 11 states who passed state constitutional amendments preventing equality for gay couples by denying them marriage was based in love? I actually feel safer traveling to Canada than I do some states within my own country. There are some states that I would actually fear going to. What does that say about my country?

All of this has happened in my own country, in the last two days:

South Dakota marriage amendment endorsed
Kansans to Vote on Gay Marriage Amendment
GOP's same-sex marriage flier denounced by Democrats
Bill to fix Utah Gay-Marriage Ban Loses
Virginia House OKs 'Traditional Marriage' plates
Idaho Marriage bill goes to Senate

This is how it feels at my end, the receiving end of legislation being drawn up daily from one state to the next, to let me know, in no uncertain terms, that I am part of the dregs of society, that my kind have little worth (unless society needs something from us), and that it is not desirable for us to share in the whole human experience.

I spotted this letter in the Stanford Daily, written by a gay student. Interesting reading.

One ‘fag’ wonders — have we failed to make homophobia unacceptable?

By David Louk

Nigger. Raghead. Chink. Kike.

These are words you probably aren’t used to hearing too often — and with good reason. They’re unacceptable forms of bigotry and racism.

But what about the word “faggot”? A recent conversation among friends reminded me that the word, and a generalized acceptance of homophobia, is still alive and well, even on an enlightened liberal college campus. When my friend said the word, (we’ll say my friend is a she) she used it to describe a sketchy guy at a party, and it had nothing to do with his sexual preference.

It’s bad enough that she said it (and if she said it in front of me, someone who is gay, my guess is that she uses it more frequently in other company). What’s worse is the fact that I wasn’t shocked. I wasn’t offended. I didn’t say a word about the comment. Not until afterward, when another friend went on a tirade about the fact that she would use such a word, did it begin to dawn on me how much our society tolerates homophobia.

Maybe it’s because I’ve heard “faggot” used so many times before. Maybe it’s because I hear everything from cars to homework assignments to bad luck at cards described as “gay”. Whatever the reason, other than a general uneasiness with how uncomfortable the conversation had become, I wasn’t a bit phased by her utterance of “the other f-word.”

And that saddens me. I have quietly adopted this sort of second-class status, where bigoted language is acceptable and, to quote “Star Trek”, resistance is futile. Part of the blame rests on my shoulders — I should be the first line of defense against intolerance, and I should have immediately said something. Yet I am so used to hearing homophobic comments that I’ve internalized them as tolerable, if not standard. I didn’t even raise an eyebrow.

How has our society normalized such comments, and what do we do to make them socially unacceptable? I honestly don’t know. Seeing FACES during freshman orientation, having dorm discussions about racism, homophobia, sexism, etc., and even having “fag” friends didn’t work to make my friend understand that such language is unacceptable and hurtful.

Where have we failed? Where have I failed? If my friend had said the n-word, I would have been up in arms about how offensive it was. Why I did I not even question bigotry directed at me? And if I don’t blink an eye at it, what about the people out there who really are intolerant? Apart from our happy bubble called Stanford, I can only hope that as our society progresses, everyone — myself included — is more aware of the effect words can have on each other and on ourselves.

My friend eventually apologized and said that she should not have been so flippant. I accepted the apology. What I have yet to accept is a society that has coerced me — a strong, intelligent and socially-conscious “fag” — into thinking that such language, although harmful, is acceptable. (source)

If anyone is looking for some tax tips this year, the Gay Financial Network has an excellent article entitled "Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples". Give it a read.

As it turns out, there is no one “gay gene”. According to a new study from the University of Illinois, multiple genes and not just the sex chromosomes are involved in determining sexual orientation. They also believe that environmental factors are also likely to be involved.

The religious fundamentalists are not happy about this. The findings add to the debate over whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I’ve known that since I was six years old when I knew, for the first time in my life, that I was different. So, none of this is a surprise to me.

Dr Mustanski said the next step would be to see if the findings could be confirmed by further studies, and to identify the particular genes within the newly discovered sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.

“Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual,” he said, but added that other factors were also important.

“Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one ‘gay’ gene”. (source)

Of course, there is a little voice deep inside me that asks the nagging question, “Where is all of this going? Why is this important?”

Scientific research is all well and good, and if it takes some scientific study to prove once and for all that we don’t choose to be homosexual, that’s great. If that’s what it takes to make it easier for people to give us equality, I’m all for it.

The darker side of the reasoning is that they are looking for some way to do away with us, to eradicate homosexuals from existence. If they have the genetic map to what causes homosexuality, would they try to change that genetic makeup and prevent it? Would they tell an expecting mother that her child would be a homosexual, in order to give her the choice to abort that life?

Nothing would be more effective in eradicating homosexuals from the face of the earth than to do it before we even had a chance to exist. All this energy that is being spent on trying to secure equality for us in society would go away. The issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would go away. The issue of homophobia and gay bashing would go away. Many in society would think all of that would be for the betterment of society if we wouldn’t exist.

And the really scary part of that is, they would think this from a point of view that they are being “compassionate” in saving us all the heartache and pain we go through from being different. It would never occur to them that maybe they are the problem. It would never occur to them that because of being homosexual, there are qualities and traits that are specifically gay, that we add to society. Some of the greatest gifts given to mankind have been from homosexuals. Do you really think that is coincidence?

Of course, if this were to happen over time in say, 100 years, we will be gone. No one will be left to talk about or speak up for the ones, us, that are no more. Some other problem for society will have taken our place.

For those of you who do not feel the human race is that evil, all you have to do is research the Third Reich a bit.

Other interesting reading on this:
Goodbye to the Gay Gene

March 1, 2005 Update - 20 Years In Kentucky Gay Slaying

A Kentucky man who murdered and stuffed the body of a gay man into a suitcase before tossing it into a lake was sentenced Tuesday to 20 years behind bars.

Joshua Cottrell, 23, had confessed to the killing but claimed it was the result of gay rage after Richie Phillips, 36, "came on to him" in Cottrell's motel room.

The suitcase containing Phillip's body was found floating in Rough River Lake last June by two fishermen.

Earlier this month a jury found Cottrell guilty of manslaughter not murder as the prosecution had sought. (story)

The jury recommended that Cottrell be sentenced to 30 years in prison - 20 for the manslaughter conviction and another 10 for theft and evidence tampering, but state law limited Hardin County Circuit Judge Kelly Easton to sentencing Cottrell to a maximum of 20 years on the convictions.

Throughout the trial Cottrell's defense painted the accused as being the real victim in the case.

The “gay panic” defense is alive and well, at least in Kentucky. I first wrote about this murder case in August, 2003. At the time, I think everyone felt that it was an open and shut case and that Josh Cottrell (pictured left), the man charged with the murder would be convicted of first degree murder. Cottrell was charged in the murder of Guinn Phillips (pictured right). After the murder, Cottrell stuffed Phillips’ body into a suitcase and threw it into Rough River Lake.

However, justice is slow or non-existent in Kentucky it seems. Cottrell was convicted on a much lessor charge of second-degree manslaughter, a conviction that will earn him up to five years in prison.

In 2005, the “gay panic” defense is still alive and well. It’s amazing that someone can literally get away with murder if they panic because a gay man makes a pass at them. I’ve had women make passes at me also. Should I kill them because their passes were “unwanted”?

The logic of this is ludicrous.

“This is a disappointing and a disturbing verdict,” said Andrea Hildebran, executive director of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance.

“Bias against gay people not only ended the life of Richie Phillips, it has done violence to the Kentucky system of justice,” Hildebran said. [...]

During the trial, Drabenstadt said Phillips, 36, tried to force Cottrell to kiss him and attempted to shove Cottrell’s head into his crotch.

The attorney said Cottrell struck out in an act of “self-preservation,” and said Kentucky law allows use of deadly force under threat of rape or sodomy. Cottrell testified he killed Phillips but claimed it was in self-defense.

Hildebran said the defense used a “gay panic” argument, referring to a sometimes violent reaction to homosexual advances. The issue of “gay panic” surrounded the high-profile case of Matthew Shephard, who was murdered seven years ago in Wyoming. The defense was not allowed in that case.

Prosecutors claimed Cottrell was angry toward gays and planned Phillips’ murder. Drabenstadt countered that claim by saying Cottrell had no such feelings toward homosexuals.

“Richie Phillips’ side of the story is missing because he was murdered,” Hildebran said. Cottrell’s lawyer hoped to create sympathy in jurors prejudiced against gays, she said. (source)

Cottrell, who was 21 at the time of Phillips’ death, told jurors last week that he killed Phillips but insisted he did so in self-defense.

Defense attorney Scott Drabenstadt said that Cottrell was entitled under state law to fight back to protect himself from being raped or sodomized, using deadly force if necessary.

“This kid is not a killer,” Drabenstadt said in closing arguments. “This kid is not a robber. Yes, he did some very inappropriate things with the body. ... But what set it all in motion, he was privileged to do. What set it in motion were the actions of a 36-year-old man.”

Drabenstadt declined to comment until after the sentencing phase, which begins Wednesday morning. Cottrell’s family also declined to comment.

Shaw, the prosecutor, said in his closing statements that Cottrell harbored a “steaming anger” toward gay men and lured Phillips to his motel room to kill him.

Shaw said Cottrell’s “intent all along was to kill,” and dispose of the body in a “cold, calculated” scheme to “get away with murder.”

In the days after Phillips’ death, Cottrell was seen laughing, joking and partying by some of his relatives, Shaw said, seeking to counter the defense’s portrayal of Cottrell as scared and panicked.

Beth Wilson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said in a telephone interview after the verdict that she didn’t want to second guess the jury but added, “If the criminal justice system is being influenced by homophobia, then there’s a problem.” (source)