Recently in Gay Marriage Category

I heard about this yesterday, and could hardly believe it. Basically, as far as the U.S. Census is concerned, gay couples who are married don't exist. Read more...

The Census Bureau says the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the agency from recognizing gay marriages in the nation's 10-year count, even though the marriages are legal in Massachusetts and California.

The agency's director, Steven Murdock, said in an interview Thursday that the 1996 federal law "has that effect, in terms of being a federal agency. We are restricted by it."

The Census Bureau does not ask people about their sexual orientation, but it does ask about their relationships to the head of the household. Many gay couples are listed in census figures as unmarried, same-sex partners, though it is an imperfect tally of all gay couples.

Murdock said the bureau will strive to count same-sex couples in the 2010 census, just as it has in the past. But those people who say they are married will be reclassified as unmarried, same-sex partners.

Same-sex couples with no children will not be classified as families, according the bureau's policy. Those with children who are related to the head of the household will be classified as families. (source)

I remember putting down that we are "married". Yes I know, no one sees us that way. We are, to the law, state and federal, "legal strangers", but I said, screw it... I KNOW WHAT WE ARE. So I put down "married", and I listed Kent as my "spouse".

Now I find out that we didn't count. Not only that, gay couples who are really married by a state don't count. NICE.

Going off to a nice room somewhere and repeating 100 times, "I love my country. I do! I do! I do!"

"Let the people decide."

The slogan has a nice, democratic ring to it. Look for it on bumper stickers in the next few months, as a coalition of special interests asks you to vote "yes" on opening the state constitution to revisions. The coalition includes a conservative cross-section of groups opposed to gay marriage, abortion rights and high taxes.

The Constitution Convention Campaign wants to amend the state constitution to permit ballot initiatives, letting citizens make laws by referendum. Supporters say "initiative referenda," as they're called, would transfer power to average citizens from the handful of politicians who control the agenda in Hartford. And supporters insist it's not about a single issue (gay marriage) but a broad set of reforms. (source)

I never thought this would really happen in Connecticut... a referendum system of passing laws. Apparently, there are some who want that to happen. If we are honest with ourselves, their main goal is to stop what will happen eventually; marriage equality for gay couples. But if they manage to make this happen (big IF I think), they won't stop there. It will be a free for all on just about any issue.

Love Makes a Family has a campaign going on to sign a petition against this action. So go over to their web site and...

California's Supreme Court has long been one of the nation's most highly regarded courts. It is generally recognized as both moderate and nonpartisan. Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who authored the majority opinion, was appointed by a Republican governor, as were two of the three other justices who joined the opinion. These factors -- together with how reasoned and principled the exhaustive, 121-page majority decision is -- will make it highly influential to other courts deciding similar issues.

Connecticut's high court is one of those. That court is expected to rule soon on the same issue decided in California: whether the fundamental right to marry and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection can be satisfied by relegating one group of people to some other status with a different name. The California decision concluded that "the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation for marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." It explained how that exclusion marks gay couples as second-class citizens and how the unfamiliarity with terms other than marriage causes them significant practical difficulties, often during emergencies. The decision found that allowing same-sex couples to marry, however, does not deprive opposite-sex couples or their children of any rights. This insightful evaluation of what's at stake should go far in shaping the Connecticut court's thinking. (source)

It's funny. Just after we went to bed last night, Kent and I talked about going to California before November, and obtaining a marriage license. But the question came up, what would it really buy us? I thought it would be a good thing to add to the rest of our legal documents, but the fact of the matter is, although everyone knows what a marriage certificate is (unlike a civil union certificate), it's not clear that Connecticut would honor it as such.

So, I guess we will wait to see what happens. Perhaps what happened in California will effect the Connecticut Supreme Court decision. They are set to make a ruling shortly on whether Connecticut will start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. I'll keep my fingers cautiously crossed.

One thing I know a lot of couples are thinking of has me a bit worried. Basically, go to California, get married, return to your home state, and sue the state to recognize your new marriage. I too have thought the same thing. However, some groups are stating this is a bad idea...

With only a few days left before gays can marry in California, nine major gay rights groups asked couples Tuesday not to sue the federal government or other states to have their California nuptials recognized, saying that legal action could harm the marriage equality movement.

In an unusual six-page memorandum, written for same-sex couples, groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to Lambda Legal warned that lawsuits would invite "bad" court rulings that could take years to overturn.

The memo cautioned that the U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally refused to embrace major social change until many states have already acted and that the battle for marriage must be orchestrated strategically, state by state, court by court.

"Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer," the memo said. (source)

Point well taken, but that is exactly why Connecticut is being sued and why the Connecticut Supreme Court is now involved.. Some gay couples got together after the civil union bill passed, and sued the state for marriage. In a sense, this whole issue has taken on a life of it's own.

We are going to wait and see where it all goes. The only thing worse than being separate and unequal (civil unions = sitting in the back of the bus) is completely being separated from the hope of equality (amendments against civil unions and marriage = not even able to get on the bus).

This issue doesn't rule our lives. We are just like any other couple in America. Gas prices are more of a concern along with the future make up of the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm sure many who read this blog think that this is a very consuming issue for us. It isn't at all. These days, I only think about it when some article comes out on it. And, I suppose I'll think about it when a hospital prevents me from having visitation rights with my partner because today, we are legal strangers.

Somehow, that just seems "unAmerican." The problem is, unfortunately, is that it is very American to divide one group from another, and make one group better than the other. We do it all the time.

Conservative groups are calling on the Board of Supervisors to stop same-sex marriage licenses from being issued in the county. Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett announced wedding ceremonies would no longer be performed at the county building after the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples could be married.

Since the ruling, some residents want the Board of Supervisors to create a county ordinance that would nullify the California Supreme Court's decision.

After Barnett's announcement, weddings would no longer be performed at the county building. (source)

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. I'll start with the obvious. The Supreme Court in a state is the final word at the state level for the constitutionality of a law, according to that state's constitution. County and state officials who refuse to follow a court ruling that they don't like SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, OR RESIGN, because they are unfit to do their job!

Second point, religion has it's place, IN A CHURCH. It has no place in the make up of public laws that effect everyone's quality of life. This is a law that effects the lives of millions of people. If we want to be a country that is governed by religious laws, we have a perfect template to follow by looking at Iran. There, they slowly hang people who are charged with homosexuality. Perhaps a law of that nature would be more palatable to the religious freakoids who want to make life more difficult for gay couples, many of which have children. And any way you slice that, I think they call those groups of people A FAMILY.

Mettler said he's speaking on behalf of concerned residents and the Bakersfield Republican Assembly in calling on county supervisors to create an ordinance that would prohibit the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses until California voters have the opportunity to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in November.

Pathetic. They want to create an ordinance to override a Supreme Court ruling. The ordinance would immediately be unconstitutional. But this is what really got me...

Mettler said, "We are asking our supervisors, who have sworn to uphold the constitution and to uphold the will of the people. Laws are to be made by the people, not by the judges."

WRONG. Laws are made by the legislature in your state, who are the representatives of the people. The laws they make, ALL OF THEM, are held to a higher standard than public opinion. The laws are held to the standard of the state and federal constitutions. The reason that it is set up that way is to have a standard of fairness in the implementation of the laws - so that no single group of people are held to a different standard, UNDER THE LAW. The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22, passed by popular vote that outlawed same-sex marriage in 2000, was found to be unfair and unconstitutional because it targeted a single group of people. That is the purpose of the court. Any public official who will not or can not follow the law should be removed (or resign) from office.

On a personal note, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of these religious groups of nuts who feel that they can shove their sense of morality down the throats of everyone else. They want to protect marriage? Then try to get a law passed outlawing divorce. I know that would be unpopular, and it's not as popular as bashing gay couples who want marriage, but at least it would give you a little more credibility in the eyes of people like me.

I'd love to know how many of these people holding up the "sanctity of marriage" signs have been married 3-4 times already.

There was talk that the California Supreme Court might put a hold on their ruling to allow gay couples to be married in the state until the voters could vote on a ballot initiative that would only allow heterosexual couples to be married. Apparently, that's not going to happen.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday removed any lingering legal doubts about whether same-sex couples can marry in California beginning June 17, setting the stage for a rush of gay nuptials that morning. [...]

A November ballot initiative that could restore a state ban on gay marriage could still threaten the marriages of same-sex couples such as the Speakmans and invite more legal challenges. But for now, the wedding invitations can go out - in ink. [...]

Conservative groups, as well as 11 states that ban gay marriage, had urged the justices to freeze the ruling until after voters consider the ballot measure, which would amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. Backers of the measure argued that it would create legal confusion if gay couples marry in the coming months and voters then outlaw same-sex marriage. [...]

With the legal obstacles removed for now, thousands of gay couples are expected to marry, as there are more than 40,000 same-sex couples registered as domestic partners in California. A Field Poll released last week found a majority of likely California voters for the first time favor same-sex marriage. (source)

I know... I've kind of stopped writing (or worrying) about marriage because quite frankly, it doesn't define my life and I have other interests taking my time now. But I'm wondering if it would be to our best interests to take a trip to California before the November election, and get married. Think about it. It would be a real marriage license from a state. We could return to Connecticut and have something that Connecticut is not willing to give us at this point in time.

Now, when we travel, we have to travel with all of these legal documents proving that we aren't "legal strangers" (yes, I'll take them to Idaho with me when I go in case something bad happens -- not that the state will recognize them if they are needed). I was thinking that if we added a real marriage certificate to that pile of papers, it might carry more weight.

The timing of all of this is strange to me. From my own personal little world, I hear about the California court allowing gay couples access to marriage. It's challenged, with many conservative groups, along with 11 other states, asking the court to hold off on the enactment of the ruling until the voters have a chance to vote on whether to allow this minority the rights to equal citizenship. The court dismisses the argument. The ruling will stand and on June 17, gay couples in California, and any gay couple who wants to fly to California to get married, will be able to hold a real marriage license, just like those couples in Massachusetts. Bravo. This doesn't effect me because I'm hopeful that soon my state of Connecticut will soon allow marriage for us.

But then this week, I watch this documentary about the late Lieutenant Laurel Hester. I'm extremely moved by the whole experience. I'm very sad, a lot of tears, and I'm so incredibly pissed off that two people were put through that crap. So now I'm wondering this... As of June 17, 2008, the state of California would marry Kent and me. In November, the voters could vote to overturn the wish of the high court, and abolish marriage. But, as many lawyers point out, it's highly unlikely that those marriages that the state recognized for even a short time, would be voided. There were over 4,000 marriage voided years ago when San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses. But the difference now is that the state is willingly issuing those licenses. So I guess I'm wondering, as I'm getting ready to take a trip to Idaho, if we should just get married in that five month period of time when we know for certain that we can.

I thought I gave all of this up until I saw that documentary on Lieutenant Hester's life. I find it repugnant that we should have to be worrying about crap like this. I've become so disillusioned with my country (yes Canada, YOU ROCK!). But, I have hope that in November, we will at least start to follow a different path. I don't expect President Obama to drop everything and tend to equality issues for gay Americans since he will be very busy cleaning up after President Schmuck. But at least, we will be on his list somewhere, which is more than I can say now.

I took Kent to the airport this afternoon. He is away to South Africa for three weeks. He travels a lot. I'm usually not so bothered by his leaving. This time, it was different for me. This really has affected me. I worry. I'm sad he's gone for so long. I went over everything maybe six times... did you remember this? did you remember to do that? do you have this packed?

It was nervous energy really. You live with someone as long as we have, and you tend to get comfortable with having each other around. It's like having and old friend around. Or feeling the warmth of the sun on your back. So when that leaves you, you are sad. But in a way, it shows me how lucky we are. After all this time together, I must love him so deeply to be so protective and concerned. He is quite simply... my life. I love him.

I'm going to spend my energies working towards my vacation to Idaho in mid June. I leave June 14th (will miss Boston Pride this year), but something had to give. The schedules just weren't working out. So, I'll leave Hartford June 14th and come home on June 21st. Hopefully, it will be a time of meeting old friends, catching up with family, and talking about what's happened since I saw them all last.

A HUGE victory today in California for marriage equality. The state Supreme Court overturned California's Proposition 22, which stated that the people of California only view marriage as "one man, one woman", and that gay couples can have a "domestic partnership" instead. For years, gay couples have been trying to over turn Prop. 22. Indeed, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed attempts to strike down Prop. 22, saying that it was the will of the people to restrict marriage from gay couples, and he didn't want to usurp that decision.

Today the Supreme court struck down Proposition 22, and the idea that domestic partnerships were good enough. This has huge implications. Unlike Massachusetts, California has no law stating that you can't be married there if your home state will not recognize that marriage. Massachusetts has a law from 1913 stating such. It was created to prevent interracial couples from getting married in Massachusetts. It was never enforced until the Judicial Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that gay couples could get married in Massachusetts. Then, the 1913 law was enforced by the state (thank you very much Governor Mitt Romney). Which is why gay couples from outside of Massachusetts cannot go to the state to get married.

California however, does not have such a law. This means that couples from Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Montana, Connecticut, and all the other states can go to California, get married, and return to their home states and insist that their marriage be honored according to the full faith and credit clause in the United States Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In simple terms, y'all play nicely with each other and respect each other's laws. It will be interesting to see where this goes. And, it will be interesting to see if this ruling has any impact on the ruling that the Connecticut Supreme Court will soon deliver in exactly the same issue.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A same-sex marriage ban prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

Gay rights advocates said the ruling was devastating but were confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care.

The ban, a constitutional amendment approved in November 2004, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."

The court ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar because they're the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection.

Voters "hardly could have made their intentions clearer," Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law's "for any purpose" language.

Dissenting Justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh countered that statements made by backers of the measure before the election suggest they only intended to prohibit gay marriage, not take away employment benefits.

The dissent also noted that gay partners who qualify for health care aren't given other benefits of marriage — equal rights to property, for instance. [...]

At least 27 states have passed constitutional bans, mostly since 2004 in response to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts. At least 18 of those states, including Michigan, have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.

"It's a sad day in Michigan when we decide which children and which families are valuable enough to cover," said Tom Patrick, 50, who gets health insurance through his partner, Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University. (source)

Well.............................

It's been awhile since I felt the urge to write about "marriage equality". But I felt that this was at least worth a mention because of how nasty it is. I've distanced myself from this fight considerably. Not because of all the energy it takes out of me, but because I'm so extremely disappointed in the majority of people in this nation. I mean, what kind of nation separates out one specific group of people for this kind of scrutiny. Yes, I know... we have done it before with other groups. But don't we ever learn?

To the gay couples in Michigan who are losing their health benefits because of the sanctimonious self righteous bastards who passed the so-called marriage protection amendment, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you live in a state populated by people who can let this happen to supposedly "protect marriage", while many of them are out getting divorces and what not.

I honestly think that if this happened in Connecticut and one of us lost our health benefits because of this, I think we would start looking for another place to live. Losing your health benefit coverage is no small deal. You can talk to me all day long about how you want to protect marriage from the likes of me, but when you start taking that to the level of cutting people off from health coverage... well, it becomes quite personal.

I say leave the state. They've made their point. For the people who want to stay and put up the fight for change, my hat is off to you. I just hope that you are young and in good health, because with the cost of medical care these days, you are playing a dangerous game.

In a larger sense, this is a black eye on the state of Michigan. I'm sure that the state will lose people because of this, and those who are considering jobs at one of the universities or state agencies there will think twice before agreeing to have no access to medical benefits for their partners.

I suppose everything equals out in the end.

I read about issues like this more and more. I read here and there that the gay couples who have opted to go ahead and get a "civil union", are now sorry that they made that decision. It supposedly gives you marriage equality in the state of Connecticut, IN EVERY WAY. At least, that's the bill of goods that we bought into when this state passed it's so called "civil union" bill. From the actual bill itself:

Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman. (source)

We don't plan on getting a civil union. We don't plan on our state or anyone else forcing us into something that's just not equal. We are happy right where we are.

So, now that tax season is upon us, we of course filed separately with the state and the federal government. It's not as if we have any options. But when Kent went to file with Tax Cut, the software we've been using for a few years now to prepare our taxes with, it had a button for information for those in "civil unions" in Connecticut. Basically, it simply stated that if you actually are in a Connecticut civil union and want to file jointly in Connecticut, you are welcome to do that, BUT, you first had to file a fake federal return pretending like you were married, so that you could indicate the federal calculation for the the state filing. You would then use that information to file the state return. Then, when you did your federal return, you would redo the whole thing separately and without the marriage calculations, since the federal government does not honor civil unions, or apparently marriage (Massachusetts) for that matter for gay couples.

Bottom line is, when Kent explained all the hoops we would have to go through to file a joint tax return in Connecticut under the civil union law, my reply was, "SCREW THAT!". Now, I'm more convinced than ever that I don't want a sham marriage that civil unions provides.

This morning, I came across this bit of information....

HARTFORD, CT – The American Civil Liberties Union sent a demand letter to H&R Block today demanding that it change its online tax preparation system to accommodate gay couples in Connecticut with civil unions. The ACLU is representing a couple with a civil union who attempted to file their taxes on the company’s website through their online service, TaxCut Online, but were told, “We don’t support Connecticut civil union returns.” Through its website, the company said the couple would have to work with one of their professionals, by phone or at one of their office locations, which would be more time consuming and substantially more expensive. (A PDF with screen captures of the messages is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/34632res20080325.html)

“This is yet another example of the many ways that civil unions just don’t live up to marriage,” said Jason Smith of Hartford, who has been with his partner Settimio Pisu for six years. “It really stung when I realized it would cost an additional $150 dollars to have our tax returns prepared. We’re saving for a house and hoping to start a family, so every penny counts right now.”

According to the letter the ACLU sent to H&R Block, failing to provide gay couples with civil unions the option of filing their taxes online as it does for married couples is in violation of a state law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and civil union status. The letter demands that the company adapt its website to accommodate couples with civil unions and to reimburse all couples who were forced to pay the additional charges due to H&R Block’s discriminatory practices.

“The civil union law has been in effect for nearly three years now, yet companies still aren’t taking it seriously,” said Andrew Schneider of the ACLU of Connecticut. “There is no excusable reason why the company that likes to claim it’s the world’s largest tax services provider shouldn’t make its products available to everyone.” (source)

This doesn't really effect us at all. We are not part of a sham marriage called a civil union or domestic partnership, or whatever the hell you want to call it. Marriage is simply not available to us. We have accepted it and moved on. We filed separately since we have no choice. It's not clear we would be at an advantage to file jointly, but it would be nice to have the option available to us. But I do understand that there are selfish pricks amongst us who don't want to see that. That's fine I suppose. We've moved on. I simply find articles like this interesting because it really proves what I've been saying all along.

We got a lot of yard work done yesterday. It was warm, around 75 degrees. We took the opportunity to get the patio furniture out on the deck for the summer. I spent the afternoon cleaning up around the year, washing down the furniture, and grill, in preparation for dinner. I bought steak, potatoes, and vegetables for grilling. We made everything in the grill. I love grilled vegetables.

Tonight, we are having grilled chicken breasts, grilled vegetables, and fresh sour dough bread that is rising as I type this. Some months ago, we made a sour dough starter. It's really coming into its own now, and giving us some really great bread. From start to finish, a loaf of sour dough bread takes 5 hours. It's not quite as bad as all that. I let the bread machine to all the heavy work.

Along with the grilled chicken, vegetables, and bread, I'm having a peach salsa with the chicken. And along with all of that, I'll be grilling pear. I know it sounds strange, but grilled pear is really amazing. The vegetables are grilled 10 minutes, tops. The pear will only stay on the grill for a few minutes. It intensifies the flavor.

And I think I will repeat what I did yesterday. After all the yard work, I was all sweaty and hot. I took a cool shower, dressed in to summer clothes (short sleeve shirt and cut offs), and made a tall, ice cold red grapefruit margarita. Grapefruit juice and tequila. I use top shelf tequila, sipping quality. I don't skimp on the quality of any drink. If it's worth making, it's worth the best ingredients.

Well, after two of those, I could swear that it was getting cooler. :-)

I also want to say to Jeff and Moe up in Massachusetts, who got married yesterday, CONGRATULATIONS. I wish you both all the best. You make a great looking couple.

Cheers! Have a nice day.

I received this in my email box this morning from the Human Rights Campaign Fund. We are members of their organization. They strive for equality for gay people, and gay couples. I thought I'd relay the information to those of you who are not members. You may find some of the information interesting and helpful.

Dear Bill,

In every paycheck you've ever received, you've been contributing to Social Security. Imagine knowing that, should you die, your partner won't receive the survivor benefits you've paid for.

Or imagine moving to another state, only to find that your partner will be kicked off of your health care plan.

Situations like these happen every day to GLBT people across the country. So HRC is launching a national effort TODAY to give same-sex couples and GLBT individuals the tools to navigate tax laws and ensure good financial decision-making.

HRC presents: 7 Days to a Better Financial You

I have pretty much stopped writing about discrimination and violence towards our community. Once in awhile, it will surface in an entry such as this, but I've gone through a change in my life. I've made a decision to let go of a lot of things. I no longer write about my governments complete inability to recognize our contributions to society. It's not as if we are asking for a National Gay Day. But social security survivor benefits, funeral and bereavement leave, joint tax filing, making spousal medical decisions, permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation of a partner, right to inheritance of property, visitation privileges to a spouse in a hospital... would be nice.

So, we kind of live life to the fullest. We love taking trips. We love being together and working on projects together. But there's this cloud of uncertainty over our heads. Basically, if something bad happens, will we be at the mercy of some stranger who is extending the courtesy of decency to us not because he/she has to by law, but because it's what he/she wants to do? That's not much to depend on, but that's where we are at.

My challenge, and my change in attitude is that worrying about all of that is detracting from getting as much out of life in the here and now, that I can. In other words, you can spend your whole life worrying about, "what if". I decided not to do that, and one of the ways I did that was to stop writing about it, reading about it, or actively caring about it. I support organizations who do care about it, like the Human Rights Campaign Fund. And, I support a state organization working to make marriage equality a reality in our state. But other than that, I live my life day to day, without worrying about tomorrow.

I'm fine with that, until tomorrow comes due. I'll worry about that then, and hopefully, I will be at the mercy of someone who understands just how vulnerable we are as a couple. And hopefully, that person will have the power to do the right thing. Unfortunately, I won't have federal benefits and no matter who is elected President, I don't honestly trust that they are going to give my community time of day, once they get our vote. Just like Bill Clinton. He went on and one about what he would do for our community. We ended up with Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- a policy that has been responsible for the discharge of over 10,000 gay soldiers, and the Defense of Marriage Act -- an act that prevents married gay couples from receiving federal benefits of marriage. Will that change in the new administration? Maybe, but what will take it's place? It's all a game to these people, and we are the pawns.

I'm sick of it. I've stopped worrying about people who care nothing for us. And what is left is my nice small world where I call the shots. And I'm having a good time doing that!

Yes, we are alive and well.

Vacations are exhausting. At least this one was for me. We went to the Grand Canyon again this year. The last time was three years ago. We stayed for two full days, then off to Monument Valley in the very southern part of Utah. It was an interesting experience and one that I'd recommend to anyone who loves the outdoors. Then, we were off to Sedona, Arizona for the remainder of the trip to visit with the folks and to see the canyon again. The last time we were there, we simply passed through the area, only stopping briefly. Not a lot happens in Sedona, but it's a great experience for a nature photographer. There's lots of subject matter. Sedona was really the only time that we had to relax a bit. Someday, I would like to take a vacation where I go and basically do nothing, where every single day is not planned out with a time table.

I took many photos. I'm a bit ashamed to say how many, but rest assured, that once I've gone through them, I'll post them up to my Flickr account for anyone to see.

Speaking of which, it's amazing to me how the Internet brings certain aspects together. For example, last night I received this email about a photo that I posted in June of 2007 of a street performer in Seattle. That was on our vacation to the Olympic National Park last summer. A comment was posted on the photo that said, "Thank you for taking and posting this photo! My name is Emery Carl and I am your performer." I was thinking, "How on earth did he ever find that?" I didn't post his name because I didn't know his name. Just strange. He put his web site in the link. I usually don't like advertising placed in my photos, but I figure it's ok. I did after all use his photo.

Since getting home, life has not slowed down for us. Kent is working late most nights at work on committees. I am trying to catch up after being out of the office for over a week. On top of that, I had to turn my car in because it's lease expired. I was attached to it. This new car his just too much intelligence built into it. This is the exact interior of my new car, color and all. The exterior is a deep burgundy.

I've tried to get back into political issues while returning. The Monday we got home, the Connecticut Supreme Court was hearing about the lack of benefits that the state civil unions offer. You can read the excerpts from the story or not. They are the ones that caught my eye...

Eager to celebrate their partnership, Tracy and Katy Weber Tierney were among the first in line when Connecticut created civil unions three years ago as a way to formalize same-sex relationships without using the word “marriage.”

But when Tracy was giving birth to their son, Jake, five months ago, a hospital employee inquired whether she was “married, single, divorced or widowed.”

“I’m in a civil union,” she replied. When the employee checked “single,” Tracy protested. “I’m actually more married than single,” she said, leaving the employee flustered about how to proceed. [...]

For Jean Csvihinka, 48, who works at a bank in Milford, getting a civil union meant paying tax on an additional $6,000 a year. Ms. Csvihinka said that adding her partner, Gina Bonfietti, 43, a self-employed piano technician, to her health insurance obligated her to pay a federal tax on the value of the additional coverage that married couples would not owe, and that since the civil union she has also had to pay tax on her daughters’ coverage even though the girls were on her plan, tax-free, before. She said she was told that “it’s a systems issue.” [...]

Jeffrey Busch, a lawyer who is also a plaintiff in the case, said that he and his partner, Stephen Davis, reluctantly obtained a civil union for the sake of their son, Eli. “It was an awful experience,” Mr. Busch said. “In order to get those rights, we had to make a public declaration of inferiority. [...]

The case turns on whether same-sex couples should be treated as a “suspect class” — groups like minorities and women that have experienced discrimination — which could lead to heightened legal scrutiny of the decision to offer separate institutions. In oral arguments before a Supreme Court panel, the assistant attorney general said the number of “prominent politicians who are openly gay and lesbian” proves that homosexuals are not “politically powerless,” one of the requirements of a suspect class; that caused one justice to quip, “If it were true political power,” they would have already won the right to marry. [...]

And my all time favorite.....

The state also argues that the plaintiffs have no case because they are free to marry, just not to someone of the same sex, and that there is no gender discrimination because men and women are equally constrained. (source)

Wait a minute... we can marry anyone we want as long as they are opposite sex? That's "sanctity of marriage"? I find myself singing that Tina Turner song... "...what's love got to do with it...".

So I was eating lunch on that Monday that all this was happening. I was a bit down because I found myself once again thinking thoughts like... "it's so unfair...", "maybe we should just get the damned civil union...", etc. Then, while sitting in the sandwich shop, there was some news story on the radio about something. I actually don't remember what, but some guy said, "I have to do the best with what I'm allowed." I started thinking about that. Monetarily, we are doing well. I feel second class, but I really started to think about what that man said. And I can do that. I can do the best with what I'm allowed. It's this one thing, and it's really only an issue for me personally because we are in that age group that marriage equality and the kinds of rights marriage offers are important to us for security. Love has little to do with it. Would it enhance the love we have for each other? No. Would it give us a sense of belonging to something besides just ourselves? Yes. I think an acceptance from society of us, together, as a couple, is important. I've come to the conclusion that that was the "hope" that Harvey Milk talked about, coming together as people. Acceptance.

Just my thoughts. But I try these days to protect myself a bit. I expect that the couples challenging will lose the case, and life will go on. If I'm wrong, then I'll celebrate. If I'm not, I haven't invested a lot of emotional weight on the issue. I've stopped caring about it, other than, it's current news happening in the state. The Supreme Court of Connecticut will probably rule that "it's an issue for the legislature", after the shit hit the fan from the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality. They won't want to be labeled, as that court was, as an "activist court". What ever.

Health wise, we are doing well. Well, kind of. My blood pressure is good now, with a bit of help from medication. Cholesterol could be better. I'm working on that. You know, diet, exercise. It's hard to do with my career choice which is mental and non-physical. I have to go back in three months for blood work again. Oh, and the doctor reminded me that at the end of the year, it's time for that colonoscopy again. Oh Joy!!! The last time that happened, I had two alarms fire off while I had a panic attack before hand (did I say I'm hospital phobic?), which scared the crap out of the nurses so bad that they gave me Demerol to calm me down. It didn't suck. And, the alarms stopped. Something to look forward to.

It's nice to be home again.