General: October 2004 Archives

Is it the 1950’s all over again for gay Americans? Apparently, in some parts of the country, it is.

It’s hard to believe that in this day and age that an organization would threaten to blackmail anyone into submitting information about themselves. The threat if they don’t respond is to tell others in the community that they are gay. I guess that they believe, in their quest “to help parents when choosing a school for their children”, that they are trying to keep gays away from their children. Are they insinuating that we are child molesters or do they fear that their children might learn some other valuable lessons about life, such as living a dignified life with honesty?

The way some people in this country think scares me.

A judge has ordered a Texas company to stop sending email masquerading as freedom of information requests to Missouri schools after some administrators were threatened with outing.

The mass emails were sent by Abilene, Texas-based StarProse Corp. seeking information on school administrators, principals and teachers.

The e-mail messages appeared with the subject line, “Open Records Request,” but actually sought personal information. The emails threatened to list as gay anyone who does not respond to the information demand. The company said in the emails that the information was needed “to help parents when choosing a school for their children.” (source)

An Atlanta golf club is expected to challenge the city’s four-year-old gay rights ordinance over a gay member who argues her partner should get spousal club benefits.

Druid Hills Golf Club was ordered by Mayor Shirley Franklin to change its policies about the gay member or face sanctions, citing a 2000 ordinance that guarantees equal rights for gays in public accommodations.

Club leaders recently sent a letter to the club’s 1,100 members arguing the club should not change its policies to provide full benefits for partners of unmarried members. (source)

Didn't we go through this fight once before?

Oh wait! That fight was about black and interracial couples.

This is how change happens. I’ve always thought that if straight soldiers could just see their gay counterparts working along side them, the situation would change. I’ve talked with friends who are in the military and many of the straight soldiers know the soldiers who are gay within their unit. They don’t tell their superiors about it, but they know. It’s pretty hard to keep the lie up about why you aren’t dating or at least can’t tell anyone about who you are dating, or have no stories to share when you talk about those people important in your life. I think that most people who you work with, once they get to know you, see that as being greatly unfair.

At the end of the day, the important thing you need to know is if you can trust your fellow soldiers to cover you back. And in the field (such as Iraq), being gay or straight is just not the hot issue anymore.

Hopefully, Congress will get that idea soon, before we loose more good soldiers to don't ask, don't tell.

Further information

A new survey from the University of Pennsylvania shows that 50% of junior enlisted service members say gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. The National Annenberg Election Survey reveals a significant increase since 1992, when two similar surveys found that only 16% of male service members held the same view.

The Annenberg poll follows a report last week from the Urban Institute, which estimates that 65,000 lesbian and gay Americans serve in the armed forces. “Despite the military’s gay ban, service members have seen firsthand the contributions of lesbian and gay Americans,” said Sharra E. Greer, director of law and policy for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group for gay service personnel. “Heterosexual service members serve alongside lesbian and gay colleagues every day, and they are increasingly comfortable doing so.” (source)

Just astonishing. Sometimes you read a story and have to just sit back and wonder, “What is happening to the world?”

(Salt Lake City, Utah) A debate between two Salt Lake City area candidates for the US House of Representatives shows divisions on whether to an amendment to the Utah constitution to ban gay marriage, and uncertainty about whether the Constitution should be used to stop polygamy.

The issue arose during the taping of a debate between Republican Representative Chris Cannon and his Democratic challenger Beau Babka for airing tonight on TV station KUED.

The question was posed by two female polygamists in the audience, and relayed by moderator Ken Verdoia.

Cannon, who supports the proposed ban on gay marriage, said he doesn't know about polygamy.

“I don’t know where we should go. I don’t have an answer,” he said.

Babka said he will vote against the amendment on Nov. 2 because he doesn’t believe the constitution should be used to disenfranchise any group of people.

But he also said he wasn't sure how to answer the polygamy question.

He said religious freedom is important, but he is concerned about the exploitation of women and children in polygamist families. (source)

President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states.

Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party’s official position on the issue.

In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of Good Morning America on ABC, Mr. Bush said, “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.” ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday. (source)

It’s not that I’m smarter than anyone else in America. I’m not. But, every single time, EVERY TIME that the Federal Government or anyone in the Bush Administration talks about gay marriage, they always talk about “if that’s what a state chooses to do”.

This issue is larger than the states. It’s all nice and easy for the President to shrug it off and let the states deal with the issue of how best to turn gay Americans into second class citizens, but they conveniently never mention their roll at the Federal level in this argument.

Folks, there are over 1,000 rights afforded to marriage at the Federal level! This is never mentioned by the Bush Administration because...

I can’t make it any plainer than that.

Remember way back in the 1980s, when Dick Cheney racked up one of the most anti-gay voting records in the House of Representatives? In 1988, he was one of 13 members who even voted against funding for AIDS testing and research when it was still called a “gay plague.” Well, Cheney’s come as far as many other Americans, and for the same essential reason. The more people in our families, workplaces and communities come out of the closet, the harder it is to regard them as deviants who need to be cured or converted or jailed. (source)

Virginia's refusal to allow birth certificates of children born in the state but adopted by same-sex couples outside of Virginia to show the names of both parents is endangering the children a court was told Monday.

A legal brief filed on behalf of three families, two in Washington, DC, and one in New York, who adopted children born in Virginia, says that "Schools, hospitals or others may refuse services or access to records without a birth certificate that specifically names each legal parent." [...]

The Commonwealth of Virginia argues that the form lists a mother and father and officials would not issue birth certificates listing two parents of the same sex for fear that it would confuse the record-keeping system that must be "uniform and consistent."

The Commonwealth also argued that because unmarried couples in Virginia cannot adopt children, the state could not recognize legal adoptions that occur out of state by such couples. A lower court judge agreed, and now the case is on appeal at the Virginia Supreme Court. (source)

So let me get this straight (no pun intended)... Same-sex parents who want to make the adoption of their children legal in Virginia can't because it would mess up their filing system?

You know, I've heard a lot of excuses to discriminate against people, but this one honestly takes the cake.

Way to go Virginia!

This weekend, Kent and I will be finishing up the information our attorney has requested for the legal documents she will be drawing up for us. I'm hopeful that they will be sufficient when the time comes that they are needed. I worry too damn much about this stuff but I've heard all the awful things that can and do happen. And, after everything, I worry that anything our attorney does, will be contested. I guess there's no way around that. The deadline for me is our travel to San Diego this Christmas. I want the legal papers drawn up before that trip.

And this from the Oregon Statesman Journal:

Marriage is supposed to bestow the benefits of love, comfort and fidelity.

It promises to endure in sickness and health, in times of plenty and want.

But emotion aside, there are many other benefits to being legally married in Oregon.

Married people can sue others for the wrongful death of a spouse. If one is ill, the other half of a wedded couple can visit hospital rooms or make medical decisions without providing legal papers.

They can't be forced to testify against each other in court. If a spouse dies, a husband or wife may inherit their property and money without challenge in court.

None of these benefits applies to unmarried couples.

Even with wills, medical directives and powers-of-attorney, many benefits are not guaranteed if challenged in court, attorneys say.

I'm a bit disappointed in Oregon. I really thought that they would vote Measure 36 down, but it looks now as though it will pass. I know that it's not all about hate. But from my end of things, the receiving end of the different legislations being pushed into law around the country, it feels very much like hate.

It feel like society is telling me, “You FAGGOT! You don't deserve what we have because you are queer and LESS THAN US.” Of course, it's much more sterile than that, but the effect at my end, both real and emotional, are the same. I'm left with more questions than answers. Is my country leaving me behind? Do the really care about citizens like me, or am I just there to supplement their tax base and heterosexual couples who can get married? After all, if anything happens to me, Kent won't see one dime of my Social Security that I have paid into. My 401K retirement will be taxed in one total sum and then given to him, what's left of it. He can't roll it over into his retirement.

And I'm left wondering, is this what Christianity is? It's confusing to me because I've always been a Christian. I was raised a Christian, went to church regularly, my friends were Christian, it was all around me. Either I was totally oblivious to what people thought, or I didn't want to accept the hateful side of it. I'm wondering if it was always there, if that is what Christianity is, and I just didn't see it.

And I'm wondering if I ever understood America. I always thought naively that we all wanted equal rights and liberty for all. Is that all crap? Is that what the bedrock documents that formed the foundation of this country believe, and they've just been hijacked by religious fanatics? I wish I had more answers because this country no longer makes sense to me.

I try not to take it personally. It's not like they are passing these bills so that Bill Cannon won't be equal. It's against one single class of citizens. But, for the life of me, I can't make equality less than personal.

Marital benefits

Federal
There are more than 1,100 federal laws relating to marriage that do not apply to same-sex couples, no matter the outcome of Measure 36 or a lawsuit before the Oregon Supreme Court contesting the marriage licenses issued this year to gay couples by Multonomah County.

The benefits include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments, immigration, taxes and others.

Federal law also gives states the authority to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. If Measure 36 passes, Oregon would be included, supporters say.

State
There are 279 state laws relating to marriage, including:
Joint state tax filing.

Automatic property and money inheritance without a will.

Medical and funeral decisions without a legal directive or will.

Entitlement to child-support money upon divorce.

Right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse.

No requirement to testify in court against a spouse or disclose any confidential information.

Entitlement to deceased spouse's retirement benefits and life insurance.

Right to transfer property and gifts between spouses without state taxation.

Civil unions
Civil unions may extend state benefits of marriage to gay couples, but other states and the federal government can choose not to recognize them. Federal benefits of marriage, such as joint federal tax filings, are not available to civil-union couples.

Benefits by contract
Many gay couples hire attorneys or draw up legal documents for medical directives and powers-of-attorney.

The contracts may be contested in court. They also may not be recognized in other states. For example, a medical directive does not have to be honored in a state where an Oregon couple is vacationing.

Gay and lesbian couples may own property jointly, adopt common children of the relationship, write wills, gain power of attorney for end-of-life decisions and medical care (unless one partner is still lawfully married).

There are many benefits provided by private companies that may or may not be available to same-sex couples, including family payment plans for health clubs, car insurance, health insurance and retirement plans. (source)

The following editorial appeared today in the Daily Campus, the student newspaper at the University of Connecticut.

It is on a topic that I have been fighting with the Red Cross over for a long time. It's nice to see that some are striving for fairness.

Earlier this month, UConn held its annual blood drive. In accordance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, people at an increased risk of HIV/AIDS were not allowed to donate. In its Blood Donation Eligibility Guidelines, the Red Cross describes being "a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once" as one of the risk factors for infection that makes an individual ineligible to donate blood. This guideline singles out gay men and should be applied to all people who have had unprotected sex.

It is a lifelong restriction and its vague wording does not specify the nature of the sex act. The sexual experiences of gay men vary widely, but the FDA chooses to group all men who have sex with men together and impose harsh restrictions on their ability to donate blood. In contrast, a man who has had unprotected sex with a woman, or a woman has had any sort of unprotected sex, only must wait one year. The same lax ceiling applies to a person who has had unprotected intercourse with a prostitute or an intravenous drug user. This is a slap in the face of all gay men from a usually respectable organization.

An FDA panel agreed to continue to restrict men who have engaged in homosexual activities after reviewing the guideline in 2000 because "they did not have enough scientific evidence" to revise it. Even with the advanced testing implemented in 1999, an FDA officer estimated that two HIV-positive units would be released a year if men were allowed to donate five years after their last homosexual encounter.

The nature of HIV makes a five-year limit too short. After initially manifesting flu-like symptoms, HIV can remain asymptomatic for many years and AIDS usually does not develop for 12 to 13 years. Although the virus is multiplying in the body during this time, the tests the American Red Cross uses to detect it are not 100 percent accurate and they are susceptible to human error. A more cautious waiting period would be 15 years from the at-risk activity - no one should contract HIV from a blood transfusion.

The 15-year period should apply to all people who have had unprotected sex, not just homosexual men. It does not treat everybody equally. The FDA should not limit individuals from donating blood based on who they have had sex with, but on whether or not the sex was protected. It's easy to dismiss the emergency of AIDS if one imagines it is restricted to only one marginalized social group. But the rise of HIV/AIDS infections in homosexual men has slowed and it is time to recognize that AIDS can affect all of us.

The hottest post-presidential debate chatter Thursday wasn't about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the high cost of health care or wayward scowls. It was over the appropriateness of discussing the sexual orientation of Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

While the Kerry/Edwards-Cheney family spat made for good sound bites, experts say it was little more than late-season politics at its most partisan.

Mary's mother, Lynne Cheney, said Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry was “not a good man” for mentioning her 34-year-old daughter's lesbianism during Wednesday's debate. Dick Cheney said Thursday that he was “an angry father.” (source)

On my way home last night, they were discussing this on the radio. The show I was listening to was a talk/news show. Some of it is tongue-in-cheek. One announcer stated that although Cheney has referred to his daughter as “gay”, he has never referred to her as a “lesbian”. Perhaps he was upset because, although he knew she was “gay”, he didn't yet know that she was a “lesbian”!

I almost drove my car off the road laughing.

My opinion in this. In the vice presidential debate, it was Cheney who brought up his daughter being gay. He initiated this. It is a well know fact that she is gay (I don't say that proudly) so, as some has mentioned, Kerry did not “out” Mary Cheney.

Having mentioned his daughter's gayness in the vice presidential debate, she became fair game. Vice President Cheney is the one who opened the door on this. And, Kerry said nothing derogatory what so ever about Mary. The context of his even mentioning her was to show the family strength of everyone who was running.

Cheney is merely using this, as he does everything else, as a political ploy. He seriously needs to grow up.

That's very discouraging to have to say, but it is the truth. We shouldn't be surprised after November 2nd. This is the reality that we face in this country. I fully expect that all the states with a proposed state constitutional amendment will easily pass.

Oregon isn't the only state where voters are grappling with the question of gay marriage.

It's just more intense here.

Ten other states have constitutional amendments similar to Measure 36, which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, on their ballots Nov. 2.

According to a Sept. 28 New York Times article, support for the measures is more widespread in other states than here in Oregon. Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah are all expected to pass the measure by an easy margin - some, like Kentucky, by as much as 75 percent. (source)

I had a revelation last night. The revelation came to me in our difficult battle for marriage rights. The President has said that when people get a taste of freedom, they want more. I would submit that the same holds for equality. My personal struggle in the fight for equal marriage rights for our partnerships has been an emotional one, as any reader of this blog will attest too. But why has it been so personal? Why have the emotions over this been so raw to me? I've been through many personal battles in my life. Some have dealt with family acceptance, while others were fighting hospitals for the decency to allow the partners of those afflicted with AIDS to visit their partners.

I didn't realize at the time that what I was fighting was not a hospital that wouldn't recognize the relationship of a gay couple. I thought it was a gay issue. I thought that because at the time, I was struggling day to day to just make the lives of my friends a bit more bearable. They were struggling with life and death decisions. I didn't feel that they should have to fight hospital staff for something as simple as holding and comforting each other.

But that wasn't it. The thought of marriage making issues like this go away never occurred to me. You see, I'm a product of my surroundings, and this society. I've grown up with the notion that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Not because that was drilled into my head. It never came up. It also never occurred to me that it wasn't right that I shouldn't be able to have access to marriage with my partner to make my life as fulfilling as it could be. I never thought that there would be a possibility that I would be able to realize marriage in my life.

On the other side of that coin, it was drilled in to my head loud and clear how loathsome homosexuality was. We've all heard the derogatory gay jokes and had to sit there and laugh along with everyone else, just to keep our secret. Sometimes, these jokes would surface in the most unsuspecting places, such as Thanksgiving Dinner, or at Christmas time, or in a casual chat with people you thought of as friends. That was my environment.

So now that the marriage carrot has been dangled in front of us, what do we feel? For the first time in my life, I have the HOPE FOR EQUALITY. And like freedom, I want it! I want it more than anything. I want it so bad that I can almost taste it. I want to be a full member of society. I want to stop feeling bitter about not being a full member of society. I want to take pride again in my country because we are all equal under the law.

Last night at the debate, I once again heard both President Bush and Senator Kerry say that they both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Neither one support equality for gay couples. Senator Kerry did say that he believes that the government should support civil-union-type liberties for gay couples, such as hospital visitation and inheritance. But, he didn't explain how he was going to do that, and I question his sincerity. Why shouldn't I? He and President Bush are throwing numbers and statements around all over the place and marketing them as facts when there are so many untruths that it boggles the mind.

If Kerry is elected President, this civil union type of liberty will fall under the same priority as don't ask, don't tell. It's a nice idea to get rid of don't ask, don't tell, because we are at war, still kicking out gay service members who are fully qualified to do the job, yet asking straight troops to stay in and be deployed time after time to the point of exhaustion. So, if we can't get rid of don't ask, don't tell, what makes you think that civil union type liberties will be a priority for Senator Kerry?

Aside from all of this, one thing that I think gets overlooked is the fact that gay couples are being talked about. Think about it. In the last election, gay marriage was not even on the scope of discussion. Several times during the presidential debates, the issues that gay couples face in their fight for equality have come up in debate questions. That is significant.

One question raised last night surprised me a bit:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's get back to economic issues. But let's shift to some other questions here.

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

The question has nothing to do with gay couples or gay marriage, but really speaks to something much deeper; If being a homosexual is not a choice, how then can we as a free society morally justify the systematic discrimination that exists against homosexuals in society?

In 38 states, it is still fully legal to fire a homosexual for no other reason but the fact that he/she is a homosexual. The Federal Government has time and time again declined to issue federal civil rights protections for homosexuals. Just this year, House Republicans rejected a Senate-approved proposal to include crimes targeting gay men and lesbians in the nation's federal hate-crimes law.

Of course, we could just skip all the expensive scientific research to try to figure out if being gay is a choice, and simply ask a real live homosexual, like me.

My base answer is: Yes, of course it's a choice! I couldn't wait to choose to be gay. I love to feel threatened day in and day out with verbal and physical assaults, being called a faggot on an average of once a week because I dare to not hide what I am, feeling like I'm a second-class citizen, feeling rejection from my family and some friends, risk being fired from my job, and, at the end of the day, wonder if I have any real self worth accompanied by the occasional bouts of depression that make me wonder if life is really worth it. Who wouldn't want that?

But I will spare you my base answer and just say, no, being gay is not a choice. I've known I was gay since I was six years old. I didn't know what gay was then, but I knew I was different from other boys. At age 9, I had my first crush on a boy. And all of this without once making a decision to be... different.

As for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, I would only ask them, "When did you decide to be straight?"

Ohio Gov. Bob Taft says he will cast a "no" vote on Election Day on Issue 1, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state.

In a statement, Taft said he has decided the amendment is unnecessary considering Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Taft also said he thinks the amendment's language is too broad and is "an ambiguous invitation to litigation that will result in unintended consequences for senior citizens and for any two persons who share living accommodations." (source)

I first wrote about this a year ago on September 29, 2003, and again on October 1, 2003.

The Sandals Caribbean resort company has now decided that gay couples can stay at their 13 resorts. How nice of them. I don't know what prompted the change in their policy. I suppose it was public pressure or perhaps a loss in revenue.

Whatever caused it, it's not enough for me. Trust and loyalty have to be earned, and simply saying that we can stay there now is not enough. Coors beer did the same thing years ago and our community is still boycotting them, to a large extent because of their on-again-off-again tactics towards our community. Some at Coors welcome our patronage, some don't.

Discrimination is wrong and there should be a price to pay for doing it. The price as far as I'm concerned is a lack of my patronage. If Sandals wants to truly show that they are sincere, perhaps a contribution to a cause within our community should be considered. For me, that would go a long ways in showing their sincerity.

A holiday company which turned away gay couples from its resorts unexpectedly lifted the ban last night in the face of a campaign by an ex-government minister and sexual equality groups.

Sandals, the Caribbean resort company, announced it was lifting its ban on same-sex couples from 13 resorts, just before a spokesman was due to appear to defend its policy with the former minister, Barbara Roche, on BBC Radio 4's Today pro gramme this morning. The company has resorts in Jamaica, St Lucia, Antigua and Bahamas.

Sandals was under commercial pressure from London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had banned its advertisements from the tube because of its homophobic attitude to clients. Mr Livingstone was seeking to extend the ban to London's taxis. (source)

A week or so ago, I did a search on the Internet for a lawyer. I didn't pick just any lawyer, because our needs are not ordinary. I found one and called her. As with any lawyer I suppose, I got her answering machine, and left a message. Three days later, I got a call back.

I explained to her that we are a gay couple, and I wanted to know how to protect what he have together. Unlike heterosexual couples that have the protection of marriage that deal with many of these things, we have to try to secure what we can through legal documents and just hope that they are honored. In other words, we try to rig the system into honoring a relationship that legally doesn't exist. To the law, after thirty years of being together, Kent and I are “legal strangers”.

After we talked with her, we realized that we made a very wise decision in choosing her over a lawyer that does not specialize in all the “gotchas” of law, where gay relationships are concerned.

But it was depressing. We both now have to decide a lot of issues. When she is done, we will have a will, power of attorney, and many other documents. She strongly suggested that we carry some of the documents with us when we travel, in case we are in an accident. I asked her why we would have to do that. None of my friends and acquaintances do, to my knowledge. With each question I asked, she painted a scenario for me, based on what has happened with other gay couples that she had represented. In the case of an accident where say, Kent, is hospitalized, I would have to present the document to the hospital and hope that they would give me visitation rights to see Kent. They wouldn't have to as there is no legal reason for them to do so, other than this document drafted by a lawyer stating that is our wish. She told us that if we were to have the accident in Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, New York, or Vermont, we would probably be ok. Other than that, she said, it all depends on what the hospital wants to do. In a conservative state, we would probably have a problem.

So, where does that leave us?

After that meeting, I became depressed. I thought that the depression was due to the fact that the answers our lawyer needs are dealing with our life and death decisions. In that regard, we are no different than anyone else. But there's more to it than that. I was never so naive to think that with legal documents we would be fully protected. What really became clear to me is just how messed up this country is for gay people. We tell ourselves that we are a free country. We tell ourselves that we all have equal opportunity and equal freedom.

It's all crap.

We aren't free. We aren't equal. I don't even feel like I can be openly affectionate towards Kent in public. I have a great fear of that. I know at the very least we will be called faggots. It's happened before when we've tried to be open. At most, one or both of us will be physically assaulted. Is that freedom? Is that equality? In North Hampton, Massachusetts, where we were yesterday, I don't even feel like we can be open, and it is in a very liberal environment. When we take vacations, we have to look for a place that is gay friendly to every extent possible. Why? Very simple. So that we, for a little while at least, can go to a place where maybe, just maybe, we can actually be who we are and not be afraid, just for a little while. So, last night at dinner, I pondered this to Kent and said, “Maybe if we come back again in another life, it will be better.”

There are those among us who want to make us legally less than equal, and that seems to be ok with my fellow Americans. Why is that ok? Why am I so bad that a state amendment would be put in place to protect certain legal and civil institutions such as marriage from someone like me? Are you listening Ohio? You, and many other states will make this decision on November 2nd to decide what rights I will get and what rights I will be denied. And I can't do a damn thing about it. It is predicted that most of the state amendments making gay marriage illegal will pass with ease. So, what does this say about America? What does it say about the people around me – my fellow Americans?

I've lost my hope for America. I've lost my pride in America. And, I've lost my faith in the American People being fair. We talk about the Constitution of the United States. We hold it up high and say with pride, “This is what we are about. This is what America is about.” Yeah right. It's what America is about, until we want to change it. If the principle of freedom and equal rights is sound, that can't be changed because some don't like others within our society. This is what will happen on November 2nd. And most Americans who aren't gay, won't give a damn about that, as long as it doesn't effect them.

Kent and I talked about leaving America. I never thought that would happen. I would have given my life for this country. Somewhere along the way, America changed and turned into a country of bitterness and sub-communities who don't seem to care much for each other.

We have talked that if George W. Bush gains re-election, he will most likely be able to appoint more conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will see more of the same and perhaps with four more years with him as President, the Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage will gain momentum. Anything can happen. We have already gone down a path that prior to 9/11 I would not have imagined. Is what happened on 9/11 connected to the marginalization of certain groups of people in this country?

On another issue that came up in our discussion with our lawyer, was the issue of what should be done with us after we are gone. What about our home, our possessions, and even our bodies? We have both chosen to be cremated, and have talked about buying a plot in a small local cemetery not far from our home. It's a nice peaceful cemetery on a small hill. In the cemetery are some very old graves dating back one hundred and fifty years. But we starting thinking about something that shouldn't even be a consideration. Our tomb stone will have our names on it. It will undoubtedly look like we were a gay couple together for life. I imagine that our grave will be the target of vandalism and destruction. Even though I most likely wouldn't know about it, it's like the final insult to our love together. So, we have started to even rethink that. I guess at this point, we are just thinking of having our ashes scattered some place, without a trace that we ever existed.

Maybe that's not all bad. Why stay in a place that's so dark?

I read this letter from the UCONN student newspaper, The Daily Campus. All I can say is, it was a good thing I wasn't there.

OK, so it has been almost a week and I am still sick to my stomach every time I think about last week's football game. How many of you had a great time at the Pitt football game last Thursday? How many of you think you will remember that game for the rest of your life? Well I for one will never, ever forget that game. Unfortunately, I probably won't remember it for all the good things that happened on and off the field. Overpowering the fun is frustration, fear and anger. All it took was one man, three letters, a few beers, a poor guy named Nuzie and silence.

"Nuzie, You suck you f-ing [homosexual]!"