General: August 2007 Archives

Sen. Larry Craig, who in May told the Idaho Statesman he had never engaged in homosexual acts, was arrested less than a month later by an undercover police officer who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him in an airport men’s room.

The arrest at a Minnesota airport prompted Craig to plead guilty to disorderly conduct earlier this month. His June 11 encounter with the officer was similar to an incident in a men’s room in a Washington, D.C., rail station described by a Washington-area man to the Idaho Statesman. In that case, the man said he and Craig had sexual contact. [...]

Craig, 62, was elected to Congress in 1980. Should he win re-election in 2008 and complete his term, he would be the longest-serving Idahoan ever in Congress. His record includes a series of votes against gay rights and his support of a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution that bars gay marriage and civil unions. (source)

I’ve been avoiding writing about anything political for the last few months, opting instead to focus on my family life, photography, trips, and the like. I’ve come to the realization that your life is what you make it. You decide just how happy you are going to be and what you want your life to be.

That being said, I’m not going to get sucked into talking about things (politics) that I can’t control and that will effect my life in a negative way in the long run. BUT... I just have to say a few things about the issue surrounding Idaho Senator Larry Craig, in general terms.

A Point of View About the "Gay Anonymous Sex" Phenomenon
Everyone seems to think that most gay men have anonymous sex in parks, public bathrooms, and the like. There’s currently a big brouhaha going on in Fort Lauderdale about public sex. Why do people think this phenomenon exists? It doesn’t exist for straight folks. Here’s why...

Try to imagine for a moment if you are straight, that you live in a world that is gay-oriented, and that straight sex or having feelings for someone of the opposite sex is something to be ashamed of. You want to feel like you are part of human society, but everywhere you look, there are references to the life you could have, if you were only gay; references to sexuality in movies, magazines, public displays of affection, etc.

What do you do? You go underground. If people are honest, everyone needs affection, and part of that most likely involves sex. You also know that society not only thinks you are disgusting, but the very thought of you having a relationship with someone of the opposite sex is revolting. You want to feel connected to the rest of the human race. So, you go to places where you feel that no one will know you and that you won’t be seen. Not surprisingly, most of these places are unsafe, unclean, and in places where most people would never dream of going for a sexual encounter, which is whole point of going there for sex in the first place, if you want to hide it.

What to do about this issue
It shouldn’t be surprising that there are people who will go to any lengths to avoid the stigmatization of being labeled queer, especially those in public office. And just to make sure that everyone thinks that you are in the right category, if you are a politician, you vote against the queers every chance you get. Which brings us to Senator Craig.

What Senator Craig wants in his life is companionship. In his narrow view of the world, he is trying to achieve that companionship in the only available way open to him. I didn’t say it was the best way to find companionship, but it is the only way in his world.

Ironically, he is part of the machine that is out to destroy what would make it possible for him to have that companionship, and to be part of the fabric of society. If there were more committed gay couples, there would be less gay anonymous sex by people who are ashamed of themselves. And many of these “gay men” having this sex go right back home to their wives who have no clue what they are up too. But at least, they are living the straight lifestyle.

The way for gay people to commit to each other is for society to stop treating the concept of gay couple-hood as something bad and to be avoided. In other words, get rid of the stigma of being gay. You don’t do that by passing amendments against gay marriage or passing laws that single out gay citizens. Senator Craig is guilty of doing this.

Senator Craig basically got caught. He has done everything in his power to kill any hope for gay couples in Idaho of ever having any legal recognition or legal protections for a very long time to come. He deserves everything he gets. He’s earned it.

I used to be more understanding of people such as Senator Craig, who can’t seem to come to terms with their reality. But now that we know what he’s about, all the while fueling the fires of hatred against gay people in the Idaho Senate, it just pisses me off.

A few years ago, Kent and I visited our town clerk, Ms. Cyr, in an attempt to get a marriage license. We were refused. This was before the Civil Union law went into effect. So now, we are asking for cemetery plots next to each other.

Before you go jumping to conclusions, we are both in perfect health. It’s just that, I don’t want to put this off and have to make these decisions when I am in not-such-good health, and able to deal with these issues. So, I want to get it out of the way. After this is done, we finally have to update our will to reflect this, or to give a funeral home authorization to act according to our wishes.

I urge other partners to do this as well. Do not assume that your wishes will be carried out. In looking at the readings of the so called marriage laws in our state, even though the state now allows Civil Unions, the statutes go out of their way to state that the State will not in any way shape or form, “condone homosexuality”. Does buying plots next to each other and stating that we were spouses do that? I would say so.

So, I sent this letter to the Town Clerk of Coventry.

Dear Ms. Cyr:

A few years ago, my partner and I came to your office to apply for a marriage license, if you remember. Being of the same sex, we were refused the license. Well, now we would like to buy a cemetery plot together and be buried next to each other. Perhaps in death, we can be at least be treated with the dignity that we are spouses (and please spare me any talk of “civil unions” - they aren’t equal to marriage, and I think we both know that). I’m assumed that there are no laws that state that we can’t be buried next to each other. But then I read the marriage statutes on the Coventry website.

After reading the marriage statutes (for a man and a woman only) posted on your site, that end with an elaborate declaration that homosexuality isn’t to be condoned in any way shape or form, it is prudent for me to ask the question; can we buy plots next to each other? In addition, are there state laws that prohibit us from stating on our plot markers that we were spouses? After all, wouldn’t that be “condoning homosexuality”? The State declaration reads in part:

“Nothing in sections ...... shall be deemed or construed (1) to mean the State of Connecticut condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle, (2) to authorize the promotion of homosexuality or bisexuality in educational institutions or require the teaching in educational institutions of homosexuality or bisexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, (3) to authorize or permit the use of numerical goals or quotas, or other types of affirmative action programs, with respect to homosexuality or bisexuality in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of sections ..... , (4) to authorize the recognition of or the right of marriage between persons of the same sex, or (5) to establish sexual orientation as a specific or separate cultural classification in society.”

Yes I know, that is stated at the end of the marriage license section (more specifically, on the Coventry website, you term the link as “MARRIAGE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT”), but it speaks for the entire State of Connecticut, without regards to marriage. What on earth do educational institutions have to do with marriage? The wording is broad, so my questions are valid.

Assuming there are no laws that state that two people of the same sex, who are spiritually married, being buried next to each other doesn’t in some way “condone homosexuality”, we would like to purchase a plot for the two of us. We are interested in the cemetery on Grant Road. I don’t know the name of the cemetery, but we are hoping that you can help us with that and, if you aren’t the person we should be talking to, who that person would be.

Please let me know.

Our next step is to talk to a funeral director to make the arrangements and, since we will not degrade our relationship with a “civil union”, hopefully, he/she will be able to make our wishes in this come true, without of course, “condoning homosexuality.”

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon

I’ll let you know what she says.

So it was refreshing to hear that The Advocate, a national gay and lesbian newsmagazine founded in 1967, has decided to offer its readers the choice of receiving the magazine without its traditional plastic wrapper, or “privacy wrap” as the magazine termed it. The Advocate had been delivered in an opaque wrapper that shielded its front and back covers, as if it were pornography. According to the magazine’s publisher, the majority of subscribers voiced their preference for getting rid of the wrapper in an April poll. Up until now, The Advocate’s editors said, they were justified in wrapping the magazine because that’s how the majority of readers wanted it delivered. (source)

This reminded me of how things were for us after we left Idaho and moved to San Mateo, California. The year would have been 1978. We live at 3014 Los Prados in San Mateo. How on earth I remember that, I have no idea. Looking out of our apartment window across the street, there was a market where we did most of our grocery shopping. In front of that market were a series of news stands. There was one for the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Chronicle, and, among others, The Advocate. In those days, The Advocate was only sold in tacky news stands. And instead of the nice glossy magazine it is today, it was more of a tabloid-style newspaper.

I would casually pass by it while buying groceries, carefully glancing at it when I was sure no one else was watching. I did this to see if a new edition had come out. If a new edition had come out, I would make note of it. I would not buy one in plain view.

Then, I would get up in the middle of the night around 3:00 a.m., go to the window in our little office where we had a clear view of the stand in front of the market, and make sure that there was no one around, AT ALL. I would then get dressed, walk across the street, quickly put in my money, grab a copy, put it underneath my jacket, and scramble back to the apartment before anyone spotted me. I was certain that if I had been spotted with a copy of The Advocate, I would probably be killed. That was my fear, and it was real. In those days, even the police had very little good to say about gay people.

So this article about The Advocate giving readers the option to not have the magazine in opaque plastic is kind of a breakthrough, I suppose. I get mine every other week in my mailbox, and it is kind of nice to know that my nosy postal delivery person doesn’t know that I am gay. But who am I fooling? They have to know. We get many mailings with both our names on it, such as our mortgage, bank card statements, etc.

So I suppose it’s time I tell The Advocate that I am doing my part to save our planet by telling them to deliver their magazine to me in plain view without the plastic wrapping. Looking back on it, I think it’s a real tragedy that some in our society (like myself back in 1978) live in such fear of what could happen. And many still don’t feel safe. There are about seven states that I feel safe going to in America.

And yet, in this country, we call ourselves “free”. I guess there are degrees of freedom.

hello again. i just thoght that anyone from my famly can search on the web for my Email and read this post and i would fall in trouble like zach,so please Bill/kent could u erase the part in my post that talks about me needing help and my email/country. Thank you :)

That was a comment left for me by a young Muslim man a few hours ago concerning a comment he left back in April, 2007 on an entry on this site. He was concerned for his personal safety and was worried that his parents would do a search for his email address on the web, and it would link back to the entry on Zach.

I’ve removed his email address completely, per his wishes. But, it saddens me that this young man is in such desperation that he is so filled with fear for his personal safety, all because his parents may find out he’s gay. It’s true. Being Muslim, depending on where he lives, he could be killed for such a thing. I wish him the best.

If you are reading this my friend, know that I have removed all traces of your email address and identity from this blog.