Recently in General Category

Yes, we are alive and well.

Vacations are exhausting. At least this one was for me. We went to the Grand Canyon again this year. The last time was three years ago. We stayed for two full days, then off to Monument Valley in the very southern part of Utah. It was an interesting experience and one that I'd recommend to anyone who loves the outdoors. Then, we were off to Sedona, Arizona for the remainder of the trip to visit with the folks and to see the canyon again. The last time we were there, we simply passed through the area, only stopping briefly. Not a lot happens in Sedona, but it's a great experience for a nature photographer. There's lots of subject matter. Sedona was really the only time that we had to relax a bit. Someday, I would like to take a vacation where I go and basically do nothing, where every single day is not planned out with a time table.

I took many photos. I'm a bit ashamed to say how many, but rest assured, that once I've gone through them, I'll post them up to my Flickr account for anyone to see.

Speaking of which, it's amazing to me how the Internet brings certain aspects together. For example, last night I received this email about a photo that I posted in June of 2007 of a street performer in Seattle. That was on our vacation to the Olympic National Park last summer. A comment was posted on the photo that said, "Thank you for taking and posting this photo! My name is Emery Carl and I am your performer." I was thinking, "How on earth did he ever find that?" I didn't post his name because I didn't know his name. Just strange. He put his web site in the link. I usually don't like advertising placed in my photos, but I figure it's ok. I did after all use his photo.

Since getting home, life has not slowed down for us. Kent is working late most nights at work on committees. I am trying to catch up after being out of the office for over a week. On top of that, I had to turn my car in because it's lease expired. I was attached to it. This new car his just too much intelligence built into it. This is the exact interior of my new car, color and all. The exterior is a deep burgundy.

I've tried to get back into political issues while returning. The Monday we got home, the Connecticut Supreme Court was hearing about the lack of benefits that the state civil unions offer. You can read the excerpts from the story or not. They are the ones that caught my eye...

Eager to celebrate their partnership, Tracy and Katy Weber Tierney were among the first in line when Connecticut created civil unions three years ago as a way to formalize same-sex relationships without using the word “marriage.”

But when Tracy was giving birth to their son, Jake, five months ago, a hospital employee inquired whether she was “married, single, divorced or widowed.”

“I’m in a civil union,” she replied. When the employee checked “single,” Tracy protested. “I’m actually more married than single,” she said, leaving the employee flustered about how to proceed. [...]

For Jean Csvihinka, 48, who works at a bank in Milford, getting a civil union meant paying tax on an additional $6,000 a year. Ms. Csvihinka said that adding her partner, Gina Bonfietti, 43, a self-employed piano technician, to her health insurance obligated her to pay a federal tax on the value of the additional coverage that married couples would not owe, and that since the civil union she has also had to pay tax on her daughters’ coverage even though the girls were on her plan, tax-free, before. She said she was told that “it’s a systems issue.” [...]

Jeffrey Busch, a lawyer who is also a plaintiff in the case, said that he and his partner, Stephen Davis, reluctantly obtained a civil union for the sake of their son, Eli. “It was an awful experience,” Mr. Busch said. “In order to get those rights, we had to make a public declaration of inferiority. [...]

The case turns on whether same-sex couples should be treated as a “suspect class” — groups like minorities and women that have experienced discrimination — which could lead to heightened legal scrutiny of the decision to offer separate institutions. In oral arguments before a Supreme Court panel, the assistant attorney general said the number of “prominent politicians who are openly gay and lesbian” proves that homosexuals are not “politically powerless,” one of the requirements of a suspect class; that caused one justice to quip, “If it were true political power,” they would have already won the right to marry. [...]

And my all time favorite.....

The state also argues that the plaintiffs have no case because they are free to marry, just not to someone of the same sex, and that there is no gender discrimination because men and women are equally constrained. (source)

Wait a minute... we can marry anyone we want as long as they are opposite sex? That's "sanctity of marriage"? I find myself singing that Tina Turner song... "...what's love got to do with it...".

So I was eating lunch on that Monday that all this was happening. I was a bit down because I found myself once again thinking thoughts like... "it's so unfair...", "maybe we should just get the damned civil union...", etc. Then, while sitting in the sandwich shop, there was some news story on the radio about something. I actually don't remember what, but some guy said, "I have to do the best with what I'm allowed." I started thinking about that. Monetarily, we are doing well. I feel second class, but I really started to think about what that man said. And I can do that. I can do the best with what I'm allowed. It's this one thing, and it's really only an issue for me personally because we are in that age group that marriage equality and the kinds of rights marriage offers are important to us for security. Love has little to do with it. Would it enhance the love we have for each other? No. Would it give us a sense of belonging to something besides just ourselves? Yes. I think an acceptance from society of us, together, as a couple, is important. I've come to the conclusion that that was the "hope" that Harvey Milk talked about, coming together as people. Acceptance.

Just my thoughts. But I try these days to protect myself a bit. I expect that the couples challenging will lose the case, and life will go on. If I'm wrong, then I'll celebrate. If I'm not, I haven't invested a lot of emotional weight on the issue. I've stopped caring about it, other than, it's current news happening in the state. The Supreme Court of Connecticut will probably rule that "it's an issue for the legislature", after the shit hit the fan from the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality. They won't want to be labeled, as that court was, as an "activist court". What ever.

Health wise, we are doing well. Well, kind of. My blood pressure is good now, with a bit of help from medication. Cholesterol could be better. I'm working on that. You know, diet, exercise. It's hard to do with my career choice which is mental and non-physical. I have to go back in three months for blood work again. Oh, and the doctor reminded me that at the end of the year, it's time for that colonoscopy again. Oh Joy!!! The last time that happened, I had two alarms fire off while I had a panic attack before hand (did I say I'm hospital phobic?), which scared the crap out of the nurses so bad that they gave me Demerol to calm me down. It didn't suck. And, the alarms stopped. Something to look forward to.

It's nice to be home again.

And with all of that, the Roger Clemens-Brian McNamee appearance before a congressional committee yesterday wasn't really about anything at all.

You could compare it to Joe McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, except that the direction of a country might well have turned there. You could compare it to Shakespeare, except that the Bard tends to leave his audiences pondering the most complex issues of the human condition. Or to the O.J. trial, except that at the core of that sideshow was the fact that two people died. ...

One of the blowhard congressmen, Dan Burton, actually got it right when he said: "This kind of a hearing, this kind of a circus really bothers me. If [Clemens] has done something wrong, he should be indicted, he should be prosecuted and he should be punished for it."

If it really mattered, he would be. It doesn't really matter. But, boy, what a show, what a distraction, until the next one comes along. (source)

And yet, we can't seem to do the same thing to the likes of Harriet Miers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the rest of the sorry lot.

President Bush says Africa has a bright future despite poverty and conflicts across the continent, and the United States is committed to being a partner with Africa. (source)

Mr. President,

How about being a partner for America first? When will you start doing something (anything) to help out our own citizens?

Over the course of this blog, I've covered many topics. And, over the course of my writing, the United States has changed drastically. Indeed, many of my opinions have changed as well.

For example, I once vowed to never go to a state that has bigoted views towards people like me. It's not that I'm pushing "gay marriage", or "gay rights". It seems to be difficult for average people to understand that the phrase I'm pushing is "equal rights", not "special rights". And why is it "special rights" only when it applies to gay people? Is it because they are bigoted? When I challenge them to give me just one single "special right" that I am asking for that they don't already have, not once have they been able to come up with one. Not once.

Arizona is back at it again. They voted down a marriage amendment 2006, but now they are trying again...

Voters may be asked to ban gay marriage in Arizona . . . again.

The leaders of both the House and the Senate introduced measures Monday to place a constitutional amendment on the fall ballot that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The move, which has garnered widespread Republican support, follows the stunning defeat of a marriage amendment here in 2006, when Arizona became the first state in the nation to reject an anti-gay-marriage ballot measure. (source)

And this this article that appeared in the Arizona Republic...

And really, is there anything that gets conservative pulses racing more than a bill aimed at gays?

Then again, maybe if we outlaw gay marriage - again - it'll kick start the state's economy. Maybe if we outlaw gay marriage - again - it'll improve the state's woeful public education system or the state's woeful transportation system.

Maybe if we outlaw gay marriage - again - it'll get the Legislature to take a closer look at what goes on at Child Protective Services. Another two Tucson children have died in the past few weeks while the agency was supposed to be watching.

Heck, maybe if we outlaw gay marriage - again - legislative leaders will somehow do the only job they must, by law: undertake and figure out what to do about the fact that the state is spending a billion dollars more than it has with just four months left in the fiscal year. (source)

There seems to be nothing that gets conservatives to the polls like some good old gay bashing.

It's not that I am pushing marriage equality for people like Kent and myself. Would I like to see that? Absolutely. But is it worth me tearing myself apart out of frustration because much or our liberty-loving country is willing to tear into my equal rights? No, not really. You see, I've come to expect disappointment from people, both at work and in my personal life. Being at peace with that doesn't mean that I've accepted it as right. It means that I have limited resources to give -- both physically and emotionally -- and I simply can't be bothered any longer because the majority of us don't give a damn about anybody but ourselves. Yes, I honestly believe that. I realize that I'm not very optimistic anymore. That's why I feel excitement about Barack Obama. He seems to still be filled with hope, and that is what we desperately need. And more specifically, he will not push hope at the expense of another group....

"And it [hope] lives on in those Americans -- young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American, gay and straight -- who are tired of a politics that divides us and want to recapture the sense of common purpose that we had when John Kennedy was president of the United States of America."

Kent and I are going to Arizona in March. I'll enjoy their scenery (and their warmer climate), and we'll spend our money. Yeah, it's kind of like paying them to kick us in the gut while we're down, but that's what our country likes to do. If you think I'm just a down person, just ask yourself, isn't this the way our country is going?

So, I've limited my exposure to politics and the like. I honestly don't give a damn what Arizona does. Whatever it is will define who they are as people. As for me, I'm still Bill -- a person who, although I've become very cynical in people and government in general -- will not give up on my principles and what I stand for. I will therefore help out those who need help where I can even though there's nothing in it for me, always be there for my friends, and help those who, if they knew I was gay, would most likely not like me very much.

That is what is missing in our country today; helping others selflessly. We put people into categories, and demonize them. And why? To stir up voters to get them to the polls, all for a few lousy votes. We fail (or refuse) to see what that does to the people who are demonized. We simply don't care. That is why this next presidential election will be a turning point for America. It's probably the most important election I've ever lived through. And it's really heart warming to see more young people involved and enthusiastic about the direction we are taking. More and more of them realize that pitting groups of people against each other is not moving our country forward and that these tactics simply divert us from dealing with larger issues. I just hope that the people of Arizona can see that as well.

During the last couple of months, I've had a friend who has been battling an illness, a couple of others who are going through very rough times with depression and medication, and one who has lost a loved one in an auto accident. This is what is important to me. People who matter. The other stuff doesn't even register on my map any longer. America will find it's way, or not.

I'm thinking of going to Idaho sometime this summer. There are some friends in Idaho I want to see, and, it may be the last time I see my brother. Idaho has gone out of it's way to put people like me in legal limbo. And I'm sure violence against gay citizens is just as high now as it has been in the past. And I'm sure the police are just as concerned about that as they have been in the past. But I can't be stopped by that. I need to see my friends. And the fact that Idaho sucks in how it treats it's gay citizens can not be my problem any longer. The state has always treated these citizens this way. I know very well. I used to live there. I will go. See my friends, and come home where I am treated with a bit of dignity. But I won't shut my friends out of my life because the state they live in sucks when it comes to treating all citizens with equality and dignity.

At some point in your life, you have to rise above these issues, because you just won't be around forever. Life is too short to let all the jerks of the world make you miss your chance at peace and happiness.

Now I'm totally confused. I thought I was for Barack Obama, and now I'm not so sure. Hillary was convincing as well. And, the tone was much more possitive last night.

I guess this means that I'm now officially an "undecided".

Hummmm, will I actually go for Hillary?

Sens. Edward Kennedy and Barack Obama both included gays and lesbians in their speeches during the event yesterday where Kennedy endorsed Obama in his presidential bid.

“And it lives on in those Americans – young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American, gay and straight – who are tired of a politics that divides us and want to recapture the sense of common purpose that we had when John Kennedy was President of the United States of America,” said Obama.

The insertion of “gay and straight” was a departure from the script of Sen. Obama’s “prepared remarks” that were forwarded to news outlets ahead of the event by his campaign. (source)

I think it's cool that our community is at least on the radar screen. But I really think it's cool that mentioning our community was not originally planned in Obama's prepared remarks. To me, it shows an awareness that Obama is starting to think and connect to our community. Just my thoughts for what it's worth.

As far as the State of the Union speech last night is concerned, I had planned to watch the President give the speech, but it conflicted with the Sarah Connor Chronicles. And even though it was a re-run that I'd seen before, I felt that Sarah spoke more to the issues I have with our country than anything the President could offer up at this point. Sorry Prez.

Well.... before you throw mud on someone, you want to make sure that you don't have mud on yourself.

"...and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Tony] Rezco in a slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." That is what Hillary Clinton said to Barack Obama in the last debate. I was totally turned off. Is anyone else? Hey, if we want McCain to be our next President, this is a good start.

But I understand that this is just politics as usual. This is what we've come to. It's not as if our current President has set the bar very high. But, I'd like to think that the Democrats could at least be a bit better than this.

However, with a few quick keystrokes on the Internet, what do I turn up? You got it... a photo of Tony Rezco with Hillary and Bill Clinton. Hillary explains this away saying, "I've probably taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him."

An opinion piece put it this way, "Frankly, Clinton's line doesn't cut it. When you attack your opponent for his ties to a "slum landlord," it is always a good idea to make sure you didn't pose for grips-and-grins with, er, well, a "slum landlord. Obama's still got some explaining to do. But so does Clinton."

Perhaps Hillary should explain, but she won't. The damage to Obama has been done. She is off campaigning in New Jersey, and Obama is still dealing with defending his character, whether it's true or not. Hillary knew this. Bill knew this as well. So, when Hillary is not attacking Obama on stage in a debate, Bill Clinton is doing so in front of the camera. The result, Barack Obama is using his energy to defend himself against Bill Clintons accusations - true or not. He should ignore Bill Clinton and stay on target. The target is Hillary Clinton and what she is saying.

Sounds easy doesn't it? But it's not that simple. Bill Clinton is formidable because he's an ex-President, and, most importantly, when he talks, the cameras roll. But my question is this. This will probably work. Hillary will probably win the nomination because Baracks message will simply be lost. Now, I ask you, is this the kind of character that we want for President? Do you have to resort to any means necessary to obtain power, even if it means that you can't argue on the merits of what you can offer, so you have to resort to discrediting your opponent?

That sounds a lot like the kind of game that Dick Cheney runs. It doesn't make me want to vote for Barack. It doesn't make me want to vote for Hillary. It just makes me want to not even show up to vote! It disgusts me. If the best that Hillary can do is to throw crap like that at Barack Obama, I seriously have to wonder if she has any answers at all. I wish they would stop it and talk about ISSUES.

And as long as I'm talking about the "issues", the "issues" that I'm talking about are not the issues of the gay community. You will not hear any of our progressive candidates talk about gay marriage, marriage equality, hate crimes against our community... unless they are directly asked a question about it. And then, they try to skirt the issue with ambiguities that can later be explained by, "... well, that's not what I meant...". The only time a candidate has talked about us, was when Obama talked about how we had been excluded and hated by the religious community. He did not talk about equality for us.

So simply ask yourself when you pick one of these candidates, who will work for me when the become President? Who will really work to kill Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Who will really work for marriage equality in this country? Who will really work for hate crimes where are community is concerned?

I think the answer to all of those questions is, none of them. Don't expect it and you won't be disappointed. I'll try to vote for the one who will be best for our country (hey, any of them are better than what we've had the last eight years!), if I can bring myself to vote for one of them after the mud slinging settles down.

If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. - Barack Obama

I hear Barack Obama say things like this, and I want to believe that he's a different sort of politician. If I'm being totally selfish here (which I am), I'm trying to decide if he, Hillary, or Edwards would best serve the gay community. I think it's ok to be a bit selfish about this, even in war time. After all, I can't tell you how many of our troops I've tried to help by providing them with phone cards so they can call their families, care packages, and the like, while my country has repaid the gesture to my community by doing everything humanly possible to ensure that we are second class citizens. I think that gives me the right to be just a little selfish here. So, back to my selfishness.....

Barack claims that he's better for gays because, unlike Hillary, he will abolish the Defense of Marriage Act that President Clinton signed into law. That is the act that prevents gay couples joined in a marriage or civil union from obtaining any federal benefits associated with marriage. And this is no small deal. These are some of the benefits we are excluded from...

• Autopsy examination consent
• Burial rights of service member’s dependents
• Child custody in divorce proceedings
• Cohabitation on military and other controlled properties
• Community property control, division, acquisition, and disposition
• Exemption from conveyance tax
• Court notice of probate proceedings
• Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
• Domestic violence protection orders
• Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
• Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
• Funeral and bereavement leave
• Joint adoption and foster care
• Joint tax filing
• Property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
• Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
• Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
• Legal status with stepchildren
• Making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
• Making spousal medical decisions
• Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
• Payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
• Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation
• Right of survivorship of custodial trust
• Right to change surname upon marriage
• Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
• Right to inheritance of property
• Right to sue for tort and wrongful death
• Right to child support after divorce
• Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications
• Spousal immigration benefits
• Spouse of veteran medical care discount
• Status as next-of-kin
• Visitation privileges to imprisoned spouse
• Visitation privileges to spouse in hospital

You know, little things like that...

Hillary has vowed to only get rid of certain sections of it. Why? Could it be because her husband signed it into law, or does she really believe that we aren't equal? I don't know. I really don't know who will be best for my community. Both Hillary and Barack have said and done some bizarre things where our community is concerned. For Hillary, it's the half-hearted attempt of getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. Maybe I just never got over Bill Clinton. I remember when he went into office, he vowed to allow gay soldiers to serve in the military without being discharged. So after weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill, he finally caved in with letting gay soldiers serve, as long as they didn't tell. Thus spawned Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and we all know how well that's worked out. The point is, will history repeat itself with another Clinton in the White House? Is Hillary just giving us lip service like Bill did? Is she really sincere about ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and getting rid of DOMA?

Then on Barack's side, there's the gospel singer fiasco, along with other company that he keeps. It leaves one wondering.

I guess the question is, how much of their rhetoric should we believe, or can any of it be seen as sincere? They are both just politicians.

I've been talking quite a bit about the kind of President Huckabee would make. This was a recent quote from the man talking about the kind of America he wanted. So I suppose if he is elected President, the Constitution would have a few more amendments added...

Amendment 28: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Amendment 29: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind... et al.

Amendment 30: All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Amendment 31: And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

Amendment 32: NO NAKEDNESS, EVER!... Leviticus, 18:7-19.

Amendment 33: Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Amendment 34: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (I suppose this could also be read to mean, no gay marriage?)

Amendment 35: Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God. (Madonna is so screwed!)

Amendment 36: Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. (what would the politicians do?)

Amendment 37: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. (I don't even know where to begin with this one)

Amendment 38: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (a LOT fewer children in the world!)

Amendment 39: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

More good times to come, but you get the idea.

A few responses to this from other readers....

As an Evangelical who has studied the Bible and theology, it begs the question: if you are going to amend the Constitution on those things because of the bible, why not foreign policy as well? I mean, the Bible does make it clear to love those who hate you and bless those who persecute you. So by biblical standards we should not have invaded other countries in response to 9/11. Those who live by the sword die by it. Mr. Huckabee, at least be consistent. - Wayne, Mechanicsville, MD

---

I'm a Republican, and a conservative one at that, but this line of discussion scares me a LOT.

I fail to understand this intolerant streak in religions generally, and in the fundamentalist ones in particular, that seem to require everyone to think their way or they aren't safe to practice their own beliefs. Maybe someone can explain that to me, but to date no one has even tried very hard.

If this truly reflects his thinking, and is not just a case of playing to the house, then I have my doubts about Gov. Huckabee's qualifications to be President, or any other office under our Constitution.

Absent some clarification (one that makes real sense and isn't spin), this conservative, Republican, constitutionalist will not be voting for the Gentleman from Arkansas in November, or at any other time. - Richard, Easton, PA

---

If they really want to amend the Constitution, then OK, but then women and homosexuals should't have to pay taxes anymore.

Go for it, zealots! - betty in baltimore

Source material