A proud day for Maine! Now I feel better about booking my next vacation there.

(Augusta, Maine) Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a bill in law Thursday to protect gays, lesbians and the transgendered from discrimination, but a conservative group has vowed to force the issue to a referendum in the next election.

Calling it a “proud day for Maine.” Baldacci, who pushed for the legislation put his named to the document at a ceremony in his office.

Baldacci said that the new law not only “offers essential civil rights,” but also “serves as a welcome.”

It amends the Maine Human Rights Act by making discrimination in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education based on sexual orientation or gender identity illegal.

The measure passed its final test Wednesday night when the Senate agreed with the House to add a clause addressing concerns of opponents that the bill would be a gateway to gay marriages. Language was added to say that the human rights bill did not extend to the issue of marriage. (source)

By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube. [...]

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement. [...]

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around. (source)

This from John C. Danforth, a retired conservative senator from Missouri who sees the dangers the current Republican Party is heading for. There will be a fall off of this support. Not from the Republican Party, but from the American People in general. Religious conservatives do not make up the majority of people in this country. Eventually, there will be other issues introduced that have an impact on many other people.

For gay people, the obvious issue is marriage. I can understand that most Americans don’t like the idea of gay people getting married. I get that. What I don’t understand is why they can’t see the bigger issue. The big issue is the concept that we have a ruling party who is eager and willing to write discrimination right into the Constitution of the United States, because religious conservatives say that they must do so. All gay issues aside, that really should get everyone’s attention.

For those Americans who do not care about this issue, I can only say that those who are pushing the far right agenda have a laundry list. Today it is gay marriage. Tomorrow, they will hit on something a little closer to home for you.

For example, stem cell research. As Mr. Danforth said:

In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and juvenile diabetes.

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law. [...]

...Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

There are so many dangers involved in allowing religion to dictate social issues. People should be free to practice whatever religion they wish. Instilling the values of any religion into laws that we all must live by should never happen.

Congress has a legislative and moral duty to do what we can to protect her. Her life is being threatened, and we have it in our power to act on her behalf. Every human life deserves at least that much. - DeLay said on March 17, after the House passed a measure intended to prevent the withdrawal of Schiavo’s feeding tube.

I suppose I can understand how, being caught up in the moment, Rep. DeLay would think that. Congress seems to think that it is their duty to protect Terri Schiavo from the wishes of her spouse, her husband, who wants her to finally be at rest.

But what about all the other people out there who are in the same situation as Terri Schiavo? Will each of them have their own pieces of legislation to prevent someone from withdrawing life support from them as well?

And what about Rep. DeLay’s own father? Sixteen years ago, Rep. DeLay’s own father was injured in an accident at his home in Canyon Lake, Texas. Because of that injury, his father “suffered multiple injuries, including kidney failure”. His mother and his siblings made the decision to withhold kidney dialysis when it became clear that he would not recover.

Has Rep. DeLay had a change of heart? Would he do things differently now for his father? Or, is this just pure politics? We will probably never know the answer to that.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council said, “Two different situations. With Terri Schiavo, there was no plug pulled, there was no respirator taken away from her. She was simply by court order deprived of food and water.”

We are splitting very very fine hairs here. The end result is death. Terri Schiavo is being deprived of her feeding tube - something that is keeping her body functioning. Rep. DeLay’s father was deprived of kidney dialysis - something that was keeping his body functioning. Both functions were withdrawn. I see no difference what so ever, other than Terri Schiavo’s situation serving the purpose of Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council.

Rep. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader who led the congressional effort to spare Terri Schiavo’s life, was confronted more than 16 years ago with his own agonizing end-of-life dilemma and agreed to withdraw life support from the patient, his father, according to a report Sunday in the Los Angeles Times.

The newspaper reported that DeLay’s father, Charles Ray DeLay, 65, a drilling contractor, was severely injured in 1988 in an accident at his home in Canyon Lake, Texas. [...]

The account said DeLay had suffered multiple injuries, including kidney failure, and that his wife, Maxine, and their other children had made the initial decision to withhold kidney dialysis and other treatments when it became clear he could not recover.

DeLay, at the time in his third term in the House, did not object, the newspaper’s report said. (source)

I hesitate to even write about this situation and about the Schiavo family. I hesitate because I don’t want to write about what has happened in their family and all the heartache they have gone through and compare it to my situation.

But one thing about the case that has been brought to the forefront is the power of marriage in making life and death decisions. Without the power of marriage, none of this would have happened. Michael Shiavo would have had no say about Terri’s fate.

As the fight over Terri Schiavo’s fate played out in court, gay and lesbian organizations watched quietly from the sidelines, aware that any outcome would speak to one of the key motivations in their quest for same-sex marriage: the right to make medical decisions for a partner.

It’s an issue faced regularly by same-sex couples, and the battle that Michael Schiavo waged with his in-laws as he sought to remove his wife’s feeding tube only underscored their difficulties, said David Buckel of the New York-based gay rights group Lambda Legal.

“It certainly resonates with us,” said Buckel, director of marriage-related activities for Lambda Legal. “If folks look at this situation and see that a spouse is struggling to carry out the wishes of his loved one, imagine what folks face when they don’t even have access to the spousal relationship because they can’t get married.” [...]

In addition, because such rights differ by state, there is no guarantee that a couple will be able to share in each other’s medical decisions should disaster strike far from home. Flanigan and Daniel, for example, were from California, but they were in Maryland when Daniel fell ill.

And gay activists say even if they have gone through the legal machinations of having their partners declared health-care proxies, hospitals might be unfamiliar with such rights or simply refuse to respect them. If the partners don’t happen to be carrying the paperwork to prove their status, they can similarly be refused their rights, said Buckel. (source)

It does happen all the time for us. Every time I go to work, I worry that if something awful should happen, will Kent be able to make decisions for me? Will he be able to see me in the hospital if that should happen? And, when we finally get our power of attorney (it’s in progress), will it make any difference to a hospital? When we go on trips together, I’m told that we will have to carry those papers around with us, just in case something happens. All of this, in this “free” country we live in, because we are unable to marry.

Another part of me tells me not to worry about it because whatever happens, there’s really nothing I can do about it. That’s true. But I worry about Kent. If he were in the hospital and I was not allowed in to see him, I don’t know how I would survive that. Or, if the reverse is true, how would he deal with it?

No wonder they want to keep marriage from us. It has a lot of power and, unlike a civil union that my own state of Connecticut will soon have, it travels with you from state to state.

During the election process they tried to convince voters that they were against abortion and gay marriage when the reality is they just used these issues to divide the nation and were not really concerned about either. Rather, their goal was to persuade voters to elect them to office so they could continue the campaign of bankrupting the nation while giving tax breaks to the wealthy and destroying the social, health, and environmental programs that decades of progressive Democrats and Republicans had set in place.

Now they are making political hay at the expense of a woman who is unable to defend herself. These politicians voted against the very Medicaid that supported Terri Schiavo through years of need. They also voted to restrict law suits against negligent corporations of the very kind that provided funds supporting the wishes of Terri Schiavo’s family to keep her alive. Now, solely for political gain they wanted to prolong the life of this individual whom the courts have determined wished not to be subjected to this kind of indignity they wanted to impose upon her. (source)

Sadly, it’s all true. During the last presidential race, it was the gay marriage issue that the Bush Administration used as their hot ticket to get the conservative base to go to the polls and put him in office for another four years.

Now, those same conservatives are mad as hell because the president hasn’t followed through on his promise to push for a constitutional amendment against marriage. Why should he? He got what he wanted. He’s in for four more years. Pushing for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage simply is a losing issue for him that brings him no gain. It has nothing to do with his real goals; keeping the war going in Iraq, “fighting terrorism” (at least his definition of it), killing Social Security, gutting the environment so that a few corporations can get even richer than they are. These are his goals. Gay marriage doesn’t even show up on his radar screen anymore. It has served his purpose. I suspect it won’t show it’s ugly head again until the next presidential race. But will it work again? Given how gullible the American People are, I suspect it will.

And to the conservatives out there who loyally marched to the voting booths to stop the gays from having marriage, you were used. Get over it. At least now you can see what you voted for.

A few days ago on my way home, I was listening to Sean Hannity. He was going on and on about Terri Schiavo and “activity judges”. I personally can’t stand Sean Hannity, but I listen to him to try to gain an understanding of what it is we are dealing with. He said (I’m paraphrasing) that, “I never thought I would see the day when judges would have such contempt for the will of Congress and the will of the people, that they would just completely ignore those wishes and rule however they wanted. What has America come too?”

I wanted to yell back to him, “You moron! The function of the court is not and never has been to appease the will of the people or to listen to the will of Congress! The function of the court is to interpret and carry out constitutional law. Sometimes that will happen to agree with the will of the people, but not always.”

That is the function of the court - to interpret law. And if the Supreme Court had heard the Schiavo case, I suspect that they would have had some rather harsh words for the intrusion of Congress into this issue. This is called the Separation of Powers. Congress would do well to brush up on what is apparently a little known fact to them.

When something horrible happens like the shootings in Red Lake, Minnesota from 16 year old Jeff Weise, I get so tired of reading that the culprit must have been the antidepressant he was taking. In this case, it looks like they are going to blame the popular antidepressant Prozac as the culprit.

They claim that since his daily dosage was increased to 60mg per day, that must have caused it. I was on 80mg per day, along with other antidepressants to boost the effects of Prozac, and it didn’t make me want to go out and kill people. It had other effects on me that weren’t altogether pleasant, but I dealt with them.

If society wants this kind of thing to stop, they should start looking at the real cause of it, and stop trying to pawn the blame off on some chemical that can’t defend itself.

The real blame is our society. We embrace violence. It is in our movie theaters, it is on our streets, it is in just about every facet of our lives. And sometimes, it is in very innocuous things that we gloss over. A commercial comes to mind about Honey Nut Cheerios. This man is eating Honey Nut Cheerios. A group of cowboys are around him and one of them ask him what he’s eating. He replies, “Nut’N Honey”. They all draw their guns and point them to his head as if they are about to blow his brains out. And, that was funny?

That is part of the culture we have cultivated. You have a problem, you don’t deal with it and work your feelings out on it. You get even. That may mean playing a cruel trick on someone, or it may mean that you get a gun and really get even. Guns are everywhere. I don’t own a gun, but I’m sure if I put my mind to it, I could have one in my hands before the day was over.

And it’s not like we are doing anything about it. The right to bear arms after all, is a “right” of all Americans. So why then are we so confused when we hear about some student who was bullied or made fun of, all the sudden go off the deep end and seek revenge for the wrongs done to him?

It’s really no mystery to me. If you want to solve this problem, we have to stop looking at the smoking guns (the real guns and the Prozac’s that we blame) and really start looking at what is at the heart of all of this: OUR SICK SOCIETY THAT BREEDS HATRED AND VIOLENCE.

You want the killings to stop? Let’s start there because that is what really let this happen.

RED LAKE, MINN. -- Relatives of high school killer Jeff Weise, 16, believe the popular anti-depressant Prozac, may have played a role in the teen’s rampage. Friends and family members have said he had been taking Prozac since a suicide scare last summer.

Family members told the New York Times newspaper Weise’s dose was recently increased to 60 mg a day.

“I can’t help but think it was too much, that it must have set him off,” an aunt, Tammy Lussier, said. (source)

I found this on the Internet and, being a person who has suffered from depression in the past, I got a kick out of it.

It’s amazing. This has been a big year for the State of Virginia. They’ve managed to pass a constitutional amendment making marriage impossible for gay couples (and also prohibits civil unions), print up “traditional marriage” license plates as a way to rub our noses in it, and a gay adoption bill that was narrowly killed. Here’s the wording from the marriage bill, called the Marriage Affirmation Act:

“...a civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited and that such an arrangement entered into in another state or jurisdiction is void in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby are void and unenforceable.”

If that isn’t hate and a total disdain for us, I don’t know what it. In my opinion, Virginia can take it’s insurance bill and shove it. It’s too little, too late. There’s no excuse for the hateful crap they’ve been pulling against gay families in Virginia. They are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than this.

I think we should officially launch a boycott against their damn state. That includes people transferring there for jobs, going to school there, or any other form of business we can think of. Virginia has made it extremely clear how they feel about us. I think we should return the sentiment.

(Richmond, Virginia) Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner has signed legislation allowing insurers and businesses to extend health-insurance coverage to same-sex couples. It becomes effective July 1.

Under the new law an insurer and employer would be free to decide who would be covered under a group accident and sickness insurance policy.

“[It] provides a long-overdue option to Virginia businesses,” said Warner. “It allows private employers to extend group accident and sickness coverage to any class of persons agreed upon by the insurer and the group policyholder.” (source)

This is an easy decision for me. I too believe that the war in Iraq is unjust. We have no business being there. And don’t go saying that I don’t support the troops by saying that. I do support our troops. I just don’t support our President for being a moron and dropping the ball on this.

If memory serves me, we went to Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. We didn’t. We let him slip away from us. We got bogged down in Iraq “fighting terror” and now we are going to be there for a very long time. Our military resources are being depleted, fewer men are enlisting, morale in the military (and in our society) is extremely low, and our costs for this war are out of control.

Thank you very much Mr. President! You are an idiot.

I don’t blame this man one bit for not going to Iraq. I agree 100% with his assessment of this war. I’ve also talked with people at work concerning this war. A few have boys who are around the age of 15. They tell me what it is like for them, and what their fears are. Some become overwhelmed with emotion as they talk about the possibility of losing their son in this war.

I tell them, “It would be easy for me to decide what to do. I’d be looking at leaving this country with my son.” Don’t get me wrong. If we were being attacked or if we were really fighting an enemy that threatened our very existence, I’d be the first to take up arms. This is not the case with this war. It is 100% political with this President, and if you think he gives a rats ass about your son, I have an ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

TORONTO -- An American war dodger who fled the U.S. military because he believed the invasion of Iraq was criminal has lost his bid for refugee status in Canada in a case closely watched on both sides of the border.

In a written ruling released Thursday, the Immigration and Refugee Board said Jeremy Hinzman had not made a convincing argument that he faced persecution or cruel and unusual punishment in the United States. [...]

During his three-day refugee hearing in December, he said any violent acts he would have committed had he gone to Iraq would have amounted to an atrocity because the war itself was illegal. [...]

His case was bolstered by a former United States marine, who said trigger-happy American soldiers in Iraq routinely killed unarmed women and children, and murdered other Iraqis, in violation of international law.

Adjudicator Brian Goodman had previously ruled that the soldier’s view of the legality of the war on Iraq could not be used to support his refugee claim.

As a deserter, Hinzman faces court martial if he returns to the United States and a potential five-year jail term. (source)

More on Jeremy Hinzman
Absent Without Regrets: A Soldier's Story
Jeremy Hinzman.net
Jeremy Hinzman: Military hero
Hinzman to appeal Refugee Board decision

President Bush’s job-approval rating has sunk to 45 percent, the worst of his presidency, amid public opposition at his intervention in the Terri Schiavo case and growing concern over gasoline prices.

The 45 percent rating is a far cry from his record 90 percent approval after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it’s still well above the low marks scored by most recent presidents. (source)

I guess that anything is up for grabs if you can profit from it, even sacrificing decency for it.

Videotape of Terri Schiavo blinking at her parents has inspired donations from people around the country to the foundation set up to help pay for the family’s legal battle. But many other groups are soliciting donations in her name as well, some for a much broader agenda.

“Help Save Terri Schiavo’s Life!” says the Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian conservative group best known for its campaigns against gay rights. Next to a link to the Web site of her parents’ foundation is a pitch to “become an active supporter of the Traditional Values Coalition by pledging a monthly gift.”

“What this issue has done is it has galvanized people the way nothing could have done in an off-election year,” said Rev. Lou Sheldon, the founder of the group, acknowledging that the case of Ms. Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, had moved many to open up their checkbooks. “That is what I see as the blessing that dear Terri’s life is offering to the conservative Christian movement in America.” (source)

Kent sent me an article that speaks to a lot of my feelings about how many of the states are moving to outlaw marriage rights for gay couples. They article basically spells out why it is such a big issue for us. In this case, this couple used to live in Virginia, a state that has introduced and passed some of the most hateful legislation against gay couples in the nation.

The article is entitled “A Reason to Move” and was written by Lynn Adler.

Imagine that you are looking for a job. Imagine that you are good at what you do, and you have a choice of opportunities. Imagine being offered jobs that were comparable in almost every way, but located in different states.

In one state, you and your spouse would be able to use a family health insurance plan, visit each other in the hospital, and have a relationship and family that was legally recognized. In the other state, your spouse would have to buy separate health insurance, and there would be no guarantee that doctors, hospitals, lawyers, banks, schools, or anyone at all would recognize your relationship or family. [...]

I left a state that did not recognize my relationship in favor of one that did. I was hired as an assistant professor of biology by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2001. Although I knew that Virginia was a conservative state, I found the department to be very friendly and supportive. Colleagues were welcoming toward my partner, and we enjoyed living in the area. [...]

During those three years, however, my partner and I paid thousands of dollars for private health insurance when my partner was working part time, because she could not get those benefits through me. We did all we legally could to provide ourselves with the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, including the right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions for each other. [...]

Because it seemed clear that laws of Virginia were not going to change in any way beneficial to us in the near future, I went on the job market in 2004. I was offered an exciting position at a university in Massachusetts, which had just become the first state where same-sex couples could get married. [...]

Virginia Tech attempted to retain me in my position with a counter offer, and my partner and I had several discussions about what it would take to convince us to stay. In the end, we concluded that no amount of salary, extra funds, or other benefits would counteract the risk that our relationship might not be recognized in a time of crisis.... When I announced my departure, I received an e-mail from an administrator who told me that others had left for similar reasons, but had done so quietly. I spoke out about why I was leaving, and I’m writing this article because I believe it’s important for educators and politicians to understand that discriminatory laws have a price.

The very sad an unfortunate thing in all of this is that Virginia has lost more talent and soul than it realizes. I’m a firm believer that if you don’t give someone your business because of discriminatory practices, that you let them know that they lost your business because of it.

Something happened today as an example of this. Kent needed new running shoes. I suggested that he get two pair; one for the gym and one more suitable for running outside, which he enjoys.

He suggested the Foot Locker. I said, “No way! They discriminate against gay people.” He had forgotten that. I wrote about it at the time, and even sent their corporate office a response to how I felt about their act of discrimination. The Foot Locker later settled their bias suit.

That’s all well and good, but I still have no desire to do business with a company who believes or acts in this manner. So, I will be writing to the Foot Locker corporate office again with a copy of the receipt of the business they lost based on their past discriminatory practices.

I think it’s important to hold people accountable to their beliefs. Many times, as the State of Virginia will eventually find out, those beliefs come with a price tag. What is the price tag for endorsing discrimination? It’s up to those who are discriminated against to bring this to light, just as the couple in the article above has done. And, just as I have done with the Foot Locker.

The military is the same thing, with their Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy. They have lost unbelievable talent because of this stupid discriminatory policy. They are now seeing just how much harm it is doing not only them, but our nation as a whole. I think the general public are starting to realize this and agree that it makes no sense.

Still, you will always have people such as William M. Acker Jr., a senior judge with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Birmingham, who will argue until the day they die that discrimination against whoever is the unpopular group of the day is just fine in this country. Those days are slowing dieing out.

The conservative movement damning us for being open and honest about ourselves is slowly dieing out. It is isolated in states such as Virginia and Georgia, and that may not change anytime soon. But change is coming, and there’s no stopping it. If there’s one thing history has shown us time and time again, it is that light will always triumph over darkness. Always.

I spotted this article in the Hartford Courant this morning. Yale Law School has made it a policy not to allow military recruiters in it’s school because the military discriminates against gay and lesbian soldier with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

In this article, we have Judge William M. Acker Jr., an alum of Yale Law School, who sent Yale Law School a letter stating that because of their policy, the judge would not accept any applications from the law school.

The judge is a 1952 graduate of the law school and resides in Alabama, so I can understand his views on this. But, of all people, the judge should realize that history hasn’t treated people with those kinds of views with kindness. Perhaps he will be dead by the time that he will be labeled as being short sited in his willingness to embrace one of the last bastions of discrimination; that of discriminating against gays.

NEW HAVEN -- Upset that Yale Law School bars military recruiters from interviewing job candidates, a federal judge in Alabama has announced he will no longer consider any Yale Law students for clerkships.

William M. Acker Jr., a senior judge with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Birmingham, wrote a letter last month to Yale Law School Dean Harold Hongju Koh to inform him that he would not accept any applications from the law school. [...]

Acker’s decision is a protest against the law school’s policy of limiting military recruiters’ access to students. Officials of the law school say the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against gays violates the school’s anti-discrimination regulations. [...]

In his letter, Acker said he will continue to refuse Yale law students for clerkships “until YLS changes its mind,” or until the courts rule the Solomon Act to be constitutional and enforceable by the government. He also wrote that he is “exercising the same freedom of speech” that Hall protected for the Yale Law School faculty. [...]

Koh said he didn’t want to speak extensively about Acker’s letter because he didn’t want to give it more importance than it warranted. [...]

Yale law student Michael Gottlieb has been more outspoken. He responded with an open letter to Acker in which he states that he’s proud of the school’s faculty for taking a stand.

“My professors believe that their African American students will make excellent attorneys,” he wrote in the letter, which was recently published in the Yale Daily News. “They believe that their Asian students will make equally good attorneys. As will their female students. And their Muslim students. And their gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students. And they are not willing to cede this point.”

It was a busy day yesterday. I got a lot done at work and then went to the gym. I didn’t do so well last night. I was ok on the elliptical trainer for about thirty minutes (I try to do an hour), but after that I started feeling weak. I went home and was just exhausted. I probably did too much on the diet and at the same time overdid the exercise. I basically ran out of energy to do more. A lesson learned.

I got home, relaxed, and went on line to catch up on the daily news. I read this really nice opinion by Titania Kumeh, Staff Writer of the Courier Online. It’s worth a read.

I also came across an opinion from Alabama concerning the proposed ban on gay adoptions. I wrote on this yesterday. The opinion was entitled Don’t eliminate all gay adopters.

A bill pending in the Alabama Legislature to stop individual gay Alabamians from adopting children is wrongheaded, and it should be considered wrongheaded by both those who believe in gay rights and those who do not.

The sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Hank Erwin Jr., R-Montevallo, argues that it is needed as a matter of consistency.

“If we are going to say we are a family-friendly state with traditional family values, then we need to have traditional family adoption policies,” Erwin said. [...]

It’s also scary. If Erwin succeeds in making gays second-class citizens when it comes to adoptions, what is his next step in the name of consistency? Banning them from holding certain jobs? Will he let them continue to be loving uncles or aunts?

The sad fact is that Alabama, like most states, has hundreds more kids in need of adoption than it has people willing to adopt them. There just aren’t enough “traditional families” willing to adopt.

Gay couples cannot adopt in Alabama because the state does not recognize gay marriages. But gay individuals can if they meet the same standards as their non-gay counterparts.

Another bit of good news is that a bill outlawing discrimination again gays in things such as housing, public accommodations, insurance and employment has been introduced in Delaware. It defines sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.

A bill adding sexual orientation to Delaware’s anti-discrimination protections is again headed to the Senate after clearing the House in a close vote Thursday - just as it did in 2001 and 2003.

The so-called gay rights bill may fare better this year in the Senate, where it died in committee in 2002 and last year - if you believe the bill’s sponsor, Rep. William A. Oberle Jr., R-Beechers Lot.

The heavily amended version of House Bill 36 that passed the House 22-18 has deleted language the Senate previously found objectionable. Oberle hopes that’s enough to win it a vote in the upper chamber. [...]

Amendments deleted wording that the bill covered “real or perceived” discrimination, and added burdens of proof that are not applied to plaintiffs alleging discrimination based on sex, age, race or religion.

And this from Maryland...

The Maryland House passed legislation Thursday that would add sexuality and gender identity to the categories of people protected under the state’s hate crimes law.

The legislation now moves to the Senate.

While Maryland has had a hate crimes statute on the books since 1988, current law only covers crimes motivated by race, religion, and national origin.

And this from Washington State on how quickly we dismiss some in our society.

We Americans are quite prone to dismiss someone with whom we are uncomfortable by pointing only to the person’s offensive attributes: “He’s fat.” “She’s a smoker.”

I’ve observed people dismiss gay people in the same way: limp wrist, butch, campy or queen. The truth is that he might have a limp wrist, but he also might be a good father, a faithful companion or a volunteer at a homeless shelter.

She might be “mannish,” but she also might rescue discarded animals, visit nursing homes or take care of her elderly parents.

Over the years, I’ve noticed individuals who can dismiss entire classes of people with the wave of a hand react much differently when they know some individual from that class.

It might behoove us all to read deeper into the “books” that cross our paths each day. It seems it is true: “You can’t tell a book by its cover.”

(Montgomery, Alabama) Legislation has been filed in the Alabama legislature that would bar gays and lesbians from adopting children.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Hank Erwin Jr. (R-Montevallo) would make it illegal for a person who is gay to adopt a minor.

The state already bars same-sex couples from adopting under its Marriage Protection Act. [...]

The state is also looking at a bill that would ban gay speech from any institution which receives state money. (source)

Banning speech. Doesn’t that violate the First Amendment to the Constitution?

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s hard for me to understand all of this hatred. It’s as if they wanted an excuse to pass all of this nasty legislation against us, and they saw that with gay marriage. But I’ll tell you this. Everything has a time and place. The legislation these state are passing will not stand. They will eventually be found unconstitutional based on the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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

And, it only takes one ruling against what the states are doing with regards to the state constitutional amendments against full equality for gay couples. Just one, and they will all be gone. I’d bet my soul on it. I may not live to see it, but it will happen.

This is just another example of what can happen when people mess with a constitution, either at the state or federal level. This happened to be a case concerning a straight unmarried couple. One was charged with domestic violence, a felony. But, because of Issue 1, the Ohio constitutional amendment that prevents unmarried couples from having the protections of marriage, the judge reduced the charge to simple assault, a misdemeanor.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio’s constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would “create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.” (source)

I suppose their solution would have been to get married. Then, she would have had some protection. Unfortunately, with Issue 1, that option is not available to gay couples.

A judge’s ruling could lead to the repeal of Ohio’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

NewsChannel5 reported that a Cuyahoga County judge Wednesday reduced a domestic violence charge against a man accused of attacking his live-in girlfriend, saying the law only applies to married couples under the new amendment.

Frederick Burk was charged with domestic violence, a felony, but Judge Stuart Friedman reduced the charge to assault.

Last fall, Ohio voters passed Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that forbids the state to grant legal status to relationships of unmarried individuals like Burk and his girl friend. (source)

“Don’t Californicate Idaho”. That used to be the saying in Idaho when I was growing up.

I remember when I was growing up in Emmett, Idaho, there were a lot of bad feelings about people from California moving into our valley. It did change our life somewhat and nobody wanted them to stay. You get very set in your ways when you are isolated from other cultures. I would have thought that after all these years, Idaho would have changed a bit, from others moving into the state. Is this not true of all states? People move all the time for jobs and lifestyle changes. I guess some things die hard.

Saying he saw what the influx of out-of-staters, especially Californians, did when he lived in Hayden, Jerry Higgs, now living in Bonners Ferry, has launched a one-man campaign to encourage Californians to stay away.

“When I left Hayden, I counted three native Idahoans on the block where I lived,” Higgs said. “Some were from Chicago, some were from Oregon. But most of them, at least nine families, were from California, and they all brought their own ideas of what was right for Idaho, even though they had no concept of our way of life.” [...]

“I’ve had Californians tell me they wanted to get away from the Asians, Mexicans and blacks. We are not racist here! Richard Butler, Reverend Bertollini and Randy Weaver … racists who gave Idaho a black eye … were all out-of-state carpetbaggers.

“We don’t want your gay business districts, same-sex marriage, body pierced, tattooed to the ankles, (c)rap music, lowrider, celebrating diversity-while-standing-for-nothing liberal nonsense here in Idaho.

“The last thing we need is a Californian a half car length behind us trying to do ten miles per hour over the speed limit on a cold January day while the roads are covered with black ice. Your people tell us we are stupid while trying to change Idaho into the very thing they were trying to escape.” (source)

In his own way, he has a point. People are moving to Idaho to find a new way of life - to escape overcrowding, pollution, and crime.

On my way to work this morning, I tuned into my favorite news stations, almost out of habit. It’s the same depressing news, and although I’m a news junky, I found myself switching to a music station. It was a jazz station, and thought to myself, “...it’s too early for jazz...”, so I switched to a classical station.

I was suddenly listening to Les Preludes by Franz Liszt (1811-1886). Admittedly, Liszt is not one of my favorite composers. In fact, I’ve never liked him and have not listened to him for years. But this morning, while sitting on my heated seat in my car and sipping on hot coffee, I decided to listen.

But then, I suddenly had a revelation. It was my baggage from college that made me hate Liszt. The chairman of my music department was a man named Dr. Richard Skyrm. He was actually quite a brilliant scholar. He was also the professor who was assigned to me for my thesis. My thesis centered around a musical analysis of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony. Dr. Skyrm and I would often disagree and would often have heated discussions concerning the work and our opinions on the work. I would constantly challenge and question his conclusions on the work - something he did not welcome. I told him once, “Just because you have a doctorate does not mean that I have to rubber stamp every opinion YOU have!” Yes, I was arrogant in those days. After all this time, I am still correct about the work, although I actually no longer listen to the work. And even though we disagreed right up to the time I turned in my thesis, he gave the paper an “A”, with a comment of “Good work”. Go figure.

Which brings us to Liszt and my dislike of him. In college, I also had a big discussion with Dr. Skyrm about Franz Liszt. Dr. Skyrm loved Liszt, I believe because of the wealth of music he produced for the piano (Dr. Skyrm was a pianist). I made some comment that Liszt was a lousy orchestrator. I don’t remember the context in which I said that. He didn’t like that at all. So, for all these years, I’ve hated Liszt because of that. Again, go figure.

So this morning as I was listening to Les Preludes of Franz Liszt, I was absolutely stunned and overwhelmed by the genius of Liszt. I’m trying to describe the layers upon layers of complexity that somehow magically works. The word that comes to mind to describe it is “chocolaty”. Layers upon layers of rich chocolate.

The work is about 15 minutes long (about the length of my commute - it finished as I entered the parking lot at work) and is in one movement. From the Nottingham Philharmonic Orchestra program notes:

However, Liszt then prefaced the score with a paragraph of his own, which has almost nothing to do with Lamartine’s poem. “What is our life but a series of preludes to that unknown song of which the fast solemn note is sounded by death? Love is the enchanted dawn of all existence; but who is lucky enough not to have his first delights of happiness interrupted by some storm, the mortal blast of which dissipates love’s illusions, ... ” and so on, in this rather opaque and difficult to read style.

What this tells us is that the music is an expression of various states of emotion, of a passionate and extreme nature - a fact fully in accord with Liszt’s own flamboyant personality! The music is in one movement of about 15 minutes, and begins with a slow introduction to the first and principal theme of the work. This is followed by a contrasting “love” theme, after which the “storms of life” set in with a vengeance. A calmer section follows, before the energy is whipped up again to a martial and triumphant conclusion. (source)

So, with this triumphant conclusion, I got out of my car, and marched into work.

We’ve been hearing a lot this past year about activist judges. At first I was puzzled by the term. I first heard it applied to the judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court after they ruled that denying gay couples access to marriage went against the state constitution.

Shortly after that, I heard the Republicans in Congress along with President Bush, call the judges “activist judges”. Now, with the ruling by federal district judge James Whittemore to not re-insert the feeding tube for Terri Schiavo, I suppose Judge Whittemore will also be labeled an “activist judge”. I’ve come to conclude that an “activist judge” is a judge who doesn’t rule in favor of the majority of legislators, in this case, conservative legislators.

Perhaps it is time for a new term. Let’s call it “congressional activism” as Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick has done.

Whether Terri Schiavo will live or die in the coming days has come down to this: Can federal district judge James Whittemore set aside virtually every bedrock constitutional principle on which this nation was founded, just so members of the United States Congress may constitutionalize the nowhere-to-be-found legal principle that a “culture of life” is a good thing?

This morning’s decision by Congress and President Bush—to authorize new federal legislation that will obliterate years of state court litigation, and justify re-inserting a feeding tube into Terri Schiavo, based on new and illusory federal constitutional claims—is not about law. It is congressional activism, plain and simple; legislative overreaching and hubris taken to absurd extremes.

Let’s be clear: The piece of legislation passed late last night, the so-called “Palm Sunday Compromise,” has nothing whatever to do with the rule of law. The rule of law in this country holds that this is a federalist system—in which private domestic matters are litigated in state, not federal courts.

Until now.

One thing that seems difficult for people to understand is that Terri, by all medical accounts, has not been conscious for a very long time. Brain scans indicate that the entire area of the brain responsible for cognitive thinking has been destroyed. If you view a healthy brain and compare it to Terri’s brain, you will actually see a huge black mass in the center of her brain that used to be healthy brain tissue. It is now dead. The experts agree that she has no knowledge of her existence at this time. That isn’t life and it’s no way to live an existence.

I can understand the heart wrenching ordeal her family is going through, but there is a time to think of Terri and her wishes. There is a time to let go.

I would choose to remember Terri in the light of this photo of her, a photo of a vivacious woman, full of life. She deserves better than political pandering. She is more than an opportunity for politicians to push their political agenda to try to show people just how much they value life.

My message to them is this. If you value life so much, then you must pass legislation to abolish the death penalty. If you value the life of a one week old fetus, then surely a man on death row qualifies as life. After all, I can talk to him. He can think. He is self aware. Is a fetus? They will never be able to understand this argument. Instead, this is what we have in this country at this time - this is the environment:

Frist, who has asserted special credibility “as a physician,” claimed that “neurologists who have examined her insist today that she is not in a persistent vegetative state”—neglecting to mention that neurologists who testified in court concluded the opposite. On the Senate floor, Frist claimed to have “been in a situation such as this many, many times,” when in fact he had never made such an evaluation. On the basis of the family videos, he challenged the assessment made by doctors who had examined Schiavo in person.

When it’s your turn to face an end-of-life decision, here’s the kind of scrutiny you’ll get. Two neurologists and a judge won’t be enough, according to Frist: Congress will “go and collect more information, have neurologists come in.” A second judge will be empowered to “make new findings of fact.” DeLay wants to deprive judges of discretion because “when you affirmatively give the judge the discretion not to put the tube back in, they won’t.” Everyone has to be involved. “For one person in one state court to make this decision is too heavy,” says DeLay. “It does take all of us to think this through.”

And here’s the culture you’ll get. Schiavo’s parents have filed a motion to divorce her from her husband. Protesters at the hospice have suggested that the husband should be starved and the judge should be beaten. On the Senate floor, Frist has challenged the husband’s right to make the decision because he has “a girlfriend.” What about the judge’s confidence in the husband’s account of Schiavo’s stated wishes? Unless Schiavo “had specifically written instructions in her hand and with her signature,” scoffs DeLay, “I don’t care what her husband says.” This from an out-of-state congressman who got his legal training in campaign-finance creativity and his medical training in pest control. (source)

At what point do our civil liberties get acknowledged? If the federal government can intrude into extremely private family matters such as this, do legal documents or even the power of marriage mean anything anymore? If I have a power or attorney, or a living will, what’s to say at this point that they can’t be overturned? There are many families out there who are going through these issues. I would hate to think that I would have to be kept alive, no matter what the quality of my life was, just because some legislators took that decision away from me and told me, “You WILL live, no matter what.”

This legislation, the “Palm Sunday Compromise”, creates a dangerous precedent for all of us who want to live free lives without government intrusion. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.

Yesterday, Judge Whittemore refused to order the reinsertion of Terri’s feeding tube. The decision is being appealed. There’s no happy ending here, for anyone.

David Gibbs III, the parents’ attorney, argued at a Monday hearing in front of Judge Whittemore that forcing Terri Schiavo to starve would be “a mortal sin” under her Roman Catholic beliefs and urged quick action: “Terri may die as I speak.”

But George Felos, an attorney for Michael Schiavo, argued that keeping the woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.

“Yes, life is sacred,” Mr. Felos said, contending that restarting artificial feedings would be against Schiavo’s wishes. “So is liberty, particularly in this country.”

Michael Schiavo said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president intervened in a private matter. “When Terri’s wishes are carried out, it will be her wish. She will be at peace. She will be with the Lord,” he said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” late Monday. (source)

Study: Obesity to cut 2 to 5 years off live span

CHICAGO - New and disputed research adds a twist to the Social Security dilemma, suggesting that a nation gorging itself on bacon double-cheeseburgers will one day dramatically shorten the average U.S. life span.

Obesity - especially its alarming rise among children - is the culprit, fueling a startling reversal in life expectancy, which likely will drop by two to five years or more within 50 years, according to a report in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.

Just priceless. That was a quote from Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

As a public official, Governor Romney is sworn to uphold the law of his state and to enforce the law in a non-biased way. He should be fired for this. He’s entitled to his own personal opinion. Because of that opinion, he is unable to fulfill his obligations to the office he holds.

Source for this story.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, stung by recruiting shortfalls caused by the Iraq war, has raised the maximum age for new recruits for the part-time Army Reserve and National Guard by five years to 39, officials said on Monday.

The Army said the move, a three-year experiment, will add about 22 million people to the pool of those eligible to serve, from about 60 million now. Physical standards will not be relaxed for older recruits, who the Army said were valued for their maturity and patriotism.

The Pentagon has relied heavily on part-time Army Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers summoned from civilian life to maintain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Roughly 45 percent of U.S. troops currently deployed for those wars are reservists.

At home, the all-volunteer Army has labored to coax potential recruits to volunteer for the Guard and Reserve as well as for active-duty, and to persuade current soldiers to re-enlist when their volunteer commitment ends. (source)

Now, I ask you... Why would anyone volunteer to serve in the service now when we’ve all heard or know of people who are going back to Iraq for the second or third time, risking their lives for a government who doesn’t care about them?

Sound harsh? How about this... We ask these people to go to Iraq to try to clean up the mess we’ve made. Because of the huge drain on our economy, we decrease the wages and benefits of military personnel, tell them to go back for a second or third tour of duty, and on top of that, tell them that they can’t get out because of a stop-loss order put in place by the President. In other words, we have violated the terms of their contract for military service.

Stop loss gives the President that authority in times of war and when there is grave danger to our country. This doesn’t exist at this time. What does exist is a country that we invaded and gutted. We are there now to keep a worse hell from emerging. People can see this for what it is. We aren’t there to spread democracy. We are there to put our fingers in the cracks of the dam to keep it from completely falling apart.

I like this guy. I’ve said the same thing before. If we are going to have second class rights, we should have second class taxes as well.

Let’s add an amendment that makes it illegal to accept taxes from gays and lesbians and ignore them in earnest on all of their issues thereafter.

This biggest argument against gay marriage typically comes from conservative Christians who say this is a Christian country founded on Christian principals.

Using this reasoning, they say they should be able to glue a copy of the Ten Commandments anywhere they want. They say they should be able to mandate prayer anywhere they want.

They want to mandate that God remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, even though the writer of the pledge never intended it to be there in the first place. They want everyone forced to say the pledge despite any objections, including those that might come from other Christians.

And then, of course, there is the fight to ban gay marriage. If you want to change the Constitution to accomplish this, go ahead. But as you’re writing, make sure you also add:

And they say that bans on same sex marriage won’t effect current benefits given to same sex partners...

Many of the states who passed amendments to their state constitutions last November stated that it was only to prevent same sex partners from getting married. Now we are finding that it goes farther than that. In Michigan for example, the attorney general is saying that cities and government entities will not be able to provide benefits to same sex partners because it violats the terms of the amendment.

Surprise surprise. This was the intention all along. They just didn’t want to say it at the time because it might look as if they were mean spirited. And they say we have an agenda.

(Detroit, Michigan) A lawsuit was filed Monday in Detroit aimed at blocking attempts to use Michigan’s ban on gay marriage from being used to deny benefits to same-sex partners.

The suit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, asks the court to declare that the amendment passed by voters last November, does not prohibit domestic partnership benefits offered by public employers.

Last week, Michigan’s attorney general issued a legal opinion saying cities and other government entities won’t be able to provide benefits for same-sex partners of employees in future contracts because it would violate the terms of the amendment. (source)

I actually heard this on my way in to work this morning, and it made a lot of sense to me. We all have positive and negative things working in our lives every day. How we respond to that is really up to us. The speaker on the radio said that one way to channel positive energy is to exercise, but when you are doing the exercise, give thanks to all the things you have. His examples were that you can give thanks to your health, to your legs that are enabling you to walk and run, among other things. It all sounds somewhat ZEN to me, but I think he has a point.

I guess that is what I was getting at in my entry last night about shifting my focus on how I look at life.

You know, I have so much to be thankful for. Life to me is unbelievable right now. So much is going so well. Kent and I are so happy. We both have jobs, we both have our health. That’s huge!

It is part of my makeup to hate inequalities in life. Right now, my inability to make my life totally complete hinges around being able to fully participate in society. I don’t think I can do that without access to marriage. But, that’s one thing, and it doesn’t have to spoil the pot, so to speak. I also think it’s important to recognize in myself that I do have this big issue with inequality. To me, it’s a big thing; to others, they don’t care.

So, I’m going to focus on what is right in my life. And it comes to mind that the wireless head phones I bought yesterday (to watch TV silently while Kent is sleeping), ROCK! Now, I can listen to my TV while standing in the middle of my yard! How cool is that??!

I’ve written for a long time about my life. Sometimes, when life in this society of ours gets too tough to deal with, you find yourself up against a few options.

You can just keep getting more and more depressed until you have to talk yourself into simply getting out of bed in the morning. I’ve been there. You get to a point when you read in the news day after day after day how little you are valued in society, that you finally get pissed and decide to do something about it.

So, you pull yourself together and go to the Legislative Office Building where they are having hearings on marriage rights for gay couples. You think it will help make you feel better inside because you are able to lend your support to something you care deeply about. You get there, and you hear one person after another talk about how these “perverts” are trying to “steal marriage” and “pervert” it into something that is “unhealthy”, “unnatural”, “against the will of God”, and will be the “downfall of mankind”. It was a mistake for me to go there. For the next three weeks, I had little energy and really didn’t want to get out of bed in the morning.

I think I’m just tired of it all. I’m tired of being reminded day after day what I don’t and can’t have. It’s demoralizing. So, I have put my energies into myself. I’ve decided to go back to the gym that I’ve belonged to for the last ten years. I haven’t gone for a long time, but I never stopped my membership. Instead of taking Prozac, I give my depression to my workout and channel all of that negative energy into myself.

And I guess it’s working. I’m gaining muscle, and so far, I’ve lost 21 pounds. I still don’t feel good about what is happening in the news with the President renewing his wishes to pass a federal constitutional amendment against allowing gay couples the ability to marry, but I can’t control that. What will happen, will happen.

But for now, I have my health and I even had some dude at the gym checking out my butt a week ago - a sure sign of progress!

I've been busy trying to get a new blog set up. I'm keeping this blog for writing, but I'm setting up a photo blog. I've been using this blog as a photo blog as well, but I think they will work better if I separate the two, and have links referencing each other.

But beyond all of that, there are a few things in the news that are so ironic, I just have to write about it. I'm constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of our government. With the Republicans in power, I have seen the national deficit grow out of control, our environmental needs set aside for the fast buck, and government growing faster than it ever has. The irony is that all of these things, with the possible exception of what they are doing to the environment, are things that the Republican Party has always said they were against.

They say they are against big government, yet the government has grown more in the last four years than it has in the last two decades. They say they are against governmental spending, yet we have a President who has yet to veto one spending bill. And, they say that they are for a less intrusive government. Unless of course you are a gay American where it's just fine to dictate that we are not allowed to marry our partner, or Terri Schiavo.

I feel for what her family must be going through. I'm not going to get in the middle and take one side or the other, with regards to whether her parents or her former husband is making the right decision. But I am absolutely certain that our federal government has absolutely no business being in the middle of this decision. They are interfering with something that should be decided in the family, and for what? For political gain. They love having their pictures in the paper and being so "moral". They are trying to show their conservative constituents that they do indeed value life, and they are willing to back that claim up with new legislation to value all life, even if that means trampling all over individual freedoms.

Is anyone else concerned about this?

One of the most difficult challenges for me is to be tolerant. I didn’t used to be this way. It used to be my nature to be tolerant of others who disagree with me on any issue. There was a time that I would never turn my back on a friend. Never.

But, I’ve changed in the last couple of years. Apparently, with age, I’ve been given the gift of being able to see through bullshit when I see it. A couple of examples...

The article below shows yet again one more attempt from our government to send a strong and resounding message that it’s perfectly ok to discriminate against gays. I guess it’s our turn. I get get. I understand that. But it doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

What the Boy Scouts are doing is simply wrong. They are sending out a message that it’s just fine to keep the gay men away from kids (the Girl Scouts do not discriminate against lesbians). In essence, the Boy Scouts are saying, although they wouldn’t want to admit this in front of a camera, is that there is truth to the stereotype that gay men can not be trusted around your male child. Is it fair? Certainly not, but this is what they are up too.

GOP Bill Would Force Cities To Admit Scouts Despite Gay Ban

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist has introduced legislation that would make it illegal to bar the Boy Scouts from using pubic facilities.

In 2000 Supreme Court ruled that the Boys Scouts can prohibit gays. The high court said the constitution gave the scouts, as a private organization, the right to choose its members. The Scouts also prohibits atheists.

Civil liberties groups have challenged the scouts’ access to government facilities because of the ban and its requirement to swear an oath of duty to God.

The Pentagon last year settled one lawsuit by telling U.S. military bases around the world not to become direct sponsors of Boy Scout troops or Cub Scout dens.

Dozens of cities and school boards have also barred the scouts from using public facilities.

If Frist’s “Support Our Scouts Act” becomes law the federal government would be obliged to support the Scouts and state and local governments would be required to give Scouts access to their facilities if they make them available to other groups.

So how does this effect me? I went to the grocery store not so long ago and a couple of men were out in front of the store collecting money for our local Boy Scout troop. They looked at me and apparently I glared back. When I approached the store, they did not ask me to contribute. I will not give money to anything that discriminates in this fashion.

People can choose what they want to do as far as their children are concerned, but I will tell you this. If I am friends with some couple, and I find out that their son is in the Boy Scouts, how close do I want to be to those people? Everyone knows how the Boy Scouts feel about gays. Yet, they are allowing their son to be a part of that. So, does that mean that at some level, they support and endorse that behavior? I don’t know, but I do know that I am more cautious around people that do this. A wall goes up.

In the last election, I lost a friendship because he voted for President Bush because it was for the “good of the country” (his words). How is trying to keep me at second class citizenship for the “good of the country”? I know... there are other issues that we are facing that are important. But it seems to me, that in a country that boasts freedom for all, trying to establish a second class of citizenship smacks in the face of what we tell the world we believe in.

So where does this leave me? Very simple really (when you get to be 50, you want simplicity in your life). I won’t be friends with anyone who will not support me as an equal citizen. PERIOD. If my relationship with Kent isn’t on an equal standing with your marriage, I won’t be your friend. If I don’t have that support, you never were my friend to begin with.

Friendship is about respect. It demands nothing less.

You ever wonder why people are so afraid of love?

I used to think when there were so many beatings and killings in our community that they hated us because they saw us as being so different.

They never saw us as their equals. They never saw us as people.

They had a whole set of terms they used, just for us. On a good day, we were “them”. On a bad day, we were less than “them”.

Now, they hate us for trying to be like them. They hate us for trying to be with them. They hate us for wanting inclusion. They hate us for trying to claim our love in marriage.

They never saw us as their equals. They never saw us as people.

It’s a strange world we live in.

Tennessee Gay Marriage Ban Heads To Voters
The Tennessee House on Thursday approved the wording of a ballot question asking voters to approve a an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

The Senate had given its approval in February.

The House voted 88 - 7 to put the question on the ballot in next November’s gubernatorial election.

Georgia Senate protects clubs’ right to ban gays
ATLANTA - Private clubs that ban gays from membership would get extra legal protection under a bill approved Thursday by the state Senate.

The plan, which already passed in the House, is aimed at a fight in Atlanta between the city government and Druid Hills Golf Club. [...]

Some Democrats argued the bill is simply an effort by Republicans to score political points by bashing gays.

“In 2005, the idea we would use division to appeal to the worst in us - use division to achieve and maintain political power - seems worse than what happened in a prior generation,” said Sen. Vincent Fort, D-Atlanta.

The plan passed 37-11. It now goes to Gov. Sonny Perdue to be signed.

7:15am - March 18, 2005
Today is another day. Sometimes I feel exhausted and wonder if it is my own exhaustion that contributes to my overall feeling of despair concerning our civilization. But, I woke up this morning feeling the same way. Perhaps what I feel does not have it’s roots in exhaustion, but in reality.

I was moved by what another blogger said about this entry. I read this over at the Republic of T:

A strange world indeed. Stranger every day, in fact. In fact, it’s almost as if we’re witnessing the paroxysms of a deep and abiding sickness in American culture and communities, and that all the hate must finally be vomited out before the entire body can begin to heal. At least that’s what I tell myself today, because I want to believe that healing will follow. In some ways, I have to.

That’s the reality that I was afraid of coming face to face with today; the reality that our lives don’t matter to a great many people, some of them even in our own families or communities. All I can say is that I came face to face with it today, and managed to move on.

All good news of course! California state judge Richard A. Kramer of San Francisco County Superior Court, ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The move overturned a statewide proposition passed in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and woman.

Judge Kramer’s ruling left no argument against same-sex marriage unexamined, and virtually no glimmer of light for the attorney general’s office or the other groups that filed briefs in support of current state law. At one point, Judge Kramer compared some of the arguments made by same-sex marriage opponents to those made in cases dealing with antimiscegenation laws.

In reviewing an argument by the attorney general’s office that California’s domestic partnership law was evidence the state does not discriminate against same-sex couples, Judge Kramer invoked arguments once made on behalf of segregated schools.

“The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts,” he wrote, “separate but equal.” [...]

Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney, said he had “every confidence” that Judge Kramer’s ruling would stand. He cited a series of similar court rulings around the country recently that favored same-sex marriages, including one last month by a judge in Manhattan. That ruling is being appealed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

“The trend of the law is clear,” Mr. Herrera said. “It’s time to leave discrimination in the background.” (source)

Different worlds. Jesus.

Those where the last words I said to myself tonight before I went to sleep last night.

We went to Boston to meet a friend who was flying in from Oklahoma. We hadn’t seen her in a year or so, and she is coming to Boston for a conference.

We stayed downtown and the Park Plaza Hotel. It’s a nice place. Well, it’s nicer than nice actually. It’s a five star hotel by many people’s standards. It is nice.

We all met at our hotel, and had cocktails in one of the bars in the place (you could live in this place without ever going outside). Afterwards, we went to Davio’s Restaurant (Boston location) where we had reservations at 6:45pm.

It was a great dining experience. Ellen had the Penne, Applewood Smoked Chicken, Sundried Tomatoes, Toasted Walnuts, with Cream Sauce. I wanted to try that but couldn’t decide whether to have that or what Kent had, which was the Sweet Potato Sage Ravioli, Marsala, Apple Braised Pork, Frizzled Leeks. So, they brought me half of each!! How’s that for service?

The plan was to go up the street to Finale for dessert, but we didn’t have room. So, we left to go back to our hotel, which was just across the street from the restaurant.

While we were on the street corner, this guy approached us. He said that he was a recovering drug addict (I believe he said he was a crack addict) but was in recovery. He needed $16 to get back to his shelter and if he didn’t make it, he would have violated his parole and it would be a three year sentence. The really weird thing is, even though Kent was standing on my left, and Ellen was standing on my right, he never acknowledged them. He talked directly to me alone. Do I attract these people?

I gave him a bit of money, not knowing if his story was a lie or not. But, I felt sorry for him. It was so bitterly cold out. He left after getting the money, and we crossed the street into our hotel. I suggested to Kent and Ellen that they have a drink together to catch up on old times. I was tired and the thought of a hot shower and bed appealed to me. They went to have their drink.

I returned to the safety of my room. I looked down on the street from my ninth floor room and was reminded that even in an upscale neighborhood such as this, that there really isn’t much safey. And while I was in the shower with all three shower heads covering my body with very warm water, I just closed my eyes and tried to lose myself to the harshness that some have in our society.

I dried off, got into bed, turned the lights off, and thought about how my world compared to that drug addict. I just said to myself, “Different worlds. Jesus.”

I closed my eyes, and went to sleep.

It is tax time, and the honeymoon is over for gay and lesbian newlyweds wrestling with their first official tax filings as married couples. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage on May 17, 2004, was a sweet victory for gay men and lesbian women nationwide. But it had no impact on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines a legal marriage as between one man and one woman. Because the Internal Revenue Service will not accept joint married tax filings from same-sex couples, gay married couples are spending more time -- and sometimes twice as much money -- doing their 2004 taxes.

“It’s the first mass demonstration of having to reconcile the difference between the state and the federal government on this issue,” said Carisa Cunningham, spokeswoman for the Boston advocacy group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, or GLAD.

I'm just waiting for some couple married in Massachusetts to file a joint tax return to the Federal Government. The government would reject it, and possibly fine them. They would file suit challenging DOMA for discrimination since the State of Massachusetts actually did marry them. It’s going to happen. It's just a matter of time.

This is what we are against:

The lesbian couple, who married on June 24, will have to prepare at least four returns -- twice as many as most married couples. There is the joint filing in Massachusetts, which sanctioned their marriage. Then there will be two individual filings with the federal government because it does not recognize their marriage.

But before they can do anything, they must fill out a “phantom” federal tax return the IRS will never see: a joint married filing prepared solely to determine their state taxes, which are based on federal calculations. (source)

Kent and I braved our way through the snow storm this morning for breakfast at Vernon Diner. It was that or bagels, and I'm kind of bagelled out right now.

There were a couple of interesting articles in the Hartford Courant this morning. By the way, the Hartford Courant has been voted one of the top five "best designed" newspapers in America, which seems odd to me because I always thought of it as a second-class newspaper. We subscribe to it on the weekends, but not during the week. This is fine because like a lot of people these days, I get most of my news from the Internet. It has to be hard on newspapers now in the age of the Internet.

One story I've been following is the horrible happenings in Georgia right now with the court house killings. A judge prosecuting the case was killed, along with a court reporter and an officer outside the court. The day before the trial, Brian Nichols, the suspect was actually caught with two shanks in his socks. Why they didn't treat him at that point as a dangerous and violent person is beyond me. (story)

There were a couple of stories this morning in the Hartford Courant concerning gay marriage. One was from Stan Simpson, who has regular columns that appear on Wednesday and Saturday. Today, his was entitled 'Marriage' Has Only One Meaning. In his column he states:

What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults is private and none of our damn business. Until, we choose to make it a public matter. Then it's fair game.

Actually, when the state and federal government begin giving benefits to marriage for heterosexual couples, it kind of stopped being a private thing. Straight marriage is in my face all the time. Straight marriage is getting benefits left and right. I see nothing private about this. Mr. Simpson, you are very willing to tell gay couples to keep it private. That standard doesn't seem to apply to you and other heterosexual couples who display marriage as a trophy that can be obtained in five minutes and thrown away 55 hours laters.

Well, the distinction with interracial unions is that it never disrupted the foundation of marriage as man and woman, or the biological concept of producing children.

In my book, you can be for individual rights, but against gay marriage. [...]

Actually, no you can't. Interracial couples wanted to get married for two reasons. They wanted to strengthen and codify their relationships with themselves and with society. They also wanted the benefits that came from the legal recognition of marriage. If you are against equal marriage rights for gay couples, you are against the rights of those couples because you are denying them all the rights afforded straight couples at the state and federal level.

To say that you are "for individual rights", but against gay marriage is hypocrisy at it's best.

So, instead of gay marriage, let's continue a civil dialogue about whether domestic partners - same sexers - can receive the health and survivorship benefits of their mates without us legally highjacking the term "marriage."

"Same sexers"? Should I just start calling heterosexual couples "opposite sexers"? Seems a bit degrading to me, but perhaps that's the way you meant it. A bit of bigotry showing? Oh there I go again, calling anyone who disagrees with me a "bigot". Shame on me.

The problem is, you can say all day long that we should "receive the health and survivorship benefits of their mates without us legally highjacking the term "marriage", but the fact of the matter is, no one is pursuing this. Vice President Cheney and later President George W. Bush both said that they feel it's appropriate for the states to look at giving gay couples more freedom to make these important legal decisions, but the fact of the matter is, no one is really interested in doing that. The President says this, but he does nothing to actively make it happen. And, neither the President or the Vice President has once said that the federal government would do anything for gay couples. That is where the big ticket items reside; social security survivor benefits, 401K rollover, etc. Marriage would give us access to all of that.

It's the same way with you, Mr. Simpson. You have no interest in pursuing greater rights and priviledges of marriage for gay couples with the legislators. You simply say that you do to get you off the bigot waggon and to try to convince us that you are actually a fair individual. It's not working.

Then there was a letter to the editor entitled Churches Ready To Rumble Over Same-Sex Unions. In a nutshell, it said that we shouldn't give gay couples marriage equality because people don't like it. They have 90,000 signatures saying this, so don't do it.

Now the hypocrisy....

No one is denying the gay community its civil rights. All basic rights are already afforded to same-sex couples. There is no need to create a separate institution and destroy one that has served humanity well for several thousand years.

Is this man on crack? "There is no need to create a separate institution" (civil unions), "and destroy one that has served humanity well for several thousand years" (marriage). In other words, give us nothing.

There are no basic civil rights afforded gay couples. If I go into the hospital and am in a coma, there is no guarantee that Kent would even be able to see me, let alone make medical desicions. In fact, he probably wouldn't be able too. If I die, who knows what will happen.

As for marriage serving "humanity well for several thousand years", he needs to brush up on the history of marriage. Marriage has changed dramatically over the last several thousand years and I'm certain that some of the arrangements that were called "marriage", he wouldn't agree with. And if he really wants to see what marriage is today, all he has to do is to look on TV and read the papers. There are people making a mockery of his sacred institution. Yet, you won't hear him bitching about the people doing this. That seems to be ok with him. Yet, for a gay couple who has been together for 30 years who want marriage to enhance what they have, he has a problem with that.

Hypocrisy. I have a proposition for both of these individuals. I will happily stop trying to pursue marriage for myself and my partner, if they will be willing to give up all the state and federal benefits afforded to marriage for heterosexual couples.

If they are truly interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage and keeping it out of the hands of gay couples, that shouldn't really be a problem for them, should it? After all, none of this is really about the benefits, right? It's about the institution of marriage and keeping that between one man and one woman, right? So, give up those benefits, and we'll all be happy. Then, and only then, will this not be a civil rights issue.

It seems bizarre to me to even make an argument against giving citizens equal rights based on how much it will cost society. What is that saying? If they cost us too much, some should not have equality?

I read this article this morning in the Hartford Courant.

Permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil unions could cost the state upward of $1 million a year in lost inheritance tax revenue, a report by the legislature’s Office of Fiscal Analysis shows.

The report also found that the state’s cities and towns could wind up paying as much as $1.5 million a year for health insurance, pensions and other benefits for municipal employees who enter into civil unions. [...]

The primary financial effect on the state budget comes in the form of lost revenue from the succession tax. Under state law, wives and husbands inherit property from their spouses tax-free, but unmarried partners are required to pay taxes.

If gays and lesbians are permitted to legalize their relationships by entering into civil unions, they would have the same status as heterosexual couples. The office estimates that the lost revenue will total $1 million a year until Jan. 2008, when the tax is scheduled to be eliminated. [...]

Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Stamford Democrat and co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said the lost revenue proves the inequities gays and lesbians now face.

“Under current law, [same-sex] partners are at a real economic disadvantage because they are considered to be legal strangers - they’re no more connected than if you left a bequest to your neighbor down the street,” McDonald said. “To me that underscores very real economic discrimination.” [...]

The report also outlined a host of lesser costs associated with civil unions, everything from the $4,000 cost of printing civil union licenses to an additional $50,000 to provide services to those accused of domestic violence in a same-sex relationship.

I never would have thought to look at the financial hit the state will take by approving civil unions. To me, it’s a non issue because you either believe in the principles of equality, or you don’t. If you don’t, it’s easy I suppose to say that it’s a valid cost to cover the cost of heterosexual couples, but not gay couples, because it costs too much.

My own company this year told me that they would not cover us as a couple because they “couldn’t afford it”. Boy, that did wonders for my ego. The company that I have given 17 years of dedicated work too can’t afford to treat me equally. Nice. I have done my part. Every time we have a company meeting to talk to the benefit providers, I always stand up during the question/answer period and ask, “Are ’domestic partners’ covered in this benefit?” The answer is always the same. No. Then everyone looks at me as I take my seat as if to say, “The queer actually wants to be treated like... us.” I feel alone at that point. If people wanted fairness, it would happen.

Hopefully, the state will come to the conclusion that you don’t afford civil liberties based on the cost of those liberties.

I’m still trying to figure out how I would feel if we went to get a civil union, and ended up with a document that said, presumably, “Civil Union License”, instead of “Marriage License”. If we do that, I would frame it and put it on my wall at home. When marriage becomes legal, I would frame that and put that on my wall right next to it. Historically, it would show what we had to go through to find equality. Personally, it would be degrading.

There is a lot of activity in Connecticut right now around the issue of civil unions for gay couples. This is because the state’s powerful Judiciary Committee has approved a bill to give “almost all” of the rights of marriage to gay couples. That gave the green light to the bill to be discussed and voted on in the Senate and the House (highly likely it will pass), and then on to Governor M. Jodi Rell, who has stated that she is against discriminating against gay couples and would have to “see the wording” of the bill before she signed it.

The fact that the bill made it out of the Judiciary Committee got the attention of everyone. Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, has said, “If you actually look at the bill, the civil union bill is same-sex marriage by a different name.”

That’s far from correct. The civil union bill would extend most of the rights of marriage to gay couples at the state level only and would not be recognized by the federal government. That’s a far cry from being the same as marriage.

Another reaction to all of this comes from Minority Leader Louis DeLuca, R-Woodbury, who wants to have a “nonbinding referendum” to see if the public at large want to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. As DeLuca stated, “It isn’t putting anything into law.”

That’s correct. Connecticut has no mechanism to create laws from the ballot box. That is why we have elected officials to represent us. All this “nonbinding referendum” would do is to further separate and polarize our community. Mr. DeLuca understands this and history will not treat this cheap trick kindly. It serves no purpose and in the end will only end up costing the tax payers more money. One has to wonder, does he have nothing else more important to do with his time?

As Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee stated, “If Sen. DeLuca has a problem accomplishing his legislative duties without a referendum, he should limit his proposals to his district.” McDonald has criticized DeLuca for trying to gauge sentiment in his own district by wanting to spend money on the statewide referendum. McDonald stated that DeLuca should know what his constituents think. (source)

Finally, this morning, I read an editorial in the Hartford Courant on the proposed referendum. What caught my eye was the last part of the editorial, particularly the final sentence (emphasis my own).

Religious leaders who disagree have a perfect right to object to the initiative and have taken advantage of the opportunity to tell legislators how they feel. But a polarizing referendum that carries no weight seems like a big waste of money, time and energy and is unlikely to change minds. Fomenting anger seems to be the true goal of the proposed vote.

What a shame. The point, after all, is love.

Today was one of those days. On my way to work, I was almost wiped out by a truck that cut a corner. I was stopped at a stop light. He cut the corner, almost hit me broadside, and just kept going. As he passed by, he looked over my way with a look on his face that said, “damn, I almost killed that guy”. As he passed, I saw him struggling to turn the corner to merge onto the freeway and keep control of his truck, all the while talking to his cell phone.

I think cell phone usage is ok while you drive as long as you are on a totally hands free system. Take mine for instance. It’s a Blue Tooth wireless ear piece. Totally hands free. If I get a call, it automatically takes the call, and all I have to do is talk. At the end of the call, it hangs up. I’ve touched nothing. People who have to hold the cell phone while driving should not be driving.

Work was ok. It was an intense day. I’m a bit down today. I got to work early so I left work at 3:30 and went to the health club for a workout. I didn’t check any news. Why bother myself with depressing news? I know, that’s an awful thing for a news junkie to say, but sometimes you have to listen to your little voice inside.

There is the world outside that we can’t control. To a large extent, our lives in this country are controlled by the laws that are put into place and the actions of legislators. Many of them have only contempt for families like mine. That I can’t control. But, I can control who gets through the door of my home. And, I can control what news, or the lack thereof, that enters my home.

Tonight, my “news” is the works of JS Bach and JC Bach. It occurs to me that life was so different when they were alive. The didn’t have a lot of the pressures we have today. But, they also didn’t have a long life expectancy. Many didn’t live past their childhoods. Today, people live into their 80’s and beyond, as a norm. It’s easy to understand why Social Security needs revamping.

Of course, I hate your bill. This is political pandering of the worst sort. I think anytime a child is placed in a loving and compassionate environment around people who care, it’s to the benefit of the child. - Rep. Beverly Marrero, Democrat from Memphis

Heterosexual marriage is almost like a Dixie cup, you drink it and you throw it away. It’s a sad day for me and it’s a sad day for the people of this state. - Rep. Mike Turner, Democrat from Old Hickory

A watered-down version of the controversial bill to prevent gay couples from adopting children in Tennessee cleared a major hurdle in the state House Tuesday.

Rep. Chris Clem (R-Lookout Mountain), the bill’s sponsor, accepted an amendment that substantially changed the legislation to state that individuals, gay or not, may adopt children. But the measure would also provide that married couples would be given priority in the adoption process. (source)

Yet another reason we need marriage in our relationships. Now, states such as Tennessee are trying to engineer bills to exclude gay couples. That was the original bill. Then, after heated debate, the bill was changed to not expressly exclude gay people from adoptions, but rather to give “priority” to married couples. But the intent is clear; to prevent gay couples who cannot get married in Tennessee from adoption.

I expect to see this trend in other states as well.

More reading
Bill to ban gay adoption amended, drops reference to homosexuals
Adoption bill altered to drop ban on gays

The Equal Rights Coalition will play host to America’s most notable homophobe in Fort Wayne on Sunday. The Rev. Fred Phelps, who runs the God Hates fags website and whose followers regularly demonstrate against LGBT rights has agreed to take part in a forum on gay rights. [...]

“We’ll accommodate it if it’s anywhere near reasonable,” Phelps said. “It’s just a wonderful way to show the contrast between the truth of God and the abomination of sin.” (source)

Now we are asking the bastard to a forum our community is hosting? I don’t even know what to say to that.

I guess I do have some good news. James Maestas, the 21-year-old Santa Fe man who was beaten, has been released from the hospital today. I hope he does ok. It sounds like he’s still very sick.

(Santa Fe, New Mexico) A 21-year-old Santa Fe man beaten to unconsciousness was released from hospital Tuesday, more than a week after he was attacked by five men.

But, the future for James Maestas remains uncertain. He was taken off a respirator at St. Vincent Hospital on Monday and is breathing on his own, but he is still very sick a family spokesperson said.

Maestas has pneumonia. His lungs were damaged in the attack, and there is the risk of further infection, the spokesperson for his parents said. (source)

WASHINGTON - The Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians recently applauded State Rep. Brian Duprey of Maine for his introduction of a bill that will prohibit abortion on unborn children who are gay.

“We recognize that at this time the gay gene has not been isolated, but [...] if the theory of a gay gene is proven and isolated, then the day will not be far off when a test for the predisposition of homosexuality will be developed. Once medical science achieves that ability, PLAGAL says it will be possible to do by a legal, surgical procedure what all homophobes and gay bashers throughout history have tried and failed to do -- to eliminate gays and lesbians once and for all,” said Jackie Malone, executive vice president of PLAGAL. (source)

Too bad they don’t realize that Rep. Brian Duprey (see links below) is one of the homophobes they are talking about, but that’s another story.

I’ve always thought that if the gay gene was ever discovered that our days would be numbered. There wouldn’t even be anyone around to argue for us because we would be eliminated before we were born. A sobering thought, isn’t it?

If we were eliminated, there would be a whole lot of issues that would just go away: equality for gay people, marriage issues for gay couples, the need for hate crimes, don’t ask don’t tell, just to name a few. And people wouldn’t hate us. They would hate something else because we wouldn’t be here.

If the gay gene were found, I have no doubt that they would do anything and everything in their power to destroy us. Just look at the current climate of hatred out there. I’m no geneticist, but I’ve been told by many who should know that there is no one “gay gene”. What we are and what makes a person gay vs. straight (and all flavors in between) is an extremely dynamic and complex thing that is influenced by many genes interacting with one another. I’m told there’s no way they will isolate that.

But, a hundred years ago, people would not even imagine many of the marvels we have today, such as the Internet, the TV, or Madonna.

By the way, Maine State Rep. Brian Duprey has been busy this legislative season. He has three different initiatives I’d like to mention:
a bill that would forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy based on the projected sexual orientation of a fetus (an idea he got from Rush Limbaugh)
pushing a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, which already is illegal under state law.
a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which he strongly opposes. He said he offered that bill at the request of an unnamed constituent, and he has vowed to fight his own bill in the Legislature (and they wonder why we hate politicians).

More reading
Maine gay-rights debate echoes across the country
Gay-gene bill about politics, not rights

A strange thing happened last night. I left work and went to my health club. I did my usual 30 minutes on the elliptical trainer, followed by a combination of free weights and resistance training. The whole workout was about 75 minutes.

So afterwards, I go to the locker room. Someone is occupying the locker right next to mine. He was there trying to get dressed for his workout. In the process of this, his stuff was in front of my locker, preventing me from getting to my locker to get undressed. So, I leaned up against the wall to rest while I waited for him to finish up and move.

There were three other men in there with me, in different states of undress. There was an older gentleman in the corner who I would say was in the 60-65 year age range. He was naked and trying to get dressed. All the sudden, he looks right at me and says, “I’ll be God damned! Queers are every fuckin’ place you go!” Everyone got quiet. I looked at him wondering what he was talking about. Then, it hit me, as he was glaring right at me, that he thought I was cruising the guys in the locker room!

It pissed me off. I looked right at him and said, “Listen grandpa, if you were the last man left on the face of this Earth, not gonna happen, not in your wildest dreams, so don’t flatter yourself.”

With that, one man who apparently had no problem with me waiting for my locker started laughing hysterically at what I just said. The older man in the corner stormed out of the locker room cussing.

I undressed, took a shower, and for all the hard work that I just did for a really nice workout, I decided to spend 10 quality minutes in the jacuzzi (a treat to me)! I then took a final shower, dressed, came home and cooked dinner for Kent. But all the while I was doing all of this, my guard was heightened. I wasn’t sure if the guy would try to get some of his goons to work me over after I left the club, or something of that nature. I had to walk a bit to get to my car and during that walk, I was looking everywhere to see if anyone was around. Isn’t it weird? Something like this happens and in the back of your head you wonder if you are going to be the next victim of a hate crime.

On the way home, I was rethinking the whole situation. Here, you have someone who made a wrong assumption, got angry and made a scene, for something that wasn’t even real. Amazing.

Kent sent me this editorial from the New York Times this morning.

Connecticut is seriously considering giving gay couples the ability to have their relationships legalized in civil unions. A civil union bill took a critical step toward passage when it was approved, 25 to 13, by the Legislature’s powerful Judiciary Committee recently, and supporters believe they have the votes in the House and Senate. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has said she supports at least the concept of civil unions. [...]

Gay rights advocates have mixed reactions, since they had hoped for a law that would give them the same rights and privileges as any married couple, and call it a marriage. [...]

The measure would treat gays joined in civil unions as spouses in a myriad of important ways, including rights of inheritance and making medical decisions. It’s an important step in supporting the stability of gay families, and one that should not be dismissed because it does not take us right to the end of the road: marriages recognized beyond a single state’s borders. (source)

We completed the questions our attorney had concerning our wills and our estate. It’s tough to go through that stuff because it makes you confront issues that you’d rather not think about; what happens after I die if Kent is still alive... if he dies first, what happens to the estate (all our holdings)... if we are both killed together, what happens? It’s all very intricate and I’m sure, after our attorney has sifted through all of this, she will come back with a whole new set of questions on issues we never thought about.

Which brings us to the civil union bill that will probably become law this year in Connecticut. Many of these issues would be dealt with in one stroke of signing a civil union registry and getting a civil union certificate from the state. I’m having a lot of problems with this whole concept.

The document will not say “marriage” and it will make it extremely clear that it is not a “marriage” (can you say “IN YOUR FACE!”?). Some people who are against this bill or any recognition of civil unions or gay marriage are saying that this is “marriage by another name”. To me, the difference between this civil union and marriage is as wide as the ocean. It won’t be honored by the federal government, or any other state. We leave the borders of our state, it dissolves and becomes nothing.

I’ve said I wouldn’t have anything to do with it - the notion of being less than an equal citizen and signing my name to something that says just exactly that. Yet, after what we are going through to try to protect our rights in the event of illness or death with this will, power of attorney, and other documents, I look at the civil union bill and see something that would codify these rights with the backing of law.

So the question would seem to be, do we sell our soul to the devil and take the easy way out, or do we hold out for what is right, true, and just; EQUALITY?

Now I’m doubting myself and my convictions.

Gay pop star Boy George has slammed Madonna for embracing the Kabbalah, the mystical offshoot of Judaism which preaches homosexuality is a disease. (source)

Do we care what either of these two people think about anything?

(Santa Fe, New Mexico) About 300 people attended a candlelight vigil Saturday night to show support for a young gay man who was beaten unconscious a week ago outside a Santa Fe hotel.

James Maestas, 21, remained hospitalized but spoke from his bed Saturday for the first time since the beating. Police said a group of at least three men confronted him outside a restaurant where he had eaten with a group of friends. [...]

Rachel Rosen, a friend of the Maestas family and chairwoman of Equality New Mexico, said Maestas spoke from his hospital bed for the first time Saturday when he asked for a mirror.

“I’ve got to see this face,” Maestas said, according to Rosen. Upon seeing his injuries, Maestas added: “That’s the fattest lip I’ve ever seen.” (source)

I was so afraid that we had another Matthew Shepard on our hands with this young man. I was so relieved that he will live and hopefully fully recover.

Gov. Bill Richardson attended the vigil and said, “What happened to James Maestas should never happen anywhere, on any planet. We as a society have got to find ways to end hatred.”

If the governor really wants to do something to send a message against violence based on hatred, perhaps he and the state should consider a hate crimes law. My understanding it that, although the state police have called this a “hate crime”, New Mexico does not have a hate crimes law to enforce that label.

Related Stories:
March 2, 2005 - Hate Crime in Santa Fe
March 3, 2005 - Man beaten in gay bashing clings to life

MONROE, WI . March, 05 On March 1st, two individuals with Wisconsin Christians United were in Burlington, Wisconsin literature dropping the WCU brochure Homosexuality: The Truth and a flyer dealing with so-called same-sex marriage. After leaving that literature on the doors of close to half of the homes in Burlington, the two men stood on a busy street corner holding signs which read, “Homosexuality is sin,” and “Christ can set you free.” The two individuals with WCU are Mike Foht, a full-time missionary, and a young Christian friend from Northern Ireland (Ulster) who had come to America to experience some ministry work here.

After a short time, a car with two individuals stopped by the picketers. A very large, very angry young man jumped out of the car and approached the picketers demanding to know “What the f--k are you doing? What’s with that sign. You guys got something against gays? . . . I’m going to kill you both and bust you.” The man then began viciously kicking one of the WCU signs with what appeared to be steel-toed work boots. He also kicked the young man from Ulster, bruising his knee. The assailant then turned on Mike Foht, kicking him and swinging his fists at him. In the process of trying to fend his attacker off, Mike ended up on the ground. The perpetrator’s friend shouted at him to come back to the vehicle so that they could flee the scene, which they did, but not before the berserk man picked up the sign reading, “Homosexuality is sin,” and repeatedly punched it while screaming curses. [...]

Could any of this have anything to do with the fact that Christians who take a biblical stance on homosexuality are constantly being portrayed as ignorant, violent hatemongers looking for victims on which to satiate their mindless rage? (source)

In a word, no. But I will suggest this to you. People in my community are beaten and killed EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country alone. People are fed up with it. People are tired of the violence and we are tired of the hate language used towards our community.

You think the gay community is hateful? What do you call it when people from the religious community take the Bible, turn it into this hateful message, then try to use that message to get legislation passed that demonizes my community and makes it less than other people?

I am sorry that the two “Christians” were harassed. Violence against anyone is never the answer. But to not understand where the frustration comes from that would drive someone to do this, is very naive and irresponsible on they part of these Christians. The violence that you witnessed is just a normal day for my community.

If you really want to understand us (a big if), try talking to us. I promise you, if you talk to me, I will talk to you. If you hold a sign to my face that says, “Homosexuality is sin,” I will respond accordingly, and you won’t like it. Not one bit.

There were a few articles that I came across this week that merit mention.

The first issue concerns Canada. Canada must by now be feeling a bit uncomfortable in it’s new lime light. They seem to be a beacon of democracy these days. First, after President Bush was reelected, there were many Americans who applied for citizenship to Canada, willing to leave the United States and give up their United States citizenship. These people were a combination of left-leaning people who felt that their country on many levels was trampling on democracy for many of it’s citizens. Others, such as couples of the same sex who wanted only to have equality through marriage, seek to live in a country where they could be equal.

But now, there’s a new group of Americans who are taking a closer look at our neighbor to the north; young Americans who joined our military and have been deployed to Iraq.

Thousands of people seek asylum in Canada every year, but these were extraordinary exiles: They claimed to be refugees from the United States, soldiers no less, who deserted duty in Iraq and are taking a provocative stance against the nation they vowed to serve.

“I was willing to give my life. I received a Purple Heart for being injured in combat,” said Darrell Anderson, 22, one of a handful of deserters who have surfaced here decrying the war and seeking protection as refugees. An Army Humvee gunner from Lexington, Ky., he spent seven months in Iraq before packing a duffel and fleeing while on leave earlier this year.

I’m going to be able to live the rest of my life with my head held up high, knowing I wasn’t part of the killing of innocent people,” he said on a recent night under a banner in the library that read: “Message From Canada, War Resisters Welcome Here.”

Anti-war activists and Americans who settled here to avoid serving in Vietnam are embracing the soldiers as kindred spirits, but this is a different generation of defectors. They volunteered for the military, and though Canada opposed the Iraq war, it’s arguing against granting the soldiers asylum -- a contrast to the Vietnam era, when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared his country “a refuge from militarism” and welcomed tens of thousands of deserters and draft evaders. (source)

It’s a tough issue that effects people I work with. I was talking two days ago to a woman at work who has a boy who is entering his teenage years. She believes that our country has made a bad decision in the war in Iraq. She fears that by the time her son is 18, a draft will be in force. She is thinking of starting the process of moving to Canada. Then the subject was changed because she said if she kept talking about it, she would start crying.

It’s not that these people are cowards or unpatriotic. I know that some people want to paint them in that light because it makes it easier to dismiss them. If we had an immediate threat such as an invasion to our country and were in imminent danger, I would be the first to take up arms to defend my country. All we have done is abuse our power and be the new bully on the block. Meanwhile, the hatred for our country increases day by day.

We, in return, imply to Syria that they could be our next target. And, our relationship with Russia is deteriorating as well. This is how world wars begin. Only this time, we are the Germany. We are the aggressors. And we all know what happened to Germany.

And finally, a milestone has been reached in the war. The number of United States troops killed in the war on Iraq has reached 1,500.

At the local level in Connecticut, I received an email from the People of Faith, that covers many religious denominations that believe, among other things, that gay people should be treated with equality. They are having a rally against the war in Hartford. This was part of the email:

END THE WAR IN IRAQ!
END THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE!
STOP TARGETING MINORITIES AT HOME!
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

March and Rally
Saturday, March 19
Hartford
March at 12:00 noon
Intersection of Capitol & Broad
Rally at 1:00 p.m.
Barnard Park (South Green)

Be there if you can. I plan to be.

(Washington) Legislation to allow faith-based groups which receive federal money to circumvent local and state human rights laws protecting LGBT workers has passed the House of Representatives.

The Workforce Investment Act passed by a 224 - 200 vote after Republicans defended the hiring language.

President Bush praised the move and called on Congress to expand the hiring language to other federal programs.

The Workforce Investment Act would repeal workplace protections in job training programs signed into law by President Reagan and written by then-Senator Dan Quayle. Specifically, it would allow religious organizations, which receive federal funding to operate job training programs, to discriminate in employment based on religious grounds - including objections to an individual’s sexual orientation.

House Democrats argued that the bill amounts to government-sanctioned discrimination.

“This provision is offensive, ugly, wrong,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat. “It is a slippery slope from here on out and I fear this is just the beginning.” (source)

I agree with Representative McGovern, it is a slippery slope and it’s just the beginning. I’ve often felt that gays are really just a convenient group to use right now, for two reasons: 1) we have been in the news a lot in the last year or two, and usually portrayed in unfavorable ways, and 2) we are, despite the progress we have made, still a hugely unpopular minority in this country.

We have made progress, but with gay marriage, gay adoption, gay bashings, and the military issues for gays in the news every single day, our community is taking it on the chin big time now, and it’s going to stay that way for some time, at least as long as the current administration is in power.

This is not to say that this is altogether a bad thing. One thing that I have to keep telling myself all the time is that just the mere fact that people are talking about our issues will make people think about our issues. That is how change takes place. It will force the less stable to react in bad ways. For some, they will feel that it is their civic duty to drive to the polls to say in a resounding voice that they do indeed want this group of people discriminated against in their state constitution. It may mean that the government will take further punitive action against gay troops by reinforcing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and passing a much more mean spirited version of the bill (automatic dishonorable discharge). It may mean that states will begin passing legislation that will make it more difficult for gay families to adopt children (Florida now has a ban and Virginia entertained the idea this year).

There are many ways they could react, but whatever the reaction is, they are thinking about us as a community; their brothers, their neighbors, their sons, their daughters. And they are actively and consciously making us less by taking these actions.

This is what our federal government is now doing through this legislation. We are at the top of the laundry list because it is still acceptable in this country to blatantly discriminate against our community. But trust me, this government will not stop there. I knew that when I started to see federal money (OUR money) being spend on “Faith Based Initiatives” (so much for the separation of church and state). When they started down that road, I knew they had an agenda, and I knew it would be sooner rather than later that our community would be directly effected by this. So who will be next? Here are a few scenarios for you...

A young teen who is suicidal turns to a “faith based” organization funded by our federal government, for help. The organization discovers that the teen is are gay or lesbian and are afraid that if their parents and friends find out, they will be rejected. They feel trapped and hopeless, and that their world is going to fall apart (sounds like I know from personal experience, doesn’t it?). The organization tells the teen that the only options are to give their life to Christ and pray for forgiveness, or go to Hell. The organization will do this because to condone or approve of the teens sexual orientation would be to go against what the organization believes in. Of course, to help with the prayer and counseling, the organization will probably inform the parents as well. Now the teen truly has only two choices. If he/she is strong enough, they may be able hold on until they are old enough to leave, giving the illusion that they are turning straight. The other option is suicide.

A young woman finds out she is pregnant. Not knowing where to turn, she turns to a “faith based” organization for help. An abortion is not in the picture (and no, I’m not advocating one way or the other) since the organization does not believe in that. They would advocate “abstinence only” before marriage, but since she is already pregnant, she must carry the baby to term. She can then keep the baby or put it up for adoption. Aborting it will be a mortal sin and she will go to Hell. Her parents will be informed as well.

I’m not making a judgment one way or the other in either of these scenarios. But one thing I think is just wrong is for our government to weigh in on these issues in favor of a “faith based” organization. I resent the fact that my tax dollars are going to organizations that will be making moral judgments against people. That is not the role of the government.

We have crossed a very dangerous line.

They say everything in life is connected.

Martha Stewart got released from prison today.

Today, UPS tracking says that my spring wild flower seeds (ok... I got inspired by Martha) will arrive, you got it, TODAY!

What does this mean?

AIDS has been with us in this country for 25 years, and we still have morons in this country, after all kinds of people are sick and dying with AIDS, who think they can get away with saying something like this. Just amazing.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A businessman who made derogatory comments to an AIDS awareness group at the Capitol has resigned from his position as first vice president for the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound.

“Looks like it’s anal sex week,” Lou Novak loudly remarked as a group from the Life Long AIDS Alliance walked though the state House office building.

The group included a 13-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy. The boy’s family had recently been forced to move because of AIDS-related prejudice in his neighborhood. (source)

This is an update from the man who was beaten in New Mexico. I originally wrote about the story yesterday. It sounds to me as if the beating he received was more severe than reported. Now he is “clinging to life”. It’s so sad.

I know this is tough to read, but these are the injuries that he received. This is what hate, in it’s purest form is.

The 21-year-old Santa Fe man who police say was savagely beaten in a gay-bashing incident last weekend is clinging to life in critical condition, a family spokeswoman said Wednesday. [...]

Maestas (pictured) apparently was kicked so hard the food in his stomach came up his throat and went into his lungs, Rosen said. Stomach acid badly burned his lungs, she said, and he is breathing with the help of a respirator.

He has been running a fever and must be monitored closely, because the risk of infection is high, Rosen said.

Maestas’ face and mouth are bruised and swollen, she said. “They haven’t even been able to see if he has all his lower teeth because his lower lip is so mangled.”

While a brain scan didn’t reveal any damage, she said, it’s too early to tell for sure. Maestas has not regained consciousness, and doctors are keeping him sedated, she said.

Doctors don’t know whether he will suffer permanent damage from the attack if he pulls through, Rosen said. (source)

The world is full of savage animals who have no value of life and completely devoid of decency.

Related Articles
March 2, 2005 - Hate Crime in Santa Fe
June 18, 2006 - Santa Fe Bashers to get No Prison Time

Related Articles
March 3, 2005 - Man beaten in gay bashing clings to life
June 18, 2006 - Santa Fe Bashers to get No Prison Time

Also see Update on 03/03/2005

(Santa Fe, New Mexico) Three men have been charged in the beating of a Santa Fe gay man that was so vicious he was left unconscious.

James Maestas (pictured right), 21, and his partner Joshua Stockham 24, of Albuquerque had just finished lunch with several female friends at a Santa Fe restaurant and had gone outside for a smoke when five men drove into the parking lot. The men attempted to talk up the girls and at some point got into an argument with Maestas and Stockham.

A police statement says that the argument escalated with one of the men calling Maestas and Stockham “faggots” and trying to provoke a fight.

Stockham, Maestas and the females got into a car and began driving away. The men then began throwing rocks at the car according to the statement said.

A man identified as the person who had waited on them in the restaurant, David Trinidad, 17, was just finishing work and came outside. The statement said that Trinidad knew the five men and joined in the rock throwing.

Trinidad, the police statement said, learned the men were staying at nearby hotel while he was serving them.

He told investigators that he and the five men followed the group to the hotel and along the way they “pumped” themselves up by talking about “fucking those faggots up”. The statement also quotes Trinidad as telling investigators that they referred to Stockham and Maestas as “fucking white boys.”

They arrived at the hotel just behind Stockham and Maestas and began beating the pair while yelling anti-gay epithets.

Maestas fell to the ground unconscious. (source)

Other sources
Suspects in gay bashing attend first court hearing
Gay couple bashed in Santa Fe, N.M.

Trinidad had overheard where the two men were staying, and the group went to that nearby motel. Maturin and Medina attacked Maestas while Trinidad and another man hit Stockham, the statement read. “Maturin said that as he approached them he saw the two victims kissing, and he pushed them and started punching victim Maestas,” court records state. “He said he was joined by suspect Isaia Medina, who, according to Maturin, really started ‘pounding’ the victim.”

According to Albuquerque TV station KRQE, Maestas was beaten unconscious. “He was found by a stairwell in the hotel. He had been beaten pretty severely. He sustained several facial and head injuries,” said Eric Johnson of the Santa Fe police department. Police say Maestas was in critical condition Monday at St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe, where he was on a respirator.

All of this has me thinking that maybe (and I’m totally serious about this), that I should stop by Sports Authority and buy a baseball bat for the trunk of my car, or get a stun gun. I’ve thought about the times I have been called a faggot while on lunch or whatever, and nothing had come of it because I just ignored it. But I know that anytime someone calls you a faggot, it’s not hard to have that develop into violence.

(Topeka, Kansas) The virulent anti-gay Fred Phelps clan was dealt a double blow in the group’s hometown Tuesday. Topeka voters rejected a bid to repeal the city’s gay rights ordinances and turned down an attempt by one of the clan leaders to gain a seat on city council currently held by a lesbian.

Phelps runs the Westboro Baptist Church which has been described by some authorities as a cult and operates the God Hates Fags website. The group, made up mostly of relatives of Phelps, routinely demonstrates at the funerals of AIDS victims.

They successfully managed to get enough signatures to force a vote on repealing two gay rights ordinances. One bans employment discrimination in city government on the basis of sexual orientation the other is hate crimes law.

The repeal bid failed 14,285 to 12,795. Had it passed it would have barred Topeka from reinstating such protections for 10 years. (source)

When things like this happen in places like Topeka, Kansas, I realize that we’ve made progress. It’s getting harder and harder for a bigot to pass their agenda onto others - even in an ultra conservative place like Topeka, Kansas.

People often overlook or view events such as this in rural places as trivial, when they are a real barometer on the progress that has been made. Another example that recently happened was in Idaho, where the Idaho Senate killed a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution to ban gay marriage.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- More than 100 people gathered on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Tuesday evening to show support for a gay student who was taunted and beaten.

Police called the attack on a gay student who was beaten by a gang of six or seven men a hate crime Tuesday. They said the victim suffered broken bones but wasn’t hospitalized. [...]

The student went home to Charlotte to recover and is now afraid to return to campus, friends said. He has already pulled his name from the student directory for safety reasons. (source)

I can relate to the student being scared and not ever wanting to go back to school. The same thing happened to me in high school. It’s something you really never get over.

Other sources:
Some Want N.C. Hate Crime Law Changed To Include Gays

03/02/2005 UPDATE

Beaten UNC Student Speaks Out
Thomas Stockwell, a 21-year-old junior, says he was walking alone down Franklin Street early Friday morning when a group of young men made derogatory comments about his sexual orientation.

"I took off running to this corner, Columbia and Franklin, where they caught up to me, turned around and punched me in the face," Stockwell said. He suffered a broken nose, black eye and bruises.

There are few things worse in life than the stomach flu. It’s only redeeming feature is that usually only last for 24 hours. Kent brought this home from the university. We were fine until Sunday morning. We were getting ready to go out to breakfast and I suddenly just lost my energy and felt achy all over. Not long after that, Kent started to feel bad was well. It was downhill from there.

Sunday was a mixed back of high fever, dilutions brought about by the fever, throwing up, and more fever. We both spend the day in bed. I was so drained of energy that when I would sit up in bed to go to the bathroom, I wasn’t sure if I had the energy to get there.

Come Monday, Kent is feeling better. He had two meetings that day, one in the morning, and one at 4:00pm. He also had a dinner to go to with a prospective student that he was going to cancel. During the day, he recovered, and called to say that he would be going to the dinner meeting after all.

I still felt lousy all day yesterday. The fever persisted and i was sick once again. I slept most of the day. This morning, I woke up early, I think because all I’ve been doing is sleeping. The fever is gone, along with the nausea, but the body aches are very much there. So, I’m staying home one more day to recuperate.

I suppose the upside of this is that I won’t have to deal with the winter storm we had last night. Our state got 8-15 inches of snow (our area was in the 15 inch range on the map). Kent is outside now blowing the snow off the driveway.

Back to bed for me.

This year, Connecticut had before it to bills to defend marriage and prevent gay couples from achieving marriage. Both bills died. The legislature also had before it a bill to give full marriage to gay couples. I, along with other organizations, such as Love Makes a Family, supported that bill.

The bill was amended to not allow for “marriage” for same sex couples. I didn’t support that, and neither did Love Makes a Family. We all told the legislators that anything less than full marriage equates to second-class citizenship. It would also give us little hope for challenging the Federal Government in supporting something they don’t already support, a civil union.

The argument could easily be made that it would be cost prohibitive to support a separate set of laws for marriage and civil unions on the Federal level, just for the sake of keeping the label marriage from gay couples. I don’t think the government would do that.

I’ve also said that I would never sign up for a second-class status. In other words, if civil unions do become the law of Connecticut, which seems likely this year, I would not register for it because I feel that my marriage to Kent is worth more than that. I made these opinions very clear on commenting on an article What are we fighting for? over on the Republic of T.

But, am I sabotaging our hope of obtaining full marriage by doing this - by not signing up for a civil union? I told the legislator who authored it that I would have nothing to do with second class status. That’s a principle that I stand by. As I states in my comments on the Republic of T.:

The problem is, civil unions (at least from the one state - Vermont - has one), are a dead end. Once they are in place, there is little incentive for the state to revisit this red hot issue anytime soon. Vermont hasn’t, and it has no plans to reopen the issue of equality for gay couples in Vermont. They dealt with the issue with civil unions and at the end of the day, can pat themselves on the back for giving gay couples “equality”. The problem is, it’s not equality.

I have always agreed with Love Makes a Family on this issue. In the testimony before the Judiciary Committee, they did not support the civil union bill and wanted it killed, saying that nothing less than marriage is not equal.

But then, yesterday, I got this letter from Love Makes a Family:

The legislative process has many twists and turns, and LMF will spend the coming weeks and months making the case to legislators that it is not too late to push for full equality. If legislators can get all the way to civil union, why withhold marriage?

The bottom line is that now that the marriage equality bill has been amended into a civil union bill, LMF will not work against it.

We recognize that our membership is united in its support for marriage, but has different views on civil union as a path to marriage. Let us remain united in asking ALL our legislators to stand strong for marriage.

So, it would appear that Love Makes a Family are also pragmatists in this issue.

If there are few who sign up for civil unions, I can see some legislators next year (when the gay marriage bill will supposedly be introduced), who never wanted civil unions in the first place, making the argument that there is no need of them since very few couples signed up for them in the first place.

Also, Kent and I are going through the process of drafting a will, power of attorney, and all the rest. Many of those needs would be enforced and enhanced by the civil union law. Do we hold out on principle, and risk it backfiring? Or, do we sign up for them, take what they have to offer, and hope next year for true equality in the form of a real marriage bill? Also, on an emotional level, if we get a civil union, and later, when the gay marriage bill is passed, how will we feel about our marriage when our civil union is transfered to a marriage? That’s seems kind of like not even having a marriage in the first place.

I want to be able to go to my Town Clerk and apply for a marriage license, not one for gay couples verses the “normal” ones. They should all be the same.

I don’t know. Perhaps I should be a pragmatist as well and take what I can, but everything in my being tells me this is wrong. At the central core of what I am as a human being, is the desire to have fairness and equality. I hate inequality, but I guess at this point, I have to try to be more flexible.