A federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed today a constitutional challenge to the U.S. military’s ban on service by men and women who are openly gay. The decision by District Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr., is the second in a month throwing out suits attacking the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy enacted by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993.

Kuwait veteran Thomas Cook, discharged by the Army in 2004 after coming out, was the lead plaintiff in the suit dismissed today by a federal judge in Massachusetts.

The suit was brought by gay veterans of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, who were represented by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that advocates repeal of the military’s gay ban, as well as the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr.

“We are disappointed in the court’s decision, and are reviewing all possible responses,” said C. Dixon Osburn, SLDN’s executive director, in a statement. “We continue to believe the military’s ban is un-American and unconstitutional.” (source)

Not much to say about this, except.....

Emotional Viewpoint
I believe that every single gay and lesbian person in the U.S. Military should come out of the closet right now! You want to challenge the policy? Put the policy on trial in a real court room - the barracks, the battle field, the Pentagon. Bring the fight to them.

When everyone comes out, they will be faced with a dilemma - either stop this stupid and expensive policy, or begin the discharges of a hundred thousand (and I’m being conservative) gay men and women from the U.S. Military.

If the military is so damned concerned about gay people being in the military, fine. Let the straight people go to battle and die for our country, because it’s obvious that our country doesn’t care about us.

Practical Viewpoint
If you are in the barracks, and the people around you are so insecure about the idea of a man looking at their ass when they are getting dressed, or looking at their “pee pee” in the shower, then you don’t want to be there.

If you are on the battle field, and the people around you are so insecure about the idea of a man looking at their ass when they are getting dressed, or looking at their “pee pee” in the shower, and would just as soon put a bullet in your back and called it “friendly fire” just to get rid of you, then you don’t want to be there.

But I give more credit to our troops in the field than that. I believe that 98% of them don’t give a rats ass what people are into, as long as you are competent and know how to do your job (stay alive and watch their back so they don’t get killed).

Every single soldier that I have talked to in our current war in Iraq have no problem with gays serving and have admitted that there are a number of openly gay men serving along side them, and everyone in the unit knows they are gay. The problem comes when that information sometimes works it’s way up the chain and a competent soldier is yanked from the ranks and discharged.

This has more to do with Congress than the military at this point in time. At the time the policy was put into place in 1993, that could not be said. But the military has changed and attitudes have changed within the ranks over the years, precisely because of increased visibility of the gay community.

The same cannot be said for our government, who is largely holding on to it’s homophobic feelings for dear life. This is a problem in the United States, and while we hold on to this archaic policy, it’s interesting to note that other countries have long since lifted these bans for military service; Israel, Canada, England, France, just to name a few.

“Real Life” Viewpoint
This topic is so old. Year after year I read of these discharges of highly qualified individuals, many of whom are in extremely technical positions. This training is expensive and we all pay for it. Yet, we are willing to allow the government to just discard this expertise without a whim.

I care about the soldiers this effects, but I guess my advice to them would be this:

“I know you love your country and you want to serve. You have to decide if your own personal integrity is that important to you. You have to decide if you can lie and make up stories about ‘your girlfriend’ every time the subject of ‘what did you do Saturday night’ comes up. But mostly, you have to decide if it’s worth it to go through all of that, only to be discarded like yesterdays trash, if they find out that you are gay, because they will throw you away and they won’t think twice about it.”

Gov. Ernie Fletcher and other politicians talk a lot about luring businesses to Kentucky, but critics cite extensive research that suggests anti-gay actions by Fletcher and state lawmakers may drive companies elsewhere.

Detractors contend that Fletcher’s April 11 move to strip discrimination protections from homosexual employees and the General Assembly’s decision to provide $11 million to a private university that expelled a gay student will make Kentucky seem unsavory to many companies that officials hope to attract and retain.

“Bigotry is bad for business and having a governor who is obviously bigoted is fundamentally incompatible with business,” said Alan Hawse of Lexington, vice president of information technology for California-based Cypress Semiconductor.

Hawse, who oversees about 40 highly paid employees in downtown Lexington and another 175 in California, Minnesota, the Philippines and elsewhere, said the state’s already lackluster image has been further tarnished by recent events.

“We go from a backwater state trying to attract business to a backwater, bigoted state trying to attract business,” Hawse said Friday. (source)

I believe in democracy.

But I’ve come to realize that democracy doesn’t always have a nice face to it. It’s kind of like free speech. In the United States, we supposedly have the freedom to speak our mind. If we do, however, your remarks can have consequences to them. Some remarks can land you in jail. Others may make you look like a hero to some, while making you look less than stellar to others.

For all it’s shortcomings, I believe in democracy. True democracy means that people have the freedom to make their own choices. True democracy is free from personal or political agendas. True democracy stands on it’s own merits - good or bad.

So when the Boy Scouts of America wants to exclude gay students or atheists from it’s midst, who am I to question them? They, as a private organization, have the right to do that. We can call it “bigotry”. They call it “personal expression” or “upholding their moral values”. The Supreme Court has deemed them to be a “private organization” and can therefore pretty much do what they want in terms of membership.

But I have a right to call that “bigoted” and “homophobic”. That’s my free speech right. I also have a right to make others aware of what the organization is doing and that when you support them or put your kid into that organization, you are supporting bigotry along with the lesson to your child that bigotry is just fine and dandy. The same is true about any other entity who practices this - say, a state.

While I don’t like many of these rulings that are coming out across the country, I do realize that this is part of democracy. There is nothing wrong with a state completely stripping away the rights of a certain class of citizens, if that’s what they want to do. The Constitution, however, may have a different opinion on that, but I doubt that our current Supreme Court would have much issue with it. My bet is that the current Supreme Court will brush aside the Fourteenth Amendment in favor of letting the states make their own decisions around the issue of liberties and rights of gay citizens. This makes sense. Why stir the pot of controversy when it still is not controversial to discriminate against the one group (gay citizens) left in America where discrimination is still quite acceptable?

But aside from constitutional considerations and how the Supreme Court may choose to rule, a state can choose to be homophobic or racist, if it wants.

There will be a price to be paid for that however. The State of Kentucky will suffer the cost of bigotry, and they should. Depending on the values of their citizenry, it may be an acceptable price for them to pay. What they really should be thinking about is the kind of place they want their state to be - one of inclusion and harmony - or one of exclusion and intolerance. Both are choices that they have to make.

So while I don’t like what Virginia is about to do next November, or what is brewing in Ohio, or Idaho, or what Kentucky is thinking about, they should go ahead and be every bit as hateful as they want to be. That is democracy. And sometimes, it is necessary to show the ugliness of something before change can take place (this is where I would normally go into my speech about how most people are “basically good”, if I still believed that).

But don’t expect the world and the rest of the country to embrace the bigotry and intolerance a state exhibits, because slowly AND surely, the country is changing it’s attitude on many things. Over time, I’m sure this country will go the way of inclusion and tolerance because that is the way the rest of the world is going - from gay marriage, to allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military, workplace antidiscrimination laws at the national level, and on and on. When that happens, states such as Idaho, Kansas, Virginia, and Kentucky will be left swinging in the wind; financially, competitively, and socially.

They deserve it, but hey, that’s democracy.

My uncle was gay and he was a teamster and a truck driver and he was a guy’s guy, but he kept this secret his whole life.

Imagine how hard that must have been for him. I feel so bad. Every time my dad brings it up, he cries because he loves his brother more than anything. He doesn’t care what it was. He was born that way. - Actor Mark Wahlberg (source)

There were a couple of comments left on my site last night. They were both from a young man who said that homosexuality was a “vile sin”. He went on to say that although he felt that it was a “vile sin”, he didn’t favor bashers going around beating people up because that would be like someone going around and beating people up with cancer - both scenarios, in his mind, would be like going out and beating up people who had a sickness, and that just didn’t seem right to him. He finally stated that he didn’t feel that the comment would make it through my comment filters, but it was my site, and he “didn’t expect me to play fair”.

I responded that the comment did indeed make it to my site and that I was going to let it remain. I also added that “judgment” was also a sin and that, according to Christians, all sins are equal in the eyes of God. I then wished him well and that he would find his way.

The next comment he left was on another entry. In that comment he stated that he couldn’t believe that some states were starting to sanction such a “sick and vile arrangement as gay marriage.” That one, my filters caught and held for my approval before posting.

That’s when I decided that he is right, this is my site. AND, I DON’T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BE FAIR. I was offended by that last post. You only get to call me “sick” and “perverted” once. After that, I will take your voice away.

I deleted BOTH posts, I banned his IP address from even viewing this site. I further banned his IP and email address from being able to post comments.

You know, in the outside world, I have to worry about this crap. Being an “out” gay man, when I leave my home in the morning, I’m always wondering if I’m going to be unfortunate enough to come across a gay basher. I know that I will most likely come home in one piece. I also know there is a chance that I will end up in a hospital, or dead. That is my reality.

I say this because people who don’t even know me make the assumption that I am gay. Even this morning at breakfast as we sat down at our table, people at another table turned around to look at us. I could tell what they were thinking by the look on their faces. I said nothing, but I registered the disapproval of the grown-ups, and the approval of their teenage daughter. Judgments were made but not spoken in words, and we continued with our breakfast. But at the wrong place, at the wrong time, around the wrong people, who knows?

On this site, I don’t have to worry about judgment and I don’t have to “be fair”. So the next time this young man tries to view this site he will be told that the site has “refused his connection”. Rude, I know - but no worse than calling someone sick and perverted.

And I’m really trying not to say, “I’m fed up with religion - take your crap somewhere else....”, because that would make me just like them; intolerant.

After breakfast, we left for the mall. We are leaving for Paris Wednesday afternoon. I thought it would be easier to carry my camera equipment around with a back pack versus the camera bag I carry on my shoulder. This is a special back pack just made for cameras. We found just the right one and I took the opportunity to buy one more one gigabyte memory card.

We then went to a department store. Kent wanted to get a new pair of dress shoes. While he was looking, I went into the men’s clothing section to look at jackets and the like. I came across some dress blazers by Ralph Lauren priced at $300 each. The sign above them said that they were marked down to $159. However, upon closer inspection, on the sleeve, with a red sticker, it said $19.95!!

So, we bought two $300 blazers for $19.95 each. On top of that, they knocked off another 10% for using my department store charge card! Not a bad deal at all.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that escalating violence in Iraq demonstrates that the Iraqi population is now capable of waging the Iraq war without outside military aid, and pronounced the American mission there “a complete success.”

“Over the last month, the Iraqis have been fighting like you wouldn’t believe,” said Rumsfeld in a press conference at the Pentagon. “New Iraqis are joining the war every day--so many, in fact, that we don’t know where they all came from. It’s almost as if they came out of nowhere.”

“The scope and intensity of the combat in Iraq is such that I believe the presence of American forces in the country will no longer be required to help the Iraqi people plummet into meaningless violence,” Rumsfeld added. (source) (highlighting, my own)

It’s called “civil war”, moron. Where in the hell do they come up with morons like this?

And, I thought that our objective for going to Iraq was to “stop terrorism”, not start a war continuously fueled by religious factions. Now that that’s happened, we can come home? Gee, and just in time for the November elections.

Interesting.

Yarbar said she knows at least four homosexual couples who have been together for more than 15 years who first met at an “ex-gay” seminar.

“They went there thinking they had sinful desires ... and yet they met their life partner there,” she said.

Yarbar said when she felt called to ministry, she studied Hebrew and Greek to read the text of the Bible in its original languages and social context. She said it is difficult for modern readers to understand that one word in Hebrew can have 75 different meanings in English.

For example, she said a verse in Leviticus, interpreted by some scholars to condemn homosexuality, is believed by others to be a prohibition against Jews taking part in a ceremony worshipping the fertility god Ba’al, which involved male concubines.

“If we write a letter about (the war in) Iraq and bury it in the sand for a thousand years, then Chinese-speaking Canadians dig it up and translate it with no knowledge of U.S. history... They’re not going to understand it,” Yarbar said. (source)

Schools in the western United States can forbid a high school student from wearing a T-shirt that denigrates gay and lesbian students, a sharply divided federals appeals court in San Francisco ruled today.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that a T-shirt that proclaimed “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned” on the front and “Homosexuality Is Shameful” on the back was “injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn.” The court said that the shirt can be barred on a public high school campus without violating the 1st Amendment. [...]

“Public school students who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses. As Tinker clearly states, students have the right to ‘be secure and to be let alone,’ ” Reinhardt said. (source)

I found this ruling interesting, and a relief. It is an interesting mix between free speech and what is harmful to others. It’s interesting to see how things are changing. I look at issues like this, and I’m energized by the fact that just ten years ago, the court would probably have not taken into account the fact that many gay students would just drop out of school rather than face the hate and intolerance of their peers.

For a long time these students had no ally. It’s good to see the court finally realize that there is more at stake here than free speech. What is at stake is the future of these children who are marginalized. The other thing I think is wonderful is that more and more of these kids are fighting back. They are fighting the oppression they face when a school district doesn’t protect them by filing a lawsuit against that school district, along with those who have tormented them, sometimes for years.

In some ways, it makes me want to re-live my high school years today. Maybe I would have some pay back. On the other hand, it was Idaho and I’m not sure we are to this point in Idaho. But who knows? Things are changing every single day!

In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son’s teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first.

The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children’s book, “King & King,” as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association’s list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

“My son is only 7 years old,” said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. “By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they’re trying to indoctrinate our children. They’re intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it’s not a value that our family supports.” [...]

Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. “We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed,” he said. “Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” (source)

We really need to get beyond this idea that people choose to be gay and that we are trying to “indoctrinate” children into being gay. That thinking is moronic.

Three points on this...

1) The superintendent is absolutely correct in his point when he mentioned that it would be impossible to notify parents on every single issue that would be talked about to children that could possibly be offensive in any way to any student or parent. If they had to do that, the school district would constantly be sending out notifications of one sort or another to the parents. They would get nothing else done.

2) It’s quite disingenuous for these parents to claim that they don’t want their children to be exposed to sexuality at such an early age. The truth of the matter is, practically every single fable or story these children are taught deal with sexuality in one form or another. The difference is, the sexuality spoken of is always heterosexual. It is taught to be “normal” at the exclusion of any discussion of anything else. In other words, if you don’t speak of any other type of relationship, the children would never know to ask about it. If I were being cynical (I would never do that!), I would say that they were trying to “indoctrinate” our children into heterosexuality!

3) Perhaps this is the most important point, and one that the superintendent was trying to address. How do you think it makes children who are living in households being run by same-sex married couples feel when their family is completely excluded from any discussion what so ever?

Schools are for learning - not only about how to read and write, but also to start the thinking process. Yes, even as early as second grade. There is a way to present this material and from what I’ve seen, it was presented in a professional manner.

Cutting through all the crap, these parents hate the fact that our relationships are being presented as anything other than sick and perverted. The fact is, this is the world that these kids live in. The parents can accept that, or they can move to a bigoted less progressive state, or they can put them into a private Baptist school who hates gay students, or they can home school them.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington has challenged the dismissal of a decorated Major and flight nurse in the U.S. Air Force Reserves for engaging in “homosexual conduct.” The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeks to forbid Major Margaret Witt’s discharge.

“Major Margaret Witt has been an exemplary member of the military with a distinguished record of service. To discharge her simply because of her sexual orientation is unfair and does not make our military stronger,” said ACLU of Washington Executive Director Kathleen Taylor.

The lawsuit seeks to stop the Air Force from discharging Major Witt or from otherwise hampering her military career. The ACLU of Washington argues that Witt’s discharge would violate her right to engage in private activities without government interference. The military has provided no evidence that her sexual orientation or conduct has caused a problem in the performance of her military duties. To the contrary, the ACLU of Washington is submitting declarations from military colleagues that her forced absence is harmful to her unit’s morale. (source)

So we lose another qualified military officer to the stupid and archaic Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

It’s becoming more difficult for me to support the military at all anymore. I know I’m going to get hate mail for this attitude, but look at the facts. They just don’t get it anymore. The would rather kick someone out like Major Witt, than to admit that their policies for dealing with Iraq have failed.

They would rather kick someone out like Major Witt for what she does in private, than to address the problem that Donald Rumsfeld has failed at his job. He’s the one we should be looking at to let go. And while we are at it, we have a failed Presidency and Congress isn’t looking so good either these days.

And the sad part of it is, the military dismisses at least one person a day for being gay, and most of these dismissals are hitting career soldiers and those with extensive training. This is yet one more thing that the U.S. taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for. You don’t really think that there’s zero cost to letting that kind of expertise just walk out the door, do you?

It’s time for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell TO GO!!!

As of today, the job approval rate for Congress is....

Ready for a change?

Catholic adoption agencies in Worcester, Fall River, and Springfield will not be sanctioned at this time by Governor Mitt Romney’s administration over their refusal to accept gays and lesbians as prospective adoptive parents, even though the policies violate state antidiscrimination laws. [...]

Meanwhile, a major gay rights organization also cited a future change in the political landscape to explain why it has not publicly protested the refusal of those agencies to accept gay applicants. Gary Buseck, legal director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston, said his group realizes that Massachusetts will have a new governor next year, and it expects that he or she will aggressively enforce the state’s antidiscrimination laws. (source)

At the very least, wouldn’t you expect the Governor of the State of Massachusetts to uphold the laws of the state?

Maybe this is a Republican trend. After all, President Bush seems to pick and choose which laws he will uphold and which laws he will break - apparently with no penalty what so ever. And now, Romney is doing the same thing.

The schedule for today’s “Easter Egg Roll” at the White House has been altered at the last minute ensuring gay families who camped out overnight to secure early tickets will not encounter First Lady Laura Bush at the opening ceremony. The families had announced their intention to turn up to the children’s event, receiving significant media coverage in the last month.

The Family Pride Coalition, amongst others, have been waiting at the White House gates for up to 24 hours, to ensure they receive tickets, which are issued on a first come-first served basis. Families with gay parents are simply trying to take part in the event like other families, and many are disappointed with the last minute change. [...]

Perino was clearly not prepared to entertain the suggestion that the event was altered to preclude the possibility of an encounter between Laura Bush and the families of gay parents. The Family Pride Coalition has been diplomatic in its response. (source)

I suppose that way back when, black families would have gone through the same thing - being excluded from an event. The same would probably be true of inter-racial couples when they were allowed to marry.

We can all get caught up in the fact that the gay families were excluded from the event after being some of the first in the line to wait for Laura Bush. And Laura Bush can back peddle all she wants on this issue, and I’m sure she will have 101 reasons why it just didn’t work out from a scheduling point of view to include the gay families. We shouldn’t be surprised by this. She is merely a reflection of her husband and his failed administration on the equality of gay citizens.

For this event, we need to move on and accept this. We need to remember that this was after all, for the children that went to the White House. Why make them suffer by making an issue of the small mindedness of small minded people?

This is about the inclusion (or exclusion) of gay families. Truth be known, the administration would rather not even acknowledge the existence of these families. The fact that they were at the event if a first step. And when they finally realize that these families are just like other families and want the same things for their children, people will start to wonder what all the fuss was about.

But don’t hold your breath on that happening any time soon. Remember how long it took the Administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina? And, they could see that coming from space!

In the meantime, I think the event was a great idea. I hope the kids had a blast.

“We think that Minnesota is the kind of place that people will want to move to and work in,” McClung said. “Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we don’t think, would necessarily have any real impact on the ability to attract people to a state that offers so much as Minnesota does.”

McClung says passing a ban in Minnesota wouldn’t put the state at a disadvantage with the 19 other states that have passed similar marriage bans. But in a global economy, Richard Florida says the best and brightest could decide to live in other more tolerant places like Toronto, London or Sydney. (source)

WRONG! It will have a huge effect on who moves into the state or who chooses to move to Minnesota. I can tell you from my own personal experience, now that I am middle-aged, that where you live in this country, and what kind of support (recognition / benefits) the state you live in allows you to have, is a huge consideration to us.

Recently, at my company, they introduced a new program into their health care suite. It was for “long term care”. This has nothing to do with short term or long term disability. Long term care happens after those programs have ended. It can include nursing homes, or assisted living units, or a retirement community that offers programs to those who require additional care. I think these programs are a wonderful idea for people now living long enough to take advantage of this, or with chronic health issues.

Also, nursing homes, as we know them, will be gone in ten years time. They are losing money and are no longer financially viable. There have been good and very bad nursing homes. Some were basically a place to put people until they died. There were limited or no programs available to stimulate their clients’ interests. How depressing.

Many of the extended care facilities are very nice. You have your own apartment, and can have as much or as little assistance as you require. But the price for this can be high. That is where this program comes into play. We will be looking at the program to see if it’s something we might want to start putting money into.

Kent also told me of a program where he works that will allow him to take a leave of absence in the event that his spouse/partner has been disabled, for the purpose of taking care of that partner. That benefit has always been available to heterosexual married couples.

It’s nice to see these programs coming into being. But, they both depend on one thing; that we enter into a Connecticut Civil Union - something that Connecticut put into place last year.

I asked the representative of the program, during the question and answer period, if “civil unions” would be recognized by the program. He actually didn’t understand what I meant be “civil unions”. I then said, “domestic partnerships”. He understood that, which is a good thing because my next description would have been “state-sanctioned fuck buddy”, as I was starting to get annoyed. He said, “I don’t know the answer to that.” I replied, “Is your program a federal or a state run program?” He replied, “It’s state run.” I said, “Then you should know the answer to that question because Connecticut, as of last year, offers civil unions. You should know if your program adheres to state law!”

Silence filled the room. I’m not sure if it was my tone, my direct questioning, or that some people who didn’t know me that well were now aware that they were in the presence of a queer (at 51 years old, I have little time for bullshit anymore). I had to actually call their home office to get an answer to this question since their representative never called me back, as he promised he would. Moving on....

So here’s the dilemma I am dealing with... It’s not a logical decision. It is an emotional decision. In a nutshell, if I can use a trite expression, this sums it up: “You only get to cry once at your wedding.”

If we get a civil union, we would be eligible for these programs. If not, we would not be. That seems fair and logical enough. But what about the human dignity of being equal? In my eyes, a civil union just isn’t a wedding and never will be. It will always be a symbol of what we aren’t good enough for. It will always be second-class. But that’s not my dilemma. This is.....

Say we do get a civil union for the sake of these extra protections. When Connecticut does finally achieve marriage rights for gay couples (and I do believe it will), we will get married. But, how will we feel about that marriage? Will it have a diminished meaning, emotionally and spiritually?

If you are a straight person reading this, think about the wedding you had and how special that day was. Then, try to imagine that it was a civil union, because you couldn’t legally have a marriage. Later, you add marriage to the mix. But, you already had your... union in life together. What does that make the marriage, an add-on benefit? It just wouldn’t be special anymore. We would probably just go to the Town Clerk and get the marriage license. At that point, what’s to celebrate? It’s just a formality.

I don’t want to feel bitter-sweet about my wedding. I want it to be the most wonderful day of my life, and that only happens once. After thirty-one years together, is that asking too much?

This came after complaints by a leading homosexual MP who claimed that the number plate H 8 GAY was offensive to homosexual people. [...]

Jocelyn Carr a businessman from Notting Hill, West London, made the initial complaint to the DVLA after he spotted the number plate on a car. He told the Daily Mirror: “I was amazed. I just couldn’t believe it had been allowed and I assumed it was being driven by a right bigot.” It turns out the car and its number plate is owned by a homosexual couple, who now live in France.

Not to be outdone by common sense and the law, Mr Carr referred the matter to Mr Bryant who is a well known homosexual MP who claimed: “If the DVLA sold H8 JEW or H8 WOG, there would rightly be a public outcry”. As a result the DVLA did withdraw the number and the homosexual couple who owned it said it was purchased as a joke and that they did not intend to offend fellow homosexuals. (source)

It amazes me just how stupid some of us are. This license plate says only one thing to me - that the owner hates gays. Pretty logical. So, some people in Britain complained that it was espousing hatred, and should be revoked. Authorities disagreed at first, but changed their minds after being asked if “H8 Jew” and the like would be allowed.

As it turns out, a gay couple who now live in France got the license plate as a joke. What kind of sick joke is that? Hating gays leads to violence and death to gay people. For gay people to come up with this as a joke is pretty sick. Or perhaps they have a warped sense of humor and have never been on the receiving end of that hatred?

Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies.

I spotted this billboard and was really stunned by it. It is exactly how I feel about the state of my country right now.

Study it carefully. Notice the $$$ coming out of our beloved President as he runs our country into the ground with debt.

And the words from our national anthem. And the tattered flag flying high over the remains of... people.

But at least “our flag was still there”, right? So what does that mean? We won? Is that how it works?

“At Logo, we know that LGBT people of faith are as diverse in their religious beliefs as we are as a community. Logo will continue to develop and air programs that explore themes about LGBT people of faith with incisiveness and authenticity. From Latter Days to Trembling Before G-d, Logo will continue developing and airing programs that address the full experiences of LGBT people of faith.” (source)

For those of you unfamiliar with LOGO, it is a television station available on cable in some areas that centers on gay-themed shows and movies. The subject matter is primarily gay. The movies have, in some way, a gay theme or angle. I have a couple of “issues” with LOGO that I find distasteful.

1) I think they are hypocritical. To not run the United Church of Christ ad is just plain stupid. I have seen the commercial. It is not gay in anyway. The overall message of the commercial is that many people who have be disenfranchised in the past by different churches need not feel that way at the United Church of Christ. I’m not putting in a plug for the church, but I thought their ad was very tasteful and well done. There was one gay couple, and others, who were being turned away from a church. Then, the message of the commercial was, “Jesus wouldn’t turn people away. Neither do we.”

As someone who has been turned away from a church I was hoping to go to with Kent, I understand fully what that feels like. The fact that I’m compelled to even have to mention the fact that we are a gay couple before setting foot in the church should signal that all is not right with many churches. I’m glad I told the pastor on the phone. He told me that we were not welcome at the church. It happened to be my local Presbyterian Church.

So for LOGO to reject this is just plain low and shows that they really have no insight into the extent of this problem.

2) And this one is my BIG COMPLAINT...

If I’m paying money to see their product (my cable bill), I don’t want every other word in the movie to be bleeped out. If someone says, “fuck”, I want to hear that damn it!

It’s not that I’m into dirty words. I’m not. But, when things like that are bleeped out, the emotional feeling of the scene is diminished. It ruins it for me because I end up trying to reenact the scene in my mind the way it was written, making assumptions about the words that were bleeped out. AND, I’m paying for it!

I go to LOGO to see programming, but I’m getting fed up with it. I was recently watching the movie Trick. After a short while, I ended up switching to another show because I got fed up with all the bleeping out of words.

It’s totally ridiculous. This is not a children’s channel or a children’s hour. Adults who are paying good money are watching this.

Kent is away for meetings in St. Louis. He’s coming home tonight. It’s been a nice weekend. Yesterday was rainy, but I decided to make it a day that I just did things that I wanted to do - for myself.

I went to get my haircut. Actually, I got more than that. It turned out to be a full color, followed by highlights and lowlights. It sounds complicated, but it’s not if you have someone doing it who knows what they are doing, and she does.

After that, I went to the health club for a workout. I did pretty well - 45 minutes on the elliptical trainer, followed by 20 laps in the pool, followed by the jacuzzi. After that, I stopped by Panera for a chicken-sesame salad. Then I came home and vegged out.

I’m such a home body. I’m about to go make some polenta for dinner. It will be baked and cut up. It will be served alongside grilled tuna steaks, which will be on a bed of julienne vegetables consisting of zucchini, eggplant, and artichoke hearts marinated in lime, olive oil, and garlic. I’ll add salad with a sesame and balsamic vinegar dressing with feta cheese. An hour before dinner, I’m going to make bruchetta served with white wine.

Why all the fuss? Well, Kent is coming home.

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Congress is spending a record $29 billion this year on thousands of lawmakers’ special projects, including a teapot museum in North Carolina and a boxing club in Nevada, according to a report on wasteful government spending.

Lawmakers increased spending by more than 6 percent from last year to pay for almost 10,000 special projects for their home districts, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based group that seeks to eliminate inefficiency in government.

The group cited $500,000 being spent on the teapot museum and $100,000 on the boxing club as being particularly egregious wastes of public money and deserving of derisive “oinker” awards. (source)

Damn. Teapots are expensive.

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. [...]

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame’s CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction. (source) - emphasis my own

Uh oh. Now what?

So, the President ordered that a CIA agent be “outed” because he was pissed off because someone dared to question his reasons for going into Iraq? Isn’t it a crime to leak classified information, even if you are the President, even if you are pissed off?

Maybe this Congress changed that, or maybe they will “forgive” it this time, or maybe... elephants fly and the sky is purple?

Could happen.

PORTLAND - A lesbian couple filed suit Wednesday, challenging the state’s refusal to recognize both as parents of their son.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Jeana Frazzini and her partner, K.D. Parman, contends that they have the same right to be recognized as parents to son Emmett, 2, as a straight couple whose child - conceived through artificial insemination - is biologically related to one parent, but not the other.

Married at the time in March 2004, the Portland couple said they were shocked to receive a birth certificate that listed only Parman, the biological mother called “Meema” by Emmett, but not Frazzini, whom the boy calls “Mama.” (source)

I read this story and got to thinking a bit...

I’ve heard arguments on how marriage is in the best interests of the child. So that argument was once used to prevent gay couples from having marriage because of course, they don’t have children.

Then it was discovered that they do indeed have children. So then the focus went away from marriage being in the best interests for the child to keeping children away from gays at all costs. So now, many are looking into the drafting of laws specifically to prevent gays from adoption. Wait and see, this will be the next big election topic - right up there with (you guessed it), preventing gay marriage.

But this couple didn’t adopt. One of the women conceived and had this baby. Moreover, they were married for a short time. After their marriage, the State of Oregon voided nearly 3,000 marriages performed for gay couples.

I guess I’m just thinking out loud here. It just seems to me that those who want gays not to get married are all over the issue in different ways; no marriage for gays, “some” rights for gays as long as it’s not called “marriage”, no adoption for gays... on and on.

I suppose it won’t be long before someone tries to pass a law making it illegal for a gay man to donate sperm for the purpose of conceiving his own child, or for a lesbian to conceive with the intention of keeping the child, giving the child to a gay man, or sharing custody.

In all honesty, nothing surprises me anymore.

CRYSTAL LAKE, Ill. (AP) — The city council agreed to host a rowing event for gay athletes this summer, despite opposition from residents who see it as a threat to their small-town way of life.

The council voted 6-1 Tuesday night to allow the race, planned as part of the Gay Games competition in Chicago in July, according to the (Crystal Lake) Northwest Herald. [...]

Opponents have argued that the games are an inappropriate attempt to legitimize and celebrate the gay “lifestyle,” and that organizers are more interested in making a social statement than competing.

Supporters have criticized the resistance as discriminatory and hateful, and say such opposition underscores the Gay Games’ mission of tearing down gay stereotypes. [...]

One look at the angry letters to the editor that have frequently appeared in the local newspaper reveal it isn’t the logistics of the race that’s on residents’ minds.

“Make no mistake: The purpose of the Gay Games is to legitimize homosexuality and make it appear as a wholesome lifestyle choice,” wrote Tim Coakley, a critic of the games.

In the same day’s paper, Perry and Christine Koste dismissed such views. After wondering if Crystal Lake’s motto should be “homophobic capital of the Midwest,” they asked, “How proud are we to live in such a narrow-minded, backward hateful community?”

One of the Gay Games’ missions is to raise awareness about gays to reduce stereotypes — a point organizers kept discussing during the park district hearings, said spokesman Kevin Boyer.

“It is very difficult to disregard what these people said and just deal with how boats are unloaded and loaded,” Boyer said. “You are going to say this is not right and this is why the Gay Games are needed.” (source)

The only way to grow in life is to actively confront things that are a challenge to you. That can come in many forms.

It can be the accomplishment of a piece of art.

It can be overcoming the loss of someone you cared very deeply for.

It can be coming to terms with that loss.

It can be bringing yourself out of your own little existence and seeing how others live their lives, even when the way they live their lives goes contrary to what you were taught and believe, or are repulsed by.

It can be overcoming an ignorance that you dearly held on to, because it gave you security in not knowing, or not wanting to know the truth about others.

Some people don’t want that growth. As Crystal Lake resident Sunita Stone stated, “Crystal Lake is a G-rated place. There’s no reason to start making things racy. If you want to go to Chicago to do that, that’s fine. I’m not going to go there.”

That is ignorance. Perhaps things will get “racy” when the gay rowers come to town. Perhaps there will be some hugs and an occasional kiss, but I doubt it will be much more than that. In other words, it won’t be anything more than straight people do all the time in public.

The challenge for Crystal Lake will be to overcome that ignorance and intolerance, assuming they even want too. There are people in the town who have been turned off by all the hateful letters in their paper that have used very denigrating terms to describe the visitors to the town. At the end of the day, this will challenge the town to talk about this a lot. I suspect that after the gay visitors have come and gone, many will wonder what all the excitement was about, as they sit back and count the money that the gay visitors brought to their economy. Assuming they will accept it of course. It is after all, “gay money”. My bet is they won’t have such a problem with the money!

In terms of “promoting the gay lifestyle”, that one resident stated, there is absolutely no reason that this group of gay rowers should come to Crystal Lake to “act straight”, as it were. They are gay, and part of this experience should be about acceptance and tolerance.

I’ll tell you something about this country. We are in a state right now of great volatility. We have a choice to start making the effort to understand and accept each other and start to build a stronger nation (and part of that is finding a new President who won’t shamelessly use a political wedge issue to garner a few more votes), OR...

We can continue the hateful and mean spirited comments (all wrapped up in “Christian Love - hate the sin but love the sinner” bullshit), and let the country fall apart. The “union” will fall, and you will end up with people who are labeled as different, or we can use the term “outcasts” if it suits you better, moving to more accepting parts of the country (the conservatives’ “four letter word” for this is “liberal”) where they can live out their lives in relative happiness and...

We already have gay people moving from state to state, trying to find a more accepting place to live. Many are leaving Texas, after it passed a sweeping constitutional amendment against gay marriage and civil unions. Following that, the Governor of Texas actually said that perhaps it was better for gay veterans to leave the State of Texas and look for some other place that would want them. Or, as Andrew Sullivan put it...

I missed some context about Texas governor Rick Perry’s comment that gay Texan couples who want to form stable relationships should go to another state. He was actually responding to a question about gay war veterans. Insult to injury. What do you call a gay man who risks his life to serve his country? A faggot.

I’ve read of people moving out of Virginia and of one gay man thinking of leaving Ohio because he fears he may lose his adopted child becasue the state is considering outlawing gay adoption. And when and if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution passes (or even mention of trying for it again) goes forward, how many will leave this country altogether.

I know... many of you reading this will say, “...let ’em go. We don’t need queers in this country.” What you don’t understand is what a fool you are. At the core of this issue is anyone who doesn't fit the Ozzy and Harriet model of what a citizen should be. This time, it’s homosexuals. Who will be the next group? Mexicans? Jews? These attitudes are tearing us apart, day - by - day.

I leave you with this...

The Left today widely acknowledges the emergence in the United States of three fundamentals of Fascism: corporatism, imperialism, and repression. What is forgotten is the fourth, equally critical prop to a Fascist state: scapegoats. Without them, even “good” citizens will question themselves and their government. With them, the frustration of the volk can play itself out on the scapegoats, without threat to the state. (source)

Related Article
March 8, 2006 - Crystal Lake gives OK to Gay Games

JAKE GYLLENHAAL admits he’s terrified of his upcoming onscreen gay kiss with HEATH LEDGER, because he has no idea how to fake homosexual intimacy.

The hunky star is teaming up with Ledger in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN but is struggling to cope with the demands of the storyline - and even his girlfriend KIRSTEN DUNST has failed to lift his spirits as the steamy scenes approach.

He says, “Kirsten looked at the script and said, ‘Well, you aren’t gay and neither is Heath, so there’s a lot of acting required.’

“I just can’t come to terms with it. I know what we have to do and it’s very intimate. I’m blanking it out until we have to do the filming. I’ve spoken to Heath and he sounds terrified.” (source)

You know, it isn’t often that I actually buy a DVD movie anymore. I used to buy them more, but with the cable, Replay TV, Video On Demand, and a video recorder, there’s really no need for me to buy a movie any longer. However, on occasion, I will make an exception. One such exception was that of Brokeback Mountain. I understood the feelings in the movie precisely because much of it has been my life.

In the love scenes, I sensed how awkward the two actors were. I have little patience for it. This is basically my opinion. If two straight male actors cannot perform a convincing gay love scene to me, they have no business being actors. They are third rate. This happened in Brokeback Mountain. I could sense they were having a problem with it. It showed. And I don’t really understand that because if I were called upon to show love to a woman, I could passionately make love to her, even though my heart (or anything else) would not be into it. And I’m not even an actor. I honestly don’t see the big deal.

And I’m not alone. Openly gay actor Sir Ian McKellen feels the same say.

The openly homosexual ‘Lord Of The Rings’ actor slammed 25-year-old Gyllenhaal for failing to consider how his comments would offend the homosexual community.

He said: “I got very upset when one of the actors said it was the most terrifying job he’d ever had because it involved him kissing another man.

“Imagine how rude that is. Suppose I’d said the most appalling thing I ever to do was kiss Helen Mirren!”

Very true. It is offensive and I’m a bit surprised at Jake Gyllenhaal. I have read that he stated that his parents have many gay friends and he was raised in such an environment and said that he feels totally at home around gay people. Apparently, he draws the homophobic line when it comes to making love.

How does this effect me at this point in time? Well, the DVD of Brokeback Mountain are about to come out. I was going to buy the DVD and show my support for a creation that shows our lives. But I’ve changed my mind. I’m disappointed in actors (Jake stated that Heath was equally “terrified” of the love scenes they were going to make together). If he had said that to me, I would have said, “OH PLEASE! If you want to be an artist, there are times that you have to step out of the small shell you know as ‘yourself’, and BE your new self - the character you are playing.”

I would have thought that Jake and Heath would have learned that in elementary acting school. Because that is elementary. The same can be said for any artist who excels in their art. Do you really think that Maria Callas was acting when she performed Tosca? No. She simply was Floria Tosca.

I still remember Theresa Stratas saying, “I sometimes look into a mirror and ask, ‘Who am I?’ That’s a little scary when I feel that I am losing myself to the character I am becoming.” That is art. That is the risk you run at being there and giving everything you have to that moment that the cameras are on you in that love scene. If you become the love scene, there is nothing to hide from. There wouldn’t even be awkwardness (read, homophobia), Jake, because your character of Jack Twist would have been gay, and so would you - if you were really in character.

What has happened to art? Is it going extinct?

At any rate, I no longer have enough respect for the actors to buy Brokeback Mountain. I’ll see it again when it comes out on cable. As McKellen stated, the comments are offensive. I see no need to further support them.