Recently in Politics Category

And he's sounding rather "Presidential" I might add. As you listen to this, just ask yourself, is this a speech that George W. Bush or John McCain could pull off... or even think of giving?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHICAGO - Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president.

The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over. (source)

Well, I guess I'll believe it when I see it. I don't have anything against her really. It's just that she brings a lot of baggage to the White House. And for those who feel that Bill Clinton wouldn't have his nose in everything, I have a sea side home to sell you in Arizona.

Where to start? I guess I'll start with what is on CNN now. This from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book entitled "What Happened", that was just released...

President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve deeply into the possible policy options-including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them-before making a choice. Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq. [...]

What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.

In American slang terms, "the chicken has come home to roost." For my non-American friends, that means that the truth of this morally and intellectually corrupt administration is coming out. We went to war in Iraq for nothing more than OIL and PROFIT. This schmuck sent our young men and women to war based really on nothing, except his own interests. This will be his legacy. But I'm not worried about his legacy. That man has the intellect of a mushroom. I can forgive not being that smart (I'm not that smart myself), but, I have enough smarts to ask the right questions to the people who have the smarts. There are two differences between me and President Schmuck. 1) I THINK. I ask questions. I evaluate. I act. 2) I wouldn't bring down a whole freakin country based on what I wanted to do out of some feeling of revenge, or what I thought the American people wanted after 9/11, or any other factor WITHOUT THE FACTS.

You will probably say, "we acted on what we knew at the time." I'm so sick of hearing that crap. When you send young men and women into war, you assume nothing. You take nothing for granted. You make damn sure that there are no other options. President Schmuck didn't do that. And the worst part of it is, we are all going to pay for this schmuck for a very long time to come. And how many Iraqis were killed? How many of our brave soldiers were killed? And here we are at home complaining about the cost of gasoline. You don't really think this all happened in a vacuum, do you? Fasten your seat belts. The next 40 years is going to be a bumpy ride!

THE GOOD NEWS is that this is all coming out now. That is where healing begins. Perhaps we can start to put all of this together and move forward. This is why, in my opinion, our country will stand or fall based on what we do in the next presidential election. In the entire history of our country, we had good and bad Presidents (same goes for Congress). But I believe this is the breaking point. This is the one pivotal election in the history of our country. If it goes badly, we will loose our ability to be the country we all grew up knowing.

VOTE. AND VOTE INTELLIGENTLY, LIKE YOUR LIVES DEPENDED ON IT.

Well, I went off on a bit of a ramble. I'm still passionate about my country. I have more good news. It appears that I will continue living more. I went for a check up with my doctor today. I love my doctor. He's great. Aside from being incredibly handsome, smart... you get the idea... he's actually very good at taking time to sit down and talk to you about your check up. My God he is such a hunk!! But I digress...

A few months ago, I went in to see him on a routine check up. It didn't go so well. I had put on some weight, had high glucose, high blood pressure, and my cholesterol wasn't what it should be. My doctor warned me of diabetes, heart disease, etc. I decided to do something about it.

I started watching what I eat, and I walk two miles a day as I listen to my iPod. I do this during lunch. The result is the following:

Weight at the time I started: 225
Weight today: 212

Readings on 2/22/2008:
Cholesterol levels: 192 (normal range 158-199)
Triglyceride: 177 (normal range < 150)
HDL: 30 (normal range >= 40)
LDL: 127 (normal range < 160)
Glucose: 113 (normal range 70-100)

Readings on 5/28/2008:
Cholesterol levels: 181 (normal range 158-199)
Triglyceride: 152 (normal range < 150) Yes!
HDL: 32 (normal range >= 40)
LDL: 119 (normal range < 160) Yes!
Glucose: 99 (normal range 70-100) VERY PROUD OF THIS!

My doctor said, "This is awesome!" I feel good about it. Loosing the weight is just an added bonus because it gives me an excuse to buy new clothes. Don't get me wrong, I haven't given up martinis (I'm not stupid). ;-) But I now stop to think about what I'm eating. If I really need those salty fat-fried chips with salsa, I'll allow myself to have 12 chips instead of half a bag. And I take in each one. After that, I'm done.

Life is good!

I heard about this on the news on my drive into work this morning...

The case was brought by Maj. Margaret Witt (pictured), a flight nurse at McChord Air Force Base, near Tacoma, Wash., who served in the Air Force for nearly two decades, and received several medals for, among other things, saving soldiers in the Middle East. In 2004, the Air Force suspended her without pay after receiving a tip that she’d been in a longterm relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged last year, after having put in 18 years - two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

In 2006, Judge Ronald B. Leighton, of Federal District Court in Tacoma, dismissed the case. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, disagreed, reinstating Witt’s substantive and procedural due process claims (but affirming the dismissal of the equal protection claims) and returning the case to Judge Leighton for further proceedings. Here are reports from The Recorder, the NYT, the AP and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Click here for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

The Ninth Circuit didn’t strike down “don’t ask, don’t tell” (known as DADT) but it said the Air Force must prove that Witt’s dismissal furthered the military’s stated goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion — the goals that DADT was meant to further when Congress passed the law in 1993. “When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals,” Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote, “the government must advance an important governmental interest, the intrusion must significantly further that interest, and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.” (source)

Don't Ask Don't Tell should go! This policy has done more harm to our military than the events at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. We've lost too many good people to this stupid, homophobic policy. I love what one of the commenter's stated:

I agree, DADT does not work. I was in a combat unit in early 2003, and it was quite interesting. As we were ramping up for deployment and subsequent conquest/occupation of Iraq (sold to Americans as “liberation”), we needed every soldier we had available, and DADT suddenly didn’t matter. In my unit at least, it was deliberately ignored (as in, the unit did not seek to separate known homosexuals) Sure, non-tactical, high level units still separated good soldiers because they were gay (linguists, e.g., who are often in the news), but most of the units that had boots on the ground in the fight consciously ignored DADT so that we could keep those great Americans with us. Funny that the policy is meant to maintain unit cohesiveness, morale, etc, during our war-fighting missions, but most units wait until after their deployments to start enforcing it again, when they no longer need every available soldier for a real mission. Comment by former Army Captain, current lawyer. - May 22, 2008 at 10:08 am

I can't tell you how many gay soldiers I've talked to online. They are currently serving in Iraq. We talk in code. I know what they are saying, but they can't say it. They know that even if it comes out about their sexuality, they are there to stay. The military will not discharge them, NOW. There are times, when they start trusting me as a friend, they start talking more openly. I give them a stern warning, "Be Careful!". They shut up about it. If they are found out, discharge proceedings will be held against them WHEN THIS WAR ENDS AND THEY ARE NO LONGER NEEDED (you didn't really think the military would forget about it, did you?). What the hell kind of a backwards county would do that?

My question is this. The year is 2008. We live in a "free" country where everyone is supposed to have so-called "equal rights". It's all bull. There can be no equality unless we are ALL equal. This country can not and will not be free until the freedom that the Constitution dictates is actually carried out throughout this land FOR EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN. It's not that hard to do. When are we going to get off our butts and just DO IT?

Until that happens, the United States is no better than any other third-world country that gives no regard to the rights of it's citizens.

Now what were we trying to accomplish again? I honestly still don't know.

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

Dear Bill,

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

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

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

HRC presents: 7 Days to a Better Financial You

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

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

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

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

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