You have to listen to this. Trust me, it will cheer up your day.

Will Ferrell - Bush on Global Warming on Transbuddha

Feeling Old?

I got this in an email this morning and got a kick out of it.

1974:Long hair 2004:Longing for hair

1974: KEG
2004: EKG

1974:Acid rock
2004:Acid reflux

1974: Moving to California because it's cool
2004: Moving to California because it's warm

1974:Trying to look like Marlon Brando or Liz Taylor
2004:Trying NOT to look like Marlon Brando or Liz Taylor

1974: Seeds and stems
2004: Roughage

1974:Hoping for a BMW
2004:Hoping for a BM

1974: The Grateful Dead
2004: Dr. Kevorkian

1974:Going to a new, hip joint
2004:Receiving a new hip joint

1974: Rolling Stones
2004: Kidney Stones

1974: Being called into the principal's office
2004: Calling the principal's office

1974: Screw the system
2004: Upgrade the system

1974:Disco
2004:Costco

1974: Parents begging you to get your hair cut
2004: Children begging you to get their heads shaved

1974: Passing the drivers' test
2004: Passing the vision test

1974:Whatever
2004:Depends

Just in case you weren't feeling too old today, this will certainly change things.

The people who are starting college this fall across the nation were born in 1986!

They are too young to remember the space shuttle blowing up.

Their lifetime has always included AIDS.

Bottle caps have always been screw off and plastic

The CD was introduced the year they were born.

They have always had an answering machine.

They have always had cable.

They cannot fathom not having a remote control

Jay Leno has always been on the Tonight Show.

Popcorn has always been cooked in the microwave.

They never took a swim and thought about Jaws.

They can't imagine what hard contact lenses are.

They don't know who Mork was or where he was from.

They never heard: "Where's the Beef?", "I'd walk a mile for a Camel", or "de plane, Boss, de plane".

They do not care who shot J. R. and have no idea who J. R. even is.

McDonald's never came in Styrofoam containers.

They don't have a clue how to use a typewriter.

BOSTON - In a disappointment for the gay rights movement, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is prohibited cannot tie the knot in Massachusetts.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who is a considering a run for president in 2008, welcomed the decision, saying he did not want Massachusetts to become “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents to marry in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.

If the court had struck down the law, Massachusetts would have been thrown open to gay couples from across the country to get married. Then they could have returned to their home states to fight for legal recognition for those marriages. (source)

This of course is all based on a 1913 law (that was never enforced) to prevent mixed-race marriages from taking place. It was wrong to draft the law then, and it is wrong to brush the dust off off it now to enforce against gay couples. The legal issue is that the law was created for a very different purpose. And almost a century later, it is being used to keep a different type of couple from gaining access to marriage.

I’m not sure which is more shameful for Massachusetts... the fact that they kept the law on the books all these years and now chose to enforce it, or the fact that the state has failed to enforce the concept of equality of ALL CITIZENS.

As for me, I write about this - really as a public record that I acknowledged it. Emotionally, I’ve given up a lot of emotional baggage on this issue. Much of it I no longer care about, I suppose because I don’t feel that I will live long enough to realize equality.

That being said, it doesn’t have to ruin everything. And I’m not going to let it. This is the world we live in.

I read this unbelievable opinion piece. I pretty much sums up me feelings on so many things. It’s worth a full read.

One wonders where the “NoDNC.com staff” comes up with their rather selective understanding of the concept of “marriage,” and even more why they seem to believe that heterosexuals are so insecure and unreliable at making commitments that both the states and the federal government must provide thousands of special rights and benefits exclusively to their families as a bribe to honor their own commitments. After all, the “staff” is so convinced that the homosexual alliance is so bent on “attacking” marriage that one wonders where all the Rightwing was when such common hetero offenses as adultery, rape, child abuse, and wifebeating inside marriage took their toll on an everchanging institution.

Instead, they try to focus on creating a “history” of American marriage, as if the institution was created exclusively on our soil and there weren’t variances in different states. Why, one of the most protective marriage laws in the land exists in places like Georgia, where a 13 or 14 year old may certainly marry without parental permission as long as the woman/girl in the relationship is pregnant. In Illinois, along with several other states, first cousins have been accessing those cushy little family rights for decades, as long as the woman is over fifty and can’t bear children. Murderers, rapists, child abusers, adulterers, divorcees are all granted automatic access (and reaccess) to the special rights laws reserved for promoting the “stability” of heterosexual supremacists and their relationships.

...to DEPRESSION and SUICIDE.

Easier said than done.

A report on mental health has revealed that a quarter of young gay or bisexual men in Northern Ireland have attempted suicide.

Nearly two-thirds considered killing themselves and 30% self harmed, according to the survey, which was carried out over three years by the Rainbow Project in Belfast. (source)

I can relate. I can really relate, more than I’m comfortable sharing this issue in my life on this blog.

DAYTON, Ohio - A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage bars prosecutors from charging some unmarried people under the state's domestic violence law, a state appeals court ruled.

Friday’s decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals is the first from Ohio’s 12 appellate courts to rule that the Defense of Marriage amendment, passed by voters in 2004, means that the domestic violence law does not apply to unmarried people.

The appeals court upheld the dismissal of a domestic violence charge against Karen Ward of Fairborn, charged with assaulting her live-in boyfriend in Greene County. (source)

Pope Benedict XVI’s gay stance is as bad as prejudices of “Hitler and Himmler” in Nazi Germany, according to an Irish Senator.

Senator David Norris criticise the pontiff over his constant condemnation of homosexuality and refused to take “moral instructions from a man with a swastika on his arms.”

He referred to the Pope’s former membership of the Hitler Youth Movement in Germany in the 1940s and labelled Vatican statements on homosexuality as “objectively evil” and “intrinsically disordered” and “in line with the prejudices that included Hitler and Himmler.” (source)

To the Pope’s defense, if he was raised a Nazi, those habits are so hard to break. It’s kind of like masturbation, I would assume.

A year after the death of Terri Schiavo, her parents and husband are due to release books this week attacking each other on the decision to let the brain-damaged Florida woman die by removing her feeding tube.

Terri died on March 31 2005, at the age of 41 - 13 days after the feeding tube was removed under a legal order granted to her husband, Michael, and opposed by her parents, the religious right, Republican leaders in congress and President George W Bush. [...]

Michael had insisted for a long time that Terri had told him she would not want to continue living in such a condition.

But her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, said they believed she did not want to die and could improve with treatment.

Their long legal battle eventually became a cause celebre for the Christian right and other groups concerned about issues raised by the case.

Bush, congress, the Vatican and federal and state courts became involved and hundreds of demonstrators flocked to her hospice near St Petersburg in the days before her death.

In their book, A Life That Matters: The Legacy of Terri Schiavo - A Lesson for Us All, the Schindlers again accuse Michael Schiavo of abusing Terri and say she wouldn’t have wanted her feeding tube removed. [...]

In his book, Terri: The Truth, Michael Schiavo said he was determined to carry out his wife’s wishes, despite death threats and other pressures.

“A religious zealot put a $250 000 bounty on my head, urging that I be tortured before I was killed.

“I was condemned by the president of the United States, the majority leaders of the house and senate, the governor of Florida, the pope, Jesse Jackson and the rightwing media,” Michael said in an excerpt from the book, written with Michael Hirsh and published by Dutton. [...]

Michael’s book goes on sale March 27, a day before the Schindlers’ book. (source)

Now, the only two books left to publish is...

1) Answering the Accusations of why I dropped everything and fly back to Washingtom from Crawford, Texas to play politics using Terri Schiavo as a political excuse to increase my popularity with the Religious Right, by President George W. Bush. We need to work on that title a bit. Perhaps, “I care deeply about the Terry Schiavo’s of the world - I Feel Their Pain!” That might work.

2) Why we care for all the Terri Schiavo’s out there, by selected members of Congress.

There’s money to be made out there guys. Come on, if you get moving on this soon, you might just be able to pick up a few more votes before the elections! Terri’s dead and gone, but people still remember. It’s not too late to pull on those heart strings for a few last minute votes - to show us how much you really care.

It’s all for a good cause, right?

IN MY business, it’s only fair to acknowledge a bias. My bias is named Ruthie.

Ruthie is the youngest cousin in a bumper crop of babies that have extended our family over the last few years. When she was adopted, we didn’t pass out cigars, we passed out Baby Ruth bars. So maybe it’s our fault that she’s now in the sugar-rush stage of toddlerhood, leaving her parents joyously breathless and regularly transforming her grandmother’s house into Early Childproof Decor.

Did I mention that Ruthie has two daddies, something her toddler cousins take for granted? Did I mention that Ruthie’s birth mother chose this couple to raise her, picking these two men from all the dossiers at the adoption agency?

Ruthie is why I take it personally when the Vatican calls gay adoptions “gravely immoral” or says that such adoptions “mean doing violence to these children.” Ruthie is why I grimace when Russell Johnson, chairman of the Ohio Restoration Project, says, “experimenting on children through gay adoption is a problem.” Ruthie and her parents are not an experiment. They are a family. Part of my family. (source)

A cool article by Ellen Goodman, a columnist of the Boston Globe. I don’t always agree with Ellen, but she’s right on with this one.

As another Virginia General Assembly comes to a close, I ask myself again why I choose to live in Virginia. The attacks on me and my community came from all angles, attempting to prevent me from adopting, having my own children, and marrying the person I have chosen to share my life with, just to name a few. And yet I choose to stay. In fact, my partner and I are adding on to our home in Fairfax County so that it will grow with our family and be a comfortable place for us to live for a long time to come. [...]

And yet, we will stay here and fight this amendment, because I believe that fair-minded people in Fairfax County will see that this attempt by lawmakers to distract us from real issues only serves to destroy the real moral fabric of our society. I believe the amendment prohibiting any and all legal recognition of my family that will be on the ballot in November will fail once Virginians see that I am not a threat. Rather, my relationship adds to the fabric of my society, and my county. I believe that good, solid, happy relationships make our society stronger, and I believe that the people of Fairfax County will agree. (source)

I hope you are right. My experience of people is that they usually have no problems what so ever in abridging the rights of others, as long as it doesn’t effect them in any way. In other words, people are selfish and easily give in to their prejudices. I personally try not to do that, but I also fail at this at times was well.

I’m not sure that people go to the voting booth to pass a constitutional amendment banning marriage for gay couples, with hate in their hearts. I think some do. I think that some want us to have no rights at all just because they hate us. But that idea is usually done by people who lack education, at least a college degree. And many of them don’t even bother going to the voting booth. They don’t understand or feel the need because they don’t understand how participating will help them.

Many who go to vote against marriage equality have religious leanings and feel that they have a moral directive in keeping marriage from us. One also has to wonder about the thought process of these people. Many of them have a higher education, yet they feel that everything they know about gay people (they may have friends who are gay) is overridden by what The Bible says about gay people.

They can overlook a lot of what The Bible says about gays. In fact, they do. They overlook the fact that Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality, let alone marriage for gays. Or that it is a sin to divorce. In fact, non of the other sins seems to matter. Indeed, many of these same religious people damning us are on their third or fourth divorce. It must be convenient to have a line item veto on the list of sins from The Bible.

So, I don’t put too much trust in my fellow citizens. The really disheartening thing that pulls me down the most is when I hear that a friend of mine has voted against equality for Kent and myself, after knowing us for years. I like to tell myself that if people just knew us for who we are, their hearts and minds would change. Sometimes that does happen. Sometimes not.

And then some people make it a point to tell us that they agree that we should have the same rights, as though we now have their permission to be equal. Unfortunately, in Virginia, it is very much that way. In fact, in any state that has a voter referendum system, we are at the mercy of the electorate. I have no problem with the principle of the referendum. Where the concept doesn’t work is in the area of civil liberties and basic equality.

Maybe someday, my fellow citizens will be worthy of my trust. Last year in Connecticut I was told by Representative Mike Lawlor, one of the sponsors of the Connecticut Civil Union bill: “Hey, Bill, as a matter of fact, I myself will bring a marriage bill to life next year.” Well guess what? He lied. He said that on February 24, 2005. They didn’t do it this year. And you wonder why I put little trust in people.

I believe the amendment (in Virginia) prohibiting any and all legal recognition of my family that will be on the ballot in November will fail once Virginians see that I am not a threat. Rather, my relationship adds to the fabric of my society, and my county. I believe that good, solid, happy relationships make our society stronger, and I believe that the people of Fairfax County will agree.

I hope that is true.

Okay... “hate” is too strong a word. My dentist today was Romanian, and she wasn’t bad. But the results were not what I expected.

I arrived twenty minutes early to get all the paper work out of the way. I was then taken to the examination room where she was to start the procedure of extracting the tooth. She determined the tooth was too inflamed to do anything. I complained that there was a growth in my mouth that was bothering me and causing more pain. She examined it and determined that it was an abscess caused by all the infection. She offered to lance it and drain it, which totally grossed me out. I said, “Hell no... not in this lifetime!” That kind of lost her, but there was a translator there who conveyed my exact feelings. She also wasn’t sure about the implant. She said the infection had most likely damaged bone tissue - the same tissue that would accept the implant. So, it looks like if I do get an implant, it could be months away - just as you said Mary. I'm wondering if I should start taking calcium tablets.

She told me that she would not do the extraction until the infection had been controlled. She prescribed 875mg Amoxicillin tablets. She also said that if I would come back in a week, they would set up an appointment with the doctor who would be doing the implant, along with the extraction. He would take the case from here on out. That sounded better to me, so I will see him Saturday, April 1st (April Fools Day). At least I won’t be pushed around from one dentist to another.

She asked what I was taking to control the pain. I told her this really super heavy duty dose of Motrin. She said, “That won’t touch this kind of pain.” I said, “You are right. It’s doing nothing.” She wrote me a prescription of Vicodin with Acetaminophen and told me that it would probably turn everything off. So, I guess that’s for bedtime.

So, I have a week to deal with this, but she indicated that the pain should subside when the infection starts subsiding. Fun! Fun!

In less than two hours, I will be in a surgical facility. I’m not looking forward to it.

A couple of weeks ago, I broke a tooth. At the time, it was a mild discomfort. I favored it while eating, trying to avoid it. Over time, it gradually got worse. A few days ago, I went to my dentist, who took an X-ray. He said he could see the fracture, but wanted to send me to another dentist for a second opinion. That took three extra days. The day before I was to see this other dentist (yesterday morning), I called his office. I told them that I realized that I wasn’t going to see the dentist until Friday, but I needed something for pain. I explained that it was constantly hurting and that that morning, I tasted something awful in my mouth. On closer inspection, the tooth was oozing blood.

When I told her that, she told me that had to see me that day. Within two hours, I was in their office. The doctor came in, looked at me, and said, “I can see you are in pain.” My response, “I’ll pay you $100 right now for two Percocets.” He laughed and said, “Well, let’s see what’s going on.” I said, “I’m totally serious.”

He took an X-ray and as he was looking at the X-ray, I could hear him say to himself, “Oh Man!”. Then, he took my pain seriously. He turned and said to me, “Let’s get the pain controlled and then we’ll talk.” He asked an office assistant for a “topical” to help with the pain and also a “syringe”. Then he said, “You know what, forget the topical. This tissue to too red hot to touch with a topical. Just bring the syringe.” He got ready and told me to grab tight to the chair and told me that it would be painful because he was going into tissue that was highly inflamed. I did as he said. And he was right. It hurt like hell. He said, “I’m going as slow as I can and being as gentle as I can.” I said as well as I could, “Just do the fucking thing!”

He finished, and the pain started leaving after two minutes. After five minutes, I felt so much better. He then told me that the tooth was heavily fractured and could not be saved. He referred me to an oral surgeon and made the appointment for me today at 11:15. Unfortunately, this involves a highly visible tooth - one of my front teeth. So, he’s sending me to an oral surgeon that has a lab right there. The hope is that they can do the extraction and fit me with something temporary while they make something permanent. It will be an implant that will go right into the jaw. Before that can happen, the tooth will be extracted and the infection will have to be dealt with.

I have no idea what shape I will be in after this is done, but it’s fair to say that I will be on some heavy drug (narcotics) after this is over. It doesn’t matter to me if it shuts my brain down. I’ll just sleep. I’ll deal with the crappy feeling later of drug withdrawal. I have a disciplined mind. It will be no problem for me.

I hate dentists.

President George W. Bush reiterated his belief about solely sanctioning heterosexual marriages during a news conference Tuesday at the White House.

In the midst of a session devoted mostly to issues surrounding the Iraq war, a reporter reminded the president that many of the thousands of same-sex couples who got married in San Francisco in 2004 -- only to have the marriages nullified by the courts -- were also parents.

“Are you still confident that society’s interest and the interest of those children in gay families are being met by government saying their parents can’t marry?” the reporter asked.

“I believe society’s interests are met by defining marriage as between a man and a woman,” President Bush replied. “That’s what I believe.”

The largest gay Democratic group, the National Stonewall Democrats, called the president’s remark an “affirmation of marriage discrimination.” (source)

So basically, he doesn’t give a damn about the interest of children in gay families. His inability to answer the question spoke louder than any other answer he could have given. This President is not the President of all the people. He picks and chooses who is worthy of his support.

I look forward to the day that the President of the United States doesn’t have that luxury.

But the bigger question is this... Will his conservative base take the gay marriage bait again? After all, after he was elected to a second term, he forgot all about the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. A lot of those conservatives that supported his reelection were very soured by that. I realize the moron can’t run again since this is his second term. But will the next Republican candidate, whoever that is, try to gain political traction once again with this issue, at the expense of gay families and their children?

These people are shameless.

Uh oh. Conservatives are starting to hyperventilate again. You know the symptoms: In a haystack of right-wing dominance, they find a needle of radicalism, declare it a mortal danger to civilization, and use it to rally their voters in the next election. First it was flag-burning. Then it was the “war on Christmas.” Now it’s polygamy. Having crushed gay marriage nationwide in 2004, they need to gin up a new threat to the family. They’ve found it in Big Love, the HBO series about a guy with three wives. Open the door to gay marriage, they warn, and group marriage will be next.

My friend Charles Krauthammer makes the argument succinctly in the Washington Post. “Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender,” he observes. “If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices,” then “on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?”

Here’s the answer. The number isn’t two. It’s one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn’t arbitrary. It’s based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy. (source) Emphasis, my own.

It is that simple, isn’t it? Yet, people look at gay marriage as the slippery slope that will lead to polygamy, bestiality, incest, and other socials ills that are beyond this writer to comprehend or imagine. I view myself as a fairly creative person, but some of the things people come up with truly amaze me.

What always bothers me is the lack of understanding in basic human psychology. That psychology says that, in most every person - gay, straight, or bisexual - is the need for companionship. Many people fill that need in various ways. Some people go to bars to meet people. Some take people home from bars. Both gay and straight people do this.

Some gay people are highly closeted and won’t even go to a gay bar for fear of being seen by someone that may know them. Many of these people resort to other means of meeting people for friendship and/or sex. They use methods that many straight people just can not understand because straight people don’t have to hide in fear - they go to a park or a secluded place to meet people. Some of these people are gay, but many are straight closeted married men who want to answer the call to their true nature - their gayness.

I came across this story, and was moved by it.

“The big problem is this is a hangout for homosexual men,” said Dale McKinney, the Herald & Review reported. “Sometimes 15 to 20 cars will be here at once. One car will pull in, back up to a parking space and another one will pull in next to it. Then the guys go out in the back of the park together.” Sheriff’s Capt. Steve Jones said the area is being patrolled, but when a marked squad car shows up, everyone scatters. Gay activists in other locations have often complained that police target gay men in public parks for cruising, which is not illegal, rather than for actual sex in public.

Of course, I would advise these people that cruising in parks is highly dangerous, aside from the side of possible arrest and public humiliation. Some guys who have been caught have been so humiliated and disgraced by their friends, family, and co-workers finding out that they were arrested in a park cruising gay men, let alone the fact that nobody even knew they were gay, that they end up attempted or committed suicide. The other side of course is that this would be a good place for gay bashers to go. It’s a bad situation from anyway you look at it. The good citizens who complain about this don’t give a rats ass about these men. They just want the “problem” cleaned up so it doesn’t drive down their property value and give their neighborhood a bad name.

Isn’t it time to come out of the closet on this? The reason these men do this is not because it’s a thrilling thing to cruise in a dark, dangerous, isolated place. The reason they do it is because we as a society have made it shameful for people to be who they really are.

But the real irony here is that the very congressmen who want to pass laws to makes these acts illegal and punishable by severe sentences are the same congressmen who will turn right around and sponsor a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

The real answer to this issue is to embrace what people are and to tell them that it is okay to be what they are. And also, to encourage them in every way possible that if they do find a mate they are compatible with, that society will do it’s part to nurture that relationship - not tear it down with all the legal roadblocks they can put into place. Gay cruising is dating that has been pushed underground. No one should have to live with that kind of shame and fear.

This is the first step in a challenge for gay couples in the State of Connecticut to be able to marry our partners. Last year, Connecticut passed a civil union bill that would give gay couples most of the rights of marriage at the state level. This case argues that not allowing gay couples access to marriage is discriminatory and violates the equality provisions in the state constitution.

On a personal side, Kent recently went to a meeting where he works given by human services. At the meeting, they mentioned that if we were to get a civil union, he would be eligible to take leave in the event that something happened to me (care of a partner) that married couples now have access too. It opened up a conversation on the issue again and if we should swallow our pride and get a civil union.

I’m still holding fast and didn’t want to do it. We could get a civil union, but after that, would I even feel like celebrating? No. And I think the joining of two people in a wedding is a means for celebration and to feel good about what you have together. Getting a civil union for us would be a celebration of... this is the best we can have... second rate.

What the hell is there to celebrate in that?

NEW HAVEN, Conn. --Eight gay couples gathered Tuesday in New Haven Superior Court as a Superior Court judge began hearing their challenge to Connecticut’s ban on gay marriage.

The couples claim in a lawsuit that the state’s marriage laws are unconstitutional because they treat gay and heterosexual couples differently.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a group involved in the case, used a similar argument to win gay marriage in Massachusetts.

After they were denied marriage licenses in August 2004, the couples filed suit against the state Department of Public Health, which is being defended by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s office.

Last year, Connecticut approved civil unions for gay couples, which give them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. But the law also defined marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. (source)

LONDON (AP) - Humphrey, the stray cat who wandered into No. 10 Downing St., and lived with two British prime ministers before being evicted by Tony Blair, has died. He was about 18.

Blair’s office said late Sunday that Humphrey died last week at the home of a civil servant who had adopted him.

The black-and-white stray wandered into Downing Street in 1989 when it was occupied by then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He was named in honor of Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Machiavellian civil servant in the sitcom “Yes, Minister.”

He remained under Thatcher’s successor, John Major, but moved shortly after Blair took office in 1997, prompting a Conservative lawmaker to ask in the House of Commons for assurances the feline was still alive. [...]

In his heyday, Humphrey appeared regularly in the media, and once narrowly avoiding being squashed under the wheels of former President Clinton’s bulletproof car. (source)

Related Articles
Purr-n-Fur Famous Felines
Cats In Charge

There’s another part of the 2006 Republican strategy. This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues.

House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion. (source)

Note: emphasis is my own.

Nobody doubts that the homosexual community has suffered enormous and unjust prejudice in the past. Still, that is not justification for inflicting pain on anybody else. While many of us just don’t get it. Homosexuality, after all, is not a personal choice. Medical evidence continues to mount that homosexuality is a naturally inherited condition.

Every social movement makes mistakes. This one represents a short gain that will come back to haunt the homosexual community. However, wise leadership makes adjustments. One thing we can be sure of is that the Catholic Church is not going to change its mind.

Smart leadership of the homosexual community should realize that quiet adjustment does not hurt their cause. To the contrary, stubborn resistance will. Standing against reasonable compromise will create a backlash that, over time, will threaten whatever forward movement their struggle for equality and acceptance has gained. (source)

Looking back on the struggle of blacks before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I’m sure many white people looked upon the blacks as offering only “stubborn resistance” and “standing against reasonable compromise”.

Tell me, when you are the minority that is being discriminated against, what is a “reasonable compromise”? Your pride, your sense of self-worth, your humanity, your dignity, your family?

What part do you compromise on so that others can feel better about living in such a wonderful society, at the expense of that minority?

Several members of Congress are proposing a federal solution to anti-gay protests at the funerals of military personnel.

Reps. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., and Mark Rogers, R-Mich., are co-sponsors of a bill that would restrict funeral protests at national cemeteries. Kennedy said he would also push for an amendment that will restrict the Defense Department from spending money on permits authorizing demonstrations at military funerals held on Veterans Affairs or Defense Department property, the Associated Press reported.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said he plans to introduce similar legislation in the Senate.

“Our troops are among the most selfless and idealistic people I have met, and they should be buried with the dignity they have earned,” Bayh said in a statement.

The legislation is a response to protests by the Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church at military funerals. (source)

Will this be the end of protests at funerals by the members of the Westboro Baptist Church led by Fred Phelps? Who knows? That’s actually not the important question to ask. There is another question to ask that no one wants to ask. Here it is...

If the issue of this group protesting the funerals of soldiers is so damn repulsive to lawmakers to get them to author a bill to prevent such protests, where the hell were they when this group was protesting at the funerals of gay men, and the funeral of Matthew Shepard?

You see, this is why America is so fucked up today. People pick and choose who is worthy of equality. Hell, we even have people voting on who will get rights and who will not. People pick and choose who is better than the next person.

When Fred Phelps’ pathetic group was doing this to gay men, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GAVE A DAMN WERE THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS OF THOSE GAY MEN. NOT ONE LEGISLATOR ROSE TO THE OCCASION OF CARING ENOUGH TO PASS A LAW TO PREVENT IT.

I support our troops and what they are going through. The Bush Administration has let them down, and for that, I feel bad. But I have no sympathy for what is happening at the funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq. You don’t pick and choose who deserves the wrath from a group of religious fanatics who care nothing for the grief the family and friends of a loved one is going through.

You don’t pick and choose that, any more than you should pick and choose who should receive rights and who should not receive rights at the ballot box.

If it is ok with America to allow this group to dish out this crap at the funerals of gay men, then it is good enough for this group to dish out this crap at the funerals of soldiers.

America, get a good taste of what it has been like for us. Are you getting it now?

“The comments bring to the forefront a longstanding bigotry, and the bigotry often translates into violence in our communities,” said graduate student Emmaia Gelman, 31. She was among a dozen demonstrators organized by a group called Irish Queers, who hoisted a sign that read, “Troops Out, Queers in,” a reference to military groups participating in the parade.

Efforts to let Irish gays march under their own banner date to 1991, when an ILGO application was first rejected by the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the group that organizes the parade. Instead, 35 ILGO members were sprayed with beer and insults as they marched with a Manhattan division of the Hibernians and then-Mayor David Dinkins. It was the group’s last parade appearance.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who marched in Friday’s parade, declined to comment on the dispute, although he had earlier urged the Hibernians to change their stance. (source)

Well, at least we are on par with prostitutes now. I guess that’s a step up from being compared to a pedophile (trying to look on the “up” side of it all).

As for Mayor Bloomberg, you are what you support. If he really thought that the parade should be inclusive, he shouldn’t have endorsed the parade with his participation.

I really do expect too much out of politicians, don’t I? This does make me ashamed to be Irish though.

“Don’t ask, don’t” says that gays and lesbians can serve in the military, so long as they are silent, and celibate and lonely,” said retired Rear Admiral Alan Steinman. “You cannot tell anybody anywhere, any time, any place that you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.” (source)

If you lived in a gay world where you had to lie about who you were attrracted to, how many would be up to the task? Enough said.

Bill, the blogger, originally uploaded by billandkent.

A photo of me taken around Christmas time, 2005. Not handsome, but... me.

The White House said Wednesday a revised policy on granting security clearances to gays and lesbians does not reflect a change in how the government will treat sexual orientation.

Then why change anything?

In the 1997 regulation.... sexual orientation “may not be used as a basis” for denying clearances or determining whether individuals should be eligible to access classified information unless it could make them vulnerable to coercion or exploitation.

Yesterdays update to the regulation states that security clearances cannot be denied “solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.”

Apparently that’s true. Jeff Gannon went even farther by being a male prostitute. Yet, he got a job with the White House press core, apparently to ask soft questions that even the President would not have a problem answering (like, “What is your full name?”).

If sexual behavior is “strictly private, consensual and discreet,” that could lessen security concerns, according to the regulations that came as part of an update to clearance guidelines distributed in December. [...]

Neither allows someone’s sexual orientation to be used by itself, Duhnke said, but in both cases some other behavior must give the government pause. If someone were trying to hide the fact that they are gay, for instance, he or she could be susceptible to coercion or blackmail.

I would agree with that, but I wouldn’t say that Jeff Gannon exactly kept his sexual behavior “strictly private”, but that’s just my opinion. Hell, he even had a website listing his “services”.

Waxman and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the revisions come as the administration has refused to enforce a policy that protects federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The administration has rejected the allegations.

Well, that’s stating the obvious. The Federal Government has yet to add sexual orientation protections at the federal level for gay Americans. In any federal agency today, you can be fired just for being gay, with no other reason. This change in policy, if you can figure out what has changed, seems to me to be much ado about nothing. What has changed?

Source data

Finally After Three Years..., originally uploaded by billandkent.

We got our orchid to bloom. After much care and love, this happened this week.

Full size image.

DSC_8104, originally uploaded by billandkent.

Together looking out after a winter storm.

Tree, originally uploaded by billandkent.

The tree in front of our home in moonlight.

A Mimi Portrait, originally uploaded by billandkent.

Mimi.

Mimi, originally uploaded by billandkent.

It's bedtime for Mimi.

The Joys of Winter, originally uploaded by billandkent.

This is Bill out clearing the driveway after one of our winter storms.

It’s scary. Legislators, particularly conservative ones, love to talk about how the country is in danger from “activist judges”. I’ve come to the conclusion that any judge who rules against what you think is labeled an “activist judge”.

So with this, I’m wondering what to do with an “activist Legislature”? Pretty scare stuff. But hey, we’re still free to say and think what we believe without being killed. Right?

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have been the targets of death threats from the “irrational fringe” of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.

Ginsburg revealed in a speech in South Africa last month that she and O’Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate “patriotic” killing of the justices.

Security concerns among judges have been growing.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter joked earlier this year that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. Over the past few months O’Connor has complained that criticism, mainly by Republicans, has threatened judicial independence to deal with difficult issues like gay marriage.

Worry is not limited to the Supreme Court. Three quarters of the nation’s 2,200 federal judges have asked for government-paid home security systems, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this week.

Ginsburg said the Web threat was apparently prompted by proposals in Congress, filed by Republicans, that tell judges to stop relying on foreign laws or court decisions.

“It is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support. And one not-so-small concern - they fuel the irrational fringe,” she said in a speech posted online by the court earlier this month and first reported Wednesday by LegalTimes.com. (source)

I received a postage paid request today from Senator Hillary Clinton asking me for money so they could “elect a Democratic Senate”. A few thoughts on this, and life...

Never sacrafice your principles for anyone. If you win by doing that, you have lost. Never vote for someone or support someone who is “less bad” than the alternative.

There is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, equal and unequal. These are absolutes. They are not bargaining chips and they are not negotiable. You do, or you do not. You support equality, or you do not support equality. You support what is right, or you do not support what is right. It really is black and white. These are absolutes.

This was my response to Senator Clinton’s request for my financial support.

March 13, 2006

Dear Senator Clinton:

I received your request for financial support today. In your first sentence you state, “If there has ever been a time in America’s history that called for strong leadership, long-range vision, and the courage to confront our most serious problems, that time is now. Sadly, the Republican Part does not agree.”

Senator Clinton, sadly, the Democratic Party seems to be unable to get their collective mind together to get anything done. Honestly, do you know what you stand for? Apparently nothing.

The Democratic Party basically rolled over and played dead as John Roberts and Samuel Alito were confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is your “vision”? I can understand that the Democratic Party is not the majority party at this point in time, but I hear very little from any of you on any given issue, except for Senator Harry Reid.

And now, you want my financial help? That has to be earned, and NONE OF YOU HAVE EARNED IT.

I have been with my partner for the last 31 years. That’s right, we are what you would call a “same-sex couple”. And you, Senator, have stated that you do not support marriage equality for couples like us. A quote from you:

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman.”

So let me ask you one question:

Why the hell should I support bigotry by supporting you?

Are there bigger issues facing our country than gay marriage? Yes, there certainly are. But, you don’t build a party by actively supporting a system the advocates the existence of a tier of citizens who are second-class. And that concept is more important than any issue facing our country.

Until you support equality for all people, you may take me off your mailing list because I will not give you time of day. I no longer wish to receive your mailings.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon

And, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Mrs Clinton, the former first lady and wife of President Bill Clinton is widely believed to be considering standing to become the Democrat’s nominee for the next Presidential election.

Alan Van Capelle, a leading gay rights activist, who represents the Empire State Pride Agenda, said Mrs Clinton was “a complete disappointment” over her opposition to same-sex marriage and her support for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a memo to board members he said that he refused to “lend my name and sell tickets” to any event raising funds for Mrs Clinton’s campaign to be re-elected as a senator, and eventually to seek the nomination of the Democrat party. He said supporting such fund-raisers for Mrs Clinton would “actually hurt” the gay and lesbian community. (source)

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration was scheduled to meet March 9 to hear arguments from organizations that want the government to revise guidelines on a 23-year-old policy prohibiting gay men from donating blood. [...]

Officials with the American Red Cross, American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers confirmed that the three organizations would release a joint policy statement at the conference addressing the donor ban.

They declined to discuss their recommendation before the official announcement, but the alignment of the three groups suggested the Red Cross may be throwing its support behind a push to revise the nationwide ban. [...]

“With new testing the window is as small as two weeks,” Schneider said. “And even with standard testing, the results are known within three months. Even a one-year ban on gay men donating blood makes no sense.”

Schneider said the best possible way to ensure a safe blood supply is to remove sexual orientation from the equation.

“Ask about drug use, unprotected sex and the status of partners,” he said. “It’s the least discriminatory way of determining someone who is at risk.” (source)

Who the hell cares?

This is an old fight for me and it carries a LOT of old baggage with it. After college, when we moved to San Mateo, California, I would give blood at every opportunity. I would participate in every blood drive when the Red Cross came to my company. In addition to that, I would give blood on my own every month (they only came to my company quarterly). I really thought that I was helping my fellow citizens out.

Then, in the early 1980’s, AIDS came along. There were no reliable tests in those days. It made sense for the ban at that time. So, since AIDS was being spread mostly in the gay community (in the United States), they put a complete ban on gay men who had had sex with any man. So now, I am ban for life from giving blood.

Then there’s the fact that AIDS became known as the gay disease, despite the fact that in Africa, it is spread primarily by straight sex. In essence, AIDS is a disease of opportunity, not a disease of sexual practice. Still, because it was spreading in the gay community, I accepted the ban as being on the safe side.

Later, accurate tests were developed, and today, all donated blood is being tested. So here we are today with a complete ban against gay men, while straight men who regularly visit prostitutes do not have a life time ban. I makes no sense, unless of course there’s more to it - like bigotry.

Either way, this is a non-issue to me now. Like many things in life, it has fallen into that category of “not worth my time and energy.” But that’s just me. I am thankful for young gay people who still have such a fresh look at the world who is still fighting this issue and still caring enough to fight it. It is the right thing to do.

Tomorrow, if the American Red Cross decided to lift the ban, would I give blood? No, I wouldn’t. I’m too bitter over the whole issue. They have held on dearly to their fears against scientific data. I will not forget or forgive that. I no longer have an interest in giving blood, and I never will again.

Before I am judged as being an uncaring jerk who only cares for himself, here’s a bit about me. People who know me would tell you that I’d give a kidney or bone marrow to help a friend. That is what I am. My problem is not with people who need the blood. My problem is the bureaucracy that has turned this into a purely political issue right up there with “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I no longer have time or patience for that.

I sound angry, don't I? Yeah, I’m pissed off. So what else is new? There is always a price to be paid in treating people like shit. But it’s an old pissed off and I’ve put it where it belongs. It doesn’t effect my ability to enjoy life at this point in time.

Related Article
FDA inches toward easing gay blood donation ban

After the buzz over the wonderful film Brokeback Mountain, Brad Pitt said recently that he would love to add a gay character to his resume. Because he feels it would be an illuminating experience for his acting soul? Probably not. But he already has Angelina on his arm, and now he desperately wants an Oscar addition to his mantel. The man wants it all. (source)

But who cares? I used to think that Brad Pitt was pretty hot. But I am over him now. I think as an actor, he is very overrated. Whatever “gay” movie he produces, it would definitely be on my list of movies that have to wait for my viewing until it came out on cable. I suppose what really bothers me about Brad telling his agent to look for a gay movie is that he wants to add the “gay movie” notch to his list of movies. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? He should want to do the movie for it’s content - which may happen to have gay content. And the real test in all of this for Brad will be for me to see how uncomfortable he will be playing gay. Can he do it well enough for me to not even realize that this is a straight actor playing a gay part? Probably not.

In Brokeback, I would have actually redone the gay sex scenes. They were too nervous. In real life, they would have been nervous under the circumstances of first discovering their gayness. But that’s not what I picked up from the scene. I picked up that the actors were thinking and processing their actions too much. They were thinking, “I’ve got to make this look like a convincing gay love scene.” It failed, and my mind was processing, “...boy, they are really uncomfortable filming this scene.”

Of course, I could have offered to coach Jake or Heath and show them how it’s done.

A heads-up to those of you still fretting about the alleged evils of gay marriage: The parade has moved on. Try as you may to vote, or legislate your way out of a country that solemnizes such relationships, committed gay couples are already giving birth to, adopting and fostering children. Whether or not same-sex marriage becomes widely legal in America, same-sex parenting is a done deal.

Around the country, courts are increasingly recognizing that reality, with more generous notions of what “parenting” and “family” mean. Critics are launching the predictable counterattack: deriding gay parenting with the same claims they use to attack gay marriage and dismissing any judge who recognizes such relationships as an unprincipled liberal activist. But there’s a crucial legal difference between claims that liberal judges are inventing a right to same-sex marriage and inventing a right to same-sex parents: Judges who do the latter are adhering to a bedrock principle of family law. (source)

What’s a social conservative to do these days? First, gay marriage, and now gay adoption! What’s the world coming too?

Well, it’s reality. The issue with gay marriage is the fact that only one state in this county allows gay couples to get married. That will change with time. Adoption by gay couples has been going on for a long time and some gay couples are now grand parents. That is reality.

The irony is that social conservatives what to prevent marriage because in their little world, allowing gay couples to be married somehow threatens their family and their marriage. Now they want to stop and/or destroy gay families with children. In doing so, they are going against the very principle they have used to “protect marriage” from the gays. Namely, to protect the family. And in doing so, they are.... destroying a family.

It doesn’t logically work, and the courts know it.

The arguments for locking gay parents out of formal parenting arrangements include the familiar litany of complaints about health, morals and the sanctity of traditional marriage. But when real family court judges face real children in real family relationships, those arguments are quickly blunted by real concerns. [...]

Kids love and need the parents they have, not necessarily the parents we love.

So what are social conservatives going to do now? Will they go after every single judge who issues rulings on the side of gay families and label them as “activist judges”? I wouldn’t put it past them.

Finally, an update on the controversy of Catholic Charities and gay adoption:
This summer, Catholic Charities will end its ministry of adoption services.

“I think Catholic Charities is losing a significant part of its mission -- being able to serve those most in need and, in this case, it is children. I think that is a tragedy,” said Donna Latson Gittens.

Gittens was one of seven members of the board who resigned last week. They were protesting an effort by the Massachusetts bishops to stop gay adoptions. Such adoptions had been occurring through the organization in small numbers and cannot be prohibited by state law. (source)

I say, good for them. If you are willing to keep a child in an orphanage or the foster care system rather than have them raised in a loving home that happens to be run by a gay couple, you are better off being out of the adoption business, because your focus is not where it should be - THE CHILDREN.

Related Articles
March 5, 2006 - Catholic Charities Drama Continues...
March 2, 2006 - "Catholic Charities" is an Oxymoron
March 17, 2006 - Just HOW BAD is Romney's gay adoption bill?

I only wish I could have been there. I would have helped them put those white signs everywhere I could.

The Idaho Legislature may have had its say about gay marriage--a resounding “let the voters figure it out”--but Boise’s gay community isn’t ready to admit defeat.

Early Monday morning, a tiny group of activists fanned out across downtown Boise to spread a message that they knew would be misunderstood by many, and would undoubtedly piss off people near and dear to their cause. These activists adhered over 150 small white signs, each reading “Heterosexuals Only,” to every bench and fountain they could find, and put one in each bathroom in the Idaho Statehouse. From the color to the typeface--sans serif, if you’re interested--these signs were made to resemble the “Whites Only” and “Colored Only” signs that were a common sight in the American south just a few decades ago. The date of the act was also significant--it was the 41st anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama, where hundreds of police officers wielding bullwhips and nightsticks tore into peaceful civil-rights protesters who were trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

On Monday afternoon, the exhausted planners of this local demonstration, a man and a woman who wish only to be known as “D” and “J,” sat down with BW to discuss the historical significance of their signage, the implications of the Legislature’s decision, and to challenge the local gay community and its friends to rise up. (source)

I’ve been waiting to see how the residents of Crystal Lake, Illinois would rule on having the rowing competition for the Gay Games come to their small town. A week or so ago, the parks board ruled 2-2. A tie vote is a “no” vote. But one of the board members, Jerry Sullivan, was vacationing in Mexico last week and wanted the opportunity to cast his vote. He did so last night and broke the tie vote, which cleared the way for the rowing competition.

My interest in all of this is human behavior, and what people are saying about it. The residents are concerned that gay men will be having sex on their front lawns (yes, this was actually mentioned), and that some were only interested in what these “queers” would bring into the town, in terms of revenue. Bigotry is alive and well.

But bigotry only flourishes in the absence of truth. My interest will be to see if attitudes change after the event. Will people like Larry Reyer (see comments below) change their minds? Most probably won’t. If you’ve lived that long with those values (Larry is 55 years old), people don’t give up on them easily. But perhaps, it will challenge him to do so. At some point, you just tell yourself, “Well, things will get better when the bigots die off and eventually a more enlightened generation comes along.”

For now, I’m willing to see if Crystal Lake can rise to the occasion of fairness and be willing to say, “We were wrong.”

After four hours of heated exchanges about God, sex and the law; after the booing, the hissing and the clapping were over, the votes were in Tuesday night: The 2006 Gay Games are approved to hit the shores of Crystal Lake. [...]

Last Thursday, the board was deadlocked in a 2-2 vote over the application by organizers of the games to use the lake, a highly regarded venue for such events. A tie vote on a measure means a proposal has failed.

But a fifth board member was out of town on vacation, and the vote was rescheduled for Tuesday, when the full board narrowly approved the application 3-2.

Board member Jerry Sullivan, who had just returned from Mexico and cast the decisive vote, later said, “I think it shows our openness as a community and our fairness.” [...]

Even before the meting started, barbs were being thrown. As at least 200 people filed into the meeting, they were greeted by Sean Spoor, a lifelong resident and personal banker, who was carrying a sign reading, “Out with the bigots, in with the pride.”

Spoor, who is gay, said he was particularly offended by the previous vote.

“I’m here because I’ve lived in this town pretty much all my life, and it makes me furious that the town I grew up in, a town that has expanded and succeeded, would be looking at barring this because of [sexual orientation],” Spoor said. “It shouldn’t make a difference; it’s a sport activity.”

Spoor’s comment to a reporter sparked several angry comments.

“I do not want these queers coming to my hometown,” said Larry Reyer, 55, a mechanic and 29-year resident. “Like I asked before, what revenue are you bringing in? What are you bringing in except stirring up all these problems?” (source)

Related Article
April 5, 2006 - Illinois town council OKs Gay Games
Chicago Pride - Crystal Lake Park Board Approves Gay Games Rowing Event
Chicago Tribune - Crystal Lake parks brace for Gay Games tiebreaker

I recieved this via email today. I thought that I would share it with you. It was part of the Maryland Senate hearings on the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage.

Last week in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

He did so. At the end of his testimony, a right-wing senator said: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man & a woman. What do you have to say about that?”

Raskin: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

The room erupted into applause.

Related Article
Jamie's Testimony Before the Maryland State Senate
Judicial Proceedings Committee

An excerpt from his site, well worth reading...

And the constitutional principles are clear. First, Due Process protects the fundamental right of all consenting adults to marry. This is a right so sweeping that it covers even people who marry multiple times like Elizabeth Taylor, people who get married on television game shows like Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire, deadbeat dads who seek to remarry, see Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), and convicted prisoners, see Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), including murderers on death row, many of whom have married people they have met by mail. The fundamental right to marry actually includes even gay and lesbian citizens, who have been able to marry for centuries so long as they would consent to marry people they could never have a successful marriage with--that is, straight people of the opposite sex. And who knows how many thousands of unhappy marriages of this kind there have been? In any event, the Supreme Court has said that the right to marry is fundamental for all citizens.

Second, Equal Protection gives people the right to be married without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality and other arbitrary factors, such as animosity towards a minority group.

The state’s Catholic bishops want to deny any gays and lesbians from adopting from Catholic social services, and are weighing options in the legal and legislative system as well as the problem of retaining donations.

United Way of Massachusetts Bay, which gave $1.2 million to Catholic Charities of Boston last year, may stop such gifts.

United Way spokesman Jeff Bellows said the move by the bishops to exclude gays and lesbians would violate the United Way`s anti-discrimination policy, The Boston Globe reports. (source)

Related Article
"Catholic Charities" is an Oxymoron

''We have an antidiscrimination policy in accordance with the law and to protect the freedom of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable."

And on another subject, the Hartford Courant published this Op-Ed entitled Shameful Treatment Of Rape Victims...

Should rape victims receive medication that would reduce their risk of becoming pregnant with the child of the rapist?

Should hospitals, which are licensed by the state and supported with our tax dollars, be required to provide them with this treatment?

These are not difficult questions. Almost all of us would say, “Of course!” [...]

This bill has encountered opposition, notably from the Catholic Church. The church claims that its affiliated hospitals should not have to provide this treatment because it violates its religious beliefs. Emergency contraception, it should be noted, is categorically distinct from the abortion pill, RU-486. Emergency contraception prevents a woman from becoming pregnant; it does not induce an abortion.

Opponents of this bill like to pretend that their refusal to provide emergency contraception will not affect the victim. The rape victim, they claim, can easily be referred to another hospital or another doctor, or given a prescription to be filled at a pharmacy.

Remind me never to go to a hospital sponsored by the Catholic Church. If you don’t fit into their small view of the world and happen to be outside their level of acceptance, you could be asking for trouble.

We had a wonderful day today. I got up around 7:00 and Kent joined a bit later. We went out for bagels and came home.

This afternoon, we ran some errands. I wanted to check out this new health club close to the mall that we go to quite a bit. It’s brand new and at least twice the size of the one we belong to now. It’s really nice inside with lost of room. I especially like the locker room. Not having to fight for space will be nice. There are good points and bad points. It’s easier for me to get to from work. Aside from the registration fee of $150, it’s half the monthly price of the health club I belong to now. So, it makes a lot of sense that I would change.

The down side is that Kent will not leave the health club we are at now. It makes no sense for him to do so. Our current one is closer to his work. If he changed, he would basically just not have time to ever go. So the down side is that we would never go together.

It’s not such a bid deal I suppose. We usually go separately anyway since we work in different directions. And when we do see each other there, we do our own thing anyway. We usually meet up at home.

It’s a strange feeling I have about leaving the health club I’m at now. I’ve been there for 8 years, so I guess I’m attached to the one I belong to now, if that makes sense.

On other issues.... I’m waiting for the Oscars to come on. I have a feeling that gay themes are going to be very prevalent tonight. It should be interesting.

And I’m still trying to figure out what to do about my cousin’s wedding. It’s a moral dilemma for me. More on that later.... maybe.

I'm wondering if I'm getting addicted to Williams Sonoma. They are really into making these unbelievable cooking sauces that are to die for. Tonight we had chicken with rice in this Indian sauce. Their finishing sauces are awesome also.

Oh... and our orchid has decided to bloom after three years of doing nothing but sending out roots. I wonder if that’s a sign?

I’ve been following the story of Jay Bennish, the social studies teacher who has been placed on paid leave while his situation blows over. The day after President Bush’s State of the Union address, Bennish made the following statements to his students in regards to the President’s address:

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say. We’re the only ones who are right, everyone else is backward, and our job is to conquer the world. I’m not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same, obviously they’re not. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. I’m not in any way implying that you should agree with me. What I’m trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in depth.

As David Lane, Bennish’s attorney stated, “His whole goal is to fire these kids up, and you have to take some extreme positions to fire these kids up. Let them debate it.”

The entire incident came about because student Sean Allen kept asking Bennish leading questions about his opinion, all the while recording the conversation. Allen, then played the tape for his father, and later took the tape to the talk radio station KHOW. I wonder about Mr. Allen’s motives. Surely, if he disagreed with Mr. Bennish, he could have talked to him about it, or at least a school official, without venting in such a public venue as talk radio. So I wonder if Mr. Allen is not looking for attention for himself. Whatever his motives, because of all the publicity this has caused, Mr. Bennish has been placed on paid leave. He may lose his job over it. The school board is expected to make its’ decision within a week.

But the real issue here is not being talked about. The fact is, as a teacher, Mr. Bennish was doing exactly what a teacher should be doing. That is, engaging his students and teaching them to think for themselves. That is what is getting lost.

And this is really what is wrong with America today. Ninety percent of the American population cannot come to a rational conclusion on any given issue. It’s true. This is exactly what got me into hot water last week on this blog (I’m not going to relive the experience, so relax). I voice an opinion. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. But I’m not going to just believe what people tell me and say, “Well, ok. I believe that too then.”

Think about the issues. Work through the logic. Then, decide for yourself what you believe and be ready to back it up. If every American did that, Congress and the President would not be able to pull half the crap that they get away with every damn week.

You can argue whether Mr. Bennish gave ample air time to opposing views. He was merely stating his views and had apparently thought a great deal about them. I’m not saying that because I happen to agree with him. I believe that he was trying to get his students to learn how to think and to debate the issues. That in itself is a process. You actually do have to train the mind how to think. College training accomplishes some of that, if you have the right teachers.

I had teachers in college who were very tough and would actually hand me back a paper that I turned in with all kinds of red marks on it. Most of them asked, “Why?”, after I came to some conclusion. One English professor finally told me, “You need to learn how to think. Your mind is nothing but mush.” Yes, it hurt my feelings. But after I got over feeling sorry for myself, I said, “That bastard! I’ll show him that my mind is not made of mush!” That was the beginning for me. And today, if he were alive and I had the opportunity to tell “that bastard” what I thought of him, I would simply say, “Thank you. Thank you for opening up the world for me.”

There were others who did this along the way. Today, I take nothing I read for truth. You can’t. The media prints pretty much everything they get and print it as fact. They do virtually no investigative reporting anymore. They are more interested in how much friction they will cause and that influences what they will write and what slant they put on the story. If you want to really know what’s going on, you have to take the time to do your own research and get your own facts. And then, come to your own conclusion.

That is what Mr. Bennish was doing. The fallout from this could be considerable. Colorado Education Association general counsel Marti Houser said Friday, “If a student is egging a teacher on in a classroom, making comments about Bush or something like that, to try to get the teacher to say something, I can tell you, based on a case like this, after what everybody’s read, I truly believe 80 percent of teachers out there would avoid even any kind of a comment like the plague.” That’s a shame, but that’s reality.

As for Mr. Bennish, he is hoping to keep his job, will not speak to anyone, and has had his phone disconnected. If he loses his job, he has hinted that he may file a law suit.

As for student Sean Allen, he is thinking about transferring schools because he is afraid of reprisals. Perhaps he should have thought of that before going on talk radio? Or, maybe Mr. Allen has not yet learned to think through an issue before making a decision?

Welcome to America.

Chilling classroom discussion is bad because many kids have no other opportunity to weigh opposing viewpoints, Houser said.

Jody Dosher, who heads the CEA chapter in the Cherry Creek School District, where Bennish teaches, said the case affects teachers beyond social studies. For example, teachers could come under fire for comments on evolution, sex education or abortion, or for assigning a controversial book in a literature course.

“Would I be nervous right now . . . going into a class tomorrow? Yeah, I probably would, and that’s probably the biggest scare right now,” said Dosher, a special education and social studies teacher on leave to head the union chapter. “Hopefully it will die down here pretty quickly.”

Dosher said teachers are concerned that Bennish was secretly taped by a student.

“That kind of caused a panic,” Dosher said. “That’s probably been the biggest piece of the discussion going on.”

Taping classes is legal, Dosher told teachers in an e-mail after consulting Houser.

Bennish’s attorney, David Lane, said his client’s comments were protected by the First Amendment “because it’s on topic, it’s part of the course curriculum.”

Lane said the class was designed to examine social, economic, religious and political aspects of geography.

“Contrary to what right-wing talk radio would want the country to believe, the First Amendment does apply to teachers in the classroom as long as what they’re saying is consistent with school policy and is within the curriculum,” said Lane. (source)

Other sources used
The Seattle Times: Education: Teacher put on leave for Bush remarks
The News Observer: Teacher likens Bush, Hitler
ABC News: Controversial Teacher Sues for First Amendment Rights

Max and Mimi, January 2006, originally uploaded by billandkent.

This is a photo I took in January with them playing with a Christmas toy that their Grandma and Grampa got for them. They have great fun with it. The tail randomly twitches and it has a remote control that we move it around with.

Just a thought... but I wonder what they would do if every single gay couple in America filed joint tax returns (where it was beneficial for them to do so), AND refused to pay the penalties.

They can’t lock us all up. Just a thought. Gandhi would have loved this.

(Washington) The Internal Revenue Service has begun warning tax preparers, businesses and state governments that same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts or registered as domestic partners in states such as California and New Jersey must file separate income tax forms.

Tax returns this year must be filed by April 17.

Citing the so-called Federal Defense of Marriage Act the IRS says that the US government does not recognize anything other than legally married opposite-sex couples.

The law allows straight couples who are married to divide their incomes when they file jointly, usually meaning a lower tax rate. (source)

I’ve heard of people avoiding people they thought were HIV positive. I’m sure most of us have. In the early 1980’s in San Francisco, there were some health professionals who did not want to treat patients with HIV or AIDS. In those days, it was largely unknown in this country so there was a lot of fear. I understand that.

But this happened recently in West Virginia. Apparently, they are still stuck back in the early 80’s. What happened to this man is tragic and pretty darn scary. It really makes you stop and think if you are going to be in rural America where people’s priorities are.

Just for my personal safety, the Virginia’s are off limits for me. It’s amazing. In the free United States of America, there are some states that I don’t even feel safe in. I accept that. But I never thought that it would be possible to deny emergency health treatment to someone for being gay. Scary stuff.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A small-town police chief was accused in a federal lawsuit Thursday of stopping a would-be rescuer from performing CPR on a gay heart attack victim because he assumed the ailing man had HIV and posed a health risk.

Claude Green, who did not have HIV, died a half hour after his June 21, 2005, heart attack in the southern West Virginia town of Welch. The lawsuit filed on behalf of family members seeks unspecified damages against the town and Chief Bobby Bowman. [...]

The lawsuit accuses Bowman of stopping Green’s friend, Billy Snead, from performing CPR after Green collapsed while driving through the town of about 2,400. Snead, who was a passenger in Green’s truck, was able to gain control of the vehicle and immediately start chest compressions. The lawsuit said the chief physically stopped the CPR because he knew Green was gay and assumed he was HIV positive. (source)

Related Article
CBS News - W.Va. Police Chief Denied Gay Man CPR
USA Today - Stigma of AIDS, timely use of CPR collide in death lawsuit
AP News Source

It is bewildering enough that four Catholic bishops in Massachusetts should be so out of touch with their own flocks as to create a controversy where none has existed for two decades. But it is truly horrifying that they have now found an enabler in the Corner Office.

The church is seeking relief from the state’s anti-discrimination law so that Catholic social services agencies may opt not to place children with same-sex couples. To do so, the bishops note, violates church teaching. [...]

Gov. Mitt Romney, moving ever rightward, must have been disappointed to learn that he couldn’t simply issue an executive order exempting the agency from the anti-discrimination law. Yesterday following a meeting with Archbishop Sean O’Malley, he issued a statement saying, “Ultimately legislation may need to be filed to provide an exemption based on religious principles.” (source)

It’s funny that, after all these years, this is surfacing now (hint... in some way this will play out in the November elections). And, out of 720 placements over the last 20 years, only 13 children have been placed in gay homes by the Catholic Charities of Boston. These were all “hard-to-place foster kids who were older or had special needs”. In other words, no one else wanted them. And from what I’ve read, these children are thriving. It’s amazing what any child, even those with special needs, can do if someone just cares.

But now Catholic Charities would rather these children not be placed at all, rather than be placed in a home run by a gay couple. Not surprising really. The Pope has stated that to put any child into a gay household is to “do violence” to them. The Vatican has some issues on this within their own church. Seven of the board members of Catholic Charities have resigned in protest. I watched them give their very moving statements last night on the Boston Channel. They said in essence, “We lost this battle but we couldn’t in good conscience continue on the board.”

I understand their frustration. The only problem is, they were the voice of reason in all of this. The had their priorities in the right place - the care for these children. It was moving last night to watch one of them say (paraphrasing), “Not once did Catholic Charities ask or want to meet with the gay parents of these children. Had they done that, they would have seen that these children are thriving.”

The Church approached Governor Mitt Romney to get him to issue an executive order basically stating in this case, it was alright to ignore the state’s anti-discrimination law. He must have been discouraged to learn that an executive order cannot simply make exceptions to the law. So, he’s urging the legislature to fix this problem (to allow Catholic Charities to discriminate) by adding a religious exemption to the law.

Romney and the Catholic Charities care little for these children who will stay in limbo and without a supportive home. In the end, it’s the children who will lose this battle.

Those were the comments of a reader of this site. The comment was left recently. I’ve been thinking a lot about that comment, and I thought that it warranted a response. I should make it clear that this is not a response directly to that comment, and that in no way is this entry an attack against that person.

The very reason I do tear my country down so much is because of what is happening to it. I am not the problem with America. There are people in power now who do not love America. They are using different techniques to achieve their purposes. They lie. They tell you one thing, then turn around and behind the scenes, do another. There was a reason that we went to war with Iraq. “Weapons of mass destruction” was never the reason. We were lied to.

Senator Frist has decided to push ahead, once again, for a national constitutional amendment against gay marriage. He stated that he knows he does not have the votes to pull this off, but it’s not about that. He is simply doing this for his own political gain. He has no concern of how divisive this issue is. He is using it to be able to say that, at least he tried to stop gay marriage. That will be very convenient for him when he runs for president.

There will be a day of reckoning for those who do these deeds. There will be a day where the Constitution will speak again to all of us. Until that happens, I will do everything in my power to bring America back to the great country it used to be, in so many ways.

People need to start caring. People need to take their country back. How do you do that? You vote. That is your power. In other countries, people risk their lives just to get to the voting places. In America, only a fraction of our total population votes. The point I’m trying to make here is that the person who made that quote above, didn’t vote in the last presidential election because she was too busy... didn’t have time.

You know, if you don’t take the time to vote, you really have no room to bitch about where the country is at. And, you certainly give up your right, on this website, to bitch about what I am saying!

A judge in US state Tennessee has ruled that an anti-gay amendment vote may proceed, even though legislators failed to meet a deadline laid out in the state Constitution.

Under Tennessee rules, a constitutional amendment must pass two legislative sessions before facing a public vote.

After an amendment passes the first session, lawmakers must publish a legal notice six months prior to the next election. The rule is meant to ensure that the public can take the amendment into account before electing the next legislature.

In 2004, the state’s General Assembly advanced a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. But instead of posting notice in May, it waited until June 20, missing the deadline by roughly six weeks.

While it may appear to be a technicality, it is in fact a clear-cut violation of state law and should have been enough to invalidate the amendment and send the lawmakers back to square one. [...]

Citing the “unusual and unique facts of this case”, Lyle wrote that the “extensive” media and Web site coverage meant that “the proposed amendment was actually, although not officially, published well in advance of the six-month window required by the Constitution”.

The notion that blog discussions and newspaper articles could substitute for a specific step in the amendment process did not sit well with the ACLU, which promised to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

“Constitutional requirements are not technicalities,” said ACLU Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg in a written statement.

“They were put in place because amending the Constitution is a very serious decision. (source)

I was shocked by this story. I thought that the procedure of amending a state constitution would be followed to the letter. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU looses this case. I wish I could put more faith in the lawmakers in Tennessee, but they want this to happen. So, it’s going to happen, whether the amendment is “technically” correct or not.

What boggles my mind is that this means that anything I say, along with other bloggers and websites that publish information, is in effect giving notice of pending legislation or amendments, if you believe Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle. And, the chancellor is using that to say that missing the deadline, although a technical problem, is not enough to stop this amendment.

Also, one would think that there would be a very special procedure for publishing this “legal notice” with very specific information about what the amendment will do. Relying on websites to be do what the legal system should be doing is ludicrous.

I received this in my email this morning and thought I would share it with all of you.

Message from John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not fancy). Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium,” and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘favour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix “ize” will be replaced by the suffix “ise.” You will learn that the suffix ‘burgh’ is pronounced ‘burra’; you may elect to respell Pittsburgh as ‘Pittsberg’ if you find you simply can’t cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up “vocabulary”). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

2. There is no such thing as “US English.” We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of “-ize.”

3. You will relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen”, but only after fully carrying out Task #1 (see above).