December 2005 Archives

Hey! It’s my birthday today. I treated myself to breakfast at a local restaurant, since I haven’t had a chance to go shopping yet since returning home. Kent is sick with a bug and wanted to rest. I gave him a back rub, put him back to bed, and was on my way out.

I had a nice breakfast. Today, I’m treating myself to see Brokeback Mountain. In fact, I’m leaving in a few minutes to see the 12:00 showing. It’s finally at a movie theater in our area. It’s a theater that caters to more “artsy” films and is not so main stream. I’m very much looking forward to it and will go with tissues in hand because, from what I’ve heard, a lot of it will hit close to home for me. I’ll let you know how I like it.

I also want to write about our return flight home from Yuma, Arizona. It didn’t go so well, and was an interesting trip home.

Tonight, we are going to Monet’s Table. They are having a special New Years Eve dinner which looks very nice. I’m hoping they won’t make a big deal of it being my birthday. They know it’s my birthday and we’ve become very close to them since we go there for brunch every Saturday.

Psychiatrist Charles W. Socarides, one of the most dedicated enemies of gay rights in recent decades, has died at Metropolitan Hospital Center in Manhattan, the New York Times reported.

Socarides helped found the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization dedicated to the premise that homosexuality can, and should, be cured through therapy. The 83-year-old psychiatrist and professor died Sunday; the cause was heart failure, his wife, Clare, said.

Socarides was also the father of Richard Socarides, a gay rights activist who served as President Clinton’s liaison to the LGBT community from 1995 to 1999. Richard Socarides told the Times that his relationship with his father was “complex,” and that it survived because both men steered clear of the subject of homosexuality. (source)

There are many people like Charles Socarides in this world. We all know that. There are people who, no matter how hard we try, just will never understand us. Gay people know that. Many of us spend years living deep in the closet from our families, just to try to have some form of acceptance. That comes at a heavy price. Many will, in later years, regret the wasted years they spent living in the image of someone else. They usually look back with regret that the people who supposedly loved them most, never really knew them. But, there was peace in the family. But was there love? I mean real love? The kind of love that will survive anything? I chose long ago that if people liked or disliked me, they would at least know what they felt about the real me.

I’m talking in generalities here. I use the example of being gay in a family that most likely would not accept it. I spent years listening to “fag jokes” told by members of my family. Would they have told the jokes had they known I was gay? I would like to think they wouldn’t have. Later, when they found out I was gay, many stopped communications altogether. There is really nothing I can do about that. I live in the real world and let me tell you, that too comes with a heavy price tag. But at least, it’s a cost that I think I can afford. We all have things like this in our lives and in our families. Every family has these issues to deal with.

Kent and I are “out” to our family. In fact, there is no one left in our lives that we aren’t “out” to. Yet, every once in awhile, even though everyone knows and supposedly accepts us, something will be said that is insulting and demeaning. I don’t wish to go into the details because it is not my intention of hurting someone that I have come to care about. And, the remark was not made to cause hurtful feelings. But sometimes, it simply is easier to avoid talking about certain subjects.

Still, one cannot help but wonder, if they really want to know you and who you are, should the topic(s) of what you are and what is going on in your life be filtered and sanitized? How healthy is that and, is that acceptance? There’s a saying that says, “Anything less than the truth is a lie.” Can anything less than full acceptance be labeled as intolerance? We all have these issues in our lives I suppose. We all want to live up to some ideal for the people who matter in our lives. But shouldn’t the reverse also be true?

We leave Yuma tomorrow to return home. And every year I say the same thing, “I don’t think I will ever return.” Then, I calm down, and try to find a middle ground. I suppose I do it because at the end of the day, the truth remains that many of us have few years left. What ever differences we have now and what ever hurtful feelings we hold today, the negative reactions we take today as a result of those feelings could be looked back upon with regret in years to come. There’s no way to take that back.

So, it would seem that I’ve become somewhat of a pragmatist. If someone has lived to be in their 70’s or 80’s, as Charles Socarides did, there’s probably little you are going to be able to do to change their fundamental opinions on most issues in life. But we can hope.

I’m in Yuma, Arizona spending Christmas in a much warmer climate. It was clear yesterday and reached 83 degrees. That’s not bad since the climate is very dry. It did seem strange to me to wear a short sleeved shirt on Christmas Day.

I’m basically having a good time. Yes, I’ve been on line, but have opted not to say much. I still surf the Internet. I still see all the injustices that people face. Do I write about them? Do I try to show that at least one person in the world (me) cares about the injustices that people face? Or, will I be accused yet again of “whining”? (see resolutions # 3 & 7)

I’m also wondering how much longer I will be coming to Arizona - a state that also has an issue with the idea of two gay people being a couple. As I’ve said in the past, I will not support a business, organization, or a state that has an issue with my marriage to Kent. But it’s more than that. We have spent money drafting up papers trying to be extremely specific about our relationship and intentions, in legal terms. We have gone to a lawyer who specializes in the law, specifically for gay couples. The documents take existing benefits given to straight married people through being married, and tries to make it very specific about the intentions of the two people involved in the relationship. And the 60 million dollar question is, will it be enough?

In Connecticut, perhaps it will be. But everything our lawyer has drawn up is not “portable”; it does not go from state to state. The concepts of what the documents are saying are universal, but a state can opt to ignore those concepts. Our lawyer made it very clear that when we travel to another state and are in an accident, we can scream and shout about not having hospital visitation and all the rest, but it is really up to the state we are in if they want to honor anything on the legal papers that we present. In other words, the papers don’t carry much weight in a state that gives no weight to our relationship, or to those people who see our relationship as being sinful. Arizona has made it clear that they fall into that category even though, at this point in time, they at least haven’t codified that into their constitution. But, they are talking about doing that.

So I have a few “New Year’s Resolutions” that I think I will agree to. Here they are.

1) Try to think less about all the “what ifs” that would happen to us if one of us becomes ill or is in an accident. Maybe by the time that happens, people will value people more and not be complete moralistic jerks about the whole thing. Let’s roll the dice and maybe we’ll be lucky.

2) Don’t assume those who say they are “friends” really are friends. Sometimes, it’s not a bad thing to cut people lose who claim to be your friend.

3) Mom always told me, “YOU be the example”. Mom, I have been and will continue to be “the example”. I will continue to be compassionate towards people and to fight against every single impulse in my body that tells me that people in general are worthless, self-serving beings not worthy of one second of my time. And even though they want me to have no recognition of the most important thing in my life, I will try my best not to hate their guts for it. That’s about as good as I can do at this point in time. This is personal. This is very personal.

4) I will be more cautious of who I offer friendship too. This means that I will continue to value friendship as something very special and precious. And this year, I have to recognize that most people are simply not worthy of the friendship I offer.

5) Do not trust the government to be able to do anything. They are driven by only their own self-serving interests (i.e. making money). If, along the way, they actually do something that helps people, it’s a side effect of that action, not a cause of any intentional action taken by the current administration. I didn’t vote for the bastard, so I think that gives me ample leverage to bitch and moan.

6) To the rest of the people of the world who’s families we have destroyed through the actions of the United States, I’m sorry. Not all Americans are complete assholes - just most of us. I am sorry that we killed your children and destroyed your homes. I am sorry that we came into your country, tore the hell out of it, and then opened it up to U.S. contractors who were very interested in reaping the profits of the war we waged upon you. You paid for the democracy (our brand of democracy) that we are giving you. I hope that you can live with it better than I’m living with it. In our own country, it’s not that democratic.

7) I love my family. I am more committed to that than ever. Everything I read tells me that more and more people in society are more comfortable with people like me. Who the fuck cares? I don’t give a rats ass if they are more comfortable with me or not. I’m not here to give credence to what a wonderful person they are because they have tolerance for me. I’m bitter and pissed off. Resolution # 7 is to accept those feelings and to understand that at best, most all of America barely tolerates gays. If I’m lucky, I would like to get to a point that I honestly don’t give a shit about that fact. Unfortunately, some part of me still cares about that.

8) To all the Christians out there (yes, every fucking last one of you who makes time in your everyday life to pass judgment upon people like me), get over it. I’m sick and tired of you taking one little verse in the Bible condemning homosexuality (Old Testament), and ignoring every thing you do in your life that goes against all the other list of “sins” the Bible very clearly spells out, that you conveniently ignore. You might want to consider the fact that homosexuality was so important to Jesus, that he never once spoke against it - NOT ONCE.

To all of you Christians, I’ve had enough. I simply, in all honesty, hate your guts. Yes, I know, hating your guts is yet another “sin” against me, but I think that you trying to strip away any recognition of my personal relationship with my life partner is at least worth a pout, don’t you? So resolution # 8 is for ME to become more tolerant and comfortable of YOU. But that’s not up to me. It’s easier for me to simply despise what you stand for (the destruction of my family) and to tell you all to go to Hell. Resolution # 8 is to try to open myself to tolerance if any of you decide to truly accept my family (BIG FUCKING IF), but I’m the better person for it. The Lord’s Prayer says, “...and forgive those who trespass against us.” Well, until you all started passing constitutional amendments banning my family from being legally recognized in marriage or even a “civil union”, I was willing to try to do that. Not any more. Forgiveness now will have to be earned.

And the “gay agenda” that you love to push out there as your loaded phrase du jour, is an agenda that talks of respect, tolerance, and something that you seem to truly lack; LOVE. My “gay agenda” is to be equal to you. I’m not asking to be better than you. I’m not asking for your forgiveness for anything. I’m not asking for more rights or privileges than you enjoy. I’m not asking to be able to marry a goat or a horse. My “gay agenda” is demanding equality, respect, and dignity. And how the hell do you turn the argument of me being able to marry my partner into one of bestiality? Some of you are pretty damned warped.

The Christian Agenda has been made painfully obvious. You started out by bitching about how allowing gay couples to marry would destroy the “sanctity of marriage”, completely ignoring the fact that gays have had nothing what so ever to do with what you have done to marriage. Come on guys, a 55% divorce rate, and you have the gall to say that gays will ruin marriage! Unbelievable.

So what do you do? You start pushing for state constitutional amendments that will prevent gay couples from ever achieving marriage in a state by state basis. But wait! There’s more! You don’t stop there. As long as you are at it, you also stick in language such as “this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” In other words, you prevent us from even having all the benefits of marriage by forming civil unions. That is your agenda - to make sure that we ride in the back of the bus. Actually, in this case, we have to walk since we aren’t even allowed to get on the bus, as we would get nothing at all. Now that’s Christian love for you.

A final thought on Christians... You have a lot of hate and meanness in your hearts and you are masters at wrapping that crap up and labeling it as “Christian Love”... “hate the sin, love the sinner” bullshit. My message to you is, take your love and shove it, because THAT IS NOT LOVE and if I were you, I’d start being a bit more careful what you freely do in the name of God.

I leave you with two thoughts. The first one is this...

“I don’t really want to do it. They always define it as coming out of the closet, but I don’t consider myself to be out of the closet. Where I live, you can’t really go out and be yourself. You couldn’t go out together, two guys, as a couple and ever be accepted. It wasn’t accepted in the past, it’s still not, and I don’t think it ever will be.” (source)

That is what you have done to us. I wish in this life or the next life, the same for you.

And finally....

Have a Merry Christmas Happy Holiday.

A recent nationwide online survey conducted by GayTrendsetters.com has found that despite Ford’s recent reversal in its marketing stance towards the GLBT community, the damage may already be done. When polled as to what brands of automobiles were owned or leased by GLBT consumers, Ford came in number one at 15.78%, with Honda and Toyota trailing a close 2nd at 14.31%. However, when the Ford owners were then asked if they would purchase or lease another vehicle by Ford, 65.52% indicated they would not, based upon the perceived anti-GLBT policies by the company. (source)

SANTA BARBARA, Calif., Dec. 19 (AScribe Newswire) -- The recent revelation that the U.S. military is spying on gay rights groups, say historians, evokes the Cold War crackdowns on gays during the McCarthy era. Then, as now, the government compiled lists of American citizens who were suspected of subversive activity by virtue of their association with critics of government policy. Targets included gays and members of gay or gay-friendly groups.

Last week, NBC News reported it had obtained sections of a secret Pentagon database with information about individuals linked to peaceful activist and protest groups that opposed certain U.S. military actions. According to the Advocate, the military has been monitoring meetings and events it deems “suspicious,” including gatherings of several student groups at the University of California, New York University and William Patterson College. Students were meeting to discuss and oppose the military’s policy excluding openly gay Americans from serving in uniform. At least one protest was classified as “possibly violent.” (source)

This is the world we live in today, and it’s all justified with laws put in place such as the Patriot Act and a President who doesn’t give a rats ass as to what is legal and not legal. He feels that he is entitled to do just about anything he wants, all to “protect our country”. All of this comes at the expense of personal freedoms that we assume are in place, such as the right to privacy.

You think I’m joking? Well, read the article above, then click on the link below. It is an image of my site statistics just this month to day, and is filtered on all the “.mil” sites that are taking a good close look at what I am saying about the crappy state of afairs in this country today. I’ve highighted some of the more interesting ones for you.

My site statistics on military monitoring of billandkent.com

And this is freedom? I also learned that the Pentagon has been spying on gay groups as well.

Pentagon officials have spied on student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on openly gay military personnel, according to media reports.

A February protest at New York University was one of the events under government surveillance, NBC News reported last week.

The network reported that the law school’s gay advocacy group, OUTlaw, was classified as "potentially violent" by the Pentagon.

"I was shocked to read that OUTLaw was classified as a threat and investigated," OUTlaw Co-chair Rebecca Fisher said in a telephone interview on Monday. "Since we still don't know how the Pentagon went about investigating us, I'm wondering how far they went in invading our personal privacy to make their determination. Did they read our e-mail? Monitor our meetings?” (source)

Based on an Annie Proulx’s short story, “Brokeback Mountain” is about two cowboys who meet and fall in love while wrangling sheep in Wyoming in 1963. Their love lasts through two decades as they each get married to women and live “normal” lives. (source)

What they are saying about Brokeback Mountain...

Moving and majestic - The New York Times

An American masterpiece - New York Observer

Unmissable and unforgettable. A landmark film. ...with the rise of homophobia as church and state shout down gay marriage, the film is up against it. - Rolling Stone

Is America ready for Marlboro men who love men? - The Wall Street Journal

In today’s climate, a sweeping romantic epic about two men in love is historic, but when we look back in 20 or 30 years ’Brokeback Mountain’ will simply be considered a classic, timeless love story. - Damon Romine, a spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation

Now, through movies like Brokeback Mountain, Hollywood is shedding light on the fact that not all gay men are fashion gurus, hair dressers, interior designers and superior in the arts. Some might be — God forbid — cowboys herding sheep in Wyoming. And, more importantly, capable of love-based relationships. - Chron.com

I can’t wait to see Brokeback Mountain when it comes out. My only hesitation is reliving some of my experiences from my childhood. I have had my share of crushes on my friends as a child. Some were more serious than others, but in all cases, the one thing that I could never ever do was to reveal how I felt about them. To do so would be to reveal my terrible secret - that Bill was a “queer”.

I had a friend in high school I was very close too. His name was John. Yes, that’s his real name and the only reason I use his real name is because there were many others with the name “John” in my high school. I was actually going to tell him how I felt about him, but then he told another friend, “I am no queer...” and went on to describe just how much he hated queers. Yet, we were best friends.

It hurt me a lot because I realized that if he really knew me and knew that I loved him, it would destroy our friendship and I would just become nothing more than “a queer” to John.

Over thirty years went by. I went back to my hometown, and of all the people I looked up was John. This from my journal to my home town on August 24, 2004:

I hadn’t seen John for thirty years, and here I was just showing up at his place of work. He came out. I had my back to him. He said, “Hello, I’m John.” I turned around, he paused for a moment and said, “Oh my God, It’s Bill!” It was nice to see him again, but I quickly realized that I may have made a mistake. He was happy to see me and as he talked, it sounded like the John that I knew, even though his appearance was different. His hair was mostly gray now. We talked about all the stuff we did together as kids. The time we climbed to the top of the small butte. I thought about all that happened when we stayed on the top of that butte overnight, in our budding sexuality, things that it is understood as adults would never be talked about ever again. I loved him. When life became difficult for me at school and rumors were circulating about me being gay, all friendships distanced themselves from me. Eventually, we never talked again. I left Emmett, went to college, and set out in the world.

John said that he had married, and had two kids who are now adults and no longer at home. I knew he had married and had kids. When he asked if I had married, I started to think about how to tell him about my life and what came to mind was an old memory from high school. Someone said something to him in a joking manner about him liking me in school. John said, “I’m no queer!”. With that memory, I said, “I have a partner.” He looked at me a bit strangely. The topic was dropped and replaced with other meaningless diatribe. We said our goodbyes, and I left wondering if it was a good idea that we had stopped.

Most of us, if we are honest, have had these crushes in the past. They are part of normal sexuality and exploration in finding who and what we are. In the case of gays, making these revelations known can be right down dangerous - psychologically and physically. But how psychologically damaging is it to say nothing, and to keep what you are to yourself, as if you are deeply ashamed of what you are? And if asked, lying about what you are and what you feel inside?

So I think that Brokeback Mountain will be a difficult movie for me to view. It will bring back memories that I usually try not to think about. It deals with the same kind of love that cuts deep to the heart of your soul, yet cannot be acknowledged. I also think that it’s strange that it’s being put out in “limited release”, as though they are afraid of what people will do if they see it. Oscar Wilde called this the “the love that dare not speak it’s name”. It’s frustrating because it’s impossible right now to see it, even though it is getting rave reviews. It will be something I look forward too.

Related Article
January 1, 2006 - Brokeback Mountain

Think back a little more than a year ago, to the political campaigns of 2004. One of the hottest issues in presidential debates and congressional campaigns was the threat to traditional marriage posed by gay people seeking the right to wed. [...]

But a year later, it seems pertinent to ask: Have you heard or read a single word about a federal gay-marriage amendment since the election?

No, you have not, because this supposedly all-important issue has vanished from the political landscape. Judging from the available evidence, this dire threat to marriage and family, this looming peril to the very core of American society, has simply disappeared as a concern. Certainly, nobody’s talking about it or trying to do anything about it any longer.

A cynical person might look at that evidence and suggest that maybe the gay-marriage controversy was never real in the first place. Maybe it was just a product, like soap or toilet paper, that was manufactured by politicians and then sold by certain media outlets and interest groups. Maybe those politicians never had any intention of trying to pass such an amendment and were merely playing their supporters for fools. [...]

Basically, what you’re seeing is a retail operation, and gay marriage was last year’s inventory. It has been rotated off the shelves, at least for now, to make way for a holiday-themed product in exactly the same way that Home Depot removes inventory from its garden section to make space for Christmas trees. (source)

I still think that gay marriage will be the big ticket item in the next election. The “war on terror” is just getting old and worn out, especially since we are losing people and according to latest polls, the majority of the Iraqi People want our forces to leave.

But the “gay marriage” issue... well, that’s saving the very pillar of our civilization (with it’s 55% divorce rate) from sodomites. I think that’s worth at least three elections. Don’t you?

The federal Equal Access Act, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, requires any public secondary school accepting federal funds to allow all school clubs equal access to its facilities. It was aimed at protecting student religious activities. [...]

Backed by the Utah Eagle Forum, state Sen. Chris Buttars plans legislation to ban high school gay-straight clubs.

“I’m concerned about gay clubs,” the West Jordan Republican said Wednesday, a day after opening a bill file for the legislation he said would ban the gay student associations from meeting on public school property. “In my mind, if you are in the chess club, what do you talk about? Chess,” Buttars said. “If you are in the dance club, what do you talk about? Dance. If you are in a gay club, what do you talk about?”

“I just don’t believe members of sexual-orientation clubs should be sanctioned by the public schools—what they are talking about even a part of the public schools. They should not be allowed to have that on school property at all. It’s just wrong,” he said.

Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said Buttars’ bill would simply clarify existing law, which curtails what may be said in schools about sexuality. “We’re looking at the law saying, what do we need to do to help the districts? Most of the districts don’t want the clubs,” she said. “Provo certainly wouldn’t have a club if it didn’t have this fear (of lawsuits) hanging over its head ... (or) if it were up to parents.” (source)

Well, it’s kind of like the Solomon Act. That act prevents colleges and universities from preventing military recruiters on their campuses in protest of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on homosexuals. To prevent the recruiters full access to students, the university in question could lose all of it’s federal funds. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing if the Solomon Act is constitutional.

In the case of gay-straight alliance clubs at high schools, I would think the same principle would apply. From a constitutional point of view, can you restrict one club with a very specific subject matter (i.e. gay topics, tolerance, etc.) from another club that would talk about chess?

Ironically, it was Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who sponsored the federal Equal Access Act, which “requires any public secondary school accepting federal funds to allow all school clubs equal access to its facilities. It was aimed at protecting student religious activities.”

With the way things are working in Washington, I suppose they will now try to amend the Equal Access Act to “allow all school clubs equal access to its facilities, with the exclusion of any homosexual group or any group espousing anything identical or similar to any group espousing homosexual leanings.”

[Utah Senator] Buttars said he is not afraid of a lawsuit. “I know the school districts and some others are scared of the ACLU. Not me,” he said.

Then a lawsuit you will have because the ACLU will have no problems what so ever in bringing one to you. And, unless the Equal Protection Act is amended, you should expect to lose.

But if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court, would you lose? Good question. I expected the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the Solomon Act because it restricts the university from following through with it’s beliefs from fear of losing all it’s federal funding (First Amendment issues).

Instead, Chief Justice Roberts made the assertion that there was no constitutional conflict and simply suggested that the school could simply opt to refuse federal funds if the schools were really true to their convictions (story).

In the case of gay-straight alliances, the Supreme Court could make a similar argument that the school is free to forego it’s federal funding if it wants to go ahead and exclude gay groups from meeting on school grounds.

Of course, I think the Supreme Court would have a hard time swallowing that one. And of course, I’m not suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that hypocrisy has anything to do with this.

On my way to work this morning, I was listening to CNN trying to catch up on the daily news. Pretty much the same old stuff; Iraq is still going to crap, President Bush “accepts full blame for misinformation that took us into the war in Iraq, but...”, etc....

I switched to a different channel. I tend to channel surf a lot to try to get a different take on things from different news sources. I somehow think that will give me a more well rounded view of the world. But lately, everything has been pretty much the same. Iraq is going to crap, more people are dying, Iran wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth (which the Bush Administration is quick to respond, “SEE!!! THAT is why they must never have nucular [sic] weapons!”), and yet, we wonder why they are hanging gay people in Iran. A strange world.

I grew tired of all the news propaganda (these days, that seems to take about 10 minutes). I switched over to Air America Radio. You know, the place where “enlightened people” talk; a place where our “friends” talk. They are on XM Satellite Radio (XM channel 167). I only listen to XM now for pretty much everything. The program on this morning was “Morning Sedition”, with hosts Marc Maron and Mark Riley.

They were responding to a call left on their answering machine concerning a remark they made yesterday concerning “Bareback Mountain”. They were making a remark about the new movie that is out called Brokeback Mountain, and they made a reference to it as “Bareback Mountain”. The message on their answering machine said that the remark was very insensitive and homophobic.

Marc and Mark said that they were not homophobic and that the term “bare back” is used to describe two people, homosexual or heterosexual, who have sex without condoms.

In all my years, I have never once heard the term “bare back” used to describe any sex act performed by a heterosexual couple. It is always used in terms of two gay men (to my knowledge). And, it is often used to describe men who still have multiple sexual encounters who get a thrill from having unprotected (no condom) anal sex (hence the term “bare backing”) with their partner. Most of the time, neither one knows the HIV status of their partner. Of course, this is highly risky and dangerous business. I’m not going to comment on it further, because I could devote an entire entry to just “bare backing”, and what I think of the practice. That is not the point with this entry.

The point is, when heterosexuals have sex without a condom, it is called “unprotected sex”. That same term is also used for homosexual sex. But, the term “bare backing” has only been used to describe gay men having sex without a condom.

This all leads up to the argument that the hosts of Morning Sedition were trying to make, that 1) they are not homophobic, 2) “bare backing” is a term used regardless of sexual orientation, and 3) people are too sensitive and that the real problem is that people take ownership of terms so it’s really impossible for radio hosts not to offend someone these days.

Point 1 - they are homophobic:
Yes, the comment was homophobic, so yes, at some level, they are homophobic. Whether or not they want to own up to that is doubtful. They pretty much tried to dismiss the comment left on the phone as some wacko making a stupid comment. Basically, they tried to get away from making a crude joke at the expense of the gay community. For this listener, they aren’t going to get away with that. If the movie was about a heterosexual couple in love against all odds, their comment about “bare back mountain” would have made no sense to any listener. They therefore, if they are being honest about it, would not have used that term.

Point 2: “bare backing” is a term used regardless of sexual orientation:
Not true. As I just mention, if the story was about a heterosexual love story, the comment would have made no sense to listeners. The comment holds no merit.

Point 3: People are too sensitive and that the real problem is that people take ownership of terms so it’s really impossible for radio hosts not to offend someone these days:
We have “taken ownership” of some terms, but not by our choice. I sometimes call myself “queer” or “fag” or “gay”. I suppose I have taken ownership of the terms because that is often how this fucked up society has chosen to describe people like myself - as a way to put us in our place, I suppose. Society still has the need to put everyone in a category. Terms such as “faggot” is still used freely in society to describe us in derogatory terms. African Americans still have labels. They are called “African Americans”. The term “blacks” is less acceptable now and the “‘N’ word” is always referred to as the “‘N’ word”; not an acceptable way to refer to people of African decent, but we all know what they really mean. It’s just makes the racist comment a bit more sanitized. And for the record, in terms of being derogatory, the “‘N’ word” = “faggot”.

So yes, I have taken ownership of the term “faggot”. On average, I get called the term 5-6 times a year, along with “queer”. It used to be much more often so I suppose that society is making some progress in terms of our community if you can go by that. I don’t bother countering it because quite frankly, it’s no longer worth my time. Also, by not countering it I take away the homophobes’ power in using the word. It simply is beneath my dignity to respond to the comments with a response.

But, that does not make the comments right. The fact that I have accepted being called these names does not make it “ok” to call gay people these names. And, when I’m paying for a radio subscription, I’m not paying to hear my community being patronized and used as the punch line of some crude, cheap joke.

I changed channels and just chalked it up to ... “morons”... and decided that for me, I will avoid “Morning Sedition” from now on.

In contrast, Randi Rhodes makes absolutely no excuses for bigotry in any form. She openly attacks homophobia and racism for what it is. I like her show a lot. I just wish that other “enlightened people” (which Air America claims to be made up of) would exist across their spectrum.

For Morning Sedition, this is sadly not the case.

This is a strange development. Ford originally pulled advertising in gay publications for it's Jaguar and Land Rover lines, saying that it was purely a business decision for them.

Well, apparently, they've made another purely business decision reversing themselves. What can we expect next? The AFA (American Family Association) will undoubtedly renew their efforts to boycott the company. At least, they can no longer claim victory.

DETROIT (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. on Wednesday said it will run advertisements in gay publications, reversing a decision last week to pull all advertising of its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands from that sector.

In a letter to some gay, lesbian and human rights groups, Ford said it has decided to run corporate ads for all its eight brands, including its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands, in the targeted publications. (source)

Related Article
December 5, 2005 - Ford ceases advertising in gay publications
January 11, 2006 - Group reinstates boycott threat against Ford over gay ads

Questions from the justices this week made it clear that the Supreme Court will side with military recruiters by forcing universities to forfeit federal aid if they restrict recruiting because of the Pentagon’s policies on gays. The court evidently believes that, while universities might have a First Amendment right not to comply with an arm of government that violates the universities’ policies against discrimination, Congress also has a right to retaliate by denying the colleges billions of dollars in federal support.

In the past, the federal government has threatened to withhold aid or tax-exempt status to compel institutions to stop discriminating against, for instance, blacks or women’s athletic programs. Members of Congress opposed to discrimination in all its forms should make sure this blunt but effective weapon is never again used to limit the rights of any Americans. (source)

I just read this very thought provoking letter from Paul Toth on his feelings of growing up and trying to fit in with others. It was my story, and it’s beautiful. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And, I sincerely hope that the folks in Wisconsin take to heart what he is trying to say to them. Because it’s true, and it’s real.

Related Article
December 7, 2005 - Wisconsin to Approve Marriage Ban for Gays

Paul D. Toth: I didn’t want to be gay

Most backers of the proposed ban on gay marriages and civil unions believe that extending any legal protections to gay families is morally wrong.

They would like to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to ensure that the hundreds of state and federal benefits that marriage confers upon heterosexuals automatically will never be afforded to their gay neighbors in equally committed relationships. [...]

Whereas Christian conservatives might hope that one day I would choose to engage a woman in a dishonest relationship that nonetheless meets the traditional definition of marriage, after coming out, I instead chose to commit myself in a relationship with a man that brought me more happiness than I ever imagined. Still, no matter how long-lasting or steadfast our commitment, this amendment punishes gay families by ensuring that we are never recognized as such in hospital visitation, taxation, inheritance and bereavement, as well as health care, child care and retirement benefits.

If as a heterosexual you are pondering a choice to enshrine such far-reaching discrimination in the Wisconsin Constitution, be glad that marriage (and, of course, remarriage) will always be a choice you can make, and that figuring out what to do when the law punishes such commitment will never be a choice you have to face. (source)

Paul D. Toth is a professor of Spanish and education at UW-Madison. He recently moved here from Ohio, where voters last year approved a ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions.

The military needs these highly skilled people. This week, the Supreme Court seemed to recognize that need, as it considered whether colleges can snub military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon’s anti-gay policies.

The military will likely win this court battle, as it should. But it will lose the recruiting war in the long run, if leaders in Congress and the armed services don’t eliminate all barriers that deter qualified people -- including gay people -- from serving their country.

After four years of war, the armed services are struggling to meet their recruiting targets. Recruiters face anti-war sentiments on high schools and college campuses, where they traditionally find recruits. They also face opposition from people who see the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, passed in Congress during the Clinton administration, as discriminatory. [...]

The justices seemed supremely unsympathetic to the colleges’ complaints, and rightly so. The military isn’t just another employer, as some colleges like to argue. The right of the federal government to defend the nation by forming a military is expressly included in the Constitution. [...]

Colleges should welcome the military for what it is: a career opportunity for students, and an honorable necessity of a free country. But they should also keep speaking out against Congress’ “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. (source)

It’s all fine and well to state that the “military isn’t just another employer, as some colleges like to argue”, but it is because they represent OUR government, they should also represent the “brightest and the best” we as a nation have to offer. Many of those people happen to be gay or lesbian, and they deserve equal treatment and respect. They deserve to be able to hold their heads up high to fight for their country without having to lie about what they are.

“Colleges should welcome the military for what it is: a career opportunity for students, and an honorable necessity of a free country.”

Fine, but that statement is inaccurate. What would have been accurate would be this...

Colleges should welcome the military for what it is: a career opportunity for SOME students (gays and lesbians need not apply if you have pride in what you are), and an honorable necessity of a free country.

“But they [the colleges] should also keep speaking out against Congress’ ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”

The Supreme Court will probability rule that it is just fine for the military to continue to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans, despite the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, and the First Amendment, which the law schools are basing their case upon.

This is why I am not too excited about the prospect of the issue of marriage equality for same sex couples to come before THIS Supreme Court, as I stated in this entry. They will somehow come to the conclusion, that where “marriage” is concerned, it’s off-limits for gay couples, and, they will find some way to justify it, probably by saying that they are “protecting children”, or some other crap excuse.

It would seem that discrimination against gays and lesbians, despite what the Constitution has to say about equal access to the laws and equality, simply do not exist for gay citizens at this time.

Gay couples seeking to marry in New York had their hopes crushed yesterday by a Manhattan panel of judges that said homosexuals have no “fundamental right” to get hitched unless the Legislature changes the law.

In a 4-to-1 ruling, the Appellate Division said Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan was wrong last February when she ruled that state law was unconstitutional because it did not permit gay marriages.

“We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right,” the court said.

“The power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not the judiciary,” they wrote. [...]

“Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision.” (source)

An interesting ruling. I thought that the court’s purpose was to interpret the state constitution. There is nothing in the New York State Constitution that states that gay couples should be denied marriage. That being said, all things being equal (no prohibition on gay’s being able to marry), the court should allow equality across the board for marriage. Or, it should strip away all the legal benefits of marriage.

The argument that “marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support but about the well-being of children and society” is bull shit. It just doesn’t hold water in today’s world. If that be the case, then we should bar all heterosexual couples who want to get married who are beyond child bearing years and have no interest or ability to produce children. Even beyond that, I can name six straight couples who entered into marriage who never had a desire to ever have children. They entered into marriage because they wanted a deeper commitment to each other. But, they also wanted the legal obligations and protections that came with marriage.

Of course, this will be appealed to the state supreme court. And all of this will keep going until it hits the United States Supreme Court. I hope that doesn’t happen anytime soon. I think the nation needs time to take in this issue. With states’ passing constitutional amendments left and right (and there will be more!), this should tell us all that America is not ready on a national level to accept gay marriage.

I don’t want to be a downer here, but that’s the truth. Social change always takes time. In the meantime, we will keep forging ahead with the victories that we have accomplished. Sometimes they seem small. Eventually, this issue will be decided in our favor.

I received the following poll announcement being sponsored by The Boston Globe. Participate if you’d like.

Boston Globe Poll

The Boston Globe is sponsoring a poll on the following question:

Do you think a question on banning gay marriage should be on the state ballot?

No, the state courts have spoken on the subject.

Yes, the proponents have gathered enough signatures and are following the process.

The poll is entirely unscientific and unlikely to produce data of any importance. Nevertheless, petition sponsors have sent out an email blast asking people to “Please visit the Boston Globe website and vote YES in this poll today.”

Want to vote? Here's a link to the poll.

Tom Lang & Aaron Toleos, Directors
Contact: (978) 335-0477, info@knowthyneighbor.org

View poll results as of December 18, 2005

MADISON, Wis. - The state Senate voted Wednesday to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to ban gay marriage and Vermont-style civil unions, leaving only a vote in the Assembly before the proposal could go to the public for a final vote.

The Senate voted 19-14 to approve the amendment. Lawmakers expect it to easily pass the Assembly and appear on a statewide ballot in November.

Lawmakers rejected a series of attempts by Democrats to alter the amendment, including a push to strip the portion pertaining to civil unions. It would prohibit legal recognition of any relationship between unmarried people that is “identical or substantially similar” to marriage.

Democrats argued that could impact legal recognition already on the books for gay couples, including domestic partner registries in Madison and Milwaukee, as well as health benefits provided by some school districts. Amendment supporters pointed to a memo from one of the Legislature’s attorneys that opined that was unlikely. (source)

I was a bit surprised by this one. I always viewed Wisconsin as being a more liberal state. I was always told that it was very accepting of gay people. I guess that’s not the case.

I can understand how some rural people would get upset at the prospect of a gay couple wanting to commit to marriage, but what seems very nasty to me is to specifically state that anything other than marriage (that we will not be allowed to have) will be illegal. That will strip away any benefits that domestic partners now have in some places such as Madison or Milwaukee because those laws will not be in conflict with the state constitution.

The amendment will read: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

It will most likely go to the voters and they will most likely pass it. Boy, I’m glad that I live in Connecticut. Kent and I have decided not to get a civil union, but I’m glad that we live in a state that at least gives us that option. And I can see Connecticut going for full marriage for gay couples within a few years.

Related Article
December 10, 2005 - Enshrining Discrimination in Wisconsin

Well, there’s a lot to be said for free speech. But personally, I think that Ann Coulter will say anything, ANYTHING, just to get a rise out of people. I have three issues with Ann Coulter:

She’s THE most obnoxious person I’ve ever heard/seen anywhere. Maybe it’s her voice?

Anyone who disagrees with her is a stupid moron (I try to at least listen and understand what the other is saying).

Everything’s a conspiracy if you are a Democrat. Every argument she makes is right down party lines. If a Republican does something she doesn’t agree with, it’s ignored completely.

I was a bit surprised that she is only asking $16,000. Usually, after one makes a book deal (“How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter”), they ask for much more.

At least, perhaps, it will get the students to think. That is after all, what scholarship is all about.

There is no doubt it’s on everyone’s minds. Everywhere you go, it’s the topic of discussion and no it’s not Santa Claus, but syndicated conservative Ann Coulter is coming to town and she has a lot on her mind.

Coulter is to speak at the Jorgenson Center of Performing Arts tonight at 7 p.m. The event is free for UConn students. Doors open at 5:30 p.m.

Her presence on campus has stirred up debate since the Undergraduate Student Government’s (USG) funding board and senate approved $16,000 for the event tonight.

Upon voting on Oct. 26, some USG senators questioned whether it was too much money to bring a speaker like Coulter to campus. The funding was eventually approved.

Other students are worried Coulter will bring nothing but hate-speech to the university, sparking responses against Coulter and an event to take place this afternoon at 5 p.m. at the Student Union Theater. (source - UCONN, The Daily Campus)

The antigay American Family Association claimed a cultural victory on Thursday and called off its threatened boycott of Ford Motor Co. On Friday, Ford spokesman Mike Moran confirmed to Advocate.com that the company will stop advertising its Jaguar and Land Rover brands in gay publications but insisted it was strictly a business decision. (source)

Yeah right. You just keep believing that it was “strictly a business decision”. I’ve been in business too long to accept that this was simply done for business reasons. It makes no sense. Why alienate a segment of the population from buying your product for a business reason. That only makes sense if you are trying to drive customers away, which makes no business sense.

This was purely a decision bowing to the special interests of the far right religious bigots. I’m getting so damn sick of these people. Don’t they have anything else better to do?

As far as Ford is concerned, we should of course return the favor by boycotting them. It’s nothing personal, it’s “strictly a business decision” on our part. Right?

And this I read on Dec. 9, 2005
Volvo's Gay Friendly Position Proves Ford Didn't Cave To The AFA

The AFA, which has an undeniable (though it tries) agenda against homosexuals living peacefully and enjoying liberties equal to straight people, is in the business of claiming victories, even when there isn’t one to claim. That helps drive membership contributions. I wouldn’t doubt that some dealer or even a Ford exec may have pointed to some gay magazine titles dropping from Jaguar/Land Rover’s ad schedule as a ploy to make the group go away. But since Volvo has no intention of dropping its ad schedule with The Advocate, a gay magazine, I’m at a loss to figure out why the AFA can claim victory for anything. The AFA took down its www.boycottford.com website, which now simply links to the AFA’s website, citing Ford’s apparent decision to give into their demands.

This is akin to someone claiming they made the sun come out because they did a sun dance just before dawn. Jaguar and Land Rover were almost certainly making these cuts regardless of the AFA.

Ford will be meeting with a coalition of gay advocacy executives soon to hear them out too. Meantime, the groups are squawking. From Michael Wilke, executive director, Commercial Closet Association: “Commercial Closet Association understands Ford Motor Co.'s dilemma, though we don't agree with its decision to reverse its careful research on gay and lesbian consumers, years of friendship-building corporate sponsorship, and gay-friendly advertising since 2002.”

Related Article
December 14, 2005 - Ford changes it's mind

Well, I guess I will be keeping that Wells Fargo credit card after all. I’ve had the account for many years, dating back to my college years (before they were Wells Fargo). I’ve kept the account because I’ve lived with it so long. I had thought about closing the account in the past. I use it occasionally and keep it around basically as one of those “in case anything goes wrong and I need an emergency credit card” type of account. But given that Wells Fargo is being so supporting of diversity and is openly including our community, I may make it my primary card of use.

Focus on the Family is looking for a new bank, saying it’s dumping Wells Fargo for its “pro-homosexual agenda.”

The Colorado Springs-based Christian group told its followers about the move Thursday. Focus on the Family said that a “pivotal reason” the San Francisco- based bank is getting the ax is that its logo was used in a fund-raising campaign for a “fight against the ’anti-gay industry’ - a group that pro-gay organizations have stated includes Focus on the Family.”

Wells Fargo had agreed to match contributions to a media-campaign fund for GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. But its logo got attached to a fund-raising Internet advertising campaign that raised Focus on the Family’s ire. [...]

The bank says “we direct our giving to areas that we believe are important to the future of our nation’s vitality and success: community development, education and human services.”

James Dobson, Focus on the Family’s chairman, told the group’s followers that Wells Fargo was part of a larger trend in which “gay and lesbian activist groups have picked off all the big companies in the United States.”

Focus CEO Jim Daly said 49 of the Top 50 Fortune 500 companies “have adopted pro-gay policies. Looking at the entire list, 85 percent of the Top 500 companies have done so.” (source)

Past Postings on Wells Fargo
May 16, 2005 - Wells Fargo to Recognize LGBT Businesses

Related Article
Anti-gay group scolds bank
Focus on the Family leaves bank over pro-gay issues

I came across this interesting letter to the editor on line. Everyone is usually talking about how the so called “homosexual lifestyle” is so bad for those participating in it and for society. So, it was refreshing for a change to see someone stating what is often overlooked.

Compare gay stats to heterosexuals’

Autumn Sandeen
San Diego
Posted December 5 2005

Re the letter, “Facts to add about homosexuals” (Nov. 28): If we’re going to generalize that folks who live a “homosexual lifestyle” face many ills, we’ll need to discuss the ills of the “heterosexual lifestyle.” For example, the U.S. birth rate for teenagers in 1997 was 52.3 live births per 1,000 women age 15 to 19. Teen pregnancy is a heterosexual problem.

Also, in America, 54 percent of new HIV/AIDS infections are among heterosexuals. This isn’t even addressing that the incidence rates for sexually transmitted diseases chlamydia, herpes, gonorrhea and human papilloma virus -- within the entire adolescent population in the United States have increased dramatically in the past decade.

I was just watching Latter Days on LOGO, the gay channel. They had this advertisement on this product called “Urine Gone”. I thought I was watching a joke. I finally realized that they were very serious. I guess I just never thought that they would call a product “Urine Gone”. I wonder if it sells?

They even include a “black light stain detector”. That’s a little scary.

I learn something new every day.

“I don’t do that stuff anymore and probably shouldn’t have done it in the first place,” West, 54, told The Associated Press. “It’s an unusual episode in my life. I wish there was a rewind button. Basically, that’s what I’m asking the public for: a second chance.”

Forgiveness from the voters isn’t likely, said Lance LeLoup, a Washington State University political science professor.

Polls indicate 60 percent of registered city voters would vote to recall the once-powerful Republican state senate leader. (source)

People who know me know that I am a very forgiving person. Some people feel that I’m forgiving to a fault. I have a friend who used to be a gay basher. It’s not something I’m at liberty to talk about, but I’ve been heavily criticized in the gay community for this. People in the community have asked me how I can do this. In a word, it’s called COMPASSION.

I can even forgive Mayor West. It’s not the surfing for pornography on the job that I find hard to forgive. It’s ill advised and I believe the City of Spokane has ample reason to fire him just for that. And, I can see them being upset for offering a job to an 18 year old man, even though, as it turned out, the 18 year old never existed. That’s all very interesting to me. It reads like a tabloid.

But I can forgive all of that. We are all human after all. We have all done things that we have regretted. The one thing that I really have a problem with is the fact that time and time again Mayor West has championed very hurtful legislation against the gay community.

In more than 20 years in the Legislature, West had initiated legislation to outlaw sexual contact between consenting teenagers; supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers and some state agencies; voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and, as Senate majority leader, allowed a bill that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians to die in committee without a hearing.

As Spokane mayor, West threatened to veto a measure extending benefits to domestic partners of city employees.

“It’s a pretty egregious case of hypocrisy,” Washington State University political scientist Lance LeLoup told The Associated Press. (source)

Even with this mess he’s in, never once (to my knowledge) has he apologized to the gay community for his hypocrisy. Even I can’t forgive him for that.

Story Update
December 6, 2005 - Spokane mayor recalled from office after Internet sex scandal

Mayor James E. West was recalled from office Tuesday in a special election prompted by news accounts that he offered City Hall jobs and perks to young men he met in a gay Internet chat room.

West, 54, a Republican former state legislator who voted against gay-friendly bills, must leave office when the election results are certified Dec. 16.

Just over half of the 110,000 ballots mailed to city voters were counted in the first batch of results, released Tuesday night. Of those, 38,718, or 65 percent, voted to recall West, while 20,681, or 35 percent, voted to retain him.

It was unclear how many more ballots would be received; they had to be postmarked by Tuesday to be counted.

“I said I’d abide by the will of the voters, obviously, and they’ve spoken,” West told The Associated Press. “I’m at peace with their decision – and disappointed.”

In more than one sense, Brian Rice and Jason Kelliher are pioneers. They were among the first same-sex partners in the nation to marry legally - last year in barrier-breaking Massachusetts - and now are among the few such couples to forgo their much-prized rights by moving to another state.

Their new home, Connecticut, is among the most liberal on the issue; its legislature has approved civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to gay couples. But that option doesn’t tempt Rice and Kelliher.

“We’ve already reached the pinnacle of what a couple can hope for - a marriage license,” said Rice, a lawyer. “Civil union is a second-class citizenship. ... We don’t want to take a step backward.” [...]

They initially hoped Connecticut would recognize their marriage, but the state decided otherwise. They can’t file joint state tax returns, as they could have in Massachusetts, and worry that they need to execute a will because Connecticut wouldn’t consider the survivor a spouse in the event one of them died.

“There are very few attorneys who specialize in these issues, and the law is very unsettled,” Rice said. “If you’re moving from state to state, or traveling, protections you had in one state may not be available in another.” (source)

I think it would be very difficult to have marriage, and then have to leave it to move to a state that only allowed civil unions. They had a real marriage. But this leaves me confused. They got married in Massachusetts, the only state in the country that grants a real marriage to gay couples. So, in Massachusetts, there was absolutely no difference from a gay couple and a heterosexual couple in terms of marriage.

Now, they have moved to Connecticut, a state where the attorney general of the state has stated that, because the Connecticut civil union bill has defined a marriage as one man and one woman, the state of Connecticut will not honor the marriage. Does that mean that the marriage doesn’t exist? And if they live here long enough, they will lose their residency status in Massachusetts. What happens then to their Massachusetts marriage since, despite the fact that it’s a real marriage, isn’t portable to any other state?

Soon, Kent and I will travel to Arizona for Christmas vacation. We will be carrying with us our legal papers, as our attorney has advised us to do. But I can’t help but wonder, is it all in vain? Because there is so much animosity towards gay couples around the country, would the state that we happen to be in honor the papers? And if they don’t, what then - a length legal battle that just turns from bad to ugly?

This is why I’ve become obsessed with gadgets. For example, I’ve purchased an XM portable radio that I will be taking to Arizona with me. I love XM. There’s so much out there you can listen too from news, to jazz, to classical. It goes on and on. It came with a setup to hook it up to your stereo system, along with a car antenna. The only problem I had was when I went outside to listen. Even though the radio had an internal antenna, the satellite signal kept phasing in and out. So, after doing a bit of research (they never tell you this when you buy the radio), it seemed that I needed the antenna headphones. I tried them today and they work well.

On the photography front, I bought a new flash unit for my Nikon digital camera. It hasn’t arrived yet.

I guess I’m wondering if I’m starting to just zone out of the real world and spend my time and energy in my own little world. I have talked with others who, as I am, have been very attuned to the news - world and local, to the happenings of the world. They have stopped listening to any news at all, opting instead to just be involved in what they can control; their own little world. Why is that so bad?

And, in all honesty, how involved should I be in the course of my country when it regards people like me as second class citizens? Why is it honestly worth my time? This is what happens when you tell people that they are worth less than others at the very very personal level of their personal relationship to their spouse - their family. They began to care less as well, about a whole lot of things.

My family is not second class. If my country can’t understand or honor that, fine. I’ll return the favor by giving back what I get; second class citizenship. They want me to care for my country? I will, at a second class rate. They want me to support them in their efforts to fight terror in the world (while supporting OUR view of the way everyone else in the world should live)? I will, at a second class rate. They want me to “care” for my country and support my country (be patriotic)? I will, at a second class rate (leave me alone and keep marriage just out of my reach). Keep me second class, and I will give second class, and we will all get along just fine. I don’t like it, but I have to accept it and move on. That’s why I’m getting into gadgets. All make sense now?

The world is in such chaos now. I suppose it always was. Perhaps what has changed is me. I’m more aware of all the crap happening in the world now because my country has changed. We (US citizens) are now more involved at a personal level with the world. We travel and we have to be subjected to much greater scrutiny from a security stand point. We hear each day that more have died in Iraq. Just last Friday in Connecticut, all the state and federal courts were closed because of some bomb scare. Apparently, the caller wasn’t specific on which court was involved, so the closed them all. Was this the work of some crazy wacko, or was it a terrorist attack? Who knows.

But when I heard about it on the way home, I switched over to jazz and zoned out. I’ve also noticed a complete lack of anyone leaving comments on the site anymore - yet more evidence that people are zoning out. Or, perhaps they no longer care of what I write about? Or perhaps they just don’t like my writing. So I’m wondering if I should just deep-six the site and turn it into a pure photography site (photo blog). I don’t know. But why make postings when I’m simply talking to myself? Does that make sense?

Oh and yesterday, I had my monthly facial at Green Tangerine Spa. Yet more zoning out I suppose. It was very relaxing and I learned that I have “wonderful skin”. That’s good. I would hate to have un-wonderful skin. She said I needed an eye-brow trim which included waxing. And for you guys out there who have no idea what waxing is... it sucks and hurts like hell. But hey, I now have the eye brows of a movie star! And did you know, you can even now pick the eye brows of the movie star that you would like?

Technology is a good thing. I have the eye brows of Judy Garland, of course! I was thinking of Maria Callas, but her eye brows weren’t available. It’s probably just as well. I don’t think I have the facial structure to support Greek eye brows.

On the weather front, it’s beautiful outside. We are in the middle of a big snow storm. I’m about to take a shower and try to figure out all this new face stuff (special face wash and “toner”) that I got from the spa. Then I suppose I will brave the elements and go to the store for supplies. Perhaps something heavier and “heartier” for dinner is in order to match the weather, like a pork roast with roasted potatoes accompanied by “winter greens”, and a nice Merlot.

Huddled in prayer on the first floor of the City-County Building, leaders of more than a dozen black churches expressed opposition Wednesday to legislation designed to protect gays from housing and job discrimination.

They also said they find it offensive to equate the plight of gays to the struggles faced by blacks.

The Rev. Melvin Jackson, a veteran of black civil rights marches and pastor at Christian Love Baptist Church, was among those who said they were “deeply offended” by those who try to put the two on equal footing.

“Black people were brought to this country in chains and were held down by laws that prevented us from being citizens in this country. We could not vote. We could not sit where we wanted to. We could not eat where we wanted to,” Jackson said. “We were insulted everywhere simply because of how we looked by the color of our skin.”

“There is no parallel to that. And I defy anyone to say that.” (source)

Ok... I’ll give it a try...

“Black people were brought to this country in chains and were held down by laws that prevented us from being citizens in this country. We could not vote. We could not sit where we wanted to. We could not eat where we wanted to.”

And gay people suffer the same oppression that black people did. Oppression is oppression. You could not vote. We can. But does our vote really count? We are a minority in this country and pretty much at every turn, the majority has steamrolled over our rights, just as you are doing now. It always amazes me how quickly people forget what it was like to be oppressed.

We cannot openly love and embrace the relationships that we form with the people we love. We cannot enter into marriage and obtain the over 1500 federal rights and privileges of marriage. There is nothing more precious and personal to a human being than to celebrate the relationship - the life bond you have with your life companion. When one of us dies, the surviver will not inherit their partner’s social security benefits. 401K survivor benefits are given, after being taxed. We have to somehow prove that we are “family” to a hospital or care facility and just hope and pray that they honor that. And after death, you just hope and pray that your wishes are carried out and not challenged by what the law sees as a “real family member”. You think I’m making this up? This is from an HIV/AIDS case manager:

Even with thousands of dollars worth of privately drafted legal documents, simple benefits granted by civil recognition of same-sex unions, such as bereavement leave, health insurance under one policy for the household or family memberships, are typically impossible to obtain.

Things go from bad to worse should someone die. In my 20-plus years of work as an HIV/AIDS case manager, I have dealt with a number of horrors happening to surviving halves of gay and other unmarried couples by “in-laws” who they believed were loving and supportive of their relationships.

In one case, a supposedly grieving mother left the graveside internment to join pre-arranged movers to empty the possessions of her late son’s home. One of those items was a baby grand piano given as an anniversary gift to his surviving partner in her presence five years earlier. The deceased’s will predated the gift.

Outside of my work life, I know friends with similar stories. One friend came home from work to find the locks had been changed by his partner’s children on the home he shared with his late partner, who had died suddenly. It took an intervention with attorneys for the friend to obtain his own checkbook and credit cards. (source)