Ray Vahey and Richard Taylor have been in love for almost 50 years. They share meals, an apartment, a car. What they can’t share are taxes, dental insurance or Social Security benefits.

“We have yearned for a marriage recognized in America,” Vahey said. (source)

Why are people so scared of this?

Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution is likely to pass.

Albert Soto, a Tucson actor and community activist who died Saturday, intended to donate his eyes and tissue after death, but both were rejected because he was gay.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has established guidelines allowing centers to reject donations from men who have had sex with men within the past five years, said Sara Pace Jones, a spokeswoman with the Donor Network of Arizona. [...]

The decision has outraged Soto’s family members. They are trying to rally the support of local elected officials to have the guidelines changed. (source)

I was considering at one time donating my organs when I die. I used to give blood as often as I could. Then, the American Red Cross stated that the blood of gay men would be refused. In fact, for the rest of my life, I cannot give blood. Now, it appears that the organs of gay men will also be refused.

I hear of people from time to time who are dying of leukemia or some such disease. Even though it is painful, I was willing to donate bone marrow for a stranger - if it could help. It honestly never occurred to me that I would be refused.

I suppose this is one of those things that does not merit my worry. It is beyond my control. But what if I am a tissue match for someone who is dying. What if I could have saved a life?

If the family knew that I could have saved their loved one, do you really think they would care that I am gay? It makes no sense to me, since all blood and all tissue is checked from everyone for defects and disease.

Such a strange world we live in.

This all reminds me of something that happened years ago now. There was a program called “Toys for Tots”. It was a programs where local businesses collected toys for needy children at Christmas. It was sponsored by the Marines. Just before Christmas, the Marines would go by each business, collect the boxes of toys, and distribute them to the children.

This from the archives....

Marines nearly refuse “Gay” Toys For Tots - Los Angeles: The Marines refused to send a few good men to a gay bar to pick up Christmas gifts collected in the Toys for Tots campaign, but a state legislator “did the logical thing” and delivered them to a collection center.

The Marines were asked to pick up the toys for 100 needy children collected at a party in a bar in North Hollywood. Bar owner and former Marine Mark Siefker had made prior arrangements for the pickup, but the Marines decided this week it would be “inappropriate for the Marines to go into a homosexual establishment.”

“I couldn’t believe it,” said state Sen. Alan Robbins, whose district includes the bar. “I’m kind of surprised that the Marines would not pick up the toys here. Who knows, maybe when I run again my slogan will be, ‘Alan Robbins will go where the Marines are afraid to go.’”
Source: THE WEEKLY NEWS, December 28, 1983

Nathan Tabor’s short musing in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment is still another example of misguided policies of “conservatives” who believe that symbolic legislation is somehow a substitute for substantive tackling of the ills of a social institution. Since we all understand that gay Americans have nothing to do with the state of marriage in the United States, attempting to demonize their citizenship to score political points is about as sleazy as one can get - and risks alienating a portion of our population for decades.

It is rather ludicrous for heterosexuals to pretend that we have these “family values” debates about the “sanctity” of marriage in states around the country, when generally the people these amendments affect directly are often left out of the “discussion.” Moreover, these debates never seem to be about the practical legal incidents that have no business being the exclusive domain of marriage, in particular those state laws governing personal health decisions, property disbursement and burial/funeral rights. And while these despicable amendments have been successful wedge issues for the Right, there has been little movement in examining state laws which deprive individuals from being able to adequately and simply take care of basic decisions in their lives. Instead, “conservatives” seem to believe that “family values” means imposing the rights of an estranged distant cousin over those of a longtime same-sex partner. . .and frankly, no one understands the morality behind that protection of family, especially since conservative “religious” groups continually attempt to define families as not including gay Americans. So I ask you. . .if your desire is to institutionalize ostracizing these people from their families, what is the moral foundation for then interjecting these same families into their most personal and basic decisions after encouraging these families to reject them?

Frankly, this family values argument is ridiculous. Protecting marriage would mean drastically limiting divorce or forcing penalties on people who abrogate their marriage vows. Protecting marriage would mean looking real hard at those state laws which allow first cousins to marry. Protecting marriage would be passing constitutional amendments “defining” marriage as being between a GROWN man and a woman; not the 13 and 14 year olds that can marry in Georgia without parental permission if the girl is pregnant.

Don’t think gay Americans haven’t noticed this inability to examine the marriage laws and account for the strange “sanctified” regulations that allow minors more access to legal protections and responsibilities than taxpaying same-sex couples. Don’t think gay Americans haven’t noticed that the same people who, for years, screamed that gays were just like pedophiles, willingly passed legislation allowing a 37 year old woman to marry a 15 year old boy because she became pregnant. Family values?

This country doesn’t need a Federal Marriage Amendment. Not unless conservatives would like to include some responsibility language in that proposal....like “Marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman. . .for a lifetime.” Then you might have something to debate. And I’m sure gay Americans have plenty to say about straight irresponsibilities from their very unique position as permanently shoved outside the privileged social class of the marry-for-a-green-card, marry-for-money, marry-for-sex, marry-cuz-I-had-a-drink breeder population.

Kevin Menken (source)

What’s left to say? On many different occasions, in different ways, I’ve touched on every single point Mr. Menken made. It’s frustrating that more people can’t see the push for restricting marriage from gay couples for what it is; a way to alienate an entire segment of the American population. And for what? It’s all about political gain. I suppose that a few sincerely do believe that they are doing marriage a favor by preventing gay couples from getting married, but the great majority of people passing amendments to their state constitutions, along with the federal government, are simply doing it to score votes.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult for me to even want to be an American anymore. I lost the ability to say I’m a “proud” American when George W. Bush won the election on no more than a push to “protect the sanctity of marriage” by trying to pass a constitutional amendment preventing gay couples from ever achieving marriage. And after he won the election, all talk on passing the constitution amendment stopped. It had achieved it’s purpose - to put him back into office.

What can I say? Most Americans, it would seem, are bigots. It’s hard for me to think of it any other way when those saying they are protecting the sanctity of marriage are filing for divorce 55% of the time.

The silver lining, if you can call it that, is that the Bush Administration is falling apart at the seams. Every single thing he has proposed from the war in Iraq (now costing us $1 billion a week), to Hurricane Katrina, to controlling the flow of immigrants into this country, to basic honesty with in his administration, has failed. Maybe something good will come from all of this.

I’m thankful for all the Americans like Mr. Menken who can see through all of this and see it for what it is.

Swedish anti-gay pastor acquitted

In a sermon two years ago, Pastor Ake Green told his congregation that homosexuality was a “deep cancer tumour” on society.

He was convicted in 2004 under Sweden’s hate crimes law.

But on Tuesday the court upheld an appeals court verdict that Pastor Green’s remarks did not constitute incitement to hatred. [...]

He has shown little regret for his comments when addressing the media. He has also said his comments referred to a homosexual lifestyle, rather than individuals.

But after his acquittal, he said that everyone now knew what he thought about homosexuals and he would keep his mouth shut in future.

In the sermon, Mr. Green told a congregation on the small south-eastern island of Oland that homosexuals were “a deep cancer tumour on all of society” and that gays were more likely than other people to rape children and animals.

I suppose that it’s a good thing he is going to keep his mouth shut about gays in the future. But, he’s also won himself an entry in my “People With Issues” photo album. Congratulations Mr. Green! You committed a hate crime in my book.

I’ve taken some time off of late from writing. It’s all a good thing. One can not always focus on the news and the world, especially when the world seems to be going to hell. At least, that is my take on it. We went away for a couple of days for Thanksgiving. We went to Mystic, Connecticut and stayed at the Inn at Mystic. They serve a wonderful traditional Thanksgiving dinner. Before dinner, we went to Bluff Point and enjoyed the scenery and a nice sunset. After dinner, we returned to our room. Kent made a fire in the fire place in our room, while I enjoyed the jacuzzi (yes, I did kind of go all out on the room, but I wanted it to be special).

My Thoughts Over Thanksgiving
You know, for most of my life, I have had a hard time dealing with people’s attitudes towards my sexuality. I’ve always, for the most part, been able to hide it from friends and family - at least in the early part of my life.

Later, for reasons beyond my control, it has been impossible to hide. People change as they get older. I would like to be able to honestly say that the older you get, the less you care about what other people say or think. But that’s not totally honest.

I believe that what you gain with age is the ability to separate out what is real and what matters from all the crap that life and people dish out. The “crap” I talk of, in my case, is trying to be something that you are not for the sake of other people. Some of those other people will say that they are your family, therefore you shouldn’t embarrass them for being... you. You should be something that they would be proud of (as opposed to being... you - something they would be ashamed of). This is how I spent most of my youth, trying to measure up to what society and my family expected me to be.

College Years
Other people I talk of are friends. Are they really friends? Well, in the absence of anyone else who calls them self your friend, I suppose they are. Everything is relative. Of course, there are conditions to that friendship. They must never know you are gay - EVER. If they do, they will drop you like a hot potato. And if they even hear a rumor that you are a homosexual, suddenly, you are treated as though you have a plague. You are ostracized. You are teased. And suddenly, you find yourself wondering if all this shit is worth it. I’ve been there. We’ll call that my youth and my “college years”, for the most part. Our later years in Voorhees Hall at college were not what you would call fun. It’s not all bad though. College is, after all, a place for learning, is it not? Being made fun of and losing friendships was a learning experience for me.

Present Day
What did I learn. Basically, most people are self-serving bigots who only care for themselves. Of course, to be fair, times have changed somewhat. We now live in the age of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”. This is today’s version of “acceptance” - it’s ok to be gay if you can offer something good to straight people - specifically straight guys. If you can’t, that makes you a gay guy that is accepted, but only because the girl friend or the wife accepts you. If that’s not the case, do not pass go and do not collect $200 because you are a “fag”. Unless they work with you. In that case, you are ok, because they have to work with you. But see, then you are accepted because they once again “need you”. So it all works out, I suppose. If Michelangelo were alive today, would the Vatican be kicking gay priests out of the church? Were we more “needed” then?

But you know, once in awhile, a long while, someone will come along and ask you if what they heard is true. I ask, “Is what true?” They reply, “That you are gay.” Apparently it’s not obvious to everyone. I tell them, reluctantly, that it is, expecting yet another friendship to end. And to my surprise, they say, “That’s cool. It doesn’t matter to me.” How many times has that happened to me? Precisely three times in my entire life. Mike, Paul, and Mary, thank you for still remaining my friend. :-)

Others of course came to know me later in life. Now, do I hold my “scarlet letter” proudly on my chest for all to see? Do I wear being gay as some kind of badge of honor or courage? No. But I do tell potential friends sooner than later that I’m gay if they haven’t figured it out already. It’s a matter of practicality really. You see, if they have too much baggage to accept me for what I am, I have too much baggage to deal with their baggage.

In real life, I am rarely as outspoken to friends as I am in this blog. Why? The short answer is, I have little to lose by sharing what I feel and think at the most personal level with you, because I don’t know you. I have nothing to lose by spilling my guts to you and telling you how I really feel inside.

That has recently changed. I’ve come to understand that quite a few who read this blog do in fact know me in real life. That means, I see them on a personal basis, and many of them have been to my home for dinner or drinks.

It’s a strange feeling. It exposes me in very awkward ways. We had dinner with one person a few weeks ago. She mentioned that she was a reader of the blog. As a writer, I am curious how it effects people. She said that it made her “sad” that I have many of the feelings I have. I believe it was more complex than that, but when I heard the word “sad”, my mind focused and fixed itself solely on that one word. I asked Kent later, “Am I sad?” What a strange question, looking back on it.

Others cheer me on and marvel at how I can expose so much of myself to the world. I don’t know the answer to that today. It was easier when I was anonymous to people. I didn’t feel as though I was exposing that much of myself. But now, it’s strange and I find myself sometimes guarding what I write and making my writing less caustic or raw. But, then it’s not real, and I’m playing it safe.

I remember a scene in Mission Impossible II, when Ethan finally meets Max (who turns out to be female, her name is Maxine). He tells Max, “I assume your name is Maxine?” She replies to him, “My dear boy, in my line of work (being a spy) I don’t have to tell you how comforting anonymity can be.” It’s the same way for me.

Life is to be felt. That is what I do with my life, and I do it as intensely as Dimitri Shostakovich expressed his rage and love of life through his music. If you don’t feel life through good and bad, gain and loss, why bother? If people who know me in real life read this, their burden is to accept or reject me for my beliefs. That is not my burden at this stage in my life. People who are my real friends who really understand me, will understand this.

This is one reason I no long perform music. I am passionate about it. I felt as though I was a medium for it. I would practice six measures of a sonata a whole week. Just six measures. Is that obsession, or seeking a truth? In the end, I felt as though the truth came out, and usually very dramatically. One conductor (which will remain nameless) who’s orchestra I was soloing with, said to me, “You are difficult to perform with because of the intensity of your concentration, whether you are playing something ‘light’ such as Bach, or something ‘heavy’, such as Wagner.” I thought it was a nonsensical argument. Surely Bach demands that the phrasing and placement of emphasis to be extremely important. There is nothing “light” about that. It is right or it is wrong. And if he cared enough to compose it, I should at least care enough about it to perform it with my entire soul and being. This is why I loved playing from the manuscript. It was from the composer to me, without interpretation from some publisher. People used to tell me that they envied me for being able to play with such passion. It was different for me. One of the reasons I stopped playing was because I felt like it was drawing the life out of me. I gave it everything, and it took everything. When I was playing, it was just me and the music. My sense of surroundings were gone. I didn’t know if I was in a practice room, or in front of people performing in a concert hall. It was just the music. And afterward, I was emotionally drained.

Blogging has become somewhat the same for me. At least, now you know why I’m so intense. It seems that I’ve somehow managed to bring the intensity of music into this blog. Of course, instead of some master composer, you are stuck with me.

These were some of my thoughts over Thanksgiving. I’m thankful for the friends I have who understand me and still want me for a friend. I’m thankful to have known Brennan and Sasha. I’m thankful that some higher power has brought Maxwell and Mimi into our lives. I’m really thankful that Kent is my life and my soul mate.

I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving!

A new Vatican document on homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood touched off a storm of criticism on Wednesday from those who say the Church is missing the point and using gays as scapegoats for its sex scandals.

The document, which says the Church can admit those who have clearly overcome homosexual tendencies for at least three years, is due to be released officially next week.

But it said practicing homosexuals and those with “deep-seated” gay tendencies and those who support a gay culture should be barred, a stand which was welcomed by conservatives both in the Catholic Church and in other religions.

“This looks like a diversionary tactic to deflect public attention away from the Vatican’s real problem which is child sex abuse by clergy,” said Peter Tatchell of the British gay pressure group OutRage!

“The Pope should be tackling pedophiles within the Church, not witch-hunting gay people,” he told Reuters.

The document re-enforces standing policy that many in the Church believe has not been properly enforced. Its urgency has been highlighted by the 2002 sexual abuse scandal in the United States, where some 80 percent of the victims were boys. (source)

Where do I begin?

First and foremost, I’m scared for the boys who will continue to be molested. I am more concerned for them because the Catholic Church, the Vatican, and the Pope are doing a great disservice and injustice by completely missing the point on this issue. The central issue is, homosexuality and pedophilia are completely separate and unrelated issues!

But the real question is, does the Vatican really care? After all, they’ve spent decades shifting priests around the world from one church to the next when unsettling issues come up (some child complains about “being touched there” or some parent complains). The answer has always been to move that priest somewhere else and get a new priest.

And it’s always the boys who are being molested. Why? Because being a pedophile is like being a rapist. It is a crime of opportunity and it is a crime against a weaker individual. It is not a crime of passion. If those priests had the same access to girls, they would have been molested as well.

But what does the Vatican conclude? It must be the homosexual priests doing the dirty deed. That’s dangerous and it gives little regard to the children in the church left alone with priests.

I’m not Catholic, so I suppose I have no vested interest in this, other than being a good citizen and standing up to these cases of abuse. The Catholic Church is free to do as it wants. Why any gay man would want to be part of a body who despises them so much is beyond me, but to each his own, I suppose.

But now that the Catholic Church has made it’s decision, we know two things:

1) They have little regard for the safety of the children within their church

2) The abuse will continue, because they have not dealt with the problem. It may go underground for awhile and hide because of the spotlight on this issue at this time, but it will come back.

Who will they blame then, when the homosexual priests are gone? After the gay priests are gone and the Catholic Church pats itself on the back for “dealing with the problem”, I hold the Pope personally responsible for every child who is molested at the hands of a priest.

You should too.

There is a lot I try to do every single day of my life to let people know the challenges that gay and lesbian citizens face. Most of the time, that is simply being myself and letting people get to know me, as a person. I make no mention of being gay, but as they get to know me, it will come up in some form or another.

In Connecticut, for example, I can’t tell you how many people have asked if Kent and I will signing up for a “civil union”. As of October 1, 2005, we can not sign up for a Civil Union in the State of Connecticut to gain most of the rights of marriage within the state of Connecticut. Once you leave the state, all of that disappears. I explain this to those who ask if we will be entering into a civil union. I explain all the things the civil union will not provide. I explain how, within the law itself, is wording that states that “marriage” is the union between a man and a woman, and that by signing up for a civil union, I am signing up for a legal arrangement that first and foremost says, “You as a couple, are NOT EQUAL”. I then tell them of all the federal benefits of marriage that they enjoy, that this Civil Union will not grant.

Then, I ask them, would you want to sign up for one?

That’s what it takes to get through to most people. You have to bring it home to them in their terms, to show them what they have and what we are given by the gracious legislators and the gracious Governor Rell, that it simply is not equality. It doesn’t even come close.

So, a few days ago, I received this catalog from Virginia Traditions (pictured right). It’s a catalog offering meat products through the mail. I know, you are now in a total state of shock as you are wondering, “What gay man would ever order meat products through the mail?!??” Ok, I too am left wondering that. But some how, some time, I must have ordered something from them (I order a lot of things on line). Let’s just deal with that fact for now, and move on.....

Virginia has been one of the nastiest states in the nation regarding gay issues. They passed their version of a defense of marriage act, called, “Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act”. The law prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions, and threatens to overturn private contractual relationships between gay and lesbian couples.

It is also legal to fire someone in the State of Virginia, just for being gay. I’ve found that most straight people are shocked when i tell them this. Why, I don’t know, when 36 other states in the nation can do the same thing.

I didn’t just throw the catalog out. I made a message and posted it to the magazine, where I stated why I want to be removed from their mailing list, and why they have lost my business. You can view the full image here. If they want it back, they can appeal to the legislators of their state and tell them to knock it off. Or, the company may embrace what the legislators have done, and not deserve my business. At any rate, they know why they lost my business. Today, that catalog will be mailed back to them, with my note attached to it.

It’s important to do this. Don’t just throw the catalog away because it’s an annoyance. It’s more than just an annoyance. It’s an in your face message that came to your home saying, “We know we bashed the hell out of you gays last year, but why aren’t you buying our products?” That’s insulting, and they should know it.

The bottom line, I had an opportunity to let this business know my feelings. They are losing my business because of this. This is the message I posted to the catalog (view the full image here):

Yes, I would also like to remain on your mailing list, but…

Virginia Traditions resides in the State of Virginia, and, unlike Virginia, I WILL NOT SUPPORT BIGOTRY, in any way, shape, or form.

You want my business, you have to earn it by not supporting those values that your state seems to hold most dear – singling out gay couples and gay families for discrimination. That will not cut it in my book. You want my business back? Think about this…

On July 1, 2004 the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act became law. In addition to prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions, this legislation threatens to overturn private contractual relationships between gay and lesbian couples.

In the state of Virginia, a person--whether gay or straight--can be legally fired or refused a job by an employer on the basis of that person’s real or perceived sexual orientation. A person could lose her or his job simply because s/he is gay, even if s/he is doing a excellent work.

I won’t do business with a State or any organization or business in a state that supports such discrimination. Until this changes, TAKE MY NAME OFF YOUR MAILING LIST.

Sincerely,
Bill Cannon

PS…. Want to know how to get involved and make changes to support ALL Virginians, go to http://www.equalityvirginia.org.

I suppose I’m airing my personal baggage here, but 50 is not old! Don’t get me wrong. I think the idea of having a gay retirement center is awesome, and I REALLY like the idea of “scantily clad go-go boys” running around the room.

I just can’t quite get my head around that one statement... “RainbowVision is your typical ‘after 50’ kind of place... There is a social director, a dining facility and residents who range in age from 50 to 94.”

The problem is, I can’t imagine myself moving to a retirement home (read, nursing home), at the age of 50 and being around people in their 80’s and 90’s. Of course, I suppose that’s insensitive. There are people who are in their 50’s with debilitating illnesses, and for those people, a place like this would be a blessing.

I carry too much baggage I think. The gay oriented nursing home is a good thing because we just haven’t gotten to the point of acceptance yet. Actually, I don’t know if we will ever get to a point of having a gay pride parade at a straight-oriented nursing home. But one thing is for certain - people shouldn’t have to spend their late years worrying about other people who don’t have their crap together when it comes to acceptance and tolerance.

Joy Silver had never seen a nursing home quite like it: There was pulsating music, a spinning disco ball and, yes, even scantily clad go-go boys.

“I said to myself, ‘Yeah, that’s what I want. I want that party when I get to be that age,’” Silver would say many years later when remembering the nursing home in New York’s West Village.

Today, Silver is working to create just that kind of retirement facility--not only for herself but also for hundreds of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people who eventually will move into a soon-to-open community dubbed RainbowVision on the outskirts of Santa Fe.

In many regards, RainbowVision is your typical “after 50” kind of place. It has a mixture of independent-living units, assisted-living units and state-of-the-art medical care for the extremely aged and infirm. There is a social director, a dining facility and residents who range in age from 50 to 94. And the community has been built in the kind of beautiful setting -- on the edge of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains -- that makes a lifetime of saving for retirement seem well worthwhile. [...]

But the 146-unit facility is also unique. It is marketed specifically to gay retirees and elderly as a place to spend the remainder of their lives among people who will not judge them for their lifestyles or life partners. It not only will have gourmet cooking classes, but also rowdy drag queen shows and gay pride parades. And it is seen less as a place to quietly savor the golden years than a place to boisterously savor the very way of life that many of the residents have spent decades fighting to have society see as acceptable. (source)

You know, there are a few things that I kind of lump together as being, in theory, the same thing.
The Boy Scouts of America
Marriage
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell - The military policy that discharges military personell out if they find out that they are homosexual

The Boy Scouts of America kicks out any scout leader they find to be gay. They will do the same favor to any scout that is found to be gay. This stems from a ruling (Boy Scouts of America vs Dale) in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a “private organization” and as such, can pick and choose their members at will. It’s a settled case. There’s no further need for comment here. But, if you are interested in scouting and are gay, or an open-minded heterosexual who isn’t threatened by homosexuals, check out Scouting For All.

It’s necessary to keep marriage from the gays for the same reason it’s necessary to keep gay scout leaders and gay scout troops away from boys scouts. Actually, I don’t know what the reason is. Can someone explain the logic behind either one?

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy baring open homosexuals from military service is just stupid at this point in time. You can read the except below and form your own opinions. The military argued that it was necessary to exclude homosexuals to “maintain unit cohesion”. Well, the truth of the matter is, there are many soldiers in Iraq who are gay. What’s more, the guys in their unit knows that they are gay. It’s not a problem. That’s reality.

Another reality is that if the higher ranking officers find out about it, they will begin military separation (discharges) for the homosexual soldiers, AFTER THE STOP LOSS ORDER IS TERMINATED. Right now, because the military is having trouble filling their ranks with soldiers who have no desire to go and die in a war built on lies (shocking, isn’t it?), they are keeping everyone in that they can. And that means even homosexual soldiers. So, what does that say about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and unit cohesion?

The U.S. Military, The Congress, and The President of the United States cares so much about the security of the United States and stopping terrorism where ever it’s found, that they turn around and fire Arabic linguists who were found to be homosexual. That is more important to them than our national security.

Even the 9/11 Commission said that government “lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in a significant backlog of untranslated intercepts.”

And who knows, some of those “untranslated intercepts” could have just been the plans to blow up Grand Central Station in New York City or Los Angeles International Airport.

But at least, we can all go to bed at night knowing that there will be no homosexuals who will have a career in the military, and that if some terrorist plot is discovered by a translated intercept, that it will be a heterosexual linguist who translated it, if we can find one. That’s comforting.

One Arabic linguist was discharged from the military for violating its “don’t ask, don’t tell” sexual orientation policy in fiscal year 2004, according to records obtained by an advocacy group.

In the first 10 years of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the military discharged 54 Arabic and nine Farsi speakers for violating the policy, according to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. In fiscal year 2004, however, there was just one Arabic and no Farsi speakers discharged, the center said Wednesday. That compares to at least three enlisted personnel discharged the previous year.

“The military does not like to admit firing gay Arabic linguists during a dire shortage because the public doesn’t understand why we would rather fire gays than have enough Arabic linguists to translate intercepted cables,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the center based at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission found the government “lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in a significant backlog of untranslated intercepts.” [...]

Besides the Arabic linguist, others linguists discharged under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in fiscal year 2004 included 22 Spanish, three Korean, three French, one Chinese, one German and one Tagalog speaker. The center obtained the data from Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who requested the statistics from the Defense Department. (source)

We live in a country where a gay teen attempts suicide every 35 minutes. About every six hours, one succeeds. (source)

I worked most of the day at home. I got a lot done up to the time I had to leave for the doctor.

I had a follow-up visit today with a specialist, which was the result of my last physical that my doctor gave me. I’m in good health (I think). On my last physical, my doctor found blood when he did the exam... you know... down there. I hate talking about this stuff, but I think you can figure out what I’m talking about. He put the test in front of me and said, “It turned blue.” I asked what that meant and he said, “Probably nothing, but we have to check it out. It found blood.”

At any rate, he sent me to a Gastroenterology/Internal Medicine guy, and that was what I did today. I didn’t want to go, but my doctor, seeing that I was hesitant to go, said to me, “Listen, you are 50 now. We were going to do this as part of procedure anyway. So let’s just get it done, so we know everything is ok.”

So today, the doctor tested again, and once again, found blood. He went over all the scenarios and that he wanted to do a colonoscopy. He explained that I would be “mostly knocked out”. I said, “I don’t want to be awake for it at all.” He said that would be fine, seeing that I was upset about the whole thing. I don’t like doctors poking around my body. And I really hate hospitals. It seems like I’ve spent half my life at a hospital, mostly taking friends there, visiting friends, or picking them up. I don’t make a good patient.

The nice thing was that when the doctor first saw me, he said, “You are 50 years old?? I said, “I sure am.” He replied, “Wow! You look like you’re 35!” Now that was nice!

So, I’m a bit down/worried about the whole thing. The worst part is that I have to wait until December 12 for it to be done. As much as I don’t want to do it, I would rather it just be over with. You should see all the stuff you have to do the day before. You can have nothing solid at all. It will be done on a Monday morning, so nothing at all Sunday. You can have coffee or tea, but only if you put cream in them (no idea why), no salad stuff at all two days before, and nothing solid. And you have to get this stuff from the drug store that I suppose is some kind of a purging agent. Gross.

Kent leaves tomorrow morning really early (4:30am) for Washington, D.C. again for another meeting. I hate it when he travels and is away. But, that’s what movie collections and HD TV are for, right? He gets back on Friday.

I like to think that I’m pretty well informed about things, but I had no idea that the No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to provide student data to any military recruiter who asked for that information. Just astonishing, and I think very frightening.

More than 5,000 high school students in five of the state’s largest school districts have removed their names from military recruitment lists, a trend driven by continuing casualties in Iraq and a well-organized peace movement that has urged students to avoid contact with recruiters.

The number of students removing their names has jumped significantly over the past year, especially in school systems with many low-income and minority students, where parents and activists are growing increasingly assertive in challenging military recruiters’ access to young people.

Since 2002, under the federal No Child Left Behind law, high schools have been required to provide lists of students’ names, telephone numbers, and addresses to military recruiters who ask for them, as well as colleges and potential employers. Students who do not wish to be contacted -- or their parents -- notify their school districts in writing. (source)

You know, the anti-gay movement often hides behind indirect arguments against same-sex marriage. For example, they argue that “activist” judges shouldn’t be allowed to legislate from the bench, that only a legislature of the people’s representatives should be allowed to decide on same-sex marriage. Or they argue that “marriage” is a religious institution and that they’re therefore defending religious freedom.

But let’s call it like it is: The anti-gay movement is anti-gay. Period. It opposes same-sex marriage because it’s anti-gay. Period. It wants to deny basic civil and human rights to gays and lesbians because it does not consider them to be equal to straight men and women. Period. Gays and lesbians are sinners. They’re inferior. Period.

Negotiation is not possible. Compromise is not possible.

The anti-gay movement is absolutist and extremist. We who are on the other side must realize this and fight back with equal conviction and the knowledge that we have justice on our side. (source)

Despite Tuesday’s overwhelming vote approving a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage in Texas, one prominent Texas pastor says she’ll continue marrying gay couples, and the separation of church and state prevents the government from doing anything about it, 1200 WOAI news reported today.

The Rev. Dr. Jo Hudson, pastor of the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, which bills itself as the largest gay, lesbian, bisexual, and ’transgendered’ church in the world. tells 1200 WOAI news that she’ll continue performing gay marriages, just like she’s done for years.

“For all of our 35 years, we have married gay men, lesbian women, bisexual people, as well as heterosexual people,” she said. “The service is the same as with a traditional marriage, the vows are the same.”

She says weddings are a religious service and have nothing to do with the government. [...]

“They simply don’t have some 1100 rights and privileges that other couples have, and we think that is enshrining discrimination into our constitution,” Rev. Hudson said. (source)

I have to give Rev. Hudson this - she is one courageous woman to be performing gay religious marriages in the State of Texas. Perhaps someday, those marriages will be recognized in some fashion other than recognized in just that one church.

I sometimes wonder if we have asked for too much in wanting marriage.

I sometimes wonder if we are saying goodbye to what makes us unique. I have spent my whole life being a “queer” and a “fag” - labels placed on me for daring to be true to myself. If I’m not that, then what am I? As Walt Whitman said, “If you can’t be yourself, what is the point of being anything at all?”

I sometimes wonder if, by wanting marriage, we are just asking to be totally assimilated, if you will, into the collective, into society and will thereby lose our identity; our uniqueness. Is this not a bad thing? Society has always viewed us as being “queer”. We are queer. With all it’s problems, do we really want to be part of this society? What are we losing by doing that?

I think the biggest thing that we shed is what a large part of society expects us to be. They expect us to be promiscuous - gay men, anyway. They expect us to die at a younger age - the result of living just a little too wildly. They expect us to get AIDS and die, and many are very fond of citing a statistic that states that being a gay man “shortens the life of practitioners by about 20 years”. Yet, they never cite the statistics today that clearly show that AIDS is not a “gay disease”. In fact, you only have to look to Africa and other nations to see that AIDS really doesn’t care who it kills. In Africa, do we call it a “heterosexual disease” because 95% of those afflicted with AIDS are heterosexual? No, because that would be insensitive and hateful. America has no problem with that and no shortage of hatred and intolerance towards the one minority group that it can still get away with hurling that hatred towards; homosexuals.

And of course what they conveniently leave out is how much shorter the life expectancy is for smokers. They don’t like to cite that because most of those folks are heterosexuals! And they also love leaving out the promiscuousness of the straight community. That after all would fly in the face of their message; that queers are disgusting lower forms of life that deserve what they get!

And yet, when I heard that my life expectancy will be much shorter, my reaction wasn’t one of anger. It was more, “OK, so what’s to live for anyway? To stick around and be hated and have a constant fear of what might happen to you because we all know what happens to queers, is hardly something I want to stick around for until I’m 80 years old.” This is what society expected from us; the queers.

To a large extent, we bought into (accepted?) that role. And, we didn’t always regret it. There was a liberation about not having to be what was expected of you because many of us were already disowned. Once you accept that fact, there’s very little that you can lose.

But now, there is such a push to become part of society. It was not that long ago that I would have rejected the very idea of gay couples wanting to be “married”. The thought of that would have repulsed me because of what it stood for. It stood for the ultimate symbol of straight America. You know, the America that hated us with a passion. And, much of it still does.

After keeping curiously quiet all week, Perry spoke out Thursday on the overwhelming passage of Proposition 2. He said he and his wife, Anita, felt strongly the gay marriage ban was needed.

“We believed passionately that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” he said after an appearance in Addison. “The good news is, 75 percent of the people who went to vote - plus - agreed with us.”

Texans approved Prop 2 by more than a 3-to-1 margin. Same-sex marriage already was forbidden by state law. Amendment supporters said a constitutional ban was needed so that no judge could ever interpret the law to allow homosexual marriage. (source)

I guess the need for change is because I’m not 20 anymore. I’m not a rebel, a pioneer. Back then, gay liberation was what I had to live with. And I did live with it, for good and bad. The “good” was that, as a queer, I was really not accountable to anyone. I could dress up as I wanted. I could wear make up if I wanted. I could color my hair purple if I wanted. I could do anything. Who the hell cared? They would look at me and say, “Hey, look at the queer.” And it didn’t hurt me, because I was already that. I knew that was my role in society. Names didn’t bother me, as long as they didn’t carry it to violence.

A good friend of mine who was in a relationship that was blessed as a “civil union” in the Metropolitan Community Church (a church made up of mostly gay people), said to me, “Even though we are together, we still go out to the bars and do as we please.” I said, “But, aren’t you two like married?” He replied, “Marriage does not apply to our community. There is no such thing as marriage for us.” I accepted that because I had no choice and it seemed logical I suppose. I was learning how to be a gay man in the society I was living in and what was expected of me. That friend later died of AIDS. I helped him through a lot of that because there was no one else. And during that time, shortly before he died, he said to me, “We have every right to hate society for what it has done to us.” I will never forget the look of resignation on his face and I will never forget those exact words.

I found that the expectations from society to be very low for gays. We could pretty much have all the sex we wanted. In fact, to be part of our culture in The Castro, it was expected of you. That was my experience, and if you didn’t engage in this, you were square, and didn’t really belong. In return, society would hate us, call us queers and faggots, and beat the hell out of us with impunity, as it pleased. You learn to run and if you are caught and beat up, if you live through the experience, you also learn that the last people to help you are the police. Those were pretty simple rules.

But now I’m 50. Is there no more to life than simply getting your rocks off? Do we want no more for ourselves than that? I have to believe that we do, and the “gay marriage” issue proves that. The extreme irony in all of this is, for decades society damned us for not being committed to someone. And now that we want to be, they won’t let us. I guess it’s like that old saying, “be careful what you ask for...”.

I remember watching the Boston channel one night when they were talking about marriage in Massachusetts. This was just before the ruling went into effect allowing gay couples to be legally married in Massachusetts. One of the guests, who was from the “pro-family” crowd stated, with a big smirk on his face, “We don’t deny gay people the right to marry. They are perfectly free to marry whoever they like, as long as that person is the opposite sex.”

The host of the show admonished him for saying that and was disgusted by it. I threw up my arms and said out loud, “And THIS is your sanctity of marriage?! You would rather us marry someone that we don’t even love just so we could get married?”

If Kent and I are ever able to get married, I already know the kind of ceremony we will have. It will not involve a church. With no due respect, the church (pretty much ALL of them) can go to hell. That’s what I think of organized religion at this point in my life. They know nothing of compassion, reality, or dignity.

We will have an outside ceremony in late spring, my favorite season, when everything is coming to life. That will give me all summer to dwell on this one fine day. We will exchange vows - our own words. We will not share with the other what we are going to say until the words are spoken, out loud, in front of our friends and family. It will be spontaneous and it will be from the heart. I will probably get half way through telling Kent how much I love him, before I start to cry. I’m a hopeless romantic I’m afraid.

Afterwards, we will all return to our home where we will host a catered reception and dinner for 30-40 friends. That will be followed by dancing and good conversation and time with loving friends. And I promise, there will be no opera! Well, if I just happen to have a Diva in the area, there may be an aria or two, but I promise, only from Puccini or Verdi.

And of course, lots of FRENCH champaign! I have nothing against the French (read, George W. Bush, go fuck yourself and your “freedom fries”!). The evening will end with coffee, different teas, more champaign, and chocolate crème brûlée, with fresh raspberries.

I’m sure I’ll come up with more ideas... if it ever happens for us. For now, I dream about it - our one fine day. Will that ever happen?

I thought this was a bit interesting. Three key points of this “Minnesota Marriage Amendment Pastors’ Pledge” states:
Conduct a Marriage Amendment Petition drive in my congregation
Conduct a voter registration drive
Distribute information regarding the marriage amendment

Surely the IRS will be looking to pull their tax exempt status as a religious organization because they are politically active?

Thursday hundreds of pastors from all denominations attended a summit at Grace Church in Eden Prairie and promised to fight same sex marriage.

Protesters say the theme of the summit cuts like a knife.

It’s the argument where agreeing to disagree just doesn’t cut it for either side.

“We support marriage rights for all people,” said Baptist Rev. Doug Donley

Catholic Priest Michael Becker added, “This is not about the church vs. the gay community.”

That was not clear to those gathered outside Grace Church. [...]

Randi Reitan was among the protestors. Her son is gay and she could barely hold back the tears as she spoke to the protestors, “This morning those pastors are learning how to hurt people.”

The Minnesota pastor’s summit is the first of it’s kind in the state. It’s goal is to encourage and help clergy to preach from the pulpit that gay marriage must be banned in Minnesota by an amendment to the state constitution.

Paul Brushaber traveled to the summit from Rochester, “I do believe the state has a role in defining standards of normalcy in our culture.”

At the end of the day each spiritual leader attending the summit signed a pledge saying they’ll actively work toward passage of this ban. [...]

“I wept at the thought of people teaching others that my son, my dear Jacob, was sick and sinful for being gay,” sobbed Reitan. (source)

Related Article
Minnesota Pastors Call for Spiritual, Political Action against Gay Marriage

An awesome post... I thought I’d share it with all of you. We have to keep hope alive!

[...] The fact is gay marriage does matter. It matters to millions of gay Americans who have or are intending to have a life partner, someone to share their lives with. It matters when one person in gay couple gets sick and the other person can’t visit because he’s not a legal relative in the eyes of the state. It happens when one partner can’t get the other’s social security benefits when the other one dies. It matters.

A few weeks back, Log Cabin President Pat Guerriero was in town. My friend and fellow Republican, Mark, was able to get him on a local radio station that has a lot of conservative programming. He shared a story of two gay men in Vermont who have been partnered for 50 years. One served his country in war. The other was a teacher. They are both in their 80s. One is very ill and will die soon and as it stands now, the surviving spouse won’t get the dying man’s social security benefits.

That is a moral issue. These two men have given of themselves to help others and this is how society treats them. (source)

WASHINGTON -- A conservative push to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment gained renewed momentum Wednesday after a Senate panel led by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback narrowly approved the measure.

The “Marriage Protection Amendment” would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, effectively rescinding the Massachusetts law that made gay marriage legal last year. (source)

As a blogger, I thought this was relevant. As a gay American, it’s just more bullshit from the Right, all for political gain. What else do they have left?

We are at war. Our boys are dieing because the Bush Administration and Congress can't get their collective crap together to come up with an exit strategy for this war. We are paying through the nose for gasoline and heating fuel is going to be at record highs this winter. What the hell are they doing about it?

They’ve managed to run this country into the ground and the “gay marriage” issue is the only card they have left to play? That is what is important to them?

They should tell the men dieing in Iraq that banning gay couples from getting married is a higher priority by our government than providing adequate body armor for our troops.

Absolutely pathetic.

There were some very historic outcomes from the elections yesterday. Some of the results show the best of people and some show the worst in people. Or perhaps I’m over simplifying it. Perhaps it has more to do with where the country is at in terms of polarization. Or perhaps, that is adding complexity where is there is none.

TEXAS
Let’s take Texas, as an example. Yesterday, Texas did what it does best. It showed, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuals have absolutely no rights what so ever when it comes to asking for health benefits for their partners, end of life decisions, and a host of other things.

In fact, they have no right to pursue happiness in the State of Texas. If they find a partner to share their life with, Texas will not, in any way shape or form, allow them to get married. But wait, there’s more!

Texas went on to say that they can not even form a “civil union” and went on to say that marriage “consists only of the union of one man and one woman,” and it prohibits the state “from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Let’s think about that for one moment... those last words, “creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage”

What does that mean exactly? It means that not only will you not be able to have a civil union, it calls into question ANY LEGAL AGREEMENT that you may have with someone of the same sex that is “identical or similar to marriage”. Folks, that covers wills, power of attorney, medical decisions, and all the other real-life situations that many people face.

But don’t worry. One thing that was kept securely in place is the ability to divorce at will for heterosexual couples. Texas has one of the highest rates of divorce in the entire nation, so their sanctity of marriage is still protected.

But this really wasn’t about protecting marriage. I’m going to call this for what it is. Through all the analysis and through all the religious organizations touting that they were trying to “protect marriage” from homosexual activists, this was simply about old fashioned Southern-style bigotry. They hate homosexuals, and they want everyone to know it.

Even Texas Governor Rick Perry said, “Texans made a decision about marriage and if there’s a state that has more lenient views than Texas, then maybe that’s a better place for them to live.” Governor Perry even told gay Texan veterans returning from Iraq, “Get your faggoty asses out of Texas.”

Usually, the Governor sets the tone and attitude for the state on any given issue. This seems to be true with Texas as well. The people of Texas voted yesterday by an overwhelming 76 percent of voters to approve the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, outlaw civil unions, and any rights identical or similar to marriage. This makes the 19th state to adopt a state marriage protection amendment, and it was the only state to have such a measure on the ballot this year.

“All that today’s results show is that it is profoundly wrong and profoundly un-American to put the rights of a small minority of Americans up for a popular vote,” said Matt Foreman, the group’s executive director.

“This is not democracy; this is tyranny of the majority,” he added. “No one would tolerate this being done to any other minority, but it’s still open season on gay people.” (source)

Very true, but what are we to do? The only advice I can give to gay people who want a better life and to gay couples, many of whom have children, is to take Governor Perry’s advice, and move away. As long as you are moving, move to a state that will put some value on your personal relationship with the person you love (Massachusetts perhaps?). In fact, as far as I’m concerned, the United States has turned to shit. I would seriously have my eye on Canada - a nation who seems to have it’s stuff together when it comes to the value it puts on all it’s people - universal health care and yes, you can get married there and have all the rights and privileges of marriage!

Texas will undoubtedly feel some backlash from this action. Will it be enough to make them rethink their position. No. I don’t believe so. The backlash will be for progressive companies in places like Dallas and Austin, who had some protections for gay partners, will lose people who will move out of the state, or not relocate there for a job. I’ve also heard that some companies will remove Texas from consideration on a place to relocate their business. It’s bad for business to even appear to look intolerant.

All that aside, bigotry and intolerance has won the day in Texas. And, since the state constitution has been modified, it will be many years before anything happens in Texas. I will never go there - not even a stop over at one of their airports. If that’s really the way the state feels, how safe can you honestly be there? There are some decent and caring people in Texas. I received this heart warming comment from a reader.

Bill,

... I’m ashamed to call myself a Texan today. I’m sorry for you and Kent and everyone like you and for all of us. This is a sad and scary day. Not that I’m surprised ... that’s pretty much where the rest of the states have fallen I think. I wish I knew what the hell was wrong with people. Are they so blinded by “sanctity of marriage” talk or religion or hate that they just can’t see what kind of message they’re sending? Not just to homosexuals but to everyone in any minority (which is pretty much everyone). Isn’t anyone else scared by the majority denying a minority’s rights or by preemptive changes to a state constitution just in case an “activist” judge decides to “legislate from the bench”? And why the f%@k (pardon my French) did only 18% of people think this was important enough to get off they’re lazy contented asses to vote on? (source)

VIRGINIA AND NEW JERSEY
Both states ended up with Democratic governors. I expected that from New Jersey. I was extremely surprised at the outcome in Virginia. Perhaps this is a preamble of what lies in store for the Republican Party in future congressional races and even the White House? We can hope.

Last year, Virginia passed some of the most hateful laws against gay couples.

MAINE
Maine passed a civil rights law banning discrimination in hiring, public accommodations, rent, etc., based on sexual orientation. The law stated that you can’t be fired for being a homosexual, or denied housing. Pretty basic stuff.

Question 1 on the Maine ballot asked voters if they wanted to repeal the state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in areas including housing, employment and education.

But, this law has been a law three other times in Maine. Each time, the voters of Maine have gone to the ballot box and defeated the bill. So, despite what polls said a few days ago that the majority of registered voters in Maine favored keeping the bill on the books, I was worried that history would repeat itself.

Voters defeated an effort to repeal the state’s new gay rights law Tuesday with supporters of the law declaring victory shortly after 11 p.m. to a cheering crowd of more than 500 people at the Holiday Inn By the Bay.

“I think Maine people have heard our message that discrimination happens and real people get hurt,” said Ted O’Meara, the senior adviser to the Maine Won’t Discriminate campaign, as he reflected after midnight when unofficial totals showed 55 percent rejecting the repeal and 45 percent in favor, with 86 percent of precincts reporting. [...]

The law is now likely to take effect by year’s end. The secretary of state has until Nov. 28 to make the election results final. The governor must then sign a proclamation certifying the results, and the law would take effect 30 days after that signing, according to state elections officials.

Tuesday’s vote was a referendum on the law, enacted earlier this year, to amend the Maine Human Rights Act by making discrimination illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education based on sexual orientation.

The Maine law already prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, ancestry and national origin. The gay rights provision was broadly worded to protect transsexuals, transvestites and those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery, in addition to homosexuals.

The law exempts religious organizations that do not receive public funds. It also is worded to say it is not meant to address a right to marry. (source)

I’m elated by this. I love Maine. I love vacationing there and I was trying to prepare myself for the very real possibility that I would have to deal with never going there again (I don’t support bigotry) and having to just live with all the wonderful photos that I have taken of their beautiful state.

Now, with this behind me, I can look forward to my late spring and summer vacation in Maine next year.

Some people amaze me.

One such gentleman is Tim Smith, who graduated from Baylor University in 1983. Baylor, a Baptist University, has a long record detailing it’s opinion of gays. So here we have Tim Smith, who has “personally donated more than $65,000 to Baylor and raised and additional $60,000 to establish an academic scholarship” for Baylor. And now, he’s upset because the school dropped him from and advisory board after learning that he is homosexual.

Mr. Smith (and all of us) would have been much better off had he taken that $125,000 and given it to an organization to further gay legal rights if he cares so much for those rights.

But now he feels that his rights have been violated. All I can say to Mr. Smith is, you made this bed. Deal with it.

(Waco, Texas) Baylor University has told a graduate, who served for five years on the advisory board for its business school, that his no longer welcome after learning that he is gay.

Tim Smith, a 1983 graduate, was one of 36 members of the Hankamer School of Business advisory panel.

In an interview with the Baylor Lariat, Smith says that since graduating from the Baptist school he has personally donated more than $65,000 to Baylor and raised and additional $60,000 to establish an academic scholarship.

Business School Dean Terry Maness asked Smith to step down after he learned of Smith’s sexuality.

“We must be sensitive to the position of our affiliated denomination, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which has, on previous occasions, stated that a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with most Baptist interpretations of scripture,” Maness said in a statement.

Smith calls the decision blatant discrimination.

“To openly discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and to do so in the name of God is simply shameful,” he told the Lariat. “The Pharisees would be proud.” (source)

I think the facts do need to come out in this case. Had Lucas Dawson not been attacked for being gay, none of this would have happened, and Mr. Knight would still be alive.

And now I’m wondering, if I had carried a weapon years ago when a similar incident happened to me in Idaho, and I had shot and killed one of my attackers, how fair would the State of Idaho been to me - a gay man in a very conservative state? I would probably have been found guilty of murder and would still be in prison.

I suppose it all depends on where you are from. I used to carry pepper spray. I’m thinking of getting some more now. It’s non-lethal at least.

My hope is that if the facts show that Mr. Dawson was the victim of a hate crime, that he will be freed and that the jury will find that he was simply defending himself. I further hope that this would send a strong message to thugs who try this sort of thing. Perhaps more of us should be armed in some manner. I’m not advocating violence, but sometimes violence comes to you.

PHILADELPHIA - A 21-year-old man was charged with stabbing to death one of four teenagers who allegedly attacked him near his home, a fight his parents said erupted because their son is gay.

Lucas Dawson was walking from his home in the city’s East Mount Airy neighborhood on Oct. 29 to catch a bus downtown, where he intended to meet with friends to discuss his audition for “American Idol” the day before.

The aspiring singer crossed the street to avoid the four teens, but they rushed him, said his stepfather, David Dawson.

“One of them punched him in the mouth,” David Dawson told the Philadelphia Daily News for a story Tuesday. “They knocked him to the ground. They kicked him. They stomped him. They called him faggot.”

Lucas Dawson pulled out a small pocket knife and waved it at the teens to push them back, David Dawson said. He then ran but was grabbed by Gerald Knight, 17, who was fatally stabbed in the chest in the ensuing struggle, his stepfather said.

“Because somebody died, I can understand he might have to do some jail time,” David Dawson said. “But at the same time, let the truth be told about what really happened.” (source)

And the violence goes on.

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church’s former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991’s Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that “good people of profound faith” could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, “Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.”

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that “a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church ... ”The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections. (source)

How is this any different from what is happening in Massachusetts, where priests in the Catholic Church are, from the pulpit, asking parishioners to sign a petition (being politically active) to put the gay marriage issue on the ballot?

Maybe I’m missing something here, but the way I read it is this...

It’s not ok to talk from the pulpit about the war in Iraq and being against it because the government is behind that.

It is ok to talk from the pulpit (the government will just look the other way) when talking about gay marriage because the government doesn’t see that as their issue and/or really doesn’t want to see it happen.

Could our government possibly have an agenda here? Both actions are politically motivated yet, the government isn’t going after the Catholic Church for asking parishioners to sign the gay marriage ban.

When Michigan voters went to the polls last year, they banned gay marriage.

But the constitutional amendment could go much further than simply defining a union between a man and a woman. It has thrown into question whether governments and public universities can provide health insurance to the domestic partners of employees.

On Tuesday, Texas voters will consider a similar ban on gay marriage. Whether Texas’ amendment would spur the same legal challenges is an open question. But the court battles in Michigan illustrate the complexities and unforeseen consequences of such ballot questions.

One year after Michigan voters defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman,” a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and 21 gay couples remains unresolved. Alan Cropsey, the author of Michigan’s amendment, said he expects the legal battle to reach the state Supreme Court.

The Republican senator said voters made their intentions clear when they passed the amendment and that “radical homosexual groups are trying to force their will on the people” with the help of activist judges.

“It’s been a totally undemocratic process,” he said.

Michigan’s amendment makes no mention of benefits for same-sex partners, stating simply that a heterosexual marriage “shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

But Mr. Cropsey said his intent was to preclude domestic partners from receiving health-care coverage or any other benefits afforded married couples. The implications of the amendment were widely understood by voters, he said.

“It was very clear that’s what was going on,” Mr. Cropsey said. “You don’t want to be encouraging other forms of lifestyle. You want to encourage marriage.” (source)

“It’s been a totally undemocratic process.”

I guess I just don’t understand the democratic process. I understand that democracy is about having the will of the people put into place via a vote (although that doesn’t seem to be the case with presidential elections).

I also thought that part of our brand of democracy was about not having a majority impose their will on a minority to make them second class citizens. That is what has happened in Michigan and all the other states that imposed a state constitutional amendment keeping marriage from committed same-sex couples. And, it’s going to happen all over again in Texas next Tuesday. I expect Texas to be true to it’s form and once again put into their constitution, as it is their law, that they do indeed hate gays.

We want equality. What is so “undemocratic” about that? We just want to be equal. But as Mr. Cropsey said, “It was very clear that’s what was going on. You don’t want to be encouraging other forms of lifestyle. You want to encourage marriage.” Ok, I get it. But for all the years that people complained that gays were having sex in their parks or library rest rooms, they really need to understand that that happened (and is still happening) because that is all, for the longest time, that has been set aside for our community. It’s about conditioning. If you are told that what you are and what you do is taboo, of course you are going to carry it to dark secluded places to do it.

Now that we have said enough of that crap - we want more out of life than that, we are told that we can’t have that either.

I don’t know what to say about Alaska and all the things going on in our country about this. There’s so much hatred and it seems like no one else can see it.

How concerned should I be about some state 3,000 miles away from me that has no value for what we have? Part of me wants to forget about it and be thankful for what we have. We happen to live in a state that has given some value to what we have in the form of civil unions. So, should I count myself as “lucky”? I don’t know. I know things could be worse. I could live in Texas. Next Tuesday, they will most likely vote to put us in our place. I don’t see that happening to use in Connecticut.

This makes my head hurt.

The Supreme Court said denying benefits to some public employees -- state and municipal -- violates the constitution’s equal-protection clause. The logic is: 1. Without a marriage certificate, a same-sex couple can’t share in public employee benefits; 2. Alaska forbids same-sex couples from getting married; 3. That means same-sex couples are denied equal access to the same benefits as heterosexual couples, who can marry.

The University of Alaska has covered same-sex couples under its employee benefits program since 1995, and the City and Borough of Juneau has done the same since 2003. Neither institution has suffered dire moral or financial consequences as a result. Meanwhile, the Municipality of Anchorage says it plans to follow last month’s Supreme Court ruling and will amend its benefits program.

Critics of the court ruling, however, say Alaskans voted in 1998 to ban gay marriages. That’s true, but the vote did not change the constitutional protection that government must treat people equally. And the court said treating heterosexual couples and gay couples unequally at the job place is not allowed.

And then there is Juneau Republican Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch, who said he wants to look at the financial effect of the court decision before deciding his position on the issue. “I’d rather look at it analytically, rather than passionately.”

That’s too bad. Equality under the law should be defended with a passion.

BOTTOM LINE: A constitutional amendment isn’t needed. (source)

This is exactly why I have given up on organized religion. I used to go to church often. But when a Presbyterian church in Coventry asked us not to attend because the would not “be comfortable” with a gay couple in their midst, that kind of did it for me. I wasn’t asking to have sex on the alter - simply to attend church.

At any rate, this is more of the same warmed over crap, and the fact that they are simply transferring the guy to another church only shows that they condone his behavior. You know, just like the Catholic Church did with the child molesters and later blamed “homosexual priests” for.

So typical.

A rural Virginia minister placed on leave for denying a gay parishioner membership in his church last winter will be reinstated, a national Methodist judicial body announced Monday. [...]

At a three-day meeting in Houston, the Judicial Council — the Methodist equivalent of the Supreme Court — decided Rev. Edward Johnson was within his ministerial rights when he denied membership to the would-be parishioner in December. (source)

America’s faith in George Bush and in his decision to go to war in Iraq has plummeted in the wake of a White House intelligence scandal that went to court this week, according to a new poll.

America’s faith in George Bush and in his decision to go to war in Iraq has plummeted in the wake of a White House intelligence scandal tAs the president encountered violent protests in Argentina at the start of his Latin America tour yesterday, a survey published by the Washington Post and ABC News showed that public confidence was eroding rapidly back home.

Nearly six in 10 Americans, 58%, said they had doubts about the president’s honesty, a 13% rise in 18 months. Only 32% believed Mr Bush was handling ethical issues well, a significantly worse score than Bill Clinton achieved in his last scandal-besmirched year in office. His overall popularity has plunged to 39%, a new low for the Washington Post/ABC survey.

Mr Bush is no more popular in Argentina, where a protest by several thousand demonstrators turned ugly. In the coastal city of Mar del Plata, where he is attending a regional summit, protesters set fire to a bank, looted stores and battled riot police.

Earlier, the tone was struck by the former football star Diego Maradona, who wore a “Stop Bush” T-shirt to an anti-Bush “counter-summit” that drew some 4,000 protesters from around the world and easily eclipsed the official summit in the public’s attention. “I’m proud as an Argentine to repudiate the presence of this human trash, George Bush,” said Maradona. (source)

You know, I can understand the Boy Scouts of America wanting to keep gays out of their “private organization”. The truth that gay men may just be able to help out scares the crap out of them. The truth that being a gay man does not equal being a pedophile scares the crap out of them. I can understand that.

I can even understand that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America being able to keep gays out of their organization, ruling that they could do so because they were a “private organization”.

This cuts both ways. If the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from their “private organization”, why then are the Boy Scouts of America able to spread their propaganda in public schools?

They should be barred from doing so.

Complying with a federal mandate in the No Child Left Behind Act, the Minneapolis school district once again is allowing Boy Scout recruiting materials to be sent home with students.

The mandate obliges schools to give Boy Scouts the same access to schools as other community groups or lose federal aid. It overturns the Minneapolis school district’s ban prohibiting scouts from distributing recruitment materials in schools.

The ban, enacted in 2000, was brought about by opposition to the Boy Scout’s decision to prohibit openly gay men from being scout leaders.

This fall, Minneapolis scouting leaders reported a jump in new scout registrations. The Metro Lakes District, which includes Minneapolis, Richfield and St. Anthony, reported a 108 percent increase.

Access to boys through schools has helped. [...]

Lauri Appelbaum, coordinator of the district’s program for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and adults, said she learned of the change from inquiring principals.

“I think it’s really unfortunate that the federal government felt a need to take away local control from school boards,” Appelbaum said. (source)

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Texas lawmakers say an amendment banning gay marriage will be approved by voters, helped by low turnout and support from groups as diverse as Hispanic leaders and the Ku Klux Klan.

The measure, called Proposition 2, would strengthen a state law that limits marriage to a man and a woman by making it part of the constitution. The action will protect the law from being overturned by a judge, said state Representative Warren Chisum, a Republican from Pampa, who wrote the amendment. (source)

So, the Texas marriage ban will happen. I’ve resigned myself to that - it is Texas after all; not exactly a bastion of enlightenment. And, what I think is very important is to realize that the KKK is fully behind this and supporting it. What does that tell you about Texas?

I only bring this up because it happened, and now it’s part of history. I don’t have anymore to say about it. It’s not going to ruin my day.

(Salem, Oregon) An Oregon judge Friday upheld the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Marion County Judge Joseph Guimond ruled that the ballot question put to voters last November did not contain separate issues. Oregon’s constitution requires that questions put to voters must not have multiple issues. [...]

“Today’s ruling is the first step in a long process,” said Basic Rights executive Director Roey Thorpe.

“When we filed this lawsuit, we knew that no matter the outcome of today’s ruling, the case would be appealed to a higher court. That is our plan now.”

Thorpe said the outcome of the case is important to everyone in the state regardless of their sexuality.

“No minority group should live in fear that one day they might find their basic rights under attack by those who seek to deny them their full humanity and legal equality.” (source)

Here’s a thought....
We go to war with Iraq because they...

have “weapons of mass destruction”
rule their people with an iron hand in their Islamic State
have “nucular” weapons, and we “cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud” (President looked us right in the eye and HE LIED Bush)
possess and produces chemical and biological weapons
has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people

And after we beat the hell out of their country, trying to liberate their country of Islamic tyranny, we show them our form of tyranny in the form of a compassionate prison called Abu Ghraib.

And, after we’ve lost over 2,000 of our guys in war, Iraq votes on it’s Constitution to allow.... an Islamic regime! YAY!!

So, after all is said and done, we are right back to where we were! Except, we’ve lost so many.

Also, we aren’t exactly back where we started. Some choice individuals are a hell of a lot richer than they were. I suppose that war is profitable in some regard.

Second Thought
I love Samuel Barber

Third Thought
That scene in Ice Castles with Robbie Benson in the “underwear scene” was HOT!

Fourth Thought
Go to Google and type in the search word “failure”. When it returns the results, click on the FIRST LINK LISTED.

Fifth Thought
Some places/people suck
Missouri Gay Adoption Ban Challenged. It’s Missouri. Screw ’em.
Elections in Poland, completed with the presidential run-off on October 23, have resulted in a new homophobic government committed to using state power to prevent gays from “infecting” others with homosexuality, as the country’s new prime minister puts it. Hell, sounds like the United States to me.
(Topeka, Kansas) Matthew Limon’s bid for freedom was denied Thursday despite a ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court. It’s Kansas. Screw ’em.

Progress
Washington Supreme Court rules non-biological gay parents can seek rights

Sixth Thought
25 year-old single malt Scotch Whiskey doesn’t suck!

Seventh Thought
I’m not going to watch any more movies where AIDS is the theme. I’ve paid my dues after burying 42 of my friends from AIDS. Now it’s other people’s problem - you know, the ones who didn’t give a damn about us in the early 1980’s when we so desperately needed the help. Well, now that we are seeing movies featuring their kids with the disease, we are now suppose to care? Geez, I sound bitter. I lived the plot of AIDS in real life. I don’t need to relive it on the big screen.

Final Thought
Since only 15% of Americans said they believe in evolution in a recent poll, America must change it’s name to the United States of Jesus Christ.

(Hartford, Connecticut) Few same-sex couples are taking advantage of Connecticut’s new civil unions law and LGBT activists say they aren’t surprised.

Only a couple of hundred couples have tied the knot in the state, even though the legislation offers many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. And that’s the reason - it isn’t marriage.

Ben Klein, a senior attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston legal group that won the right for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts, says that most Connecticut couples are holding out for full marriage rights.

“There’s no question that civil unions are a step forward in the law with providing gay and lesbian couples benefits,” Klein told the Norwich Bulletin newspaper. “While civil unions are an important step forward, they are not real equality.”

The apparent lack of interest does not surprise many gay and lesbian couples in the state. When the law went into effect October 1 many said they would boycott civil unions. (story)

“I cannot force myself to go and dance at this. I just think it’s really insulting that we have to sit in the back of the bus,” said John de la Roche who has been in a 13 year relationship with partner Michael Hargrave. [...]

“Just as we predicted, all of this talk about rights being denied and all this talk about gay couples knocking down the doors for civil unions were patently false,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. (source)

Well, I’ve written about this before, so I don’t feel the need to go into great detail here.

I’m not sure why people are so damned surprised that gay couples aren’t rushing to the alter to proclaim themselves and their partnerships second class. Contained in the Connecticut Civil Union Bill is language that states that marriage in the State of Connecticut is defined between one man and one woman. So, just by signing up for a civil union, you are also saying that you just aren’t good enough for marriage.

Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Now to Brian Brown... Brian, stop being stupid. You know damn well that gay couples do not have the same rights as you and your wife. Don’t even go there, because that’s never been contested. We simply don’t, and in the hearings, which we both attended, NO ONE there ever suggested that rights were not being denied. Everyone knows that we don’t have the same rights as heterosexual couples. You are just making yourself look stupid.

I’ll make you a deal. If you get a divorce and are willing to live with your wife as just a couple with no legal benefits what so ever (just as Kent and I do), I’ll gladly get off your case about being a hypocrite. Deal?

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement today as the Boston Globe reported that as a senior at Princeton University, Samuel Alito chaired a task force that recommended decriminalizing sodomy and saying discrimination against gays in hiring “should be forbidden.”

“This is a hopeful sign that may provide insight into his philosophy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “There were very few people standing up for gay Americans 34 years ago and most who did have evolved even more since.”

Solmonese continued, “We will continue to learn more between now and the hearings. It’s crucial that we find out more about his views on the right to privacy and other constitutional issues.” (source)

Who knows? Perhaps Alito has a sense of decency in matters that govern real-world decisions that face most Americans. People can change over time, and that change can go either way. If he had these feelings back in college, he could be a much more conservative person now in terms of his views on women’s rights, and the rights of other minorities.

This could be a hopeful sign of the real Samuel Alito and that he is more progressive on social issues than the far right would want him to be, or, he used to be more progressive and, over time, has become far more conservative.

If gay marriage were before him today, I’m 99.9% sure he would find a way to vote against equality for gay partnerships. But in twenty years, who knows? That is when we will see the real Samuel Alito.

Additional Sources
Alito’s College Writing Backed ‘Gay Rights’

Received via email from a reader of this site. Thank you for making me aware of this petition.

Dear Friend,

Instead of uniting the country around a consensus nominee, the White House has chosen a potentially divisive candidate to distract from its current problems. A Supreme Court nomination is too important to be scripted from the Karl Rove playbook of distract, deceive, and divide.

And while George Bush attempts to distract the country, he knows CIA leak case is bigger than the indictment of Scooter Libby or Karl Rove. It is about how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. Now it’s time for President Bush to come clean with the American people.

Now we know there were no WMDs in Iraq and no connection to the terrorists who attacked America on September 11. Yet Republicans, led by George Bush continue to peddle a disingenuous tale: Claiming we attacked Iraq because of September 11th. Every day that these myths continue to be perpetrated by the White House our country becomes less and less safe.

George Bush needs to know this failure of leadership cannot continue. He needs to lay out the facts about Iraq and his strategy to achieve military, political and economic success to bring our troops home.

Join me and tell George Bush: You can no longer mislead Congress and the American people. It’s time for an Iraq success strategy that will bring our troops home. Join me by visiting:

SIGN THE PETITION

Sadly, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Republican leaders have never admitted any of their mistakes to either Congress or the American people. According to the National Journal, in a story that was overshadowed last week: “Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby . . . decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

A cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues. What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

That is why yesterday I motioned to put the Senate into a special closed session of Congress to force Republicans to discus these important issues of national security. If Republicans will not do their constitutional oversight duty, Democrats will force them to discuss these issues.

SIGN THE PETITION

Supporting the troops means providing them a strategy for success. We cannot continue to stay the course in Iraq - we must change the course. America can do better and our brave men and women deserve better.

Thank you,

Harry Reid

P.S. Last week I asked you to help four Democrats running for Senate. Your response was unbelievable and I just want to say thank you.

Paid for by Friends For Harry Reid 422 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002

I wonder if I’m addicted to writing? When my site was down for about a week, I went crazy. I put my energy into photography and other things around the house, along with work. And, I didn’t really follow all the happenings going on in Washington - a big achievement for me!

But now that I’m back, I see that I really didn’t miss a thing. It’s all still the same old stuff; the President is putting forth a right wing ideologue that will probably end up changing the balance of power in the U.S. Supreme Court that will result in the roll back of many civil right issues such as Roe v. Wade. Not a bright future for the high court exactly, but we are the real losers. There are those in this country who despise the way some of us live. There are those who despise women who have a choice in how they will live their lives. There are those in this country who do not want African Americans to have equality to whites. And I haven’t even gotten to the subject of equality for gay citizens.

We need to brace ourselves for a few things. I don’t say this to bring you all down, but it’s reality.

I think that [Sc]Alito will be confirmed. He will be confirmed because there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop it from happening. And, the moderate Republicans (all two of them) have no backbone. The rest will go with “their President”, and not show a divided Republican Party. It will be done, and whatever happens to our rights, will happen.

Everyone is wondering, “Will Alito really be that bad? Will he really interpret each case on it’s merits and apply the Constitution in a non-biased way?” Some suggests that he is even going to be worse than Scalia.

Scalia has actually proved to be less adventuresome than Alito in curtailing congressional power. Alito wrote a dissenting opinion in 1998 arguing that Congress couldn’t bar possession of a machine gun, because merely having a machine gun isn’t connected closely enough to the thing Congress can constitutionally regulate—interstate commerce. Alito relied on a 1995 Supreme Court case saying Congress couldn’t constitutionally regulate the possession of a handgun near a school. Every court of appeals, save one, that reached this question rejected Alito’s position. [...]

While Alito goes to conservative places Scalia won’t, the more telling point is that Scalia goes to liberal places Alito won’t. [...]

The Alito record holds few such surprises. In the Washington Post, Cass Sunstein examined Alito’s dissents and found them “almost uniformly conservative.” That’s nearly true for criminal matters—just forget the “almost.” In 15 years on the bench, Alito has filed more than a dozen dissents in criminal cases or cases involving the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Not one of those dissents urges a position more protective of individual rights than the majority. (source)

Texas is about to amend their state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. That means that Texas will not allow gay couples to be married, if the amendment passes (which I expect, true to real Texan ideals, it will pass easily). The amendment further states that the state “may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” And that means, Texas will not allow any town or city in the state to authorize civil unions either. In other words, we get nothing. But we knew this, didn’t we? This just confirms it, and more progressive cities like Austin, and the companies that reside there, will have to roll back any same-sex spousal rights they have afforded their employees. Many companies there are worried about this, and many companies are reconsidering their plans to move to the state in light of the possible passing of this amendment. We shouldn’t let it get us down. It is inevitable, for now. I have to believe, as we all do, that in time, dignity and equality will prevail. For Texas, that may mean a lot of time.

Alaska seems to be going through similar issues. What can be done? Nothing really. This is, after all, the United States. I’m learning, with age, that the United States are not all that united. They all vary in how much gay bashing they want to dish out and how much gay bashing is publicly permissible. And most of this gay bashing all comes wrapped up as “Christian Love”. In time, will they accept us as equals and finally feel shame for these actions, or will they continue with this current trend of hatred? I don’t know the answer to that.

There are possible signs of hope in Maine. Maine passed a civil rights bill making it illegal to fire someone for being gay or lesbian. This has happened several times before, only to be overturned by voter referendum. Well, the same thing is happening this year. But unlike other years, polls suggest that voters may not over turn the bill this year. Who knows what will happen. The polls make me hopeful, but it all depends on who turns out to vote. Will people care enough about what happens to show up to vote? In America, you see, people will show up if their favorite TV show isn’t on that night and they have absolutely nothing else to do. In other countries, people risk their very lives just to walk to the voting place.

I do know this. I have this life. I have no intention spending it worrying about people who couldn’t care less for the feelings or well being of their fellow citizens. I care for people very deeply. I do. But I find myself, over time, qualifying that to read, “I care for people very deeply, to a point.” And let me tell you, that point is getting sharper and sharper as time goes on. I’m starting to care nothing for people who don’t even see me as their equal. I don’t even care to debate them on the issue because I think they are scum. I don’t hate them. I simply give them as much time of day as they give me at say, the voting booth.

As for President Bush, as pathetic a leader as he is, he should be trying to address unity at this point. He should stop talking about the Flu that is going to kill us all (only $7 billion being spent on that one, but at least it got the scandal of Libby and Rove off the front pages), and he should have used the opportunity of the Supreme Court nomination to bring us closer together as a people, instead of telling those outside of his right-wing base that we simply don’t matter.

We lost Rosa Parks this week. She was truly one of my heroes - talk about courage. I hate to even mention her in the same entry as President Bush. He’s a moronic coward with probably very few original ideas of his own. She was a pioneer and a warrior on the side of equality and civil rights. We need more like her.

We will never see the likes of that from President Bush.

Well, I‘m back on line. My site has been growing and growing by the month. I decided to let it lapse for the time being. I think a lot of what is coming to the site is search engines that are simply eating up band width. It seems that being popular on the web has many down sides. One of them is the expense of maintaining and keeping the site on line. I just didn‘t want to keep pumping bandwidth at the problem. So, I made a decision to pull it off line for awhile.

Kent‘s parents came to see us for a few days. We had a good time. I looked forward to their visit. I always do now. If you would have told me fifteen years ago that I would say thing, I would have told you that you were crazy. Time changes people. They have changed, as have I.

One notable event that happened is the fact that they asked us if we were going to get a civil union. I told them no. They didn‘t ask why. The topic came up from a conversation I initiated with them. Kent‘s Dad is the executor of our estate. It tells a lot about how far we have all come in that he is also the executor of my estate, should Kent not be around. That is trust. I asked him if he needed to see our wills and the like, being that he had this responsibility. He saw no need for that, other than to have the name and address of our attorney, should something happen.

Then, his Mom asked if we could just get a civil union. I said that we wouldn‘t. I also mentioned that we will be carrying the documents with us to Yuma, just in case something happens. She was confused by that, because it never occurred to them that we would need them. Unlike them, we do not have the protection of marriage. I hate that we have to prove what we have in this manner, but it‘s all we have. And hopefully, it will be enough. I also hate that I even have to worry about this. I will tell you that it has taken a toll on me. I suppose I should just accept that I live in interesting times, but when you are the group being dissected and singled out for discrimination in state and federal constitutions, it‘s not fun at all. But life goes on. That is one of the reasons I decided to let billandkent.com die, just for a little while. I wanted some distance - some time to think about what I do have, versus what I do not have. I think we all have to do that sometimes.

We‘ve spent the time getting some things around the house done. We now have red oak hardwood floors installed downstairs in the living room and dining room, and they look beautiful. We also had the stairs resurfaced (they are also red oak) and the trim painted white. They look awesome.