Essays: February 2005 Archives

What did people do before the Internet? For that matter, what did cavemen do for entertainment? Was it all about surviving and hunting? Seriously boring. They didn’t even have an X-box let alone XM Radio. Their version of blogs were writing on the cave walls. I would have died an early age, probably of boredom.

Today, all kinds of people blog about all kinds of subjects. I never considered myself a “journalist” in any sense. I merely write about what I feel at the time. My writing is highly opinionated so, unlike a journalist, I have no pretense of being “fair and balanced”. My writing is what it is, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. People who come here to read know they are reading my viewpoint.

Also, unlike journalists, I have no legal protections for what I write, although, many journalists today would also say their legal rights as journalists are being eroded over time as well.

Depending on whom you ask, bloggers are either “citizen journalists” who are democratizing media, or bloviating loudmouths posting ill-formed opinions on personal websites between trips to the fridge. They are victimizers when they assault the news organizations they love to hate, and victims when they are treated as “real media” by litigious companies out for blood. [...]

To the Electronic Frontier Foundation, bloggers are “online journalists” who should be treated as print reporters under the law, or a “pack of wolves hacking at their keyboards with no oversight, no editors and no accountability”... [...]

In the end, maybe irritable gossip zine Gawker has it right. Editors there have referred to blogs as the “medium beloved by ’citizen journalists’ and ’14-year-old girls’ alike.”

But should bloggers receive protection under the law as regular reporters? (source)

I don’t know the bloggers they are referring to, but this blogger talks about his real-life situation and also gives opinions on different news articles of the day. And I ALWAYS cite my source if using someone else’s work. My life is not so exciting that I know the next target of Al Qaeda, post it to my blog, but don’t want to reveal my sources. But let’s say that there was such a case, perhaps a bit less extreme. Something I knew about, posted it, made others aware of it, and some government agency wanted to know my source of information. Would I have to give it up, or could I claim that I’m a “journalist” and say that I’m protected?

To me, the argument seems ludicrous. I am no journalist, and I would never claim to be, but that’s apparently not the case with many bloggers out there. Even journalists are no longer able have protection against being forced to reveal their sources.

Two journalists facing jail for refusing to reveal their sources had their appeal quashed yesterday. A panel of three judges panel ruled unanimously that they had no constitutional right to withhold the identity of their contacts from a criminal investigation.

The case has wide-reaching ramifications for freedom of the press in the United States. (source)

I think that is unfortunate because why would anyone talk to a journalist now without guarantees that their identity will be protected? This is a huge blow to freedom of the press and will have huge implications on what issues will come to light in the future. That directly effects us.

For bloggers, we never had this protection, although some have tried to claim that we did.

...contrary to conventional wisdom, journalists don’t have these protections. The press has been under assault from the legislative and judicial branches for the past 40 years. These constitutionally protected privileges have become essentially meaningless to reporters and, by extension, everyone else. Bloggers simply can’t count on the law to protect them from the law. [...]

Most ominously for the blogosphere, Judge David B. Sentelle, in addressing reporters’ privilege, asked if it protected “the proprietor of a web log: the stereotypical ’blogger’ sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the world wide web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? (source)

Well, now I’m wondering if someone has surveillance set up on me (looking out my window for cameras pointed at my house). I do often blog in my pajamas (silk, no less! - deep navy blue with little beige diamond figures), or in the buff (if you are really lucky and it’s in the middle of the night)*.

Besides, I will admit that I have times where my I feel my writing is quite good. There are other times that it’s not so good. I am not a professional journalist. As such, I don’t have to go through twenty rough drafts to publish here. I spell check and proof read it. Beyond that, how good the writing is depends very much on my mood. It’s tough to worry about writing well if you are depressed and down (and no, I’m not saying that I’m always depressed and down). But, being depressed and down is also legitimate and does it not also have a place in the writing, if it effects that writing?

What journalistic standards would a diary have to adhere to? What I write would go into a diary or personal journal. The only difference is, I share my journal with the world.

...would it not be possible for a government official wishing to engage in the sort of unlawful leaking under investigation in the present controversy to call a trusted friend or a political ally, advise him to set up a web log (which I understand takes about three minutes) and then leak to him under a promise of confidentiality the information which the law forbids the official to disclose?”

The judge seems concerned that bloggers (in pajamas, no less) might be used by their sources. (source)

Well, for my blog, I suppose the only way I could be used by someone else to leak information before it became public would be something on the order of someone informing me that Jennifer Lopez is secretly dating a man who is gay, but she doesn’t know it, and neither does Hollywood. And, I would tell my source that I would never reveal their identity EVER! (unless I was tied up and they used electricity or reptiles). Then, all bets are off.

* disclaimer: this does not imply that I sleep “in the buff” (naked) nor does it imply that I do not sleep “in the buff” (naked).

O God, I could be bounded in a nut shell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams - Hamlet, William Shakespeare

It’s 2:11am. I can’t sleep. I can’t get yesterday out of my mind. Why did I go to that place? The last time I was there was in the first fight for the gay rights bill that we currently have in this state. In that fight, we lost the bill by eight votes. It eventually passed, but the process took a toll. There was so much hate there. People who talked who didn’t want us to have civil rights argued that it would be the end of decent life in the state if normal citizens were not allowed to fire gays from work just for being gay, deny them housing, access to public accommodations, and all the rest. The bill eventually did pass and life did go on in Connecticut. The sky didn’t fall as they predicted.

Yesterday afternoon, a committee at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford were discussing the fate of two bills. One gave same sex couples the ability to have Vermont-style civil unions, and would be called a “civil union”. The other bill gave same sex couples full marriage and would be called a “marriage”, having no difference in name or otherwise, to what is now heterosexual marriage. Both bills could die in committee and never have a hearing in the full body of the legislature.

I listened to two open statements. One from Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut and a leading opponent of gay marriage. The other one from Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, who supports only marriage for gay couples, and does not support anything less, such as civil unions.

I had heard Brian talk before because he’s been in the news a lot. His argument is that this will be the “last straw” for marriage, an institution that has seen so many assaults on it in the last thirty years. I’m sitting there wondering, “How is that my fault? Why should I go through this because someone who got married decided 55 hours later that it was a mistake? I didn’t contribute to this problem marriage is having.”

I knew what Anne was going to say. Her organization has taken the stand that anything less than full marriage is simply not equality. I share that view. I don’t want a “civil union”. It’s degrading that I can’t be a fully equal citizen.

One of the conservative representatives was having a hard time with this (I will not mention his name because I don’t want repercussions from saying this so publicly). He wanted to know why we couldn’t settle for civil unions. His argument was that it takes time for people to understand these issues. He himself could not come to terms with giving us marriage. He said this in the committee and warned Anne that if we (the gays) kept on this course, his fear was that we would end up with nothing.

The round of questions for Anne finished. After she stepped down, the conservative representative left the room. I followed.

I went up to him and thanked him for trying to understand. He said, “Bill, I am trying to understand. Do you share Anne’s view of this, that you won’t settle for civil unions. I have to tell you, I will not vote for marriage.” I said, “Yes, I share that view. We both know that anything less than equal is not equality.” He said, “I know there are a lot of people who need these rights.” I said, “My partner and I are seeing a lawyer and spending money to try to get the really important rights given by marriage...” He interrupted me and said, “That’s no guarantee. Anything can be overturned. I know that there are couples like yourself who need these rights. How long have you two been together?” I replied, “Thirty years.” I proceeded to tell him what it has been like for people I know and what some of my nightmares have been. I feel my voice tighten during this and it’s hard to speak. I fight through it and I feel tears dropping off my cheeks. I am angry at myself. Of all the people to show vulnerability too, this was the last person I wanted to see this. He shook his head and said, “I’m afraid if you go for the whole thing (marriage), you will get nothing.” I said, “I have nothing now.” We parted.

I collected myself, and went back into the room.

A gay couple, together for 15 years were now talking, as a couple. They talked about their son Eli, who is two and a half years old. They are scared of what he will go through if they are not able to have full marriage. They worry about benefits. Even though one partner, who covers the other one with his benefits package because his employer (Columbia University) honors domestic partners, they still pay taxes on the premiums they pay for this, while married people do not. Columbia requires a copy of a marriage certificate to allow them as “married”. That can’t provide this. The committee was taken aback by this issue of being taxed on a benefit that marriage protects straight couples from. The civil union bill would not prevent this from happening. They continue to talk about Eli, as one of them fights back tears.

I’m sitting there listening to this and simply think to myself, “I hate how we are treated.” I get up and leave the building. I go back to work, even though there’s only an hour left. I work for the next two and one half hours frantically, trying to get it off my mind.

I go home to cook dinner for Kent. And, until I went to sleep, I was able to not think about it. But it came back in bad dreams. I’m not sure anybody understands how awful this feels, other than other gay couples. I’m not sure I’ve described it very well. How do you put into words what the knot in your stomach feels like as you wake up from sleep gasping for breath?

You ever wonder what the purpose of life is? It’s a puzzling thing for me, wrapped up with all kinds of contradictions. And, to me, there are different layers to it.

At the top most layer, you have nature. The wilderness, the surroundings. It is the only pure thing that I have witness to. It is pure in my sense because it carries no judgments one way or the other about you. You exist in it’s domain, and are totally on equal footing with every other living and non-living thing on the planet.

On the next layer down, you have the sub-classes; plant, animal, mineral. Again, no judgments. You are what you are.

On the next layer down, you have sub-classes of plant, animal, and mineral. At this level, we see judgments being made in the different sub-classes of plant and animal. This is where “natural selection” takes place in my world. The strong live, the weak (or exploited) die. Whole species are wiped out because they cannot compete. Man has had a huge effect at this level because our actions have aided in the extinction of countless species of plants and animals (exploitation).

On the next layer down, we are within a sub-class of a species, for example, a species of bird, or humans. We are, at this point, fine tuning the dynamics of what happens within the species. There are two judgments happening at this level. The first is the judgment our planet will have on us for our actions. If we ruin the planet environmentally, it will damage our chances of survival, along with other species. So, the top-most layer will judge us. At our immediate level, we will judge others of our kind. In the wild, the weaker will parish, carrying on the stronger genes within that species.

Humans are different from other species in that there is a level of intelligence that drives our actions. Because of this, we can hold judgment over species, as well as those within our species.

On the next layer down, there are sub-categories within a species. Higher animals with intelligence, humans, gorillas, and the like, have set up sub-classes within their ranks. It is at this level that I struggle everyday. Unfortunately for me, I am in a lower class of this sub-category. At this level, there are desirable levels and there are undesirable levels. Mine is an undesirable level because it has been defined that way, or judged to be so by those in the desirable category.

The only way out of this category is for those in the desirable category to somehow see and understand that I have traits that can add value to the whole. Unfortunately (for me), in the grand scheme of things, this process can take several generations to complete it’s judgment. In the meantime, some of us will live our lives the best we can and live in a sub-class status, with whatever breadcrumbs we can strive to get.

What gets us through this problem? For me, a few things...

our inner strength
keeping perspective in our place in the world
the people who view this judgment as being wrong (our friends)
the hope that tomorrow will be brighter and maybe the judgment will come soon, and be in our favor and...
if that doesn’t happen, maybe those in our class who come after us will have a better life than we had

Of course, the real question in all of this is why. Why is there this innate desire or need to sub-class people within our society. It must be something that has been passed down by environment or perhaps it is are very nature. The darker side. We can make ourselves feel better about ourselves by making others feel that they are less.

It’s an empty victory because, when all is said and done, society as a whole loses out on the potential of those in the sub-class who are just trying to survive and have a decent life (somewhat happy and fulfilling) from day to day. This has nothing to do with monetary issues and wealth. It has to do with the really important issue of what it’s like to have a damaged spirit from receiving the rewards of being in an undesirable sub-class of people. Once that has happened, it is part of you for the rest of your life. The fact that I woke up this morning with this on my mind if proof of the damage that has been done.

If tomorrow I were totally equal in this wonderful society of ours, I would never forget that I am now equal because others have deemed me to be so. I have no inaliable rights. The privileges I have been given to be equal can be taken away at any point in time at the will of the people - the majority. Despite the fact that there are laws in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority, it’s all just a play on words. As we are seeing now, those words can easily be overridden to protect something else from the undesirables... say marriage... or adoption.

So, it would seem that laws mean little. They are in place to serve not all the people, but the people in the majority. And if you are in a minority who is viewed as undesirable, God help you. If you don’t believe in God, all you have is your strength of character to give you value. It’s a hole you can’t dig your way out of.

I could pretend that I am a happy happy gay man, like the one’s portrayed in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, but that’s not my reality. This blog is about the real life experiences of me, a gay man living in America. It is built on truth and what my life is from day to day.

The one thing that has meant most to me in this world, that has gotten me through so many difficult experiences, are my friends, both gay and straight. Some of them I haven't yet met. They have left comments of support and encouragement on my blog, and I feel like they are dear friends now. They have made all the difference.

FORT HOOD, Texas Feb 2, 2005 — Sgt. Javal Davis knew all along he was wrong to step on the hands and feet of prisoners at Abu Ghraib on a warm night in November 2003. None of his superiors told him to do it, he said, he simply snapped under job stress.

Davis, a former guard at the Baghdad prison, recounted daily mortar attacks and hostile detainees armed with homemade knives. On the night in question, he said he got mad when a female guard was hit in the face with a brick thrown by a prisoner.

“It just got to me,” he told a judge Tuesday. “I just lost it.” (source)

You know, this is the first soldier I have heard who has done the honorable thing. He has admitted truthfully his involvement in what happened at Abu Ghraib Prison. I admire that.

This story became available on February 2, 2005, just a few days ago. Since then, Sgt. Davis has been sentenced to six months in a military prison, reduction in rank to private, and a bad-conduct discharge. The bad-conduct discharge is a severe punishment. Many people do not realize this. It means it will most likely follow him the rest of his life and will be a factor in future employment, among other things. He also will not be eligible for any governmental benefits, such as health care from VA facilities or educational benefits.

FORT HOOD, Texas Feb 5, 2005 - Sgt. Javal Davis doesn’t have to serve much prison time for abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003, but once his incarceration is over, so is his prized career as a soldier.

A nine-man Army jury on Friday sentenced Davis to six months in a military prison, reduction in rank to private and a bad-conduct discharge.

The jurors deliberated more than five hours to arrive at their punishment for Davis, a former Abu Ghraib guard who admitted stepping on the hands and feet of handcuffed detainees and falling with his full weight on top of them. (source)

It’s a sad thing to see some young man’s career ruined by something like this. He was there and one thing that we have to realize is that sitting here and writing about it is a far cry from what this man went through. He was there. I was not. One of his fellow soldiers was hit in the face with a brick thrown by a prisoner. How would I have reacted? I’m sure with anger. What would I have done? I’d like to think that I would have been professional and kept my composure about it all, but I can’t make that assumption. A lot of factors go into what it’s like to be in a situation where you are in a hostile environment where you can be killed in an instant if you ever let your guard down. Day after day, that has to grind you down and fatigue you. When that happens, anything can happen. The smallest things can set you off.

So, I’m honestly not surprised at all by what Sgt. Davis has said, and I do understand, to the point I can understand, what may have been going through his head when he participated in these deeds.

But the blame really doesn’t belong to him. The blame belongs to an administration that put it’s soldiers in a situation of having to deal with these situations without adequate planning, resources and equipment, and the number of soldiers in the country.

And, the blame falls with us. ALL OF US. We allowed this administration to do this, to lie about the reason we invaded this country in the first place. “Weapons of mass destruction” was simply a smoke screen. In fact, there were plans to take out Saddam Hussein before 9/11 ever happened. The attack on our country was merely a convenient smoke cover. We have not held this administration accountable for the lack of ANY weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. It’s as if we don’t give a damn.

In the mean time, the careers of the soldiers who did this are ruined. Some of that is valid, but it’s no excuse to not go after the real culprits in all of this; President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and yes, Colin Powell. Colin Powell has been a huge disappointment for me. Early on, he told the President, “If you go into Iraq, you will own this war.” Meaning, if it turns out that there was no cause to gut the country, the President would pay the price. But guess what, it doesn’t work that way in Washington. This President and his administration can lie their way out of anything, because we will not hold them accountable.

And when it looks as if there may be a price to pay for anyone in the administration, it’s always good to say, “But we’re protecting traditional marriage from the gays... and what about all of my faith-based initiatives that I’ve put through, all the while respecting the line of the separation of church and state? Oh and also, did I say that the war is Iraq is hard work?” It all works for him.

When the abuses of Abu Ghraib were made public, I was outraged. In fact, I took the photos of the abuses, and published them on this site. The photos are getting a huge number of hits. I did not do this to humiliate my country. I did this because I believe America cannot go into a country touting freedom, only to end up being the oppressors. We must be better than this and I remember a day when we were better than this.

Many of the comments left with the photos are filled with hate and disgust. I have chosen not to edit them. Perhaps there is value in having people air their misgivings and frustrations. But one comment did get my attention, and is really the reason I am talking about this:

From: just a soldier (Tue Feb 1 15:43:03 2005) I was at the abu gharib prison, I understand what happened there was taken to far but take into consideration the abuse our soldiers were put through apon capture, at least there heads werent chopped off.

What most people dont understand these prisoners were the worst of the worst that is why they were at this facility. Many of them killed or took part in the killing or maiming of US soldiers. If any information could be gained that could have saved my life, i’ve got no problem with humiliating a bunch of criminals.

You go ahead and pitty these terrorist that we were sent to protect iraq from to begin with. Its a different story though when an iraqi police officer sneaks a pistol in to the prison and someone you know gets shot because of it. It is easy for those who have never been to war to judge the action of those in the actual war.

The lower enlisted are being hung out to dry, but you expect a general to take the fall.

My response to the comment:

From: Administrator (Bill) (Tue Feb 1 23:09:47 2005) I’m not trying to paint one side of the story here. I do wish you had left your email address. I was touched by your comments and do think we need to hear from the soldiers as well.

I wanted your email address because I was going to offer to place a full article written by you on the site. If you read this, please consider it and send me your address.

I also feel the hateful rhetoric displayed in some of these comments is truly unfortunate. I try to have the site provide information. The ideas expressed are my own, but I do try to learn from others. And you are right, I wasn’t there and I do not know what happened. I would like you to describe it, if you would.

The administration tried to side step the issue by saying that the prisoners at the prison were the “worst of the worst”, suggesting that, even though these disclosures were bad, the prisoners somehow deserved this punishment.

My question is this. If the prisoners were the “worst of the worst”, why is it that 90% of them were released after this scandal broke out? The reason that was given when the prisoners were released was that, at the time they were first captured, there was a lot of chaos in Iraq, and that they herded up people they thought were bad people. It later turned out that the 90% held in Abu Ghraib, and put through the torture, were innocent. At least, there was no evidence to charge them with anything. And if we really do want to install democracy in Iraq (at lease, our definition of it), than we have to at least accept that, in the absence of evidence, the people released from Abu Ghraib, were innocent. We can’t just lock up people and torture them for no reason. Or can we?

Even with that, the administration said, “In times of war, bad things happen.” That statement is as stupid as the President saying over and over during the presidential debates that the war in Iraq is “hard work”.

“In times of war, bad things happen.” And we, the American People, let him get away with that. To dismiss what happened at Abu Ghraib as “bad things happen” is just not good enough. Or is it? We turned around and re-elected the man again to a second term in office, ALL BUILT ON LIES.

This is democracy?

Other reading on this:
Army Spc. Charles Graner convicted in Iraq prisoner abuse
Support Our Troops
Amnesty Condemns US for War on Terror Torture
U.S. Soldier Gets 8 Years for Iraq Jail Abuse
Living in the Land of OZ

Good morning!

A few things this morning in the news that warrant mentioning... I call them “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” First the good (such as it is)...

D.C. Council Moves Toward Rights for Gay Couples

Washington (AP) - The D.C. Council is moving toward giving gay couples many of the same rights as married couples. But they stop short of endorsing gay marriage or civil unions.

It seems ironic to me that our nation’s capital would strive to recognize gay couples. I say strive, because when it really comes down to it, it’s a half-assed attempt for them to not feel so guilty about the total lack of legal support for gay couples.

Win or lose, I guess they will be able to say, “Well, we tried.” I used to take violin lessons from a violin master years ago. I couldn’t get a technique that I was trying for. I worked on it for weeks, and when he finally laid into me for not getting it, I said to him in disappointment, “I tried!”. He got in my face and said, “There is no TRY! You DO, or you DO NOT! All of life is this way!” He pissed me off so much that within a day of heavy concentration and discipline, I had the technique accomplished. No one tells me what I can’t do (except for getting married)!

Now the bad...

UTAH - Bill for cohabitants is shot down

Despite the support of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and the public, lawmakers have balked at granting cohabiting adults - gay or otherwise - marriage like rights.

Senate Bill 89 went down to defeat Tuesday with 18 senators opposing it and only 10 in favor.

“It’s time to call a spade a spade,” said Equality Utah Vice Chairman Scott McCoy. “This is not about their worries about Amendment 3. This is about the fact that they don’t want to do anything that would be beneficial for gay people.”

SB89 would have established a “mutual dependence benefits contract” form and required the Utah Health Department to keep track of such agreements, including rights of hospital visitation, end-of-life decision-making power and property inheritance rights. [...]

“We’re disappointed,” Huntsman Legislative Liaison Mike Mower said, shrugging. “This is something that we have been supportive of. Since the first days of Gov. Huntsman’s campaign, we felt it was a good opportunity to advance basic rights for all Utahns.”

I guess I should just say, “It’s Utah. That’s the way it is there. You didn’t expect enlightenment from the state did you?”

And now the ugly...

I was driving home last night, and listening to Larry King Live (transcript). He had a panel of evangelical ministers on his program to talk about different social issues. They talked about the war in Iraq, “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, how women are killing their unborn children through abortion, God’s punishment for all the sins that we have, gay rights, gay marriage, and gay adoption (my gay adoption poll).

Not surprising, there were two issues that dominated the show; gay marriage and abortion. They want abortion stopped, of course, but did say they felt that there would be a civil war of sorts if the law were ever overturned. I think they are right on that one.

It was tough to listen too. When it came to gay adoption, they said that two gays should never be able to adopt. One of them asked Larry, “Would you like your children raised by two men or two women?” Larry said, “I’d rather have them raised by two men than by two people hitting each other or two people screaming at each other or two people cheating on their income tax or two people cheating on each other, YES, I’d rather have them raised by gays.”

I never knew Larry King thought this way. I found myself saying out loud, “You Go Larry!!!”.

B. LAHAYE: ...And I want to make it clear right here, we’re not angry at homosexuals, really aren’t. We love homosexuals and we want to help them. And I know of hundreds...

KING: Why not let them live as they wish?

B. LAHAYE: Because...

KING: Why should the government care? The faith can do what it wishes. Why should the government care?

B. LAHAYE: We would like to rescue them from dying at an early age of diseases prevalent.

KING: How about male-female diseases?

B. LAHAYE: Well, it’s not killing off the population like it is with the gay community. Having children get the AIDS and it just goes on and on and on.

I wanted to tell Larry, “Talking to these people is about as effective as talking to a door knob.” It’s true. You will never win and they will never listen.

Although Brian McLaren, Founding Pastor of the Cedar Ridge Community Church, offered the most insightful thought of the evening, when responding to a caller to the program.

CALLER: I was raised in the Christian faith, and I also happen to be a gay man. And I just heard one of your panel members say that there’s no hatred towards the gay community, but that’s not how I see it. All I see is hate. And didn’t Jesus preach love? Aren’t we to love one another?

KING: Brian.

MCLAREN: Yeah, I am very sympathetic with your call. I see, even though we might say that people don’t individually hate, the language of culture wars -- war is a hate word. So I think we’ve got to get away from that kind of language. And I think one of the greatest things that Christians can do, especially Christians with the name evangelical, would be to start making some friends and invite their neighbors over, and get to know someone who’s gay, get to know someone who’s very different. And not to just fix them or argue with them, but really to understand them as a neighbor.

He’s right. I honestly don’t know if they hate us or not. I think an overwhelming majority of the religious right and evangelicals do indeed have an intense dislike for homosexuals. But, that is my perception, so that is my reality.

Every single time I am confronted with a law that keeps my family from having equality, the law has it’s roots in religion, every-single-time. And behind the people who are driving the law, is the far right religious folks.

To me, in my everyday life, that is hateful. It is hateful because through law, I am being diminished, and they don’t care. Do you honestly think that the 11 states who passed state constitutional amendments preventing equality for gay couples by denying them marriage was based in love? I actually feel safer traveling to Canada than I do some states within my own country. There are some states that I would actually fear going to. What does that say about my country?

All of this has happened in my own country, in the last two days:

South Dakota marriage amendment endorsed
Kansans to Vote on Gay Marriage Amendment
GOP's same-sex marriage flier denounced by Democrats
Bill to fix Utah Gay-Marriage Ban Loses
Virginia House OKs 'Traditional Marriage' plates
Idaho Marriage bill goes to Senate

This is how it feels at my end, the receiving end of legislation being drawn up daily from one state to the next, to let me know, in no uncertain terms, that I am part of the dregs of society, that my kind have little worth (unless society needs something from us), and that it is not desirable for us to share in the whole human experience.