General: October 2003 Archives

February 15, 2004 Judge rules no arbitration in expulsion case
Saturday, October 25, 2003 Story Update
Sunday, October 26, 2003 Jupiter Christian disputes claims in student's lawsuit

An 18-year-old student is suing a private Christian school in Florida, alleging he was expelled three days after he told a teacher he was gay.

Jeffrey Woodard said a teacher pulled him out of Bible class at Jupiter Christian School (or send email) in West Palm Beach and asked him in confidence if he was gay. Woodard said that when he answered "yes," a school official called his mother and told her that Woodard couldn't attend an upcoming school retreat unless she and her son met with the school to talk about his homosexuality.

His mother said the school told them that Woodard could get counseling for his problem, voluntarily withdraw from the school or be expelled.

A gay rights activist in Tampa conceded that the school didn't break any law by expelling Woodard, since discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't illegal in Florida.

This story reminds me of the many cases against the Boy Scouts of America. In that instance, after years of law suits, it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. They decided that since the Boy Scouts of America are a private organization, they have the right to discriminate against anyone they choose.

I suppose I can see the logic of that, although it's not easy to say that if you are on the receiving end of the discrimination.

This student was basically "outed" by a teacher who asked him if he was gay (in confidence). He told the truth and said he was. Since the student would not consider counseling for "his problem", he was expelled.

There are a lot of ethical issues involved here. If you ask someone for information in confidence, you keep your mouth shut. Gaining someone's trust by telling them that it will be kept secret, and then turning around and making it public is, at the very least, despicable. Beyond that, and the bad press this school will hopefully receive, there's probably not much the student will be able to do from a legal point of view.

I'm no lawyer, but I will bet that the Boy Scout ruling will at some point come into play with this case.

And, what lessons did this teach the student who was expelled for being honest? If you go to their website, you will see the following message displayed on the front page:

October 22, 2003

Dear Parents, Friends, and Supporters of JCS:

As has been reported by various media, a breach of contract claim has been filed against our school by a former student and his mother. Unfortunately, due to the possibility of legal action, comments about the complaint, or any issues directly or indirectly related to it, cannot be made at this time. However, please know that we dispute many of the “facts” in the claim, as some of this information contradicts our records and timeline. We have faith that the ministry of Jupiter Christian School will be exonerated. Thank you for your prayers and support.

Sincerely,

Rich Grimm
President

I dug this little gem out of my archives. This picture received much press at the time it came out about a year ago.

The World Trade Center had been destroyed, we were going to war with Iraq, and for a bit we all felt like we had a common cause. Then, this hit the papers.

I remember thinking at the time, that it sent a good message to those who were so intolerant (Iraq) of their women and other minorities in their nation.

I remember thinking as I looked at "HIGH JACK THIS FAGS", that I was so happy that we are a tolerant nation who would never look down on people in a minority here.

I remember thinking what a great democracy this is. I was so thankful when I saw that picture that we live in a nation where we don't hate people who are different from us, unlike Iraq.

10/23/2003 - FOLLOW UP
I found a series of stories concerning the photo on the internet. I'm reposting them here.

High Jack This Fags

(10.01)
Gay Service Members Disgusted by US Military Homophobia
An image that hints at the US military's attitude towards homosexuality has sparked outrage among gay service members in the UK.

The photograph, featured in London's Metro newspaper, shows an officer aboard the USS Enterprise preparing a bomb in the campaign against terrorism in Afghanistan.

This seems a bit strange to me. Last year, two men were charged with beating a gay man in Shelton, Connecticut while at a neighborhood picnic. The two pleaded no contest to assault charges stemming from the attack. Both also received probation with special conditions, including diversity training and community service.

Now, that seems like a slap on the wrist to me, given that the victim of this attack suffered two concussions, a torn spleen, a damaged liver, three broken ribs, vision damage and memory loss.

(Milford-AP, Oct. 22, 2003 8:04 AM) Two men charged with beating a gay man at a neighborhood picnic in Shelton last year have accepted a plea deal that will mean no prison time.

42-year-old George Hamilton of Shelton and 25-year-old Bryan Wendland Stratford have been given suspended six-year prison terms.

The two pleaded no contest to assault charges stemming from the attack. Both also received probation with special conditions, including diversity training and community service.

Charges of first-degree intimidation based on bigotry or bias were dropped as part of the agreement.

The beating occurred during a Labor Day picnic at Hamilton's home.

According to a lawsuit filed by the victim, Hamilton called the man a "faggot" and demanded he leave the picnic.

According to the victim, Hamilton then began kicking and punching him, then Wendland joined the attack.

The victim suffered two concussions, a torn spleen, a damaged liver, three broken ribs, vision damage and memory loss.

This was from the story that was reported last year after the incident happened:

In a bizarre turn, police on Friday arrested the homeowner who hosted a Labor Day picnic where a 42-year-old gay man was beaten in a vicious bias attack.

Well, it's no surprise to me of course. I've always been gay, and I've known that since I was six years old. I didn't know what "gay" was then, but I knew that I was different from most other boys.

It's always surprised me that there's been all this speculation from people on what makes a person gay vs. straight. There have been many scientific studies performed (some not so nice to the subjects) to determine if it was a learned trait. More recently, there have been experiments and research performed to find the "gay gene".

I don't know if there is a "gay gene", but the thought that people are so bothered by someone being gay that they would actually look for the cause of them being gay, is scary. What do they hope to do with this information? I have one thought. If they can determine that a child has a good chance of being gay prior to birth through gene testing, it might be used as an excuse to abort that life. Pretty scary stuff.

The funny thing is that I could have saved them all a lot of work if they had just asked me if I was born gay. I would have said, "of course". I don't recall any time in my life making a decision on what sex to love. Do you? It was always a clear decision for me. I suppose it makes too much sense to ask a gay person those questions though.

Most people don't want to hear that. If a gay person says they are born gay, it will look as though they are trying to further the "gay agenda", whatever that is. If it is shown that being gay is genetically determined, it makes it a bit harder for a civilized society to justify the poor treatment homosexuals receive.

This is from a Reuters story I picked up off the internet:

Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a choice.

“Our findings may help answer an important question - why do we feel male or female?" Dr Eric Vilain, a genetics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, said in a statement on Monday.

"Sexual identity is rooted in every person's biology before birth and springs from a variation in our individual genome," Vilain said.

His team has identified 54 genes in mice that may explain why male and female brains look and function differently.

Specific role

The scientists plan to conduct further studies to determine the specific role for each of the 54 genes they identified.

"Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy," said Vilain. "These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender - feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex - is a state of mind.

Since the 1970s, scientists have believed that estrogen and testosterone were wholly responsible for sexually organising the brain. Recent evidence, however, indicates that hormones cannot explain everything about the sexual differences between male and female brains.

Published in the latest edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research, the UCLA discovery may also offer physicians an improved tool for gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.

Mild cases of malformed genitalia occur in 1% of all births - about three million cases. More severe cases - where doctors cannot inform parents whether they had a boy or girl - occur in one in 3000 births.

"If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment," Vilain said.

Using two genetic testing methods, the researchers compared the production of genes in male and female brains in embryonic mice - long before the animals developed sex organs.

They found 54 genes produced in different amounts in male and female mouse brains, prior to hormonal influence. Eighteen of the genes were produced at higher levels in the male brains; 36 were produced at higher levels in the female brains.

"We discovered that the male and female brains differed in many measurable ways, including anatomy and function," Vilain said.

I've been talking a lot lately about marriage, and what it would mean to gay couples. There are so many ways I think it would help so many of us. If gay couple were able to get married, I'm sure what happened to this lesbian couple would never have happened (full story).

Eva Kadrey and Camille Caracappa had been a couple for five years before they decided to have a family together.

With the help of an anonymous sperm donor, Ms. Kadrey became pregnant. In March 1998, with Ms. Caracappa and her mother in the delivery room, Ms. Kadrey gave birth to a boy. The couple named him Nicolaj, after Ms. Kadrey's father.

For two years, the two women and their son were part of Ms. Caracappa's large and boisterous extended family in the Jersey Shore area, spending birthdays and holidays together. Then, in October 2000, Ms. Caracappa, an oncology nurse, died of a brain aneurysm at age 38.

The following month, with the support and urging of Ms. Caracappa's mother, Ms. Kadrey — who had been a stay-at-home mother to her son — applied for Social Security survivor benefits for Nicolaj. But the Social Security Administration denied the request, saying that the child did not meet the agency's test as Ms. Caracappa's legal survivor. The two women were not legally married, as New Jersey law does not allow same-sex marriages, and Ms. Caracappa was not Nicolaj's biological mother. ...

Ms. Caracappa's mother, Theresa Caracappa, 68, is even more determined than Ms. Kadrey to fight the matter. "It doesn't matter if you're two women," she said. "It never mattered to us. When we knew that Camille was gay, it was fine. She's my child. I loved her."

She added, "I just want Nicolaj to get what is rightfully his."

What is terribly sad is that with everything else this family has had to go through with the death of Camille Caracappa, our government has, in it's own special way, said that this family is nothing; that they are not entitled to even be considered as a family in terms of Social Security.

Of course, this is not news to us. Every pay check we receive, money is being taken out and put into a system that turns right around and denies our families the benefits that come from our contributions, in a time of need. It will hit all of us in time. Without marriage, Kent will never be able to collect Social Security should I die first. Of course, Social Security is but a small part of the picture here.

I want to make sure that the people who have meant so much to me in life are cared for after I leave, to the extent that I can make that happen. It's time for America to understand that we are made up of families, and deserve these rights.

It scares the hell out of me knowing that should I be driving to work and be involved in a car accident that would place me in a coma or make it so I was not able to make my own decisions, that Kent would not be able to make those decisions for me.

If the doctor at the hospital felt like putting his neck on the line and understood gay families, he might let Kent in to visit me, but there are no guarantees. And in the arena of making life decisions on my behalf, no hospital would put themselves at risk for a lawsuit but giving Kent that authority, because at the present time, he doesn't have that authority given by law (that marriage allows automatically). So, where would that leave me?

Well, it doesn't leave me exactly where I'd like to be. Kent is my husband, my life partner, my soul mate. He is the one who should make those decisions for me, not a relative or some social worker from the State of Connecticut.

This is reality, that many of us don't want to face. And it's sad that society can't even bring itself to recognize that there are a lot of people hurting out there, needlessly. More of us are adopting children or giving birth to our own children. We provide for them and create a loving home.

I wanted children so bad. I love kids and people have told me that I would have made a great father. It was always a dream of mine. I see other parents with kids and they treat their kids like they are a burden. It makes me angry because they are gifts, and they end up getting treated like baggage. Kent didn't want children. I think mostly because of the risks involved with gay partners having children, as I've stated above.

It's true. There are more risks with gay partners having children. You won't have the support network that is there for heterosexual married couples. After awhile, I gave up my dream of having kids. Everything happens for a reason, and for some reason, I guess it just wasn't in the cards for me to have children. I'm sure I will regret that for as long as I live. Maybe for the next generation, it will be different. Let's hope.

A week or so ago I read about a small Baptist Church who was expelled for accepting two gay members and later baptizing them. This is why I have little use of "the church" in my life today. I figure I have pleanty of negative forces in my life that in one way or another put me down for being gay, without going elsewhere to get it.

This was a letter to the editor of a paper that I thought was well written and reflects my views well:

Dear Editor:

After reading an article on page A4 of Friday's paper, I am very confused and more than a bit concerned. The article states that the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina expelled a small church for accepting two gay members and later baptizing them. In essence, the church's representatives invalidated a baptismal. I have two comments on this action.

My first comment is a personal opinion. I do not think that any human - priest, preacher, minister, brother, or whatever - has the right to say an individual cannot accept Jesus Christ as their Savior because they consider that person's lifestyle a sin. Seeking salvation, in my opinion, is a God-given right and no man should have the right or power to stand in judgment of another and state that they are not worthy of seeking the Lord. When an individual, or a group of people, take the power upon themselves to proclaim that someone is unfit or unworthy to seek salvation, I think that individual or group is verging on the edge of blasphemy. When a group of people have the power to decide whether an individual's quest for salvation is valid or not, then that group ceases to be a church and becomes a club.

My second comment is an observation. The article stated that they expelled the church because accepting the gay individuals would show that they approved of homosexuality, and they stated that their decision was based on "traditional interpretation of Scripture." Now I am no verse-quoter and feel free to correct me if am wrong: Does it not say in the Bible that a man or a woman is free to marry again if their spouse has died? And does the Bible not say that if a man or woman divorces and remarries, then they are committing adultery and living in sin? I would think that a second, third or fourth marriage under these circumstances would be considered a "lifestyle." Yet the church seems to embrace those who have committed "adultery" while expelling those it considers an "abomination." Of course, I understand that the divorced group is much larger and their tithes keep the churches afloat. It appears to me that if we adhered to all these rules, our church groups would become smaller and smaller.

Rules and regulations, and equality and fairness, must be a selective process. I guess, the confusing times in which we live, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

I saw this on an advice column called "Tell Me About It" with Carolyn Hax. It was good advice that I hope this mother takes:

Washington, D.C.: Yesterday I found my 17-year-old son's weblog. It was under an alias, but I know his screen name. I was shocked to see explicit sexual language. I was also shocked to find out he is gay. Of course I can't talk to him about what I found, but I can't look at him the same way any more. (yesterday he asked me why I was looking at him that way) The language means he's not my innocent boy any more. And I'm mad that he didn't tell me, but seems to be out to all his friends. What next?

Carolyn Hax: This is going to sound insensitive because it's typed instead of spoken, but if you were really expecting an innocent boy, 17 is a little old. Regardless of what he's actually done, the language has been around for years. I know, he's your kid, hard to think of him that way, but mommy-curdling words have likely been flying around since he was 12, 13, 14. Maybe before that, even.

That warm reassurance aside (ahem), what matters here is that you now know he is gay. What next is: Love. Love him just as he is. Love him, love him. And, look at him. He's still your son, and still everything else you've always known, always felt and always thought about him.

He doesn't have to know you know (though if his blog is public, I can't see why your finding it has to stay secret). What he does need is a mother who accepts him fully as-is. Instead of being mad, just make sure you're the mom he can trust enough to tell. If you are, he will.

I read this letter from Ben Krommor in response to a letter entitled, "Marriage should remain a union between heterosexuals". This was part of his response:

Now that “compassionate conservatism” has had its chance to weigh in on the question of equal rights for all, a rebuff is due (“Marriage should remain a union between heterosexuals,” CT, Oct. 15). Let me get this straight; you’re saying because you don’t find the concept of marrying another man satisfying, no one else should be permitted to do so? I may be heterosexual myself, but it doesn’t prevent me from seeing how indefensible this position is.

The first argument thrown down is always that the gay community is blowing things out of proportion. Essentially, people who argue this point are saying it’s the gays’ fault they are being excluded from common society, and that they have no reason to feel wronged by this. ...

The final point raised by the Religious Right is people of the same sex should not be allowed to reap marriage’s many legal and financial benefits because it somehow “cheapens” heterosexual marriage. As much as it is genuinely fun to keep those we perceive as different out of the proverbial treehouse, it is still quite simply immature.

Some of the more reasonable of them have proposed a compromise: the creation of “civil unions,” half-marriages in which the participants are awarded all of the legal benefits of a real marriage, just without the title.

The truly ironic thing is this concession completely destroys all of their earlier arguments about broken homes, the “order of nature,” and the marrying of inanimate objects because a “civil union” is functionally identical to marriage.

Essentially, their twisted concept of marriage has retreated back to nothing more than a word.

This story only goes to show how messed up the Catholic Church is over gay issues. It's hard to find as much hypocrisy in any church. This was about a gay couple, Michael Sabatino Jr. and Robert Voorheis, who went to Canada to get married on September 28.

After the New York Times published an announcement of their ceremony on Oct. 5, the two were confronted by Monsignor Edmund Whalen as they entered St. Benedict's Church in Throgs Neck on Sunday.

"He told us he couldn't have us in a public ministry after going public in the newspapers," Sabatino said. "He said, 'I have parishioners who are complaining. They're asking me what I'm going to do about this.' "

When Sabatino and Voorheis asked Whalen for his decision in writing and continued into the church, followed by Sabatino's mother, Whalen told them he would "shut down the choir" rather than allow them to sing in it, Sabatino said.

I don't like to pick on an easy target, but it seems to me that the Catholic Church really has a bigger problem with what it's priests are doing.

Instead of worrying about a couple of gay guys who sing in it's choir, the church really should be worrying about why it let hundreds of kids be molested, and did nothing about it!

I suppose I could also call this entry something like, "Those who live in glass houses"...

In a speech frequently interrupted by applause, Clinton warned gays not to discount the efforts of Senator Frist and others who are supporting the amendment. Then, in a departure from her prepared remarks, she said of those who like to use wedge issues like the marriage amendment, “They have led our country miserably! They deserve to be turned out of office and they’re going to look for anyway to stay in power!” Story.

Wasn't it her husband Bill Clinton who originally tried to change military law by allowing gays to be able to serve in the military openly without having to worry about being kicked out? When several Senators stood in the way of that happening, it was Bill Clinton who settled on the miserable "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And here we are many years later still living with it.

Hillary can stand on a podium and talk about how bad the Bush Administration is (which it is) all she wants, but there is one undeniable fact that will always be there: Bill Clinton was a wolf in sheep’s clothing to the gay community. Was he really a friend? What the hell did he do for us while he was President?

To me, everything that politicians say has the weight of a grain of sand. I do worry about the likes of Senator Frist though. He and his kind really only want one thing, for us to just go away. Short of that, he will settle on passing laws to the point that we are as invisible as possible.

Other issues... JC Penny and FedEX have added Sexual Orientation to their non-discrimination policies.

I was surprised to read this story. I'm sure a lot of Americans thought that Sydney was very friendly and open to gay tourists. That's what all the gay magazines have been pushing on us. One of the things I've wanted to do is to go to Sydney (I may re-think that now). I know that every place is probably to some degree homophobic, but gee.. why travel so far to have people be homophobic to you when you can get it from your own state? :-) Sorry, sometimes you just have to smile and go on about your business.
Story from uk.gay.com

Australian city Sydney is not as gay friendly as it is perceived, according to a new study.

The report, which comes from the Australian Attorney-General's Department in connection with Urbis Keys Young, found that a large number of the city's gay community were often victims of homophobic attacks and discrimination based on their sexuality.

More than half of those surveyed reported homophobic violence in the last twelve months, with the majority of victims, 48% detailing verbal abuse.

Additionally 25% had been the victim of offensive gestures or had been spat at.

Although just 10% had seen violence, 70% of the 600 questioned said they felt vulnerable to violence.

With its images of the annual gay pride celebrations, Sydney has gained a reputation for being one of the world's premier gay destinations, with many visitors expecting to experience a welcoming atmosphere.

This was published in USA Today along with other newspapers around the country. On this fifth anniversary of Matthew's death, I thought it would be appropriate to publish it here.

By Judy Shepard

This weekend marked five years since my son Matthew's murder, which prompted unprecedented media coverage and focused the nation's attention on anti-gay hate crimes like never before.

Matthew was beaten to death by two men who are now serving life sentences. Five years ago I was a housewife and a mother. But I learned quickly that violent crimes against the gay community are actually a fairly common occurrence. It prompted my family to create a foundation in Matthew's memory.

I have spent the past five years traveling the nation, speaking at schools and churches and to anyone who would listen, to try to stem the tide of hate that is eating away at the fabric of our culture. Hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are the most common after hate crimes involving race and religion.

Recently, I've been thinking about what really has changed — and more importantly, what has not — to make our communities safe from hatred against gays.

It's clear that in some ways our nation has become a more accepting place. We have witnessed the progress of gay and lesbian rights with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, striking down that state's sodomy law. We have seen our neighbors to the north recognize same-sex marriages as deserving of equal rights and responsibilities as straight couples' marriages. We have seen growing visibility, understanding and acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in our families, in society and in the corporate world.

Still far to go

However, there has been scant progress in other areas, particularly in terms of legislation and securing rights for the gay community. We continue to fight for hate-crime legislation that includes protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. There is no federal law that includes job protection based on sexual orientation. Yes, you can fire someone simply for being gay or lesbian in 36 states of this nation.

It is as if we are living in two Americas — one that tunes in to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy but turns a blind eye to the injustices gay and lesbian people still face.

It is evident that with progress comes inevitable attack by those who are threatened by our work. In 2003, more than 30 cities and towns reported crimes against gays. Most of them do not garner national headlines like my son's murder did. Sakia Gunn, a 15-year-old lesbian, was fatally stabbed in Newark, N.J., on May 11 this year. F.C. Martinez, a Navajo, transgender 16-year-old, was murdered in a hate-motivated attack in 2001. The list goes on and on.

Furthermore, changes in the "environment" heighten hate-crime activity. In New York City every July, anti-gay violence usually increases by about 8% above other times of the year as people respond to the outreach programs and the visibility of gay pride celebrations. Even after the Lawrence v. Texas decision and the appearance of gay television shows, anti-gay violence in New York City rose 52%. We still have far to go.

Redouble efforts

On this fifth year since I lost my son, I plan to redouble my efforts to find solutions to this problem. One solution begins with parents. We have the opportunity to teach our children to understand and accept diversity long before hate can provoke violent reactions.

We can "arm" them with this education before their school years begin and require our educators to continue the job after that. Hate is a learned behavior, but it's never too late to empower a young adult with the tools to improve his or her life choices and beliefs.

If a child is taught to hate and fear diversity at home, then the next place he or she gets to practice hate is in the halls of education. Ten percent of hate crimes occur at schools and colleges. A gay teen is bashed; a disabled teen is tormented; a Jewish, black or Muslim teen is taunted. The cycle continues, until that hate-filled child becomes a citizen in our community, and sometimes, a perpetrator.

Teach your children to accept and understand diversity because the consequences of hate hurt the families of the victim. It also hurts the families of the perpetrators. Lives are ended and lives are changed forever.

Judy Shepard is founder and executive director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

I originally said that I wouldn't be blogging this week in mourning for what others were trying to make us into with this insidious "Marriage Protection Week". My day started out badly, well, ever since I made that post.

I've been moping around the house, went out to breakfast, went to see a movie, but I wasn't really there. I was down and depressed about what some assholes are trying to do with this bullshit Marriage Protection Week.

I've decided I'm going to blog this week. I'm not going to let those bastards win and get the better of me. I got sad, down, but now I'm just plain old pissed off. They can take the Marriage Protection Week and shove it where the sun don't shine. Or, perhaps more articulately, FUCK THEM AND THE HORSE THEY RODE IN ON!

ok... I feel better now! Now I'm off to pick out my pictures for my custom-made calendar that I'm giving people for Christmas, with 13 of my favorite photos I've taken. They won't be good stocking stuffers, but everything I give people is too big to fit into a stocking anyway!

In remembrance of Matthew Shepard, and in mourning for what people are trying to make us out to be with "Marriage Protection Week", I won't be blogging this week.

Be kind to each other and tell your mate and your friends that you love them every time you see them.

Many of you know little or nothing about Larry Kramer. I've read many articles about him and have followed him over the years. He has written several plays, essays and novels on the AIDS epidemic. He also founded the Gay Men's Health Crisis in 1981 and ACT UP, an AIDS advocacy and protest organization, in 1987.

I'm going to try not to be judgmental against Larry because I haven't been in his shoes and I don't have all of his experiences. I don't remember who said it, but in reference to Larry Kramer, some writer once said "...the problem with Larry is that he can't get out of the way of his own anger." For some reason that stuck with me.

From an article I just read on the internet:

Sitting in a chair on stage, relaxed in a pair of blue jeans, under a spotlight at the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium, Larry Kramer said he was getting chills recalling highlights from his career as an AIDS activist.

On Tuesday night, U-M medical historian Howard Markel interviewed Kramer in front of a packed house of 1,100 about his thoughts on AIDS in today's society and his ventures to raise awareness of the virus.

"To this day I don't understand why every gay man didn't fight to save his life," Kramer, 68, said of the AIDS epidemic during the early 1980s, specifically in New York.

It honestly surprised me that Larry Kramer would say this, given what he's been through with AIDS. Larry has HIV. His experience has been one of living with having HIV. I don't share that experience.

My experience with AIDS happened not too long after we moved to San Francisco. We lived in the Castro District and I was very active in different aspects of the gay community. I was coming of age as a young gay man and was feeling for the first time in my life that there was nothing wrong with being gay. I was feeling acceptance.

Then, AIDS came along. Here and there a friend would tell me that he had HIV. Not much was known about it then, except that it was a certain death sentence. In those days, you had 1-2 years to live. Now, there are medications that can greatly enhance the quality and length of life for those living with AIDS.

As time went on, more and more of my friends died of this disease. Many of them were like brothers to me. They were more than friends, they were family. Many of the organizations I was part of fell apart because people had died or were sick. Activist organizations, such as ACT UP, sprung up to get the word out to society that we needed help, as Larry said in the article I referenced. Help did not come.

It became very clear that no one wanted to hear what the queers had to say. Society was saying, "AIDS was their problem - not OUR problem". Do you know that for the entire eight years that Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, he never once publicly uttered the word "AIDS"? That's pathetic. This "great man" that everyone talks about let us die and DID NOTHING! There's a word for that. It's called genocide. He couldn't have cared less about us. How do you get someone like Ronald Reagan to give a damn? After Reagan left office, he said that he should have done more in the fight against AIDS. DUH!!! YA THINK? Anything at all would have been nice. This was the true nature of what we went through. It was a war zone.

What followed were marches and demonstrations one after the other. Nothing was accomplished. Instead of the Federal Government trying to help us, the effort was more on how to contain the disease to this group of people, and let them die off.

After awhile, I, along with many other people in our community, became disillusioned with life in general. That is when I lost my innocence about being an American. I realized that people in general really did not like us and really didn't care if we all died. It became very hard at times to find meaning in life and after awhile, I remember thinking that life was not such a big deal. You are born, you go through living hell, then you die.

That was my attitude when I left San Francisco. All my friends were dead, except for one. He died two weeks after my arrival in Connecticut. There was nothing left for me there. I remember leaving the city, parking alongside the freeway just outside of Berkeley and looking back one last time on the city that I had called home. Where others viewed a beautiful city, I only saw ugliness and felt bitter and empty inside. I didn't know what faced me in Connecticut, but even if I were attacked and murdered, it wouldn't be any worse than what I had been through. I no longer valued my life.

Over the next 15 years, I began a journey to find purpose in life. I believe that I became disillusioned with life because I was looking outside of myself for that purpose. I looked to others, to society, to... care. The fact is, and there's no way around this, 90% of society wishes gay people would just go away. We are a pain in the ass to society. How dare we ask to be treated equally? Who the hell do we think we are? It's not like we are part of society. We are, after all, a "fringe group". You see, everything in life can be devalued with labels. And if society is good at only one thing, it is applying labels to people - especially undesirables.

So when Larry Kramer says, "To this day I don't understand why every gay man didn't fight to save his life," I want to tell Larry Kramer, "Do you have no sense of reality? Have you lost your mind? Society didn't care about those men what so ever, and they still don't."

My friends who died are today only statistics on a report telling how many queers have died of AIDS. They are remembered by a few of their friends who are still left standing. They received no recognition, no black granite wall with their names carved in it, no mention from their President, nothing. I honestly don't understand why he's puzzled. He of all people should understand that at some point, you just give up. I did. If I would have had AIDS then in that environment, I would have just gone with it and waited to die because life sucked.

Now life is different for me. What made me want to value life again? I actually found the purpose of life from a very unsuspecting source. One day after I had finished my meditation (treatment for depression), I opened my eyes and noticed that my cat who was young at the time, was looking at an insect that had landed on the screen. The insect was moving slowly up the screen. On the cats face - WONDERMENT. It was as if the cat were thinking, "How could this be?" I realized that I was looking at life in the wrong way. Instead of looking outward for what life should be, I looked into myself for that answer.

If you look to others to give you meaning, you will have no meaning. If you look to others for love, you will not be able to receive love because you do not love yourself. It all begins with you. When gay men started dieing of AIDS, who loved them? Who cared?

Today, nothing has really changed that much. The syntax of how issues are expressed has changed. Acceptance is still not there. Life-changing medications now exist, largely because AIDS didn't confine itself to the queer community. Now, the children of the very people who despised us so much are becoming HIV positive. Now, it is also their problem. The days of hearing people on the radio say, "...I don't want my tax dollars going to help THOSE people with AIDS...", are now gone.

Today, AIDS is no longer our community's problem. We have become so accustomed to it that it is as common to us as coffee. Young gay people believe in themselves so little that some of them now view having HIV as a "badge of honor" because they at least feel that if they have HIV, they belong to something. They actively try to get HIV. This is what our society has come to.

Today, we live in a country that won't grant us the most basic human rights that others outside the queer community have - the right to dignify our relationship with our mate in a ceremony of marriage. And then, they turn around and say that we are incapable of sustaining long term relationships.

Homophobia is still a huge problem with many of the gay bashings going largely unreported. In some cases there's no point. The police in some areas think that we deserve it.

But the worst gay bashings of all happen in our nation's capitol. Our President and our Congress have demonized us to the point that the hatred that many of us experience is now in our everyday lives. The sad part of it is, it's all by design. We talk and we beg for these rights when we know that they will only give them to us when they have no other alternative. I use to tell myself, "thank God for the Constitution", because I thought that it was one powerful document that protected us somewhat. But now, I'm finding out that where gay people are concerned, an exception can be made. An effort to amend the Constitution is underway just for the purpose of keeping gays from getting married. Other states are actively following suit to outlaw gay marriages at the state level.

In the year 2003 most of the main-line churches are against gay marriage, will not even recognize that there might be a gay couple in their midst, and if they do, will tell them that they will enjoy everlasting life in Hell for the way they love.

Today, gay men are still barred from donating blood by the American Red Cross, for life.

Many talk that they are "tolerant" of homosexuals, yet are happy to be a scout leader with their sons in the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that will not allow gay scouts or gay scout masters. What does this teach their sons about tolerance and acceptance? And they wonder why teenage boys go out and bash gay men for sport.

So, if you are gay and look at external sources to give you validation, I'm afraid it's just not going to be there. You have to find it in yourself. I have concentrated on my family. My family consists of Kent, my two cats, and a couple of close friends. That's all. I haven't been too successful in gaining acceptance from my family or Kent's family. It's the same way with most gay people I believe. You have to really work at making an island of acceptance. Why is it then that we are surprised when we find that so many young gay men find their life valueless? The answer is right before our eyes. Because we, as a society have told them time and time again, in so many ways, that they have no value.

Nothing has changed.

I feel sorry for the people of California. I understand their frustration and disappointment in the administration of Gray Davis, but on every single important issue that Arnold Schwarzenegger has been asked about, he has given no details on what he thinks, or how he's going to go about making policy changes.

Because of this, some of the gay population are even excited about having him as governor, even saying that Arnold is "pro-gay". California's statewide group of gay Republicans has endorsed him to replace Governor Gray Davis in the state's upcoming recall election. The Log Cabin Republicans of California (LCRC) said in a press release:

"We believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be a governor for all the people of California. He appeals across party lines and the ideological spectrum. His views on social issues put him squarely in the mainstream of California voters, and his tough fiscal policies are precisely what our state desperately needs."

Now, it's unclear if the domestic-partner legislation that Gray Davis signed will survive the new administration. Schwarzenegger has said that he would not have signed California’s Domestic Partner legislation that was recently signed into law by Governor Davis. Just because some guy groped some women and got away with it does not make him pro-gay. What are people thinking?

So now, I find it amusing that the same gay community are up in arms because Schwarzenegger has appointed conservative Republican Congressman David Dreier to head his transition team. So it begins (story)....

Dreier, who served as co-chair of the actor's gubernatorial campaign, has record in Congress of opposing gay rights initiatives.

In 1996 he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act which bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples. The legislation passed and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. In 1999 he voted to ban gay adoptions in the District of Columbia. That bill was narrowly defeated. He opposes granting gays and lesbians civil rights in the workplace, and is in favor of a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage.

Dreier was named this year as a "True Blue" advocate by the Family Research Council - the preeminent anti-gay lobby organization. His appointment to head the transition team has raised flags among some gay activists.

David Smith, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT civil rights organization in the country, said that he is "cautiously optimistic" that Schwarzenegger will not abandon his stated course of being a social moderate.

You get what you pay for. In this case, the people of California elected a bad actor and a somewhat better politician, without knowing how he feels about anything. Will they be organizing a "Recall Arnold" campaign six months from now? I guess it's their money to spend.

This was a wonderful article by Ellen Goodman that I thought I'd share with you. It summarizes my feelings exactly. I hope I live long enough for America to see our relationship for what it is - a family of love and support.

Still, when I am told by Focus on the Family that gay marriage would be "a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family," I think about my cousin and the warm, funny Southerner he has brought into our lives.

What exactly is so "devastating" about the couple who brings an annual excess of mixed olives and good cheer to Thanksgiving? How on earth could their commitment - or marriage - for better or for worse, be a "fatal blow" to my own marriage? For that matter, how could their desire to adopt and raise children undermine their cousins' families? My daughter, stepdaughter and nieces, all deep in parenting, only hope that the next generation of cousins will grow up together the way they did.

In the middle of the evening, during dancing far too reckless for any middle-aged back, I realized again that what seems to me so rich about America - this great, open, changing, diverse society - is what frightens and sometimes angers others. They see an assault of family values. We see family. Our family. Our values.

A study showing that it may be possible to change the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians has reopened the debate over whether people are born homosexual or straight.

Controversial research demonstrating that some homosexual men and women were capable of becoming "predominantly" heterosexual following psychotherapy has created a furor within academia.

Critics believe the study is seriously flawed but supporters argue that it exposes the myth that homosexuality is "hard wired" from birth, which would mean that nothing can be done to alter a person's sexual orientation.

The fact that people even talk about this has always bothered me. You can make the argument that it's all for "scientific research" or whatever, but the bottom line and the end goal has always been to rid homosexuality from the face of the earth.

The arguments are always the same. They start out by saying something that sounds half-way reasonable to most people, such as "those people who are homosexual who would like to be heterosexual should have the opportunity and support to change...". What they are really looking for is this: "How do we just get rid of it so we don't have to deal with these freaks?"

If you think that is a bit harsh, how do you explain all the research that has taken place in the past to locate the "gay genes"? The entire purpose behind that research is for the purpose of parents knowing ahead of time if they should abort a birth because the child will be gay. It is for the purpose of eradicating those of us who are homosexual. Of course, by doing that you would also be destroying a lot of important people from the history of mankind.

Society looks at ridding itself of homosexuality because they feel that it's very difficult to be homosexual in this world. The truth is, it is. But, the problem to be addressed, the "disease" if you will, is not to be found in homosexuality, but rather the hatred that this society has bestowed upon homosexuals.

They should be looking at ways to rid society of hatred.

I've mentioned on this site the name Marcus Wayman several times in the past. He was the 18 year old who committed suicide after Scott Willinsky, a police officer in Minersville, PA threatened to tell his parents that he was homosexual.

A lawsuit was filed and has since been settled. I received the following email from the Marcus Memorial Campaign that I'd like to share with all of you:

Hello friends, family & supporters:

In light of the recent forced civil settlement, we’ve began to re-strategize our next move.

In part, and firstly, we are calling on the US Attorney to demand that his office immediately launch an investigation to the conduct of Officer Scott Willinsky and the Minersville Police Department.

While we work out the exact kinks of linking this off our website, please go to our online petition.

We will get this up on the site, but it also serves a purpose of people being able to forward the message without having to scroll through the site.

Please take a moment, sign the petition and pass it on….for justice, for privacy and for Marcus!

Here are some relevant links to this story. If you are as outraged as I am about things like this happening to our gay kids, here's your opportunity to do something about it.

Yet another story about bigot Fred Phelps. He is pastor of the Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, a church which is mostly made up of his family members. He (or his organization) also runs the website godhatesfags.com. His group makes a nasty habit of picketing funerals of gay people, most notably that of Matthew Shepard.

Well, he's at it again. He now wants to place a monument in Matthew's home town of Casper, Wyoming in the town green. The monument would be of marble with a heavy bronze plaque. Matthew's face would be on the left side of the plaque. On the right side would be the inscription:

MATTHEW SHEPARD Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 In Defiance of God's Warning: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Today was...... there. Nothing special, but nothing like yesterday. Actually, yesterday sucked. I went for a physical. As it turns out, I have the body of a 25 year old, according to my doctor. Everything was good, except he wants to put me on Wellbutrin. It's an antidepressant, but that's not why he's prescribing it to me. He wants it for rapid weight loss. I'm a bit overweight, but not that much. With my gym workouts, I have lost fat, and gained muscle. Since muscle weighs more than fat, my weight hasn't changed that much. I was told by a trainer at my gym that weight is not what I should be concentrating on. So, I don't worry about it. However, my doctor wanted me to take this powerful antidepressant because one of the side effects of this drug is rapid weight loss. I took one pill, and was sick for the rest of the day, ending up in bed by 7:00pm that day. Then I thought to myself, this is crazy. Why am I taking this medication when nothing is wrong with me? Dumb.

I've never really come out of the closet with my past use of drugs. It's private and I've always kept it private. Maybe I can now talk about it. A lot of people in this country suffer from depression. About 10 years ago, I was diagnosed with sever depression. It came from many places. It was called clinical depression, but there was also deep rooted emotional issues that I'd never addressed. I've never told anyone a lot of things that have happened to me when I was a kid. A lot of it came out in therapy. All during that time, I was on medication. I was on Prozac, Desipramine, Lithium, Zoloft, among other things. The side effects were severe. The worse of them were the shakes, short term memory loss, drug fever, nausea, and panic attacks. Did I mention the Xanax I took for the panic attacks? At the height of this depression, I lost Brennan. That was the bottom for me.

I would go to work and a coworker of mine would ask me to help him with something. For the life of me, I couldn't remember how to do it. He would come over to see what the problem was, and would tell me to type something in. My hands were shaking like hell (side effect of Lithium). I know that he knew something was going on, but never said anything. I didn't want anyone to know because I was afraid that people would look at me differently. It's a lot like people finding out you are gay. You wonder if everything they know about you will be thrown away.

After awhile I came to realize that anytime you go to any doctor and tell them that you are "down", you are going to get medicated. If you happen to go to a psychiatrist, the medication could be heavy stuff. You have to keep in mind that the medication they are giving you is going to mess with the chemistry of your brain - a science that is not well understood yet. If you ask a psychiatrist how a drug works or what it does, they will start their answer with, "...we THINK that it....". They just don't know for sure what the hell it does. Therefore, what will the long term permanent side effects be? They can't say.

I decided that I would take my chance with my own brain and take myself off my medications. This didn't happen over night. You can't just take yourself off these drugs, unless you want to suffer seizures or heart failure. I did it over the course of 4 months. I eventually stopped going to the doctors. Let me tell you, it was tough. I could feel the depression coming back and there were times I wasn't up to going to work. I logically over the period of the last two years, have worked through a lot of my problems and realize that I'm finally at a place where my body feels good. I go to the gym 4-5 times a week and that has helped a great deal.

A lot of coping with life is realizing that so much of the misery of life comes from a smaller group of people. I used to accept and take in that crap (internalizing), and their issues became my issues. I no longer do that. The problems I have are my problems, and without taking other problems in that I can't control, my problems are not that major.

Life is good, and if you don't realize that or if life has brought you do a dark and lonely place, you have surrounded yourself with the wrong people and have the wrong friends. You can take charge of your life! I did.

This is a follow up to the entry I made on September 29 concerning the discriminatory policy of the Sandals Resorts. At the end of the entry I said, "If that pisses you off, let them hear about it! You can send a direct email to Sandals here."

Well, it pissed me off so I wrote them a letter telling them about it. This is the response I received back from them:

Subject: Sandals Resorts Couples Only Policy

Thank you for your inquiry regarding our couple’s only policy. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

Please note that we currently offer two primary resort product lines that cater to the various leisure travel needs. While it is understandable that some might have questions about the guest policies at Sandals Resorts, we want to underscore that our ultra all-inclusive Beaches Resorts are designed to appeal to everyone. From Singles to Couples to Adults and even Adult Families.

As to the concept of Sandals Resorts. As you can imagine we have thousands of requests for friends wishing to travel to Sandals Resorts together. In order to preserve the true "couples only" experience, we have instituted a heterosexual couples only policy. The Sandals Product is not meant as a judgment about gay men and lesbians, just as we're sure that Atlantis and Olivia Cruises are not meant as a statement about heterosexuality. Exclusionary policies (adults only, nudists only, etc.) are not unusual in the vacation business. For example Atlantis Cruises and Olivia Cruises exist to serve gay men and lesbians only. Like those products, Sandals Resorts has found a distinctive niche market (The Honeymoon market) and has developed a highly successful travel product to target it.

We certainly apologize if this has caused you any inconvenience and completely understand your concern. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable vacationing with us at one of our Beaches Resorts. Either way, we guarantee that your vacation experience will be nothing less than spectacular.

Thank you for choosing Sandals and Beaches Resorts.

Best regards,

Electronic Sales and Marketing Department
Sandals & Beaches Resorts

The Sandals Product is not meant as a judgment about gay men and lesbians, just as we're sure that Atlantis and Olivia Cruises are not meant as a statement about heterosexuality. Although it is true that the Atlantis and Olivia Cruise lines cater to gay people, the difference is that they do not refuse straight couples. That's apparently a concept that Sandals can't comprehend.

Personally, if I were going on a gay cruise and found out that the cruise line I was using refused to accept straight people, I would cancel immediately. Discrimination is always wrong - not only when it's inconvenient to me.