January 2006 Archives

“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union, A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”

“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother-and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.” (source)

Coretta Scott King

I am in a place far far away, a long time ago. I’m getting ready to go to Wildwood Resort, way up in the Russian River country, north of San Francisco, for a retreat of the Dick Kramer Gay Men’s Chorale. The year is 1980, twenty-six years ago. I’m a young handsome man, so sure of himself outwardly, and feeling that I have my whole adventuresome life ahead of me.

My mother is still alive. She calls to ask how I am doing. I tell her I am fine. She asks what I am doing for the weekend. I say, “Nothing really. How are you?” I was an artist at changing the subject back then. My Mom didn’t know me. Not really. Only Kent did. Other than the outburst years before at Thanksgiving dinner, my Mom had no idea that I liked men. It was never something that was talked about. I tried to come out to my family before. I wrote letters to two of my aunts and a cousin. My cousin was accepting, my aunts were not, one making me promise never to tell my Mom I am gay, because “It would kill her.” That was a nice ego booster. She made me promise, and I did. I kept my promise. And my Mom never knew Kent as her son-in-law. Peace was preserved in the family. I don’t know who lost out more, me or them.

So I tell my Mom, I will probably be going up north to Napa Valley for the weekend. I didn’t mention to her I was in a gay chorale, and that we go away to be with each other to practice and for the fellowship. Strange, my joy would have caused her such anguish.

Wildwood was a gay resort. It was isolated deep in the hills of the Russian River. Once you entered the property, there was no need to be anything, other than yourself. You were safe. There were no closets, only friends. We never talked of our families, because we were our family. We loved each other unconditionally. I miss those days. I miss the guys. I miss being around people.

I’ve never written of this. I have buried it deep in my thoughts, as though it has a sacred value. It exists only in my dreams. Only one picture has survived, along with countless obituaries I have of these wonderful men who were my family.

I am the one in the back row, right in the center. I remember this photo as though it was yesterday. We had just finished lunch. Afterwards, some of us went outside to a gazebo. The view from the gazebo looked out over the mountains. It was a great time to just enjoy each other.

Lunch was another issue. At Wildwood, all the meals are included in the price. This made good sense. Many of us went in car pools and had no car. We were also isolated up in the mountains. There was no where else to eat. But, the chefs came up with great meals, and to a very green young man like myself, a bit on the adventuresome side.

This picture is taken after lunch, and after we’ve had time to visit at the gazebo. We are being called back to rehearsal by Dick Kramer. We took a few seconds to snap this photo.

Vexila regis pro de unt fulget crucis.... I don’t know how I remember the words to Vexila Regis. We were doing a concert of sacred music for men’s choirs. It was John’s (front row, center) favorite. He loved that piece. I told him, “I won’t sing it at your funeral.” He replied, “You don’t like it?” I said, “It’s luscious and beautiful, but I’ll not be singing that day.” I teared up and he said to me, “Yes you will. You will sing for the memory of it, and be happy. Promise.” I promised. He smiled back, as though the conversation was just for fun anyway. Why think such deep morbid thoughts? It was beautiful out, we had our company together, singing this beautiful music that was very spiritual. Why be morbid? He was right. How was I do know what was going to happen? None of us did.

And after all these years, why on earth would I remember this? I woke up, and the memories were fresh again. I got out of bed and looked in my special box that I haven’t opened in years - the box that keeps my very special things. This photo was inside, along with their obituaries.

I love you guys. I miss you.

And I remember.

From a piece that I composed over a year ago, but never published. I thought it was time.

This is wonderful news coming out of the State of Washington today. The State Senate passed a bill that will prohibit discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation. It would add sexual orientation to the other protected classes within the state.

This bill has been proposed and defeated over the last thirty years in the state. The shift of one Senator made this happen. I would like to salute Senator Bill Finkbeiner for changing his vote from last year, and voting in favor of this bill this year. His vote made the difference.

OLYMPIA -- The Senate today voted 25-23 to approve a gay rights bill and ended the debate over legislation that emerged in Washington the same year singer Anita Bryant began her “Save Our Children” crusade against such protections.

The bill would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, lending and employment.

Twenty four of 26 Democrats were joined by one Republican and approved the bill with a one-vote majority. [...]

Sen. Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland, reversed his previous position to turn the tide this year.

“This has been a terribly difficult issue for me,” said Finkbeiner as he explained his change of heart.

“What we are really talking about here is...whether or not it’s OK to be gay or homosexual in this state. On whether or not it’s appropriate to be discriminating against or to discriminate against someone because of that.”

He said being gay or lesbian isn’t a choice.

“People don’t choose this. We don’t choose who we love, the heart chooses who we love,” Finkbeiner said.

“I don’t believe that it is right ... to say that it’s acceptable to discriminate against people because of that , because of who their heart chooses to love. I can not stand with that argument.” (source)

This was sent to me by a frequent reader on this site (thanks Dave!).

Why let homosexuals destroy marriage. Aren't heterosexual Republicans doing a good enough job?

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a daughter 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Not yet 50 years old, Barr has been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Act." (The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?)

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced 3 X's

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizona - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York (Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker) - divorced

Oak Creek Canyon, Sedona, Arizona, originally uploaded by billandkent.

This is from our trip last December to Arizona. The photos are of Oak Creek Canyon. We stopped there on our way from the Grand Canyon, to Yuma, Arizona.

A Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old state law against gay marriage Friday, declaring it violates the Maryland Constitution's guarantee of equal rights.

Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock immediately stayed her order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The attorney's general office did so later in the day.

Murdock ruled in favor of 19 gay men and women, rejecting a state argument that the traditional family is ideal for children.

"Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory" law, she wrote. (source)

While we haven’t seen a detailed bill yet, the general idea is to recognize that long-term same-sex relationships do exist in Colorado. Because such couples aren’t allowed to marry, their rights and responsibilities are often murky.

This initiative would give members of gay couples the legal right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, protect inheritance rights when one partner dies and - most important - clarify rights and responsibilities when a couple breaks up.

That last point is vital. Some gay couples have children. But gay unions can break up just like heterosexual marriages can. When that occurs, state law should be clear as to the financial obligations and visitation rights of the former partners, using the legal yardstick of “the best interests of the child.”

This principle is so important than even the sponsors of the amendment banning gay marriage have elected not to specifically forbid civil unions. It is thus possible that the measure banning gay marriage and the law approving domestic partnerships could both pass next fall.

Possible, yes - but foolish. In our view, the state constitution is the wrong place to set social policy, let alone discriminatory social policy. (source)

Let’s think about this for a minute. Let’s remove gay people from the argument and pick on some other group who has been stigmatized in the past. Say, Jews or Blacks. Take your pick, it doesn’t matter.

Let’s then put it to the voters that an amendment will be proposed and voted on that will give certain rights to that group. The voters themselves would allow and deny certain rights to that group.

Can you imagine what would happen? Can you imagine how members of that group would feel? Yet, this is exactly what is happening to gay couples in Colorado and around the country (Virginia is about to pass their constitutional amendment banning ANY form of recognition for gay couples - it’s expected to easily pass). They feel that they don’t want to pass a full ban on marriage and civil unions - perhaps they feel that they couldn’t get it passed or that it would be “un-Christian”. But rest assured, it’s not out of any love they feel for gay couples.

People like this amaze me. A constitution in the United States of America should not be used to deny anyone equality. And if elected officials are unable to execute the demands of their office without bringing their own personal religious baggage into the equation and are unable to honor the separation of church and state, they should step down from office.

Yet, I’m hearing more and more all the time that many of these legislators are proposing these amendments because they view being gay as “a sin”. And, we tolerate that.

Pima Point, Grand Canyon, originally uploaded by billandkent.

This is from our trip to Arizona last Christmas to visit Kent's folks. We took a small detour up to the Grand Canyon. These are the photos.

What a great idea! There’s no better way for people to understand our families than to be around our families. This is how stereotypes are destroyed.

Unfortunately, conservative groups are already asking the White House if there’s a way to exclude these families.

(Washington) Same-sex couples are being encouraged by a national organization that promotes gay marriage to bring their children to this year’s White House Easter Egg Roll on April 17th.

Family Pride says that more than 100 same-sex households have signed up with the group to attend the annual event where White House staff each year hide Easter Eggs on the grounds of the Executive Mansion for children to find.

Family Pride on its Web site says gay family participation is not a protest.

“This is a celebration of our families,” it says. “We want to give our fellow citizens the opportunity to see us as real families, participating in a great American tradition on the White House lawn, rather than protesting from the sidelines.” (source)

I received this email today from Rob Simmons. He is my representative (Republican) in Congress.

January 19, 2006

Dear Bill:

As Congress has adjourned for 2005, I wanted to update you on some important things we’ve accomplished in just the last few weeks.

Improving Our National Security: Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass legislation providing our armed forces with the resources they need to fight and win the War on Terror. Members of Congress also took a bipartisan, principled stand against torture and voted twice in overwhelming support of our troops fighting the war in Iraq.

Improving Our Economic Security: Last month, Congress passed the Pension Protection Act which is going to protect workers and employers. We have passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which makes much needed reforms and helps government run better. And, we have already passed more of the pro-jobs tax relief policies that have already sparked solid economic growth.

Increased Heating Assistance: Congress worked in a bipartisan fashion in passing more than $2 billion in low-income home heating assistance, or LIHEAP. This record funding will provide thousands of seniors and working families with much-needed assistance during this upcoming New England winter..... (deleted by me because I couldn't stand the rest)

But all-in-all, 2005 was a year when Congress put partisan politics aside to make progress on the issues important to eastern Connecticut’s working families. If you no longer wish to receive my updates in the future, please let me know.

Have a safe and happy New Year.

All the best,

Rob Simmons
Member of Congress
Second District, Connecticut

And this is a member of Congress. If he thinks that Congress has not been partisan in 2005, I'd hate to see his version of partisanship.

I may just take him up on his offer to get off his mailing list, however.

So it is not surprising to see the Florida Republican Party support an amendment for the November ballot that would ban gay marriage. Actually, it goes beyond that. It also would stop gay couples from going steady, getting pinned or even making plans for brunch next week.

As much as conservatives profess horror at the promiscuous gay lifestyle, even more disturbing to them is the thought that gay couples might settle down, watch The O’Reilly Factor and argue about in-laws. (source)

Interesting. I’m not sure how you can prevent people from going steady or making plans for brunch. Can you say.... Nazi Germany... all over again. Scary, isn’t it?

The biggest threat to these Republican bigots is our truth. They are fighting a losing battle. It’s interesting to me that before we had any hope of recognition in law with our relationships, they were willing to let us be and simply characterize us as a disease upon society, right up there with venereal disease.

Now, we are just a little too close to achieving recognition for their comfort. As Mr. Thomas states, “You would think Bush’s record on issues such as school accountability and job growth would be sufficient for Republicans to run on, without resorting to this nonsense.” It’s hard to teach an old bigot new tricks it would seem.

And I think this point is probably the most important of all:

It seems this measure should be a slam-dunk for the ballot. But the petition drive is falling far short of the required signatures to get it before voters. You’d think they were trying to pass an amendment banning barbecue. This has the Florida Republican Party quite concerned. So it tossed in $150,000 to revive the effort.

I believe that the “gay marriage” issue is going to be raised once again in the next presidential election. Undoubtedly, some will try to still gain whatever mileage from the issue they can. My prediction (at lease, my hope) is that people are getting tired of hearing about it. I also believe that people have some time to think about it. When you think about the issue, it’s not too far from reality to realize that you are talking about denying rights to someone you know personally - perhaps a relative. That can change everything. Suddenly, it’s personal.

I also believe that more and more people are seeing the issue of putting us into second class status as just down right mean spirited and hateful. That turns a lot of people off.

If I’m wrong about this, this is no longer America. It is on it’s way to becoming a fascist state. The issue is ultimately not about gays. We are only the catalyst. The issue is the concept that it is ok to make a class of citizens into a less-than-equal status. Once you’ve accomplished that, anything is possible. If Hitler were alive, he would tell you that, because that is exactly what he did.

Unlike Nazi Germany, we have a government that supposedly answers to The Constitution, a powerful document that speaks of equality on more than one occasion. But of course, the interpretation of this great document is left to the judicial system - our Supreme Court. Everything is interpretation! It wasn’t that long ago that the Supreme Court ruled that gays had no right to privacy (Bowers vs Hardwick). Fifteen or so years later, the high court reversed itself. Why? They stated because public opinion had changed. So it would appear that the law is not absolute and the Constitution can be changed or interpreted to mean anything, that is deemed “constitutional” by the Supreme Court. This is the war we are engaged in now; the seeding of conservative judges into the Supreme Court to kill a myriad of social issues that are against conservative values.

In the middle of all of this is us. People. That is what gets lost. Will people like me end up fleeing America for freedom when it all comes down? That could very well happen, just as people left Nazi Germany to save their very lives.

I couldn’t believe this story. On the other hand, I work in technology so I very much realize just how small the world is in terms of data. What amazed me was just how easy it was for this blogger to obtain the phone numbers simply by paying for it. I don’t know if laws were broken, but I suppose not.

The question we should be asking is, “Is anything safe any longer?” As for myself, I don’t believe I have any data that is that important. Don’t get me wrong. I have private cell phone numbers and many personal contacts that I very much protect. But they aren’t a matter of national security. Not that Gen. Wesley Clark’s numbers were, but I bet he had some pretty interesting phone numbers that were purchased.

It also occurred to me that when I go to the grocery store, I will often check myself out (no jokes please) at the check out stand. I often have wondered, since absolutely everything is bar coded, what they do with all that data. On top of that, they know that it is me that is buying it because I swipe my Stop N’ Shop card prior to scanning anything. So, they know what we eat and what our “shopping trends” are. How could that be used in a harmful way?

On the other hand, the paranoid part of me says, “...somehow they are going to take my grocery data... it will end up in the hands of Al Qaeda... from that data Al Qaeda will be able to deduce my recipe for ‘winter greens’... the Muslim world will grow to love my ‘winter greens’... at some point they will decide that my ‘winter greens’ are ‘evil’ and the ‘work of Satan’ (and America) since their origins were traced back to a gay American... and they will use that against us... making it look like it was me who did it!”

Blogger Buys Presidential Candidate’s Call List

One of the nation’s top political bloggers purchased the cell phone records of former presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark on Thursday to demonstrate the growing privacy concerns highlighted in a Chicago Sun-Times story last week.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to know who [Sun-Times columnist] Bob Novak was calling in the month that [CIA agent] Valerie Plame’s name came out? How about [U.S. Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald’s phone calls?

John Aravosis, publisher of AMERICAblog.com, said he bought Clark’s records for $89.95 from celltolls.com. Aravosis said he obtained a list of 100 calls made on Clark’s cell phone over three days in November -- no questions asked.

Aravosis, whose liberal blog is critical of the Bush administration, said he called Clark’s cell phone Thursday to make sure the former NATO supreme commander was informed Aravosis bought his records. Aravosis did not publish the numbers on his blog.

“I am not doing this to be mean, I am doing this to help people,” Aravosis said. “I supported [Clark’s] campaign when he was running in the beginning.

“This shows nobody’s records are untouchable. . . . Wouldn’t it be interesting to know who [Sun-Times columnist] Bob Novak was calling in the month that [CIA agent] Valerie Plame’s name came out? How about [U.S. Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald’s phone calls?” (source)

DOCTOR Who star John Barrowman was told he was “too straight” for TV sitcom Will and Grace - even though he’s about to marry his gay partner.

And the 38-year-old actor, who came out in his 20s, said the fact that the part of Will eventually went to straight actor Eric McCormack is typical of “homophobic” Hollywood.

“And the sad thing is it’s run by gay men and women,” he added. (source)

Aren’t stereotypes wonderful? Of course, I don’t put much stock in Hollywood being able to get much of anything right. But, you have to give them one thing; they put a lot of money into thinking about and researching what will “work” to the American public. Stereotypes of gay men being effeminate and weak sell, because that is what people want to see -- apparently.

And if you portray a gay man who isn’t weak and effeminate (just a regular every day guy who can “pass for straight” in the eyes of the American public), he’d better be dying of AIDS or be the victim of a gay bashing (judging from this last week’s TV listing - cable and regular TV). Heaven forbid that he be happy and living a very fulfilling life.

The irony is, what Mr. Barrowman says is correct. Hollywood is very gay and unfortunately, some of the most closeted and bigoted people around (just like Congress). We do a lot within our own community to reinforce these stereotypes (e.g. Eric McCormack looks “gayer”, and then of course, there’s Jack, from Will & Grace).

I’m not down on people being different and what they are. We are a very diverse community. That’s a good thing and we should embrace that. My issue I suppose is that there seems to be a need to put our community in one big container and put one label on it. This happens even within our own community, to the detriment of individual expression. If you’re not a certain way, you don’t belong. Until we get over that, we will never be anything other than a stereotype.

FORT HUACHUCA, Ariz., Jan. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Kyle Lawson, a 19-year old Army Private who was recently attacked by a fellow soldier who learned Lawson is gay, was discharged yesterday from the Army. Officials at Fort Huachuca, where Private Lawson and his attacker were both stationed, have refused to say if any appropriate action has been taken to hold his attacker, Private Zacharias Pierre, accountable.

“The Army should retain patriotic soldiers like Private Lawson and discharge those who viciously beat their colleagues out of sheer prejudice, like Private Pierre,” said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). “Harassment will continue to flourish and commanders will continue to condone that harassment, as they appear to have done in this case, so long as it remains official policy to discharge soldiers for being gay. Congress and the Pentagon must repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ immediately and impose strict penalties against those who engage in any form of harassment. If America is fighting for democracy abroad, it must abide by those same principles at home.”

Private Lawson’s nose was broken and he was later threatened with a knife after a friend revealed during a Battalion party in October that Lawson is gay. While Private Pierre was originally charged with aggravated assault by civilian police, Fort Huachuca officials have decided not to prosecute the case “for reason fort officials say they are not at liberty to explain,” according to press reports. Lawson says the solider used an anti-gay slur during the attack.

Fort Huachuca officials also continue to refuse any explanation about why the civilian police recommendation to charge Private Pierre with felony assault was overruled, or to explain discrepancies between their various press statements and the police officer’s account of the incident. Officials have also declined to cite any measures that may have been taken to hold Private Pierre accountable for the attack, citing privacy laws. SLDN today disputed that those laws place a complete gag order on the command. (source)

I have little to say about this, other than my total disgust at the actions that were taken by the U.S. Military. We have lost yet another good soldier, and by overruling the felony assault charge against Private Pierre, the U.S. Military, true to form, have stated very loudly that anti-gay biased is just fine.

I can understand what our troops are going through in Iraq. And I can sit here and say that “I support them”, but not the war in Iraq. But when I read crap like this, I’m honestly getting to the point that I no longer want to support our military. Bigotry is wrong. It’s always wrong. Yes, even in the military.

I don’t blame Kyle Lawson for leaving the military. He has to be concerned for his safety among his peers, and since the U.S. Military apparently doesn’t care about his safety, he really has no other choice but to leave.

Related Article
America Losing a soldier, Private Kyle Lawson, for no good reason

Protests by an anti-gay group at military funerals are prompting lawmakers in Indiana and Illinois to consider legislative action.

An Indiana Senate committee today endorsed a bill that would make disorderly conduct a felony offense if it occurs within 500 feet of a funeral or memorial service. [...]

The move comes the same day that an anti-gay group protested the funeral of an Evansville soldier killed in Iraq. [...]

Meanwhile, Illinois’ lieutenant governor says he’ll push for a law that would ban such demonstrations outright. (source)

Just a couple of thoughts....

1) I’m no fan of Fred Phelps and his clan of nit wits. For years they have protested at the funerals of countless gay men, including Matthew Shepard. Where was the concern of these lawmakers then? Yes I know, it’s a dumb question because the answer is

...so it was not an issue for them, but I thought it was important to point that out.

2) “...Illinois’ lieutenant governor says he’ll push for a law that would ban such demonstrations outright.”

How do you become a lieutenant governor without realizing that banning these demonstrations in state law is a violation of the U.S. Constitution?

This from my home state of Idaho...

Supporters of a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Idaho are giving the issue another try this year, with a new conservative group called the Idaho Values Alliance leading the charge.

“The signal that we’ve gotten from legislative leadership on the house and senate side is they’d like to see an amendment go forward,” said Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Boise-based group. [...]

Legislative attempts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage have failed the past two years. A constitutional amendment must pass the house and senate by at least a two-thirds majority and win approval from the governor before being placed on the general election ballot.

Last year the Idaho senate blocked a measure that would require the state to recognize only marriages between one man and one woman. That measure also would have banned civil unions, which grant gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

Idaho already has a 1997 law banning same-sex marriage, but Fischer and other supporters say the amendment is needed too. He noted that in Washington State, the state supreme court is considering a challenge of Washington’s 1998 ban on same-sex marriage. “Because Washington State does not have a constitution that protects marriage, the state supreme court there may well issue a ruling any day now that would provide for gay marriage,” Fischer said. (source)

Yes, I know.... get over it Bill. Idaho is a hick state with “good ole boy” values, which doesn’t hold up much value for queers. OK! I get it. What I don’t get is the notion of people being so damned frightened of people like me wanting to commit to someone. Would they rather that we go to public parks for quick sex and go from sex partner to sex partner? Is that what they would prefer? I suppose they would rather hold on to the idea that we are sick perverted freaks than see us as people who want to get the most out of life that we can - just like THEM!

It’s people such as Gerry Sweet of Meridian who said that allowing gays to marry would fail to “protect marriage” and would “destabilize society.” Sweet adds, “We are under attack. The family is under attack. This issue is not about somebody’s chosen behavior. We’re not debating morals on the floor of this Senate. We’re debating the stabilities of families and the stability of society.”

In response to that, Boise Democrat Mike Burkett said, “There is no attack and at the very least there is no attack by gay couples simply trying to live a life of commitment and purpose.” (source)

So, it would seem that there are both sides of the issue in the Idaho legislature. Let us hope that enlightenment and reasoning will win the day. We still can’t get married there and gay couples living in Idaho have absolutely no legal protections at all. I know that gay couples live all over the United States. I would venture to say that, when they start getting older (50+ years), they start to look at moving where they will have more stability in their lives in terms of legal protections. It only makes sense. Not all will, but many, like myself, will start to worry about what protections you will have when you are most vulnerable.

It saddens me and makes me sick to think of what the actions of some have done to us, and want to keep doing to us. The way some of us have had to live our lives in the past is really a crime against humanity.

We went to see Brokeback Mountain recently. I had seen it once before, but Kent wanted to see it. So, last Sunday, I went for my second viewing of the movie. My reactions to the first viewing and the second viewing were different.

The first viewing of the film left me very sad - sad for the characters really, and their hopeless situation.

The second viewing of the file left my angry. I was angry at Ennis, one of the characters in the movie for not trying to make the love work. But, as he said in the movie, that is how people get killed. He’s right. I was almost one of those people who lived in Idaho. In the Midwest it’s very conservative and almost impossible to be yourself if you are gay, without severe consequences.

So, you learn to lie. You lie to everyone, even your family. Perhaps, especially your family. Brokeback Mountain is the story of two cowboys who met as sheep herders. Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar are the two characters who really share a lifetime together never proclaiming their love. As Jack declares to Ennis at one point, after being together for twenty years and only seeing each other four times a year, “I can’t live on four high-altitude fucks a year!” They would meet at their secret location to be together. Afterwards, they would go back to their homes - one in Texas and one in Montana, to live their real lives where they had real marriages and fake relationships, all for the purpose of public display. What a way to live.

Here’s another way to live... my uncle Clive. He was also a sheep herder, just like Jack and Ennis in Brokeback Mountain. He would come home from time to time between work and help out around the house. My father had died and Clive was kind of like my Dad to me. He never married. He never dated. He never once introduced any of us to any women he had met. He never once let us meet any of his “friends” from his real work. He never brought them home. He never talked of them.

But I know there was someone - someone special in his life. There is a scene in the movie where, after Jack was killed, where Ennis goes to Jack’s parents home. The movie leads us to believe that Jack was savagely beaten to death with a crow bar despite the fact that his wife told another, more sanitized story. Ennis offers to take his ashes to Brokeback Mountain, as Jack had wished. It was not to be. Jack’s father insisted that Jack be buried in the family plot. Jack’s mother tells Ennis that he’s welcome to go upstairs to Jack’s room if he wished too. He accepts. While there, Ennis finds a jacket that used to belong to Ennis and inside the jacket is a shirt that belonged to Jack - the sleeves of the shirt extending into the sleeves of the jacket, as though they are joined together forever. You will have to see the movie to know the significance of this. This is the point that Ennis is overcome with regret.

My Uncle Clive died of alcohol poisoning. I believe that he killed himself. Spiritually, he died alone - with family - but his love was not there. After his death, I was there when we went through his place. My aunts wanted to distribute his things to those who might want them. He didn’t have much. He left no will. I came across letters very similar to those that Jack and Ennis would write to each other. They really said very little. They were all from the same person; a man. They were a way of arranging to get together. The letters were taken from me, and were most likely destroyed.

So I’m left wondering if my Uncle Clive was “Jack”, or was he “Ennis”? I guess I’m mad about it because of all the crap we seem to have to go through in the United States; gay bashing, death, and the denial of our relationships in civil law. In this great and free country of ours, there were some of us who felt we had to deny any form of passion, love, or any form of a relationship at all. This still happens today, and that is still just fine with many Americans.

No one should be put through a lifetime of that. That was my Uncle Clive.

Security consultant A.J. Reznor points out that every major worm other than the original Morris Worm from 1988 has leveraged a hole in Microsoft products. Reznor refuses to work with Microsoft products but still actively loathes the company because his network becomes “saturated with crap flying out of [Windows] machines.” Spammers route their junk through MS machines infected with a trojan—a harmful computer program disguised as an innocuous one—that turns these machines into “zombies.” “Even if we don’t use them, we suffer from them,” he says. “Kind of like secondhand smoke.” (source)

I could say worse about Microsoft (MUCH worse) than calling them “secondhand smoke”, but I am in a situation of having to use Microsoft products (somewhat like being a crack addict, I would assume). So, I won’t put them down because that would make me a hypocrite I suppose. I just try to protect myself to the hilt from all the nasty stuff out there and to tolerate all the SPAM out there, which I have become numb too.

I don’t drink; therefore, I think we should have a law that no one be allowed to drink.

Because I walk with a cane, I say we need a law saying everyone should walk with some type of aid.

I love cats; I am not fond of dogs. Let’s make owning a dog illegal.

I really dislike bossy, opinionated people. Let’s make them illegal also.

Oh, I hear you say, I’m following the Bible. Okay, let’s stone all those who do not observe the Sabbath, as it says in the Bible. Let us sell our daughters into slavery, as it says in the Bible. Let us allow our daughters to lay with their fathers in order to have children, as Lot did with his two daughters, as it says in the Bible. Oh, that’s the Old Testament, you say? Well then, let’s go the route of the disciples who said it is better to not marry at all. That should take care of the population problem.

Seems to me, there are a lot of things that are allowed or disallowed because it is in the Bible. Perhaps we are reading the Bible wrong? Perhaps we are not reading the true message? Perhaps we are putting a newer, modern twist on the readings we do? Perhaps we need to remember that not all people follow the Christian faith, but are still good people.

The message in the Bible is one of love - of your partner, of your family, of your fellow man. Why is it that the Bible has instead been used to preach hate, family separation, segregation and racism?

I thought this was interesting. It’s a report listing the Fortune 500 companies and specifying if they are compliant with non-discriminatory practices. If they are not compliant, they will be marked with a “No” under the compliant column. That means that they do not prohibit the firing (or not hiring) of employees based solely on “sexual orientation”.

My first thought... lose the Mobil/Exxon gas card and switch over to Sunoco. I'm sure I'll be making other adjustments in my spending habits as I examine the list.

You’ve probably been hearing about this for a few days now. People for the American Way have published a report on the dangers of confirming Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. It goes into great detail. You can pick the report up from them. I have also put the report on my site for your convenience.

If confirmed as the next Associate Justice, Judge Samuel A. Alito would bring dramatic, sweeping change to the Supreme Court. While his words are carefully chosen and his demeanor is measured, Judge Alito’s ultraconservative judicial philosophy is nothing short of radical. He would join Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia at the center of a radical right-wing bloc that would change the direction of the Court and the country for decades to come, and threaten fundamental rights and legal protections. He stands in sharp contrast to the justice he would replace: Sandra Day O’Connor, a mainstream conservative whose swing vote has helped to preserve hard-won progress on civil rights, reproductive freedom, environmental protections, and a host of other issues preserving equality and justice for every American. [...]

Judge Alito’s quiet demeanor cloaks a far right ideology that places him among the most conservative judges on the federal bench. If he replaces Justice O’Connor, he would be a consistent vote to turn back the clock on decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties, health and safety, environmental protection and religious liberty. His extreme judicial philosophy threatens fundamental rights and legal protections for all Americans -- for decades to come. The Senate should reject his confirmation to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. (source)

A right wing Christian group has warned that Barbie is not just a child’s toy, but also a tool for the “homosexual agenda”.

The Concerned Women for America, a stateside conservative group that “promotes Biblical values”, made the claims after seeing a poll on the doll’s website, which asked users whether they were “A Boy”, “A Girl”, or “I Don’t Know”. [...]

One spokesperson apparently told reporters that, bizarrely, the inclusion of ‘I Don’t Know’ could be Mattel’s attempt to link with paedophilia as any kid who’s not sure about who he is, he’s fair game to try to persuade to have same sex acts. (source)

Huh?

This is exactly why I keep my Barbie doll under my bed and out of sight! I’ve had her since I was four and I think she’s swell!

Illinois will begin tracking HIV cases by name rather than alpha-numeric code. The development occurred in response to increasing federal pressure to bring its HIV surveillance system in line with those operating in most of the other states. (source)

Is this “federal pressure” to keep tabs on the spread of HIV, or is it to be used along the same lines as say, the sex offender list? If it’s to keep tabs on the spread of HIV/AIDS, why the need for the individual’s name?

I thought that the GOP was all about less government intrusion into the lives of Americans (spying on citizens aside). Isn’t that the point Vice-President Cheney was trying to make when he said that the regulation of marriage is best left to the states and that the federal government should not be involved (President Bush’s attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage aside).

Given this, who on earth would get an AIDS test if your name was going to be recorded? Of course, public health officials claim that the names will remain confidential. Yeah, and I have some ocean-front property I’d like to sell you in Arizona also.

History, like pornography, is defined by the people who see it. - Coventry, Connecticut Town Manager John A. Elsesser (source)

And if I had thought of history the same way I think of pornography, perhaps I would have done better in my history class in high school. It most certainly would have been more... interesting.

You have to love this President. I spotted these interesting stories concerning him.

Support for Bush Drops Among US Military: Poll

Support for President George W. Bush's Iraq policy has fallen among the US armed forces to just 54 percent from 63 percent a year ago, according to a poll by the magazine group Military Times.

In its annual survey of the views of military personnel, the group reported on its website that support for Bush's overall policies dropped over the past year to 60 percent from 71 percent.

While still significantly more supportive of the president than the broad US population, the fall in support by military personnel tracks a similar decline in the president's popularity among the general public. (source)

And this...

Bush Pulls the Plug on Iraq Reconstruction

The Bush administration has scaled back its ambitions to rebuild Iraq from the devastation wrought by war and dictatorship and does not intend to seek new funds for reconstruction, it emerged yesterday.

In a decision that will be seen as a retreat from a promise by President George Bush to give Iraq the best infrastructure in the region, administration officials say they will not seek reconstruction funds when the budget request is presented to Congress next month, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

The $18.4bn (£10.6bn) allocation is scheduled to run out in June 2007. The move will be seen by critics as further evidence of the administration's failure to plan for the aftermath of the war. (source)

So the Republican Party thinks that the likes of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is too tolerant of gays to be considered a Republican presidential candidate?

I wish I could be alive 100 years from now and look back at how they will view their party at this point in time.

(Boston, Massachusetts) He opposes gay marriage, refuses to allow out-of-state same-sex couples wed, and supports amending the state constitution to bar gay nuptials, but for many in the the right wing of the Republican Party Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney still is too tolerant of gays and lesbians to get their support for a presidential bid. (source)

So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause. - From Revenge of the Sith (Star Wars)

Apply that to our country today. We put into place the Patriot Act to give sweeping powers to governmental intrusions, imprisonment of citizens without any hope for a trial, and now, spying on us at will. And all the while, we applauded these efforts by our President and our Congress to “keep us safe”.

This is how liberty dies.

I went to see Brokeback Mountain yesterday. I wanted to think about it for a day before I wrote about it. If you haven’t seen it, you may not want to read any further. I’m not going to go into the story but rather, simply the feelings I experienced during the movie.

I’m not going to talk about the story itself because, in my opinion, the movie simply isn’t about a plot - that is the least important thing in this movie. It talks about larger issues of the human experience; our world and it’s failings, people and their shortcomings, bigotry, fear, love, the need for companionship.

The story revolves around two tragic figures where there is no hope of resolution. They are simple people with simple aspirations - to simply make their way in the world, which seems to simply mean having enough money to live from paycheck to paycheck. Over time, they develop a profound relationship with each other that transcends time and the relationships they have with other people, all the while keeping their feelings a secret.

This is a deeply personal experience. Without being condescending, it is unlikely that the straight community will be as highly moved by this movie. I would also venture to say that it is outside a straight person’s comprehension to be able to understand the concepts this movie brings out. It is simply not in their experience or level of understanding to be able to understand the absolute need to keep what you are a secret for fear of losing everything; your family, friends, respect, integrity, love, and finally, your very life. How many straight people have faced the concept that this would happen if any one element of their personality were found out? Not many I would venture.

The audience in the theater was mixed. Gay, straight, young, old, and everything in between. Yet, I could tell exactly who was gay and who was straight, with the lights down. How? Because there were people and couples there who began to cry openly, as did I and they embraced each other for comfort. This is the level of pain that this movie stirred in some of us.

This movie hit close to home for me. In fact, it could have been my life. I grew up in Idaho. I had a friend in high school that I had love for. He was “straight”, yet he invited me to be with him on more than one occasion. But you see, it meant nothing. As he told me, “I’m not a queer.”, exactly what one of the characters in Brokeback Mountain said. I guess that made me the queer. He was telling me that he would in no way acknowledge what was going on beyond the physical. It could go anywhere and it could never be known to anyone - EVER.

That is the impossible predicament the two characters in Brokeback Mountain find themselves in. The difference between me and them is that they carried this charade on for a lifetime. The movie was really about the toll it took on them. It tore at them to the point that it destroyed everything else in their lives. In the end, all that was left was regret - regret for what possibly could have been.

Related Article
December 18, 2005 - The Journey to Brokeback
January 10, 2005 - My Uncle Clive

Mr kitsch’s said his stand was motivated in large part by his friendship with some gay couples.

“I know people who have been in homosexual relationships for 20 or 25 years and their relationship is as strong emotionally and in terms of commitment as any heterosexual relationship.

“I accept them as a couple socially. How can I go around to my friends’ place and enjoy dinner and accept them as a couple and then go into Parliament and express a different view? That would make me a hypocrite.

“If they asked me to promote their lifestyle, I would say No, but I will always defend their rights.

“I’m not doing this as an activist. I’m doing it out of respect for them.

“Those in gay relationships should not in any way be ostracized.” (source)

The greatest fear that the Christian Right have in their quest to deny marriage or civil unions to gay couples, is that people will get to know us. That scares the living hell out of them. And it should. If people get to know us, what will they find?

They will find that we have all the same wants and needs as they have. They will find that we want to be part of society, and not be seen as the sick freaks that most of society has viewed us for decades.

People want to make everything neat and tidy and to put people into categories. And the gay culture has in many ways contributed to us being labeled as “freaks” and “perverts”. We have been promiscuous and been told that it is “part of our culture”. We accepted that. After all, sex feels good and anything that feels good can’t be all bad.

And then we had the gay pride parades where we had beautiful “go go boys” dancing on a float wearing nothing but a thong. Then we had the drag queens, and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (gay men dressed up as nuns). At one time, we even had NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) as part of those gay parades, as though they were part of the gay culture. The list goes on and on. So we, in the gay community, are pitted against the reaction that this has stirred in the straight conservative world. The people we were pitted against used to be “straight America” - anyone straight would not understand “our culture”.

That has subsided to a large degree. Why? Because more and more of us are open to what we are; at home, at work, in all social interactions - we don’t feel the need to hide any longer. And many of “straight America” now understands that the gay pride parades and some of the outrageous things in the parade is not what we are “all about”. What we are mostly about is being just as boring and just as American as they are. In the end, we are all just people and we all want to be treated with dignity and respect. We have also started to adopt and have our own children. And along the way, we have distanced ourselves from NAMBLA and have labeled them as an organization that fosters child molestation in the name of civil liberties. Sorry NAMBLA, but that’s the truth. All of this means one thing; the gay culture is maturing.

Now, before you get all pissed off at me because it appears that I’ve just put down gay pride parades, boys in thongs, drag queens, etc., take a deep breath because that’s not what I’m getting at. And, it’s not what I’m saying.

I understand totally that side of our culture, and it is totally valid. But we have got to understand that expressing that kind of freedom in the face of people who know nothing about us is going to have a very negative reaction because people are very insecure about what we are. Also, most of America is starting to get it as well. I say this because it is getting more difficult for the radical right to sell their product - outright bigotry towards us.

They aren’t telling America anymore that we are “deviates”, because everyone knows that we are deviating from the norm; that being heterosexual sexuality. Today, the radical right is still trying to tell America that we are promiscuous, although that too is a hard sell because so many in the straight world are promiscuous. Everything has come full circle. They used to call us promiscuous. They used to say that we had a psychological disorder, until the American Psychological Association ruled in 1973 that we weren’t psychologically sick. They used to say that we were incapable of any long term “meaningful committed relationship”.

Now, the gay community has changed a great deal in our value system. I believe we now want more for ourselves. Many still are promiscuous in the gay community, just as the straight community. Many still do drugs, just as the straight community. But the value system of what defines gay versus straight is shifting, and is coming closer together.

We now dare to equate our relationships, some of which span decades, to that of straight couples, some of which last only weeks, or hours. We dare to want all the rights and privileges for our decade-long relationships that straight couples enjoy in their many short-lived marriages. And this is what scares the hell out of the radical right. Fairness demands that we be given these rights on a civil level. This has nothing to do with religion, even though our enemies are trying to make it an assault on religion. After all, it’s really all they have left.

“Be care what you ask for. You may just get it.” The radical right have always said that we were incapable of sustaining long lasting relationships and making a commitment. Now that we are asking for equality based on our relationships, they simply don’t know what to make of it. All they have left is biblical teachings on why our relationships should be denied rights at the religious and civil levels. The Constitution, in it’s current form (if the U.S. Supreme Court will continue to do it’s job), will not accommodate that. Yet, the Supreme Court is changing drastically. Here’s my prediction on how all of this will turn out.

More states will continue to add constitution amendments to their constitutions. We haven’t seen the last of this. Most will also add language to disallow civil unions or “anything similar too or resembling a marriage”.

At present, Massachusetts is the only state in the nation to grant gay couples a real legal full-fledged marriage. Yet, the Federal Government will not honor it as a marriage (a challenge just waiting to happen). Massachusetts is also waiting for a ruling from it’s Supreme Judicial Court (the same one that allowed for gay marriage in the first place) on the 1913 law that was created by prevent inter-racial couples from being able to marry in the state. The State brushed the dust off the law and is using it to prevent people like Kent and myself, who don’t reside in the State of Massachusetts, from going to that state and getting married. Then, we would be able to come back to Connecticut and challenge the State of Connecticut to honor our legal marriage. If this law is overturned, it would open the door to many challenges all over the country to laws (dogma’s) in other states preventing marriage for gay couples. This is why we see so many states changing their constitutions. I can’t predict the outcome of the 1913 law, but it seems like a logical thing for the Supreme Judicial Court to overturn because the law is being used for a different purpose from it’s original writing.

Out in Washington State, we have the same thing happening. Soon, the state supreme court will rule on the constitutionality of preventing gay couples from being fully married. This is exactly what happened in Massachusetts. But unlike Massachusetts, Washington State has no such law as the 1913 law. So, if they agree to allow gay couples to enter into marriage, we would be able to go their, get a marriage, return to Connecticut, and enter a lawsuit challenging the state to honor the marriage we have been given by the State of Washington. It’s also unknown how this will turn out, but gay legal groups are very optimistic about all of this.

Eventually, the United State Supreme Court will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the individual state constitutions that deny equality in marriage to gay couples. My prediction is, with the current court in place and with current public opinion, they would rule against us and keep the state bans in place. This is what happened in Bowers vs. Hardwick. We lost that case, and years later, when the court revisited the case, the decision was overturned because public opinion had changed. I believe the same thing will happen to gay marriage with the U.S. Supreme Court. As public opinion changes, the court will revisit the case and will overturn it’s ruling.

But, this takes time. It can take decades. I believe that Kent and I will eventually be allowed a full marriage in the State of Connecticut, but I don’t believe we will live long enough to see our country honor that marriage. What will change this is for more of us do continue to live our lives with dignity, and to show people that we have more in common than we have in differences. This does not mean we have to give up our gay identity. It means that we don’t have to sacrifice our rights for what we are.

But the proof is in statements such as, “I know people who have been in homosexual relationships for 20 or 25 years and their relationship is as strong emotionally and in terms of commitment as any heterosexual relationship.” That is from a conservative who has changed his mind just by knowing and becoming friends with gay couples.

The bottom line is, it’s harder to discriminate against people when you actually are friends with the people you are trying to discriminate against.