January 2007 Archives

Cheney went off on CNN’s “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday’s episode, after Blitzer congratulated the Vice President on the impending birth of his grandchild, while adding that there are some conservative groups who are critical of Mary’s pregnancy.

Blitzer read him a statement from Focus on the Family, a social-conservative group that believes it’s not best for a child to be raised by single-sex parents, like Mary Cheney and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

“Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father, doesn’t mean it’s best for the child.” [...]

Cheney: “I’m delighted -- I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf, and obviously think the world of both of my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.”

Blitzer: “That was just a question that’s come up and it’s a responsible, fair question.” (source)

Why wasn’t it a fair question? Suddenly, now that the Focus on the Family (one of the Administrations’ backers) are questioning the construction or Mary Cheney’s family, her father tears Blitzer’s head off with a simple question. Usually people do that when something hits a nerve. It’s not as though Mary is being outed.

Cheney’s anger is misdirected. The people he should be shouting at is the Focus on the Family crowd, who should be focusing on their own damn families (people who throw stones at glass houses...). They are the ones who disrespected Mary’s family. Wolf Blitzer merely followed up with a question concerning the comments from Focus on the Family. But then again, if Cheney took them on, that could jeopardize contributions from Focus on the Family, and we can’t have that can we?

Which brings me to my question of Dick Cheney. He’s so damned defensive about this issue of his daughter’s family, that there is obviously something in his closet that he doesn’t want to get out. I would personally have a bigger issue with him being a lesbian (would be wrong on so many levels) than I would the war in Iraq. At least with the war in Iraq, I can understand it. He loves war because there is big money to be made (by some) in war. I get it. The anger he displays over a simple question, I don’t get. Dick Cheney is still acting like the year is 1955. Why?

Public Officials and Civil Rights
The mayors of both Millville and Vineland said Monday they will no longer perform marriages of any kind in an effort to avoid the marriage of gay and lesbian couples. [...]

The mayors said their decision stems from religious beliefs.

“our refusal to perform these ceremonies is based on each of our individual beliefs, i.e., that marriage is intended to be a union between a man and a woman. At the same time, we recognize alternative lifestyles in our communities, we value the many contributions of those citizens to the community and we give every respect to their civil rights and privileges the same as for all citizens,” according to the mayors’ statement. (source)

I have mixed feelings on this. I can understand that the mayors have decided not to perform the civil unions for gay couples (recently allowed in New Jersey) because of their religious convictions. To get around civil rights violations, they have opted to perform no marriages for straight couples or civil unions for gay couples. However, they are public officials, and as public officials, shouldn’t they be required to discharge the duties of their office without religious bias? And, doesn’t this open up the possibility that all public officials could also decide to not to perform marriages or civil unions?

That would effectively kill civil unions in New Jersey. For those heterosexual couples who wanted to get married, they could still go to a church to get married.

So now, we have some mayors who have decided not to perform marriages or civil unions. And, the article states that, “The law empowers any number of public officials to perform these ceremonies and in fact, several officials have already gone on record with their willingness to do so.” That’s fine, but does that mean that gay couples now have to shop around the state to see what public servant will perform their civil union?

Doesn’t sound like equal treatment to me.

Grey’s Anatomy star to meet with “gay activists”
“Grey’s Anatomy” star Isaiah Washington, under fire for using a gay slur about a co-star, met Monday with gay rights activists who said he agreed to help educate the public about the cruelty of such language.

“He seemed very sincere in his interest in working with us in an ongoing basis,” Kevin Jennings, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. “We emphasized that this is not a one-shot deal, but an ongoing thing. He was very open to doing this.” (source)

Another Hollywood publicity stunt. What a waste of time. It’s working. This is all over the TV and the Internet. So dumb.

Other reads....
Bush will talk about our health care crisis in the State of the Union address tomorrow night. Or is that tonight? I forget (I won’t be watching as it conflicts with my As The World Turns episode time slot). He will talk only briefly I’m told about the war in Iraq. Isn’t that kind of like mopping your floors while the house is burning down around you?

Selenium Supplements Add Punch to HIV Fight
HIV patients now have a surprising and simple way to help keep their infection under control: daily doses of a mineral called selenium.

Daily selenium supplements seem to “tame” the HIV virus and strengthen the immune system, according to research published in today’s issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. [...]

Antioxidant Powers May Give Selenium Strength Against HIV. Scientists aren’t sure how selenium works to tame the virus. One theory is that selenium’s antioxidant powers enable it to repair damage to the immune system. A stronger immune system is better able to fight off viruses like HIV. (source)

I thought this was interesting. I’ve always heard that people should take Selenium for a variety of reasons. I think the problem is that Selenium can be deadly (so Kent tells me) in high doses, and many of the people pushing this don’t necessarily tell people that too much of it can be a bad thing (as in, death). Also, there are many foods that are extremely high in antioxidant, such as blueberries. Perhaps the best source of nutrients comes from everyday food, without popping pills.

Of course, HIV is a different monster all together, and if Selenium will boost the effects of medications, I would go for it, with your doctor’s approval.

Federal marriage ban is shelved
A proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide has been shelved in light of the congressional takeover by the Democratic Party, Colorado’s Pueblo Chieftain newspaper reported.

The proposal’s sponsors, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, both Colorado Republicans, said last week they have no plans to reintroduce their anti-gay legislation in the new Congress.

“At this time, I haven’t discussed it with anyone,” Allard told the newspaper Thursday. “If we thought there was a decent chance to bring it to the floor for debate, I would, but with the new Congress, I’m not sure we will ever have that opportunity.” (source)

I am getting a lot of satisfaction from this one. Musgrave, with all due respect, you may now go crawl back under that rock you came out from under. And take your hateful, mean-spirited soul with you.

And I’ll leave you with these thoughts. Yes, I did watch the State of the Union Address.

“As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.” - Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Thursday, December 9, 2004

“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in.” - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 23, 2007

I was heartened to read this editorial this morning in the Hartford Courant. We have had civil unions in the state of Connecticut for a year now. Kent and I have opted not to get one. We are going to wait for marriage. This year, legislation will be introduced for full marriage equality for gay couples. I’m not sure what it’s chances are, but as long as people are talking about this, there’s reason to hope, right?

Mark Twain famously illustrated the difference between the right word and the almost right word by using as an example the difference between “lightning” and “lightning bug.” Although the writer chose humor to get his point across, his message should be taken seriously.

To same-sex couples, one word - marriage - can be life-changing. No matter how long they have been together as a family, no matter how many children they have raised, no matter how much they love each other, only in one state, Massachusetts, do they have the choice to marry. Even then, they are denied many of the legal rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.

The extent of their commitment is not recognized in other states, and most glaringly, by the federal government. Same-sex couples can’t file joint federal tax returns or qualify for Social Security benefits at the death of a partner. They can’t give tax-free gifts to their mates or even get divorced. Except in Connecticut and Vermont, which recognize civil unions, they can’t make medical decisions for each other.

Perhaps most poignantly, they can’t give their children the security of knowing that their parents are legally bonded in the same way as children of heterosexual parents.

Connecticut can be proud that it took a step toward ending this discrimination by granting gay and lesbian couples the right to form civil unions, the first state to do so without pressure from the courts. Now, it is time to continue the conversation with a goal of making same-sex marriage a reality.

“Civil union” is the almost-right word, but not the right one. It constitutes a separate status. This is not equality. Yes, the status gives same-sex couples state legal rights that married couples enjoy. But civil unions do not bestow upon them that all-important word, married, a universally understood sign of commitment and social acceptance.

Passage of civil union legislation should not stand as a reason or an excuse to forgo debate on what same-sex couples really want and deserve - to be seen as married in the eyes of the state. Nor should lawmakers defer to the state Supreme Court, soon to hear a case that may bear on the same-sex marriage question. It is the responsibility of all branches of government to end discrimination where it exists.

Beth Kerrigan and Jody Mock, plaintiffs in the pending Supreme Court case, have been together for 14 years. They have two 5-year-old boys they have raised since infancy. They live, in their own words, “a normal life.” Yet they and their children are denied the emotional security of true marriage.

It is ironic that their struggle for equality comes at a time when heterosexual marriages are not only failing at a greater rate, but declining. The U.S. Census shows that the percentage of households headed by married couples is in the minority. For the first time, more American women live without spouses than with them. This says a lot about greater choices and about changing values. But society should encourage more stable families, not fewer.

It is folly to deny couples who embark on a permanent commitment the right to legitimate recognition. What’s in a word? For those who want to marry and can’t, plenty. (source)

There were many comments entered to the editorial. This is what I added.

This is exactly why my partner and I have not received a “civil union”. After being together for 31 years, we simply feel that applying this second-class status of a “civil union” to our relationship, is simply beneath it’s dignity.

We worry about the future and about what protections we don’t have, as a gay couple. We worry about this every time we take a trip, with our legal papers in hand, hoping that, if something should happen, they would be honored. But what price do you put on the dignity of yourself, and your relationship, if you are willing to apply a second-class arrangement to it?

If civil unions are so equal, how many heterosexual married couples would be willing to trade in their marriage for a civil union? (source)

And so, we begin the whole process again. A bill is indeed being introduced shortly to allow gay couples to enter into civil marriage. We’ll wait and see what happens. Attending legislative hearings is tough business because you have to sit there and listen to a whole gamut of people who have their opinions of gay people; from saying that we should be equal, to saying that we are perverts who should probably be in jail.

I remember one person last time who stated that we were wasting time talking about this issue because gay people were not being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry. That person smuggly said, with a bit of a smirk on his face that, “Gay people are not kept from marriage. They can marry anyone they want, as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex.” I had to fight an impulse to dart across the chamber, beat the crap out of him and say, “And THIS is your sanctity of marriage?” And here, all this time, I thought that marriage was about love.

So, I may not attend these hearings, unless we are asked to make a statement to the panel from a long-time couple.

HARTFORD - Debate on legalizing gay marriage in the state will begin next week.

Love Makes a Family of Connecticut, the chief proponent of 2005’s landmark civil-union legislation, has scheduled a press conference for Jan. 31 at the Capitol with the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-New Haven.

No bill has been drafted yet, McDonald said.

“This will be introducing the concept for debate,” he said in an interview. “It would allow any couple, regardless of sexual orientation, to enter into a civil marriage.” (source)

I’m really trying to love winter. I am, honestly. It’s just that, if I were a bird, I’d be a flamingo; colorful, flamboyant, proud, and a lover of warm weather!

If I were President, I’d call for a constitutional amendment outlawing winter. I’d also take “Winter” out of Vivaldi’s, The Four Seasons. Be gone with it! Perhaps there could be two summers... something along that line.

Trees letting all their beautiful leaves fall should stop! Trees in the tropics deal with life without doing that. I think it’s fine to go through their little “fall color” thing, where they are all shades of orange and red, but then, go back to green.

I suppose that has about as much chance of happening as Mitt Romney introducing legislation (when he becomes President) for not only allowing gay couples to get married, but to also paint The White House something other than white! Honestly, haven’t we all had enough WHITE for awhile. Let’s paint The White House, I don’t know... “eggshell”, or “coral” (would be lovely), or “lightsalmon” (yumm), or “papeyawhip”, or perhaps “lavenderblush”? And while we are at it, why would it have to be just one color? I think we are going to need a committee formed to stop the obsession we have with white. Everyone says, “...but white goes with everything...”. Of course it goes with everything because it doesn’t do anything!

I would need another year to think about window treatments. Let’s just get some color on the house first!

Back to winter...

We even bought snow shoes this year. I’m a lousy skier, as in, I spend all my time trying to avoid the trees. And the whole time, I’m thinking about someplace warm. But Kent loves winter. So, I decided to give this snow shoe thing a try, all the while being convinced by others that it’s a blast. The only problem is, there’s no snow this winter. None. Just really cold weather. It was 6 degrees last night. Simply awful.

The network Thursday rebuked co-star Isaiah Washington for an anti-gay comment made during a backstage interview Monday at the Golden Globes regarding his co-star T.R. Knight. [...]

In an apology Thursday, Washington acknowledged “repeating the word Monday night.” He said “I can neither defend nor explain my behavior.”

Washington also said that “there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I’ve asked for help.”

He said that he welcomes the chance to meet with gay and lesbian community leaders “to apologize in person and to talk about what I can do to heal the wounds I’ve opened.” (source)

I’ve been watching this drama from Grey’s Anatomy along with the rest of America. First, there was the spat between Washington and Dempsey on the set where Washington told Dempsey they he wasn’t his little “faggot”, with the implication that co-star T.R. Knight was the “faggot” in question.

Later T.R. came out as gay to everyone. Washington, at the time, apologized. Now, he’s done it again. You know, he said it in a joking way, saying, “I’m not a faggot...”, and laughing about it. He doesn’t get it. Would it still be funny if one of the white stars on the series went to the microphone and blurted out, “I’m no nigger!”. See where I’m going with this?

And as long as I’m on the topic, I’m tired of people referring to “nigger” as “the N word” when they don’t refer to “faggot” as the “the F word” (yes, I know... they are often referring to another “F word”). Both are just as hurtful and are on the same playing field.

Bottom line, two things need to happen. We, and Mr. Washington both need to come to the realization that Mr. Washington is simply a bigot. Second, there is no need to apologize to “gay and lesbian community leaders” for this because he had his chance the first time.

Mr. Washington should be a man and simply admit, “I’m no faggot, but I am a bigot.” He’d be happier, and I know I’d be happier because we could move on to the next drama on T.V. I swear, Hollywood lives in it’s own world of reality. Everyday, gay people are called faggots. I hear it quite often. I simply move on, and let them be as long as they let me be. No big deal. They make assumptions about me, and I make assumptions about them, and we move on. I’m not sure why the truth is so difficult for some to handle.

This entry is not politically correct, but there are times when I think political correctness is a load of crap. We should just call a spade (no pun intended), a spade, without regard to whom we might hurt. Right Mr. Washington? That seems to work for you.

In 2002, researchers from Oregon Health & Science University announced the findings from their analysis of 27 sheep that suggest “marked differences” in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual male sheep, or rams.

The researchers observed that the preoptic hypothalamus — the region of the brain that influences sexual behavior and partner preference — in heterosexual rams contained higher levels of a group of neurons known as the sexually dimorphic nucleus, than the preoptic hypothalamus of rams who prefer to mate with other rams.

The researchers also concluded that the volume of the sexually dimorphic nucleus in gay rams is similar to what is found in female sheep, or ewes. Essentially, it means that heterosexual rams had higher levels of testosterone in their sexually dimorphic nucleus compared to gay ram and ewe. [...]

But critics of the experiment, led by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, assign much more sinister implications to studying sexual orientation among sheep. In particular, they point to researchers’ follow-up studies that attempted to determine “whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment … [in order] to test their hypothesis regarding development of this area of the brain.”

Those follow-up studies — some of whose results were published in the June 2006 issue of the journal Endocrine — involved pregnant ewes receiving testosterone-inhibiting treatments, either surgically or by injection, to determine whether the level of testosterone in the womb determined a baby sheep’s sexual orientation. The results from the studies were inconclusive, but critics argue they could open the door to human beings attempting to influence a child’s sexual orientation prenatally.

“Obviously, this carries insidious implications that homosexuality can be cured,” said Shalin Gala, a research associate for PETA. [...]

“PETA will co-opt whatever cause it can to help advance their own agenda, and that’s what PETA has done with the gay community,” Roselli said. (source)

In the future, will I exist?

Awhile back, I sent an email to Dr. Roselli concerning his research. According to the research, 8 per cent of rams are gay and another 8 per cent are sexually ambivalent, showing no sexual interest in ewes or rams. And after this hormone treatment, some of the gay sheep started showing interests in ewes.

I suppose it’s no surprise that Dr. Roselli didn’t respond to my email. I did after all suggest that others had worked in this field in the past and suggested that instead of starting from scratch, that he may benefit from some of their findings. In particular, I suggested that Doctor Josef Mengele (a.k.a. the “Angel of Death”), one of his predecessors had done experiments in the area of changing sexual orientation in actual people — although most of his subjects never survived the procedure. I concluded the email by saying, “So, does this make you a Nazi? People like you scare the hell out of me and it’s up to people like me to expose what you are up to, IF I’m around in the future to do that.”

Too extreme? Well, let me paint a scene for you. I’m going to use an analogy from the Star Trek series (particularly “The Next Generation” series). One of the moral and ethical problems that became apparent when we mastered time travel, was the ability to change the future. These lessons did not come easily. One very small change could cause consequences that would have devastating effects in the future. Because of this, the “Prime Directive” (do not interfere with the development of worlds that were less advanced, thereby ensuring that whatever their future was, it would be natural for them) was enforced. The Prime Directive states:

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

Later, when we developed the ability for time travel, the “Temporal Prime Directive” was put into place. It stated, “All Starfleet personnel are strictly forbidden from directly interfering with historical events and required to maintain the timeline and prevent history from being altered.”

So how does this effect what I’m talking about? We are talking about the extinction of a certain class of people. There is no doubt what so ever in my mind how this research will be used in the future. Tests will be developed for pregnant women to determine the chances of her producing homosexual offspring. If she is “at risk”, no worry. They will give her a patch containing the necessary hormones that she can simply wear on her arm, assuring her that her baby will turn out to be normal (heterosexual).

Dr. Roselli states, “We’re studying the physiology of behavior, not looking for ways to apply it.” If that is what he truly believes, he lives in Wonderland. I can name a few people right off the top of my head who would exterminate homosexuals via this sanitary and sterile way without a second thought: Dr. Paul Cameron, Rev. Pat Robertson, Rev. Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Gary Bauer, and many others.

The moral and ethical question is this: Should I be exterminated before I exist?

Of everything that I’ve experienced in life, good or bad, I think that it is better to have existed, than to not have had a choice in my existence.

The elimination of people like me would solve a great many of society’s problems. Marriage equality for gays would not be an issue because gay people would not exist. Gay bashing would not be an issue because gay people would not exist. Civil rights issues for gays would not be an issue because gay people would not exist.

Think about it without emotional thought. If this were to happen, what you are reading right now, along with this entire blog, would never have existed. We would never even know if that was good or bad, because it never would have existed. My people... would have been erased.

He (Martin Luther King, Jr.) had been jailed in Birmingham, Alabama because of his civil rights leadership. Eight white clergy placed an ad in one of Birmingham’s newspapers questioning his right to be in their city, and suggesting strongly that he and ‘The Movement’ become more moderate in their approach.

In his letter he wrote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

---

If we who are black are unable to be in an ally/advocate relationship with our GLBT sisters and brothers of every race in their struggle, our commitment to the black justice struggle loses a bit of its integrity. The negative attitudes of black persons and other persons of color toward the rights of gay persons, suggests that we have forgotten our own struggles that continue to this day.

I cannot comprehend nor understand their theology nor their understanding of justice of many African churchmen who seem to be more ’worked up’ about a gay Episcopal bishop than they are about the legacy of colonialism that is still present in their nations and their churches, the tragedy of the deaths of millions because of HIV/AIDS, the poverty that exists all around them and in places, the appearance that black totalitarianism is valid when white totalitarianism was not.

As a clergyman, I believe Dr. King would vigorously oppose those in religion who use Scripture to justify their denial of human rights in the church and beyond of those who love someone of the same-sex. He would remind religious leaders of how historically, the Bible has been used to oppress persons, only in time to reverse their resistance.

Source

View entire set

A Walk on the Casco Bay Trail

View entire set