I’m feeling a bit broken hearted today. I’m not sure what to do.

I’ve been fighting most of my life for one thing or another. Life is like that for some people, I’ve noticed. I happen to be one of them. In my life time, I have survived violence - being done to me from gay bashers, and also from my father-in-law. I have fought to put hate crime laws on the books in Connecticut, and we were successful in doing that. I have fought to put an anti-discrimination law on the books in Connecticut to protect the rights of gay citizens, and we were successful in doing that.

And in my family, I have exposed myself spiritually and emotionally for all to see. I have been painfully open about myself, about my family, and the love that exists inside my home. But it would seem to be lost. Or perhaps, it’s not seen as something worthy? For 31 years, I have endured endless torment because I happen to be the wrong sex for my partner. I have had to endure this because it comes from those who I cannot escape -- my own family. And yet, over time, I have somehow in my own mind convinced myself that they understood. That they loved me. That they accepted me.

One week from today, Idaho, my home state, will pass a state constitutional amendment making it illegal for people like me to enter into a “marriage”, a “civil union”, or a “domestic partnership”. After it is passed, there will be no legal recognition what so ever of gay relationships -- no legal protections -- no recognition of love -- nothing. But, “marriage” will be saved from the likes of me. I honestly think it would be less painful to just take us out behind the barn and shoot us.

And, the family that I thought I had... will vote for this constitutional amendment, to keep marriage out of the hands of people like us. My family.

I’m simply lost. With so many road blocks, is life something you do until you die? If something happens to one of us, do I simply have to rely on the kindness and generosity of strangers in the hospital or the morgue to allow me some form of dignity? I don’t have answers to these questions. But I can now understand how so many gay people have little regard for relationships, when society is doing everything in it’s power to prevent them from happening.

I’m leaving for awhile. Actually, I don’t know if I will write anymore. I don’t know if this site has any more life in it. I need to find myself again and re-prioritize my life a bit. Perhaps I wanted a family so bad, that I convinced myself that I had a family who loved me? I’m not a handsome man, but I shine inside. I try to live a dignified and truthful life. Maybe that’s just not enough.

If you can’t count on your family to at least support you in obtaining practical legal protections just to try to be happy, what else is left?

I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!

And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

Kent forwarded this article to me. I was struck by how much everything is the same from so long ago. I remember the purging of the communists from the country, in both society at large, and Hollywood. I also knew of all the spying on various groups that were trying to “destroy” the United States, and that members of these groups were called “subversives”.

Today, little has changed, except perhaps some creative use of terminology. Now, homosexuals are called “radical homosexuals” who “prey” on “innocent children”. Yeah, that will get people pissed off. Who cares if it’s true or not. Just like it was so true that the communists and homosexuals were trying to destroy the country in the 1950’s.

The resignation of Kirk Fordham, openly gay former chief of staff to Foley and current chief of staff to Rep. Reynolds, seemed only to whet conservatives’ appetites. Labeling them “operatives” who had managed to “infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus,” right-wing author Cliff Kincaid demanded that “the secret Capitol Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled.” Calling them “subversives” thwarting the will of the people, the American Family Association’s Rev. Don Wildmon told The Nation, “they oughta fire every one of ’em.” The Traditional Values Coalition issued an ultimatum to their party: “Republicans need to make a simple choice between the [sic] innocent children and radical homosexuals who prey on them.”

Charges of a powerful gay network, a subversive fifth column that has “infiltrated” the party, are nothing new. In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy charged that Harry Truman’s State Department had been “infiltrated” by subversives, a category that initially included both communists and homosexuals. However, McCarthy quickly discovered that the charges of homosexual infiltration were more effective at stirring up indignation among voters. Though histories of the McCarthy era rarely mention it, three-quarters of McCarthy’s mail expressed outrage at his disclosures of “sex depravity.” Truman’s advisors warned that “the country is really much more disturbed over the picture which has been presented so far of the Government being loaded with homosexuals than it is over the clamor about Communists in the Government,” and the State Department’s admission that it had fired 91 homosexuals seemed to substantiate McCarthy’s charges. With a midterm election approaching, Republicans attacked the Democrats for “harboring” homosexuals. They followed the advice of New York Daily News editors, who wrote, “If we were writing Republican campaign speeches, we’d use the word ‘queer’ at every opportunity.” (source)

Well, let us hope that even the Republicans won’t stoop to the level of using “queer” at every opportunity. But nothing would surprise me with that party, the way they are today. I give my fellow Americans of today a bit more credit than that though. That tactic may have worked in the 1950’s, but today, “queer” just isn’t as queer as it used to be - nor as threatening. After all, every family has a queer or two... or three, and when you start smearing people with the word queer, it’s no longer a stretch for people to say, “Hey wait a minute! You are talking about my brother here!” That is what they will take to the voting booth with them.

If I were advising the Republicans, and actually had their best interests at heart, I’d advise them to proceed very carefully along these lines. And I’m not just saying that because I’m.... queer.

Have you ever noticed that we live in a world of circles? We win something. But we really didn’t win anything. But we convince ourselves that we did win something. So to keep these winnings, the organizations fighting for our rights ask for money -- lots of money -- to help combat the “forces of evil”. So we all give them the money. Then we find out that the organizations fighting for our rights have settled for second best anyway because they realize that we would most likely never get the rights we should have because we are such a small minority and are lucky that they (society) just keeps us around.

To hide the pain of that reality, we create “reality shows”, showing that we are at least good for window treatments and makeovers of one sort or another -- all part of that creative thing that queers are supposed to be so good at -- kind of like how blacks were so good at collecting cotton in the cotton fields (see a pattern?). Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was all about making heterosexuals look better along with a few laughs (at the expense of gays) that just brought home the stereotypes that most gay men are effeminate wimps.

So we end up being second best, or losing completely. And then the next battle begins, and we win something, or at least have the promise of winning something. So to keep these winnings, the organizations fighting for our rights ask for money -- lots of money -- to help combat the “forces of evil”. And on and on............

This week, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should be given equal rights and that this discrimination must end. Gay couples had civil unions in the state that granted them a very small number of rights. The Court said that wasn’t good enough. It therefore ordered the legislature to deal with the issue, and gave them 180 days to do so. The Court stopped short of ordering the legislature to give us full marriage, and call it “marriage”. So, before the ink is even dry and before the legislature has even gathered, there’s already talk of forming “civil unions”, and avoiding the word “marriage” where gay couples are concerned. And, in this make believe world that we live in, we will call that “equality”. Also, in this make believe world that we live in, we will call this “a victory”. BALONEY!!!!!!!!!

And this has happened because gay couples have been reduced to having to resort to these tactics to get around the legal difficulties our families face because we have no access to the protection of marriage.

The Vandenbergs, who live in Mill Hill, a gentrifying neighborhood in downtown Trenton, have formed a family with another gay couple, John Hatch, 44, and David Henderson, 48, who live a block and a half away and have been together 18 years.

In a 20-page parental contract signed by all four of them, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Henderson each agreed to be the biological father of one of the Vandenbergs’ children, to give up his parental rights so the biological mother’s partner could adopt the child, and to share in parenting responsibilities.

In other words, a contractually constructed partnership of four adults to raise the children. (source)

Where is the outrage in crap like this? It’s not with us. At what point do we take a more aggressive tactic that will state “NOT GOOD ENOUGH!”?

President Bush stated, “Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”

President Bush, if you really believe marriage needs defending so damn much, then pass a constitutional amendment making divorce illegal, moron. It’s really funny that when a court rules in favor of equality for gays, they are called an “activist court”, and when they deny us equality, they are merely “doing what they are supposed to do.”

Then we have people who say that a civil union is marriage by another name. Tell you what. You take a civil union and I’ll take your marriage. As long as you are ok with your civil union not being honored by the federal government, or portable from state to state, that shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it?. Other than these small points then yeah, I guess civil unions are equal to marriage. I know, details. But hey, it’s just a label -- marriage by another name. What’s to be afraid of. We won! YAY! Strike one for our team!! What have we really won?

Nationally, nothing. In the State of New Jersey, gay couples will now enjoy equality at the state level only, with heterosexual couples, be it in the form of “civil unions” or “marriage”. That is good news for those couples. But even if the state does call it “marriage” rather than “civil unions”, those couples will enjoy nothing from the federal government, or be able to carry that civil union or marriage to another state because of the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level.

So really, all we are doing here is playing with labels. Why are we playing this game? Because a lot of people in this country still have bigoted and misplaced views about gay people in this country. So, we skirt the issue of true equality by putting a fake label on what we have, and then pat ourselves on the back by saying “this is true progress”, when in fact, it’s still business as usual.

So now that we are playing the label game, we might as well see it for what it is. And to sum this up, I turn to New Jersey Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, who stated in her dissenting opinion that it was important for gays to have the word “marriage” in their vernacular:

We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as the physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences Ultimately, the message (of restricting the name “marriage” to male-female unions) is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant.

Exactly.

In 180 days, we will find out if the New Jersey legislature will give us the label of “marriage”. But, there is already speculation that they will avoid doing the right thing and will opt for the safer label of “civil unions” (hey we are on the bus at least -- but have to sit in the back of that bus). It’s business as usual, and our community will most likely, along with various “gay rights” organizations say, “ok. Well, thank you for your time.” And the circle continues as we tell ourselves... it’s just a name.

I received the following letter from my Congressman, Rob Simmons:

October 25, 2006

Dear Bill:

Knowing your opposition to efforts to ban gay marriage, I wanted to update you on my views on the subject.

Since coming to Congress, I have consistently opposed measures that would prohibit gay marriage. Most recently, I voted against H.J. Res. 88, the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment,” which would have amended the U.S. Constitution to specifically define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am proud that my opposition to this short-sighted measure helped prevent it from gaining the necessary two-thirds vote for passage, failing by a vote of 236 to 187.

I oppose bans on gay marriage because I believe state legislatures should be free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements for gay couples, without interference from the federal government. In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage. In short, banning gay marriages would weaken our families rather than strengthen them.

Rest assured, as your Congressman I will continue to oppose this and any other constitutional amendment that discriminates against American citizens.

Thanks for taking the time to read this update. Should you have any questions or concerns about this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Also please feel free to visit my website at Rob Simmons.

All the best,

Rob Simmons
Member of Congress
Second District, Connecticut

My reply...

Dear Congressman:

I just received an email from you. In that email, you stated,

“I oppose bans on gay marriage because I believe state legislatures should be free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements for gay couples, without interference from the federal government. In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage. In short, banning gay marriages would weaken our families rather than strengthen them.”

Living in Connecticut, me and my partner of 31 years can now legally enter into a “civil union”, but we have chosen not to. Why? Because they are second class. You can argue that we have made the choice not to enter into a civil union when it was offered to us, but the fact of the matter is, “civil unions” are not the same as marriage, and we refuse to label ourselves as second class by entering into the inherently second class arrangement of civil unions. If they were equal to marriage, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HONOR THEM!

Yet, I hear NOTHING at the federal level, from you or anyone else, that will give gay couples the ability to have access to their partners’ social security survivor benefits, tax benefits, retirement savings, home protection (laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing-home bills), nursing homes (married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes), pensions (after the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant - so surviving same-sex partners get no pension support for their surviving partners. Any pension dies with the worker), family leave to care for a sick partner, inheritance rights (when a married person’s spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a substantial share from the deceased spouse’s estate regardless of whether a will exists)....

The list goes on and on. In fact, there are 1049 rights and privileges at the federal level afforded to marriage that a state civil union or a state marriage (Massachusetts only) will not allow us to have because of the national Defense of Marriage Act.

So, your email really fell on deaf ears because I would really like to know what action YOU are taking to get the disgusting Defense of Marriage Act off the books so that my partner and I, along with millions of other gay people, can finally have a chance at true equality?

That is what you SHOULD BE ABOUT.

From you...

“In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage.”

That’s a lie. Civil unions do nothing of the sort. They are not portable from state to state as marriage is, and, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, even real marriages afforded to gay couples by the State of Massachusetts are not honored at the federal level because of that act. You should know this. When former Congressman Gerry Studds died weeks ago, his spouse was completely shut out from receiving the Congressman’s pension (as a married couple would have access too), even though they were legally married in the State of Massachusetts.

Get your facts straight, and write to me again when you are really serious about leveling the playing field for gay couples against discrimination.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon

Tomorrow at 3PM, the New Jersey Supreme Court will issue its ruling on Lewis v. Harris, the same-sex marriage case brought by seven gay and lesbian couples. My sources all predict a victory for gay marriage advocates, which would make New Jersey the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize gay marriage. They point to the court’s liberal record (including its ruling in the Boy Scouts case), as well as the timing of the announcement. It will be the last decision released before Chief Justice Judith Poritz retires, so the expectation is that it will be a momentous one. (source)

This ruling will happen TODAY at 3:00p.m. At 3:00 today, I’ll be going to some private place, and giving a moment of silence for hope -- the hope that another small part of our nation will give us a sliver of equality.

“If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” - Mother Teresa

View full set.

Fall colors outside master bath window

Mimi admiring the fall colors

Colors from our bedroom window

Maxwell taking a sun bath

Mimi ready for a nap

View full set.

Just when it seems things couldn’t get worse for the Republican Party, along comes more bad news: Gay couples in the United States have skyrocketed.

A new study based on Census data finds a 30 percent jump in self-identified same-sex couples between 2000 and 2005, from nearly 600,000 to almost 777,000. But the increase is even more dramatic in Iowa, where couples shot up by 58 percent, to 5,833. [...]

But both the policies being advanced by Republicans in office and the party platforms themselves have gone to great lengths to deny gay rights. Now it may be payback time.

I suppose I can buy into the notion of “payback”. I would love to see the Republicans get their right-wing-fascist collective asses kicked in this election. That is what I emotionally feel. But in politics, it’s often wise not to give into your more carnal instincts. Instead, it’s a time to stop the name calling and raise the bar to a new level. This new level that I talk about isn’t difficult to achieve. The Republicans collectively, with their President behind them, tried to pass a constitutional amendment to make any bonds that our families could achieve illegal. That is the level of where they are at, but it gets better. They weren’t even honest about trashing our families or our rights, because after the President achieved his election by scaring the crap out of the Christian conservatives, what do you think he did with his promise to pursue a constitutional amendment to “protect the sanctity of marriage” from gay couples? He did nothing. He never mentioned it again. It went away. And now there are rumblings of blowing the dust off of it and trying it again in this election, and possibly in the 2008 presidential election. This is the level of the bar they raised, and let me tell you, it’s down in the gutter.

So, for us to be a bit above that won’t be a daunting task. All we have to do is show ourselves honestly and openly. The new study points to a big increase in the number of gay couples since these anti-gay amendments started springing up around the country. I don’t believe that to be true. We’ve always been around. The difference is, anytime you start demonizing people and talk of putting them into second-class status for the foreseeable future, and putting that in people’s faces, many people will come out fighting. What is our weapon? It’s honesty, openness, and to show people what we really are.

We are your brothers, sisters, parents, fire fighters, soldiers, next door neighbor, friend, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts, uncles, policemen, doctors, lawyers... and on and on. We are everywhere and in every single aspect of American life. This study simply shows that many of us realize what is at stake.

Iowa’s Republican platform spares almost no aspect of gay life. It calls for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and for abstinence outside of marriage - meaning gay people shouldn’t have sex, period. It opposes adoption by same-sex couples and “protected class” status based on sexual orientation - i.e. legal protection against discrimination. It’s against “the teaching of homosexual behavior as a normal, acceptable or alternative lifestyle.” [...]

But it’s significant that the number of self-identified same-sex couples grew so much while all that was going on. The authors suggest, quite plausibly, that it was a motivating factor. They note that the 10 states with the largest increases in same-sex couples, such as Washington state and New Hampshire, saw some of the nastiest political battles and anti-gay ballot measures since 2000. [...]

Instead of demonizing the Republican Party for what they have tried to do to us, perhaps it’s time to just continue to be ourselves. They have done more to themselves than we, as a minority, could ever do to them. They have lied to their electorate about us on so many levels; the threat we pose, how we are going to ruin their very way of life, but most importantly, they lied about their motivation in getting those conservative voters to the polls. Now, people see that, not only with the gay marriage issue, but the whole issue of their rhetoric on terror is really wearing quite thin. They use language that suggests that if the Democrats gain one house of Congress, the President will be unable to complete the things that need to be done to combat terror. Two years ago, people bought that. Today, that’s a tough sell.

Polls already show that a majority of young people don’t see same-sex marriage as the big deal the right wing is trying to make it.

The real lesson here is that trampling on the rights of any group may win some elections, but it won’t win people over in the long run. I suspect we’ll see evidence of that Nov. 7. (source)

The real problem with America is that it is uneducated (or doesn’t care) about the basic issues of freedom that is the cornerstone of our democracy. One of the concepts that we have at least strived to achieve in the past is that we will not drop to the level of those who torture and treat others with a total disregard of human rights. We’ve been through all of this before many times, but our memory is short. It wasn’t all that long ago that African Americans strived for equality. And even they, while never letting anyone forget what the white man did to them (and they shouldn’t forget), are all too willing to say that our struggle if very different from them.

Is it really? They had to drink at different water fountains from whites, go to different schools, suffer unspeakable crimes of violence against them, could not marry, and later, when they could marry, could only marry someone of their race. And later than that, had to fight for the right to marry someone of a different race.

We have our own water fountain to drink from as well. We can go to any school, if we can suffer through the intolerance that some schools offer. We have no benefits for our partners in most states, and in 34 states in this country, it is still legal to fire us for being gay. We suffer unspeakable crimes of violence against us as well. We are unable to marry, except in Massachusetts, and even there, the spouses from those marriages are given no federal recognition because of the national Defense of Marriage Act. Indeed, not even a former gay congressman.

Former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, died Saturday at 69 after developing two blood clots, doctors said. Studds’ husband, Dean Hara, has since been informed that -- unlike heterosexual spouses of former members -- he can’t collect on his deceased husband’s pension.

The couple married in 2004 after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, but the federal government does not consider Hara a legitimate “spouse."

When a former member of Congress dies, his or her spouse is eligible to collect the member’s pension. But the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions, and pension administrators say they cannot release the funds to any relative other than a federally recognized spouse.

The Defense of Marriage Act -- passed in 1996 and opposed by only 67 members -- defines a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." (source)

Maybe it is payback time. If it is, and the Republicans lose big time in November, a part of me will take a lot of satisfaction from that. But we should remember that the Democrats haven’t always been our friends either. They have merely been a party of less disgust around our issues. They are lukewarm on national protections for us in the workplace, health care for our partners, and have stated that they do not endorse full marriage equality.

We can’t look to either party for anything. They are both made up of self serving politicians who care nothing about anything, other than holding on to their power. If we are to achieve equality, it will have to come from us, to show people truth, and who we are. This takes time, but the younger generation are getting it.

In the meantime, aside from a possible ass kicking of the Republican Party, more of this crap will continue:

States with gay marriage bans on November ballot

ARIZONA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

COLORADO
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman. Also, a separate referendum would extend many rights to domestic partners.

IDAHO - ("Peds queers fags" article)
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

SOUTH CAROLINA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

SOUTH DAKOTA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

TENNESSEE
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman.

VIRGINIA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman, foreclose the possibility of civil unions and endanger existing legal protections for unmarried couples.

WISCONSIN
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman, foreclose the possibility of civil unions and endanger existing legal protections for unmarried couples.

Source

Listen, I am not sure whether you got my first message or not. I am sort of concerned. People are making me feel uncomfortable and I don’t like being in the middle. Some of the staff are spreading rude jokes behind your back about your weight. I personally have no problem with you being you. Please don’t come back at me for informing. I just wish to help if anything. I thought about mentioning it to a boss but then to have something like this explode is silly and embarassing for everyone involved, including you being the center of attention. If you really want to make somewhat of a difference, I know my cousin and friend both used this and it worked very well for them. They grabbed it off the internet to keep a low profile & stay confidential. This was the site they got it from, if this helps any.

[ site name omitted ]

Again, I don’t like people insulting others behind their backs. I am only trying to help. Which I hope I am. Thanks for at least listening & I hope I am not out of line by writing this. I am only trying to help.

Mark

Well, perhaps I am a bit chubby, but it’s not that bad.

Life is not like a box of chocolates. It’s more like a jar of jalapenos, what you eat today may burn your ass tomorrow.

Arizona Senator and likely Republican presidential candidate John McCain raised some eyebrows last night by saying he is in favor of gay marriage. McCain told an NBC cable audience: “I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that.”

A few minutes later, McCain attempted to clarify his position, saying: “I believe that if people want to have private ceremonies that’s fine. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal.” (source)

Playing devil’s advocate here, let me turn his argument around.

“I think that heterosexual marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that. I believe that if straight people want to have private ceremonies that’s fine. I do not believe heterosexual marriage should be legal.”

Kind of puts bigotry all in perspective, doesn’t it? And I love the “if you want to call it that” part, that even puts the validity of the ceremony into question.

Early on, I had real hopes for John McCain as being a more intelligent and compassionate type. But now, I see that he’s just like the rest of the Republican ilk. If he runs for President in 2008, he will pretty much be a rubber stamp of what Bush stands for, which apparently at this point in time, is about coercion and torture.

The Catholic bishops of the United States, faced with ongoing controversy over the church’s posture toward homosexuality, next month will vote on a proposal that would condemn “scorn and hatred” of gays and lesbians but would also declare that gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt children, that baptizing the children of same-sex couples presents “a pastoral concern,” and that the church has the right to deny “roles of service” to gays and lesbians who are not celibate. (source)

Pure Catholic bullshit. People who want to say that denying gay couples a recognition of marriage or any social recognition, which is the core basis of what makes a “family”, or the ability to have children, are selling hatred.

To say that they condemn “scorn and hatred” of gays and lesbians is pure crap. This comes from a church who’s leader, the Pope, has called gays an “intrinsic moral evil”.

"Today I read how sex, drugs, and alcohol can destroy your life so today i decide to give up reading."

President Bush signed a sweeping terror interrogation and trial law this morning, creating a legal process for trying terrorism suspects and giving the president the power to determine whether interrogation methods violate international treaties.

“We will meet our obligation to protect our people. And no matter how long it takes, justice will be done,” Bush said at a White House bill-signing ceremony. “With the bill I’m about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice.”

The legislation applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq. Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration’s plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law. (source)

Now that we have officially become a country that participates in torture and death, I’m wondering how we are different from the “bad guys” who are terrorizing us? I also am worried about American soldiers who are captured. What treatment will they receive now that we have essentially thrown the Geneva Convention out the window?

You can’t fight evil by doing evil. John McCain, you of all people should know this!

First, there was Arnold Schwarzenegger who vetoed a bill in California that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. That made me want to burn all my Terminator movies and bury them in a shallow grave in my back yard.

Next, came Wesley Snipes, who has been indicted on eight counts of tax fraud and charged with failing to file returns from 1999 through 2004 (hey, he was buzzzy). So now what? Do I burn all my Blade DVD’s as well?

Yes, I know. They aren’t great works of the cinema, but I’m a Science Fiction junkie. What can I say? Until they produce a Madame Butterfly who sings perfectly who goes around hunting vampires with a sword, I’m afraid I’m stuck with Wesley Snipes.

BOSTON — When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, among those who tied the knot were former Rep. Gerry Studds and Dean Hara.

But getting married didn’t protect them under federal law: Hara has learned he is not eligible for any portion of Studds’ estimated annual $114,337 pension following his partner’s death last week.

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act blocks the federal government from recognizing the 2004 marriage between Studds and Hara or other same-sex couples. [...]

Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the death of Studds may illuminate an inequity Congress enacted in “an era of fear and trepidation of gay marriage” when it appeared Hawaii might allow same-sex marriage.

“This is maybe a moment of education for Congress,” he said. “Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses.” (source)

Education can only happen by those willing to learn.

A conservative activist group has written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking her why she used the “morally provocative” term “mother-in-law” to describe the mother of a homosexual man. [...]

“I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator,” Rice said at the ceremony. “I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark’s parents, Claire and Richard, his partner, Jason, and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that’s always important to us. Welcome,” Rice said. [...]

“The question arises, what guidelines do the State Department and White House follow? Neither federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act) nor District of Columbia law recognizes a marriage between Dr. Dybul and his partner, and ’mother in law’ is therefore both linguistically (and possibly legally) improper and morally provocative.

“Why did Secretary Rice deploy the term in the presence of the First Lady? We’ve written to ask her, and we’ll let you know what we hear,” said FRC (Family Research Council) President Tony Perkins. (source)

This is the agenda of the right wing Republican Party today. It is the agenda of the Family Research Council. The two agendas are the same, since the current Republican Party has been bought by these right wing lunatics. It only goes to show their true intentions -- when all is said in done, they want gay folks to have nothing; no public recognition, no public support of our relationships to cement our relationships, something they would call “stability”, nothing. They want us to have nothing. At some point, the party really has to ask themselves honestly, “what went wrong?” They used to be the party of “less intrusive government” and lower taxes. Now, it’s tax tax tax, and they have their noses in practically every aspect of our lives -- who can marry who; who is allowed to be recognized by the government as a “marriage” (or even a “family”, for that matter), so we don’t give away those wonderful marriage benefits to undesirables; what role the government has in the most intimate decisions a family could face (remember Terri Schaivo?).

They really have shown their cards. I first wrote about this on Oct. 12, 2006. I think the intent of Rice was to attempt to show some tolerance of our families -- something I felt was the act of lame and dishonest politics. I know, so what else is new? I know what these people really feel about us. The truth is, aside from the tax money that they suck from us, they really have no other need for our families. If it wasn’t for the money, talent, hard work, and diversity we pour into this American democracy, they would be very pleased if we were collectively taken to an island and quarantined. They won’t say that, but we all know it’s true. No one will say it, so I’ll say it.

So for Rice to acknowledge that there are indeed gay families out there and to make reference to this mans “mother-in-law”, acknowledged that family. Of course, this did not go unnoticed by the neocons such as the Family Research Council who were quick to point out that the term “mother-in-law” only exists because the state and federal governments has made it so through marriage. If no marriage exists, then the term is inaccurate. And, they are right.

But perhaps this has a silver lining to it. I want to tell myself, “baby steps....”. The Republican Party has a big problem on their hands. They’ve painted themselves into a corner on just about every issue there is; equality, immigration, the declining middle class, the pathetic minimum wage that they repeatedly refuse to raise, the lack of aggressive AIDS education to reach communities across the board because it will appear that they are promoting sex -- none of these issues are being addressed because we are “fighting the war on terror”. Well, if your own house collapses, what difference does it make?

A week ago today, and just six days before the religious right’s anti-gay hullabaloo, Liberty Sunday, Condi Rice swore in a new U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Dr. Mark R. Dybul.

The ceremony also featured a very curious group of people for a high-level Republican affair; from the State Department’s website:

“I would like to extend a special welcome to the First Lady. Mrs. Bush... a number of Ambassador Dybul’s family members joining us on this auspicious occasion. They include: partner, Jason Claire; mother, Claire Dybul; father, Richard Dybul; and mother-in-law, Marilyn Claire. Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to all of our distinguished guests.”

Dr. Dybul is gay, and is, ostensibly, “married” to Jason Claire. (source)

I’ve largely withdrawn from politics. Perhaps you’ve noticed me writing about it less and less? Quite honestly, it’s not worthy of my time or trouble. People don’t care. People don’t vote. People don’t get politically involved. And I can understand that when 95% of all politicians will lie to you about what they really believe. They may believe in some sort of equality, but they aren’t going to say that. They will talk about tax reductions, but when they are elected that all changes because they are confronted with the fact that you can’t reduce taxes when we are spending money like there is no tomorrow.

Perhaps there will be no tomorrow. Hell, I’m just going along for the ride at this point. It’s hard for me to get involved in politics today given that the mind set of the American population is to go to the polls and vote people’s rights away with the flick of a lever, without even knowing (or caring) about the PEOPLE they just screwed over. It’s hard for me to get involved when they put that above what our troops are going through in Iraq, what is going on in Korea, what is going on in Darfur, and how we are ruining our planet. There are even Americans who can’t tell you the name of the current President of the United States. For me to say I don’t care is saying a lot since I’m a political activist. At least I used to be.

The American populace is uneducated about a lot of things. But what they do know about are gay people, even though many have never known a gay person. I’m a gay man. That means that I’m a ..... potential (probable) pedophile, probably gay because I was sexually abused early in life, sex addict, probably do drugs, probably have AIDS, am trying to “recruit” their children into the homosexual “lifestyle”, trying to make my lifestyle “legitimate” by daring to ask to marry my partner of 31 years, and last but certainly not least, a “faggot”. We do love labels, don’t we? What else is there to know?

What do I say to that when that is what we’ve been reduced to? Is it worth my time to dignify that with an answer? Honestly, I’m more worried about letting my health club know my new credit card number since my last one was stolen, and getting my Xanax prescription refilled.

Other than that, life is good!

On Tuesday, October 10, 2006, we went to the Chihuly Exhibit at the New York Botanical Garden. I really didn’t know what to expect. We were going at the suggestion of our guests, Mary and Sandra. I’m so happy that I made the effort to go to this spectacular exhibit. Below is the write-up of this exhibit from the New York Botanical Garden website, followed by a few photos I took, and a link to all the photos we took while there.

A breathtaking stage is set for a breathtaking show. Renowned artist Dale Chihuly brings his spectacular glass sculpture to The New York Botanical Garden this summer in a stunning exhibition designed specifically for the Garden’s collections and vistas.

Art meets nature in his dramatically beautiful pieces, which have enthralled audiences around the world. The historic Enid A. Haupt Conservatory—America’s premier glasshouse—and other Garden landscapes provide a glorious setting for Chihuly’s organic shapes in brilliant colors. (NY Botanical Garden)

View entire set.

Chihuly Exhibit at the New York Botanical Garden

View entire set.

The colors around New England this year were not bad, but not as good as in past years. None the less, we very much enjoyed our trip with our friends, Mary and Sandra. These are a few of the photos we took along the way. The trip was taken on Sunday, October 8, 2006.

View entire set.

Fall colors of New England

A visit to a small town along the way

View entire set.

This is from a trip we took to Mystic Seaport on Monday, October 9, 2006. We first took a cruise on the Connecticut River, where the photo of Gillette Castle was taken. We ended up at Mystic Seaport, where we looked around before ending our day with dinner at the Flood Tide Restaurant. We had some friends visiting from Idaho and the dinner was in celebration of one of their birthdays, and Kent's birthday, which is tomorrow.

View entire set.

Gillette Castle from the Connecticut River

Mystic Seaport - one of the many boats on display

Mystic Seaport - the making of rope

Mystic Seaport

View entire set.

U.S. House leaders may have delayed taking action against former Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley because they were afraid of appearing anti-gay, according to Sen. Orrin Hatch.

Utah’s senator called Foley’s sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to congressional pages “abysmal” and inexcusable, but he also defended House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has drawn repeated criticism for not acting on concerns brought to his office earlier.

Hatch’s defense, presented to the Tribune editorial board earlier this week, centered on how busy Hastert is as the Republican leader in the House.

But he also said: “I don’t know anybody today in the Congress who wants to act or be homophobic, so that may be part of the problem here.” (source)

So, the Republicans would rather let a pedophile (who happens to be gay) remain free, so that they won’t be labeled “homophobic”? Do I have the logic right?

If they were really worried about being homophobic, perhaps they should have put a damper on trying to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep marriage out of reach for gay couples. I suppose they will say that they are “protecting the sanctity of marriage”. Well, you know what? That “protection” comes at a big price for gay couples who are also denied the financial benefits of marriage. And those benefits are quite substantial.

But you won’t hear them talking about that. They will say that it’s “up to the states” to determine if each state wants to afford gay couples any recognition what so ever. Not one Republican has made an effort to address these issues. So, for Senator Orrin Hatch to say that they didn’t go after Foley for fear of being “homophobic” just doesn’t really hold much water.

So why didn’t they go after him? What’s the real reason? It’s quite simple. In fact, it’s the same reason the Catholic Church kept moving pedophiles around to begin with; to hide the fact that there were pedophiles in their midst, and they happen to be Catholic. Or, in this case, Republican. So what did the Republicans do? They swept the issue under the carpet as if it didn’t exist, just like the Catholic Church.

And what do you think they will do from here on out? I’ll tell you. They will blame pedophilia on gay men.

Some conservatives have reacted to former Rep. Mark Foley’s sexual messages to teenage boys and announcement he is gay by suggesting homosexuals are more likely to molest children, a link that psychiatric groups say has no basis in fact.

Yet the stereotype seems to be sticking, repeated in the conservative and mainstream media. A columnist for the Wall Street Journal suggested that homosexuality exists on a continuum stretching from “just another gay guy” to “a compulsive, predatory sex offender.” (source)

It would seem that the Republican Party is full of homophobes. But we already knew that. What I find amusing is how they are now trying to deal with it. For example, today in USA Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in Mark Dybul, the nation’s “new global AIDS coordinator”. Not only that, she recognized his partner Jason Claire, and referred to Claire’s mother as Mark’s “mother-in-law”. In other words, Rice acknowledged them as a gay couple. Does the Republican Party even realize how transparent they are?

Hey, maybe this would be a good time to go after immigration rights for gay partners? Perhaps they could develop a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the partner of a gay couple who lives in a foreign country who wants to immigrate to the United States to stay with his partner? Don’t say you are the partner of a gay person living in the U.S., and we will let you in. Kind of like the don’t ask, don’t tell policy in place for our military now. And we all know how well that policy is working.

At a State Department ceremony this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warmly acknowledged the family members of Mark Dybul, whom she was swearing in as the nation’s new global AIDS coordinator.

As first lady Laura Bush looked on, Rice singled out his partner, Jason Claire, and Claire’s mother. Rice referred to her as Dybul’s “mother-in-law.”

The celebratory moment for a gay couple was emblematic of the political identity crisis facing the Republican Party, two years after an election the GOP won in part by making gay marriage an issue and less than two weeks after revelations about a Republican House member’s advances toward teenage boys.

“At first, it hurt me. But then I stopped crying because I realized that these people don’t know me and I don’t know them. But I would hate to be their child, having to come out of the closet to them.” - a 15 year-old 10th grader over hateful comments made at a protest over school recognition of Gay History Month.

It kind of reminds me of the protests over segregation in the 1950’s, all over again. And people say that the struggles of gay citizens is different from those of black citizens.

I suppose if you are African American today, and straight, it would be easy to try to distance yourself from this struggle. After all, an awful lot of people just don’t like gay people today. Kind of like the 1950’s when an awful lot of people just didn’t like “black” people all that much.

Even in places such as the very liberal Yale University, dark forms of bigotry can emerge.

The e-mail, which appeared to have been sent from a Yale e-mail account, claimed to be sponsored by the National Organization to Gain Acceptance for Your Sins, whose acronym is N.O.G.A.Y.S. Information Technology Services officials could not be reached for comment on Wednesday about whether the University is tracing the e-mail.

The early morning e-mail, sent under the alias “Yale LGBTTQQQQ … (et al.),” appeared to implicitly compare gays who come out to people who expose themselves as racists or Nazis. Flyers posted in areas including Cross Campus and the Yale post office had similar messages - one featured a picture of Sen. Joe Lieberman ’64 LAW ’67 (D-Conn.) and suggested that he is “coming out” as a Republican. Another suggested that actor Mel Gibson is coming out as an anti-Semite.

“There’s no shame in being who you are,” the e-mail said. “Just remember, admitting it doesn’t make it right.”

We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers’ unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. - Ben Stein

Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids. Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior for homosexuals doesn’t stop us from continuing to elevate such folks to positions where they gain access to our kids. - Linda Harvey

The funny thing is that you would think the left — particularly the gay left — would be a bit more interested in not having 16 and 17 year old teenagers classified as young children for legal/sexual/political purposes. If that were the case, then a whole lot of dirty old men would need to be prosecuted for felonies when they pick up street hustlers. - Jonah Goldberg, National Review

But in today’s politically correct culture, it’s easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert’s head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts’ decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where’s Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one? - Wall Street Journal editorial

The failure to use the word “homosexual” in describing Foley’s dirty talk is likely due to fear over being labeled “homophobic” or biased by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which exists to make sure that only positive portrayals of homosexuality are permitted in the media. Plus, the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association previously warned the media, in connection with sexual abuse by Catholic Priests, to avoid linking homosexuality to pedophilia. ..... But knee-jerk references to Democratic misconduct won’t get Republicans off the hook on this one. This is the time for conservative media outlets, including the blogs, to insist that the Republican Party and the conservative movement stop protecting homosexuals in its ranks. The pro-homosexual groups in the Republican Party which shielded Foley from legitimate questions about his closeted life should be exposed and discredited. - Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media

“...well, this man’s gay; he does what gay people do and so don’t worry about it.” - Pat Robertson

Just a few little tidbits from the Internet. I guess now I know why my neighbor has assumed that I am a child molester, without even knowing me. It’s ok -- we’ve both agreed to deny the existence of each other. Besides, they are hardly ever home which I find strange since they have school-aged children. Yet, they will be gone a week at a time. Wonder if I’m a nosey neighbor?

I guess if you are a gay male, many people assume you have a tendency to try to molest children. It’s rather frightening to think that many people pre-label you in this manner.

As far as Pat Robertson is concerned, I’m not too worried. Truthfully, the man is a nut case. He’s also talking about assassinating people again...

“We have the ability to take him [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”

“We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,” he continued. “It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” - Pat Robertson

Jolting the gay-rights movement back a step, a divided state appeals court Thursday upheld California’s ban on same-sex marriage and warned that judges should steer clear of resolving the controversy.

The bulky ruling set the stage for a long-anticipated showdown in the California Supreme Court and dashed the hopes of gay-rights advocates seeking to gain legal recognition for same-sex couples across the state. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a trial judge who last year found the state ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

The justices made it clear that it’s up to the voters or the Legislature to decide if gay couples can wed, not the courts.

“The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions,” Justice William McGuiness wrote for the majority. “That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.” (source)

And here I thought that the role of the judicial system was to interpret constitutional law. Boy was I wrong.

The state constitution either demands equality, or it doesn’t. Either way, for the court to say that it’s up to the legislature to handle is a cop out. What happens if the legislature does nothing? What avenue do citizens have then?

Some people feel that we should not carry this to the U.S. Supreme Court, because they feel that we would lose. I say, take it to the Supreme Court. Let them rule that in this day and age, it is still perfectly fine to have second class citizens in this country. At least then, we will have it in a formal ruling that some citizens are not equal to others. That will be what America has become about -- inequality.

And again, I’m merely reporting my opinion on this. I actually no longer invest emotional baggage in this, and I’m happier for it. I just feel that it speaks volumes about where our country is today. You can be against gays and gay couples, but the larger picture here is the endorsement of a second class standing in this country for some U.S. citizens.

Is that what America is going to be about now?

And over in New Jersey...

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine will not approve legislation banning gay marriage if the state’s highest court rules that such unions are legal, a Corzine spokesman said yesterday.

The Democrat governor has said marriage should be between a man and a woman and has not voiced support for legalizing gay marriage, but the comments by his administration was a key indication of potential fallout from a pending state Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions.

“If the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is constitutional, the governor would not sign legislation to take away people’s rights,” said spokesman Anthony Coley on the same day gay marriage opponents rallied at the state Capitol. (source)

A ruling in New Jersey is expected by October 25.

Let’s be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there’s a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone. (source)

Apparently, there’s now a “list” out of people who will probably take the fall for the Foley scandal. The list includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications. It’s not known if the people actually on the list are gay or not, but the current line of thinking (if you can call it that) is that there is some sort of gay network in Washington, and that we protect our own. In other words, it’s the gays who are causing all of this and how the Republicans are probably going to spin this. That is how this story is evolving. And if there’s one thing that religious conservatives hate worse than dishonesty, it’s homosexuals--especially homosexuals who are representing them!

It all kind of reminds me of the Joe McCarthy era when we were hunting for “communists”. I guess homosexuals are the new communists today. Of course, Joe McCarthy also went after gays as well. But it’s good that we have moved beyond government spying of gay Americans.

As for those gay people who serve (or “work for”, if you prefer) extremely homophobic politicians, I’m at a loss to know how to respond...

What’s interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it’s accurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices? After all, Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. (source)

How does one work for someone who puts you on the same level as someone who would have sex with animals? I guess you would have to have no self-respect what so ever.

And here’s a thought... Religious conservatives love to talk about “high moral character”. How can you have “high moral character” when you have no personal integrity? Is it possible to have both at the same time?

WASHINGTON - A senior congressional aide said Wednesday he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office about worrisome conduct by Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) toward teenage pages more than

three years ago,

long before officials have acknowledged becoming aware of the issue.

Kirk Fordham made his comments to The Associated Press in an interview as a Kentucky Republican canceled a campaign fundraising event with Hastert. Rep. Ron Lewis (news, bio, voting record) said he wants to know the facts behind a scandal that has roiled Republicans since last week.

“I’m taking the speaker’s words at face value,” Lewis said in an interview. “I have no reason to doubt him. But until this is cleared up, I want to know the facts.

“If anyone in our leadership has done anything wrong, then I will be the first in line to condemn it.” (source) Highlighting my own

I guess I’m to the point of obsessing about Foley, but this story just keeps getting stranger and stranger. I can buy into the whole in-the-closet thing. But using alcohol and being sexually abused as an excuse to further abuse children just seems like a complete cop-out to me. I don’t have much sympathy for it.

You know, everyone has periods in their life that are just plain hard to get through. We all know that. But you don’t substitute that hardship by making other people’s lives more difficult. Especially when they are at a significant disadvantage to you.

But now, it’s coming out that House Speaker Dennis Hastert was told about this abuse 3 years ago, and did nothing about it! So, what’s his excuse going to be? He got bit by his dog which cause sudden amnesia?

It just boggles the mind the world these people live in.

Gay Rights Group: “AIDS is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it.” [...]

Words like disaster, humiliated, and saddened are being used by gays to describe the campaign, but the Center is defending the ads, saying, “If we have learned anything in the past 25 years, it is that we must speak the truth no matter how uncomfortable some may find it.” That’s good news to Randy Thomas of Exodus International, who lost several friends when he was gay.

“So to watch the gay identified community of today take personal responsibility for this issue was astounding to me, and something that affected me personally.”

Thomas want’s to take the message one step further.

“And it’s important for the Christian community to wake up as well, that we own the responsibility to minister to those dealing with HIV.”

While it may be a gay disease, it’s a human problem. (source)

And if AIDS is a “gay disease”, how does this explain the incidence of AIDS in Africa, where 90% of AIDS transmissions are done by heterosexuals?

AIDS is not a gay disease. It’s an opportunistic disease. The gay community has owned it and has for a very large part been responsible in it’s handling of the disease. There are admittedly people in the gay community who don’t care about this issue any longer. I hear stories more and more about some who practice unsafe sex. This is also very true about the straight community who still feel that they are not effected by AIDS.

To label this as a “gay disease” is dishonest and accomplishes nothing in terms of controlling this disease. But boy do the Christians love it. If they were really interested in helping, they’d stop with all the damn finger pointing and labels, roll up their sleeves, and try to be part of the solution instead of making worthless accusations.

It’s easy to throw stones.

One senior House Republican told CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger that this scandal "could be the congressional equivalent of Katrina. Our base is moral conservatives and we look like a bunch of hypocrites who just didn't want another scandal before the election."

Meeting with reporters Monday, Hastert said his aides and Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., heeded the wishes of the parents of the former House page, who wanted such questionable e-mails to stop but didn't want the matter pursued. Shimkus and the House clerk told Foley last fall to cut off all communication with the former page, who lived in Louisiana.

Hastert says neither Shimkus nor his own aides saw the 2005 e-mail, noting that it was far less sexually explicit than the electronic messages that ABC News revealed last week.

"There wasn't much there other than a friendly inquiry," Hastert said of the 2005 message from Foley, R-Fla., described as "sick" by the boy. The message asked for a photograph and mentioned a different teen who was in "great shape." (source) Highlighting my own

It amazes me that the Republicans are now looking for dark cover away from the light of this controversy. Just a few of thoughts....

1) They compare this to President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. Dare I point out that Monica Lewinski was an adult? That small omission from their argument makes a big difference.

2) Yes, they do look like a bunch of hypocrites, because they are. If you are going to preach "moral values" and "family values" and use those values as a weapon, then you must realize that that same weapon can be used against you. So when that happens, and you try to push the blame on to something else; Bill Clinton and his affair, or the use of alcohol by Rep. Foley to justify his actions, don't be surprised if some will see you as a hypocrite.

3) I can understand that the parents of this teenager didn't want the matter pursued. IRRELEVANT! There was possible criminal activity involved (just read the private messages exchanged between Foley and the teenager), and, more important, how many other children could have been involved.

To me, this logic is similar to that of a rape victim. He/she may not want to pursue the rape because of the stigma of public exposure. But what you have to realize is that the rapist could be doing the same thing to other people. The fact that Rep. Foley specifically made reference to yet another teen should suggest this, and be grounds for an investigation.

4) Pointing to his use of alcohol as the reason Rep. Foley did these deeds is a diversion. It's the same damn argument used to suggest that being a gay man makes you want male children. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions and may make you act out on something that was already there to begin with, namely, his desire (well known by many apparently) to be with male teenagers. I'll grant you that. He drank, and acted out on impulses that were already there. To blame that on alcohol is nonsense.

Aside from the lurid details that are coming out of this, what sickens me most is a complete denial of responsibility from the heart of this matter by Foley's party, and Rep. Foley himself. An investigation should be done, and those who had information and didn't come forward with that information are just as guilty as Foley himself. They should resign.

Remember the Catholic priests who abused so many children? That was allowed to flourish for decades because no one in power came forward and took responsibility. Which brings up another possibility. Perhaps we have a Catholic priest scenario playing out here. Are there others who have abused congressional pages, both heterosexual and homosexual, that we still know nothing about? It makes you wonder.

We are dealing with people's lives here, and Foley's party is talking about how this is going to potentially make them look bad in November.

How sick is that?

I’ve written various articles on the subject of gay men donating blood. In the United States, all who have had sex with another many since 1977, regardless of the fact that all blood is tested. This is a very dangerous game the blood banks are playing. Perfectly good blood is being turned away that could be used, and yet, the American Red Cross are always complaining about being short of blood, and doing blood drives all the time. But that’s my pet peeve - one of simple discrimination without any scientific basis for it what so ever.

Scientifically, all blood is tested. Statistically, gay men practice safer sex than heterosexual men, many of whom (who donate blood) have been with prostitutes (many of whom do not practice safe sex because their clients don’t like to wear condoms). No one has disputed these facts. And yet, get men are banned for life from giving blood, while others who engage in risky sexual behavior are allowed to give blood, after a short period of time after their last risky sexual behavior. And, that is discrimination. Many would argue that if it’s discrimination where the blood supply is concerned, that is acceptable.

But I’m willing not to use the “D”(iscrimination) word for a bit. Let’s just look at the safety issues this policy presents to all of us. This spells it out pretty well, from a Canadian blogger.

Still the blood service feels they are being reasonable in limiting blood donations from gays to those who haven’t had any sex in six months. They have missed the whole point. No other population group is excluded from donating blood. In fact they recently changed the rules so that black blood can be mixed with white blood. Horror of horrors.

The decision in South Africa actually highlights the problems and the systemic discriminatory practice being applied around the world and here in Canada against gay men. The six month no sex and you can give blood rule is meant to ensure the gay man has been pre-screened for HIV, a standard not applied to any other group.

The stupidity in this position is that all blood is screened for HIV and other diseases and viruses after it is collected. The wrong in it is that it implies all gay men, even those that practice safer sex, are too much a risk to accept their blood. Instead of using a more practical tool such as pre-screening for unsafe sexual or drug injection activity, gay men are forbidden to donate. [...]

We practiced safer sex methods. In fact I am willing to bet that gay men use condoms more than any other group in society. 77% of us use condoms during sex according to surveys conducted in British Columbia. I would ask if there is any other group out there that can match that number. I seriously doubt it.

Yet despite the facts, hysteria and hypocrisy rules the day. In order to rebuild confidence in the safety of our blood supply gay men were vilified without any scientific basis to support such a ban. Gay men have been paying the price since. So have blood collection services.

Now a huge pool of perfectly good blood is left circulating in my body and others while hospitals are screaming for donations every long weekend and all summer long. “Warning only two days blood supply on hand.” You have all heard these warnings. (source)

And here in the United States, they are looking to change the rules a bit, similar to what Canada is doing. As so many other things in life, when you grow older, your priorities change. I’m coming to a point in my life that I view those who practice discrimination towards me as the same as a gay basher. They have issues.

But most importantly, those issues are only my issues if I let them be my issues (if I allow myself to care about them). That’s right. I’ve learned that I actually have the power to decide what I will and will not care about. The fact that the Red Cross won’t allow me to give blood is no longer a concern of mine. Their shortages of blood are no longer my concern, because they haven’t taken the steps to remove themselves from their own discriminatory practices and look at the scientific evidence; drug users are not banned for life, heterosexual men who visit prostitutes are not banned for life. To me, this puts the American Red Cross and the CDC right down their with the common street-thug-gay-basher. No more, no less.

Don’t concern yourself with the fact that you might feel that I have a poor attitude. I’m simply done with the issue. Today, if the ban were completely lifted, I would not give blood. It’s a matter of principle for me. What you really should concern yourself with today is the real safety of the current blood, surrounded by screening policies that are rotted in hysteria and misinformation.

P.S. I won’t be committing to being celibate for six months in order to donate so forget that possibility, even if all of you agree to a rule that says anyone that has had sex in the last six months can’t donate. There is only so much I am willing to give up. (source)

Nor would I submit to a six month period of celibacy. I’m not going to dignify their request at the expense of my own pride. Too much has been sacrificed already by people like me while others who engage in unsafe practices are given a free ride, so to speak.