Father Mychal Judge – My most vivid 9/11 memory

On 9/11/01, while I was sitting safely in my home watching CNN and thinking to myself, “how horrible” and “this can’t be happening”, Father Mychal Judge was already on his way to the Twin Towers with a group of firefighters. While others ran away, desperately trying to put as much distance between them and the doomed buildings, Father Judge made his way directly to the towers, where the firefighters he had ministered to, and cared so much for, were fighting their way into the buildings and were already beginning to die.

Almost immediately Father Judge found his way to a fallen firefighter who had been struck by a falling human body from the towers above, and knelt beside him to give the last rights. He then ran into the Lobby of the Tower 1 trying to help direct others out of and away from the building. He would die there moments later as debris from the collapse of Tower 2 would be blown into the Tower 1 lobby.

I still remember seeing the picture on the TV as a group of firefighters carried Father Judge’s body away, and even now that picture represents all of the deaths that occurred that day because it is the one image that I remember with clarity. A fallen American, lovingly carried by other Americans away from the WTC site. It was an image that would be sorrowfully repeated so many times later, as other brave hero’s of the NYFD and other uniformed services would be slowly found, and removed over the next months. Still, when I think of the heartbreak of 9/11, Father Judge being carried away by those he spent his life ministering to in times of need, is the image that I return to.

Father Judge’s story is one of triumph over adversity. If you have never taken the time to read about Father Mychal Judge, visit http://www.saintmychal.com/life01.htm . Father Judge was a gay man by orientation, and spent much of his earlier time helping those stricken with AIDS at a time when most people didn’t even want to be near them. He understood the conflicts that gay and lesbian Americans deal with in their personal and professional lives, and yet his sexual orientation didn’t define him, just as it should not be used to define us.

His death certificate lists him as victim #00001 of the World Trade Center attacks.

We have a lot in common, we two!

As a travel nurse, I spend most of my time away from my home and my partner. It's a hard thing to be separated from the person you love, but we decided that reaching our financial goals was worth a little hardship, and that our relationship was solid enough to withstand the separation. We were right, our relationship has stood up to numerous tests over the past two years of being apart, but not without our ups and downs. We've done it, but it hasn't been easy.

I'm lucky enough to travel with another nurse, who lives in the same home town as I do. She's straight, as an arrow, and on the surface we have very little in common. She's very feminine, and has religious convictions that are in opposition to my lifestyle. She's a republican, I'm a democrat. She's a conservative, I'm a liberal. She's my friend, but we have the kind of relationship that allows us to be honest with each other, and still be close despite our differences. Even though the differences between us are staggering at times, we've also developed a deep understanding of the others feelings, and I respect her convictions, even though I disagree with them. She does the same.

The past few months have been difficult for both of us. You see, when you are 1600 miles away from your partner (or your spouse), little disagreements and tiny little fears can escalate into gigantic problems and staggering suspicions. Suddenly the weekend barbecue with friends that the two of you always attended, seems like nothing more than an opportunity for one of the single lesbians in the group to horn in on your partner. The fatigue in your partners voice from working too much, sounds like disinterest, and you start to worry. There's no opportunity to rekindle your intimacy, and so things snowball into something that has a life of its own. You might as well be a world away.

My friend and I discovered that we have more in common than we realized this week. She cried, afraid that her relationship with her husband was at risk. I cried, afraid that the distance between my partner and I was tearing us apart. We shared feelings about how vulnerable we felt, so far away from our loved ones. We laughed at how silly we felt admitting that we both had envisioned sultry seductress' out to take our love away. We were both living through the same situation, and experiencing it in almost the exact same way. I could see that she placed the same value on my relationship with my partner, as she placed on her marriage to her husband. We were two women, comforting each other, and trying to offer the other some sanity as our own minds tried to wander away into ridiculous jealousy.

It worked. She helped me get through my fears, and to realize that my partner had done nothing at all to cause me to feel insecure. I got grounded in reality again, before I put my foot in my mouth and accused my partner of something that I know she didn't, and wouldn't do. My friend says I did the same for her. It seems that by talking sense into the other, we each found some sense of our own. In the end, I discovered that we have a lot more in common than I thought we did. I also discovered that even though my friend is very conservative (I know she voted for Bush, she just won't admit it), and lives pretty far to the right, she is still a reasonable human being who doesn't make blanket judgments and respects my life and my feelings. We found common ground to stand on, my friend and I, and from this vantage point our differences don't seem so huge after all.

Playing the Religious Rights Game

It’s not easy trying to win a war when you’re always on the defensive. The religious right has had us with our backs to the wall for so long, that it seems a natural position to be in. They keep throwing more and more blows, and we take a defensive stance and try to remain standing. I’m tired of it.

What if we played the game just as dirty as they do? They want to use the legislature and the courts to deny us our right to equality, why not use the legislature and the courts to fight right back? How about law suits against churches that amass huge amounts of wealth, and never pay a penny in taxes? Why should they be allowed to go without paying taxes when their funds aren’t used to feed the hungry, or house the homeless, but buy people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson designer suits, expensive homes, expensive cars, and to feed the campaign funds of other ultra right wing bigots?

We could lobby to introduce legislation to keep “creationism” and “intelligent design” out of the science classroom. Many of us don’t necessarily believe that it shouldn’t be taught, but then again, there are a lot of republicans out there who aren’t against gay marriage but still vote for candidates that are determined to see gays and lesbians have no rights at all.

What if we became just as politically active trying to keep religion “out” of the constitution and separated from government, as they are in their efforts to turn the United States into a theocracy? How do you think they would feel if instead of filing suits to try and achieve equality by bringing ourselves up to their level, we were filing suits to bring them down to where we live? You don’t want us to have protected rights as married couples? Fine, but you don’t get them either. Equal protection under the law doesn’t mean you have to let us get married, but it means that your rights, and mine, have to be the same.

My life long partner can’t collect my social security when I die? Fine, but neither can yours. We can’t pay less in taxes as a couple? Fine, but you don’t get to file jointly with your spouse either. I can’t marry the person of my choosing? Fine, then neither can you.

What if instead of playing on the defensive all the time, we did develop an agenda? What if that agenda was to attack, on every front that we could possibly find, the real enemy that we are facing and that is the extremists in the religious right? They are seeking to turn this country that was founded on religious freedom, into a theocracy that they get to define. If there was ever an “agenda” out there, the religious right has one, and they aren’t even trying to be secretive about it. They want gays and lesbians to be second class citizens. They want their view of how the universe was born taught as science. They want their definition of morality written as law. They want the constitution to reflect their views, and no one else’s. They want all this and more, and they want it now.

I’ve heard it said that it isn’t about whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. I’m not sure I agree with that statement in our case. They’re proving that by playing dirty, lying, manipulating data, and using fear and power to influence politicians and voters they CAN win. Granted, you don’t want to stoop to their level, but then guess what? They win.

It sounds reasonable, until you put the shoe on the other foot!

Jerry Falwell’s website recently had commentary about a lesbian woman who filed suit against a company who provided film/video copying that refused to provide their services to her because the documentary she needed copied was about Gay Pride. His point seems to be that he doesn’t feel one should have to provide services to the gay or lesbian community, if it is offensive to you or goes against your religious beliefs. It sounds like a reasonable argument, until you put the shoe on the other foot.

Take for instance my own case. I am a Registered Nurse, and I work in the emergency department. I personally find alcoholics, drug addicts, religious bigots, and republicans morally objectionable. Should I not have to provide them services when they come into the ER? Can I pick and choose who gets CPR and who doesn’t? How about a Police Officer who happens to be gay or lesbian, are they not responsible for protecting the lives and property of religious bigots who persecute them, as well as the rest of the communities they serve? Should a gay or lesbian firefighter not be required to put out the flames at a church that regularly preaches against their rights to work, marry, and protect their families?

If someone is requesting something illegal, then I believe you have the right to refuse service to them. If you operate a business, and offer your services to the community, then you have to follow anti-discrimination law. You might not like it, believe me, we don’t either some times. It’s not easy to stand over a drunk who’s cursing you and calling you a ‘dyke’, while you’re trying to clean the urine they’ve dribbled all over themselves and help to suture up the gaping lacerations in their heads from the bar fight they were just in, and all the while they’re explaining how YOU are an abomination in God’s eyes. It’s not easy for a gay or lesbian police officers, firefighters, doctor’s, or paramedics who do their jobs every day without asking to be allowed to “pass this one up” because we don’t like the ideology of the person who needs our expertise.

Suck it up Falwell, we do it every day.

Wonderful Post on the Religious Right

This link ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785 )leads to a post from the NPR site, and it is a fantastic read. It publicizes a new book by Randall Balmer called 'Thy Kingdom Come' and it is on my wish list after having read this article. You can purchase the book at Amazon.com at this link Thy Kingdom Come

The word "Lesbian" doesn't make it porn!

A friend called me the other day, and told me that while she was at work, she could not look up any sites that had the word "Lesbian" in them, because the word is flagged by the company's IT guys as "pornographic". Well, at first I laughed about it, and thought that it's just one more example of a man's views on lesbian sex. Of course it's pornographic to them! How many heterosexual porn flicks are there that DON'T have a lesbian sex scene in them? (Although I have to say that those scenes certainly are not representative of my experience with Lesbian sex in any way).

But then I began to think about it, and I realized how unfair it was. My friend works in a healthcare setting. Is there any reason why "The Lesbian Health Research Center" should not be available to her? How about the Office of Women's Health site which hosts a Lesbian Health Facts page? This is a government site with health information that is important not only for lesbian women, but also professionals who provide care to them! If you do a search on Google with the term Lesbian Health, you get over forty nine THOUSAND sites in a half a second. I bet "Heterosexual" isn't on the little list of porn words.

My friend is a private person, and a consummate professional. She would NEVER look up something inappropriate at work, and it is ridiculous that she can't read anything that is of interest to her, even news articles with the word "Lesbian" in them for fear of jeopardizing her job for looking at "pornography" on the internet. It would almost be funny, if it wasn't so sad.

The Conservative Right: Defining Marriage Right out of Existence

If you let the conservative right republicans define marriage, the only people in the U.S. who will be married in the U.S. will be heterosexual couples, of child bearing age who are fertile and capable of procreation, and who have a legal marriage certificate.

You see, according to Mitt Romney, and the rest of the right hand of the Republican Party, “marriage is primarily about the nurture and development of children”. It’s not about love, or interdependence, or nurturing each other. It’s about having babies in a religiously acceptable setting, and they get to define “acceptable”.

So tell me Mr. Romney, what about the thousands of people in this country who are infertile? What about the folks out there who are beyond child bearing age, but still desire the comfort of human companionship? What about the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples out there who are not married, but have been together for decades (and which by the way can file joint income tax returns despite not being married). What about those American’s who simply do not want to have children, are they not allowed into your heterosexual procreators only club?

The discriminatory amendments that are being written into many state constitutions and the one that the Republican Party is trying to have slapped into the U.S. Constitution are meant to only exclude gay and lesbian couples from getting married. But they are poorly written, in part because the authors are trying to write bigotry ridden amendments without sounding like bigots. As a result, all kinds of relationship issues are called into question, not just marriage. The right for a gay or lesbian partner to be at their loved ones bedside during times of illness or to be protected financially when they lose their partner, all of these issues are at risk of being invalidated by these bigoted amendments.

It is time for the religious right, and the Republican Party, to stop hiding behind arguments that they THINK sound less bigoted and more acceptable to main stream America, and say what they mean. In his speech at the Republican State Convention, Romney said, "Some people think we're intolerant and not willing to let people choose their own lifestyle,". If he were being honest, he would have left the “Some people think” off.

Romney is considering a run for the Presidency in 2008. I can’t even imagine replacing the bigot we have in there now, with this bigot.



© Suzanne Magee, All Rights Reserved

Article provided by GayLinkContent.com. For more information, contact us at info@gaylinkcontent.com.

Is it pride? Or a Party?

There are thousands of gay pride celebrations going on this month all across the U.S. as gay and lesbian Americans pay tribute to those who stood up in defiance during the stonewall riots in New York, and gave birth to the gay rights movement. At least that is what some of the celebrants will be doing at gay pride. Truth is a lot of the people that attend gay pride events this time of year, don’t know what the significance of the month is, or why we celebrate it. Many just see it is a chance to foster a sense of belonging and community. Some see it as a great opportunity to party. Some see it as platform for activism.

I guess in a sense, the event itself is a form of activism, regardless of your personal reason for being there. It does give our community an opportunity to be more visible and to remind local governments that we are here, in ever increasing numbers. Local officials understand that, numbers I mean. In a national election, a minority group doesn’t hold the political power that numbers entail. In smaller local elections (City Councils, Mayors, Judges, Sheriffs, etc.), having a minority group strongly behind you, or against you, can make a difference. I can’t imagine a candidate for the Governor’s office in Texas riding in a gay pride parade. But at the Alan Ross Freedom Parade in Dallas (Dallas’ Gay Pride Event), Mayor Laura Miller is a regular and respected participant. Last year, the first openly lesbian sheriff of Dallas was a welcomed participant and was cheered as she passed by. The event itself is without a doubt an opportunity for activism, but that’s not all it is.

Pride events are typically held in larger metropolitan areas, most of which have vibrant and active gay and lesbian communities in them. For the people who live in those areas, pride is a chance to get together and have a great party. But there are thousands of gay and lesbian Americans who live in rural areas where there are NEVER any gay pride parades or celebrations. They live in small towns where there is no “gay” part of town where it’s safe to hold hands, or put your arms around your partner. In a state like Texas, where they can still walk up to you and say “You’re fired, because you’re a lesbian”, the opportunity for activism has a real price attached to it. Living in areas where you have real fears of being the target of hate, or losing your ability to support your family is hard. Getting the opportunity to participate in an event like gay pride, being around thousands of other gay and lesbian Americans, being exposed to the activism that does go on, and getting the chance to breath a little easier while you hold your partners hand is well worth the 2 or 3 hour drive to get to “the city”. So we go, every year. We go to be activists, to party, to be with our community in a setting where we are safe for one day. We sit in parks and listen to music, play with our children, throw Frisbees with our dogs, listen to music, and buy HRC T-shirts and caps with fun slogans. My favorite cap last year said “Yes, I am a Lesbian” on the front, and “No, you can’t watch” on the back.

We don’t go to offend, or to fight, although as we in Dallas walk from the parade route to the park, we are always confronted with protestors carrying signs telling us to burn in hell, or that Jesus hates us. The Police keep the screaming, hateful crowd away from us though, and we just walk past and smile. We don’t have time to listen, or waste any effort trying to talk to them. After all, we just have today. Just this ONE day. Tomorrow, we go back to rural little towns and try to live not in the closet, but under the radar. We need our jobs and we have to live here. It was great to have that ONE day though. One day to party, and participate, and not feel so isolated and oppressed. One day to hold her hand and not be afraid. One day to life up my voice and still have a job. One day to stand with thousands who are just like me, and feel hope that someday, ONE day, we’ll be treated just like everyone else.

A Crew of Bigots?

When Senator Hatch asks if anyone really wants to suggest "that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?", do you think he REALLY wants an answer? Well that was exactly what he asked Senator Kennedy, who said "The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,". Senator Kennedy also said "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law." The Republican backers of the marriage amendment want Americans to believe that the wording of the amendment does nothing except prevent gay and lesbians from having a union defined as marriage. It's easier to get people to swallow than telling them that they are trying to pass an amendment that would prevent any gay or lesbian couple from having the legal benefits associated with marriage, ever.

They don't want to say that they are trying to destroy the thousands of legal marriages that have occurred between gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, essentially "divorcing" those couples with their votes. Protecting marriage? It doesn't sound like it to me.

I have no problem telling Senator Hatch "Yes. I think every single person who would vote for that amendment is a bigot."

Banishing Marriage in Mass

I heard a compelling argument against the marriage amendment today, one that almost made me laugh. The speaker was talking about the MASS state supreme courts ruling that does NOT specifically grant the right to marry to same sex couples, but simply states that same sex couples have to treated the same as heterosexual couples. The court basically said that if straights can marry, then gays and lesbians have the right to marry as well.

Here's where it gets good. When the sodomy laws were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, they made the act of gay or lesbian sex, even between strangers, legal. Now, if the marriage amendment passes, two things happen. First of all, it means that the constitution of the United States recognizes and supports a persons right to have "casual" sex with whoomever they please, but prevents a group of those people from forming lasting, committed, and recognized relationships. Second, it means that in MASS, where the state's supreme court has said that ALL people must be treated equally there, will have a dilemma. If gays and straights have to be treated the same when it comes to marriage, and the federal government forbids gays to marry, guess what happens to heterosexual marriage in MASS? It ceases to exist. If they can't grant the right to gays and lesbians to marry becuase of a federal amendment, then they have to deny that same right to heterosexual couples.

How about a constitutional amendment banning heterosexual divorce?

I've been listening to the Alliance for Marriage press conference as they push for passage of the marriage amendment today. The first thing that I noticed is that almost every person that spoke on their behalf today was a religious leader of some sort, and again they were dancing around their true agenda. If you listen to what they are saying out loud, you would think that their support of the marriage amendment was designed to help ensure that children in america don't grow up in single parent families, and that their support has nothing to do with the desire to enshrine their own religious views into the constitution to limit the rights of an oppressed minority. They keep saying it's not religious bigotry, or social bigotry, but a genuine concern for the state of the american family, which by their own descriptions is in a sorry state of decline.

Well, if the american family is in a state of decline, it isn't because of same sex couples folks. Same sex marriage is not a cause of heterosexual divorce, or heterosexual promescuity outside of marriage, or rising numbers of unwed teenagers becoming parents. Remember that WE are the minority, and the overwhelming role model for young people in this country is now, and has always been heterosexual marriage. If it's in decline, don't point your finger at us and try to use it to justify writing your bigoted agenda into the constitution.

If the goal of this legislation is to prevent fractured families and single parent homes, then how about a ban against HETEROSEXUAL divorce? It makes about as much sense. If your goal is to "save" heterosexual marriage, then why be looking at relationships that have nothing to do with it and hoping that by diminsihing them, you somehow improve your own familial relationships? The answer is really pretty simple. They are not seeking to strengthing families, or protect children. They are trying to force their particular religious opinions on everyone, in every state. But they can't SAY that, not overtly anyway. They have to make their argument be about something other than their religious views, because they know that making the issue based on those views would preclude it from being written into the constitution based on the first sentnce of the bill of rights.

What we're seeing now is an attempt to amend the constitution by using the back door, because the separation of church and state is blocking the front door.

January 20, 2009

There are a lot of dates that you look forward to in your life. The kind of dates that you mark on your calendar and scratch off each day counting down to them off, thinking that's one down and however many to go. Marking the days off helps, you can look at the big red "X" over the previous day and say "Hey, I made another one. That's one less to get through!" Days like that for me in the past have included my 18th birthday, my 21st birthday, and the due date of my son (what a great surprise when he came early).

But the date that I'm waiting for now is different. It's not a milestone in just my own life, but one that affects everyone. Waiting for the the current administrations last term to end, finally. It's a little frustrating though, try finding a calendar that looks that far ahead that's not computer based (I like the ones I can hang on the wall and look at every day). Want to make it even more interesting, try making a note on everyday that Bush says or does something that ticks you off. LOTS of stars on MY calendar. Even better, make little check marks every time one of his right wing nut buckets gets indicted or convicted of something. The Calendar is starting to look REALLY busy now.

Have you ever had to clean up when one tenant moved out, before the next one could move in? Can you imagine trying to clean up after Bush? Try cleaning up the budget deficit (which was a surplus when he got a hold of it), immigration, border security, the attack on american civil rights, the wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, the one on the middle class of America, and probably Iran by the time he's finished). Our next president will be "X"ing off a lot of days doing clean up, before they can even get started on rebuilding.

Still, the days are getting "X"'s one at a time. January 20th, 2009 is coming. Let's just hope that we do a better job picking a new tenant for the Whitehouse this time, one who see's ALL Americans as equal, and deserving of the same civil liberties that he enjoys. A president that thinks before he speaks, and understands that most Americans want to hear intelligent conversation about important issues, not egotistic cowboy slang. Most of all, I hope we choose a president this time who understands that it is the American voter that put him there, and not divine intervention (That is REALLY scary).

The religious rights voices - talking out of both sides of their mouths!

I spend a lot of time reading what evangelical christians are writing about their fight to put discrimination against gay and lesbian americans into the constitution. Subsequently, you end up reading a lot about the evangelists leading the way. After a while, you end up scratching your head, and wondering why anyone would listen to these people, about ANYTHING.

Take Jerry Falwell for example. While the ruins of the world trade center were still smoldering, his comments about who was to blame for the attacks were nothing short of vile. Don't remember?

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."

Make sense to you? God is mad at us, so he helps radical muslim extremists murder thousands of people? I have a hard time swallowing that. So did Jerry Falwell, since not long after he made the statement, he apologized for it. I guess that makes it okay in his eyes.

He's made so many ridiculous statements, it's hard to just pick out a few favorites:

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem."

You would almost have to laugh at how stupid this man really sounds. The problem is that people are listening, powerful people who are in a position to make laws that prevent us from having the rights that the rest of america enjoys. This perverted, hateful, voice has an audience that ignores his almost neurotic statements and allows him to influence policy makers in washington.

It doesn't end with Falwell though. You've got Swaggert, who has a history of being caught with hookers, and has stated that the Prophet Muhammad was a "pervert" and a "sex deviant." Pat Robertson, the champion of the anti-abortionists. He has business dealings in communist China. So is it any surprise that he defends the right for women to abort female fetus' there? It seems that abortion is only "evil" to Pat, if it doesn't help him to turn a profit.

The list goes on and is almost to nauseating to elaborate on. Robert Tilton, who's working on his third or fourth marriage (but lesbians and gays are a threat to heterosexual marriage to hear him tell it). Oral Roberts, who has visions of 600 foot Christs lifting hospitals and bragging about how easily they can lift it or tells his viewers that if he doesn't meet a quota of donations, God has told him he would die.

Why is ANYONE listening to these people, about ANYTHING? The only answer that I can grasp is that people just don't care. They ignore what they hear and don't like or disagree with, and latch on to what they want to hear. It's the old "Don't do what I do, do what I SAY" game. Well, I'm sick of playing.

Aren't you glad Specter Opposes the Marriage Amendment?

I can't imagine anything more comforting than knowing that Senator Arlen Spector is totally opposed to the anti-gay marriage amendment. I mean, what if he were "totally for it". What more could he do then? Vote to send it to the Senate floor? He did that anyway. You don't get to have it both ways Senator Specter. If you are totally opposed to something, then you take a stand against it. You and your fellow republicans don't get to vote FOR it, and then say that you're against it. Voting to send this discriminatory and hateful piece of legislation to the floor of the senate in order to appease your far right bigot backers, when they are threatening to sit out the mid term elections if you don't, is a vote FOR the amendment itself. I applaude Senator Russ Feingold for walking out of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. In your own words sir, you are absolutely right! You are NO protector of the constitution in any way shape or form. You are just another republican pandering to the far right in order to help your party, at my expense.

I find it simply appauling that not long after religious conservatives threaten to sit out the mid-term elections if the GOP doesn't renew it's efforts to discriminate against gay Americans, the GOP jumped without even asking how high. In a country founded on the ideas of religious and personal freedoms, the GOP's bowing down to this attempt to legislate one groups religion over the rights of others goes to show how narrow minded and bigot filled the ranks of the GOP really are.

Don't ask, Don't tell? We'll find out anyway!

If this doesn't enrage you, I don't know what will. Turns out that not only does the United States government not NEED to ask, they don't NEED us to tell. They've had LGBT groups that oppose the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy of the US armed forces under surveilance, collecting information and adding it to their database. How does it make you feel to know that by exercising your right to free speech, and demonstrating against something you find unfair, your name has ended up in a database supposedly reserved for threats to national security. Check out this link to learn more.

Bush Blurs the Line Between God and Government

Religion must not be the definition of morality.


What happens when you take the most powerful nation in the world, and put it in the hands of a man who believes that God wants him to be president, and that he is doing God’s work? Unfortunately, we are already finding out the answer to that question. President Bush, by his own words, believes that God wanted him to be the president of the United States of America. If you walked in to any emergency room in this country, and said that God wanted you to be the president, you would be given a diagnosis of some kind of neurosis or psychosis, and on your way to a nice little behavioral health center somewhere. If he said that God wanted him to be a teacher, or a preacher, or a healer of some kind, it wouldn’t be so scary. But no, this man believes that God wanted him to be the leader of the greatest democracy in the world, and the commander and chief of the most dangerous military arsenal in the world.


Now, only he could tell the world why he believes that God so favors him, and frankly that explanation would be even more frightening than the assertion itself to me. That one simple assertion that God placed him there for some self perceived purpose is to me the single most upsetting, and potentially dangerous situation that this country has faced since the end of the cold war. What a sense of power it must be to sit in an office such as the Presidency of the United and States and believe in your own mind that you sit their by God’s desire. Surely if you believed that, you to would believe that you had the right to force your religious convictions on others as President Bush seems to believe.


The Pilgrims first came to this continent trying to escape King James, who blurred the lines of church and state, and made religious doctrine a matter of law rather than choice. The founders of our nation, while being mindful of their own beliefs, were aware of the need to prevent the church from having control of the laws that would govern us. The first sentence of the first amendment to our constitution tells us that even then they realized that it was important that laws not be made to favor one church or religion, nor to persecute it.


It isn’t easy to respect the views of other people, especially when they don’t agree with your own. What makes this country so great is that not only do we respect the right of every individual to their own beliefs, and opinions, but that we have fought and died for their rights to express them Now, we have a president who would take us back over two hundred years, and not only assert his own religious beliefs on others, but write them into the very constitution that was meant to protect us from such tyranny. I don’t need religion to tell me what is right, and what is wrong. My Mother and Father did that for me, and I do it for myself every day of my life. I certainly don’t need President Bush to do it for me either. I respect his right to believe that my being a lesbian is somehow immoral, or a sin, or perverse, or whatever it is he believes. I disagree with him, but I know he has a right to that belief. I would not want to see a law that denied him the right to express his opinion, nor denied him any rights based on his belief. I just wish he had that kind of respect for me, and for my right to be who God made me.

Moral High Ground

Disguising Bigotry Behind Morality

If you have been listening to the hype being churned out by the right wing extremists these days about gay rights and same sex marriage, then you know that the reason they believe we must be denied the right to marriage is because we would somehow diminish the concept of marriage itself.
Apparently they believe that allowing two people who love one another, and want the ability to protect their partners in the future both physically and financially, will make the vows of a heterosexual couple somehow mean less. They base their arguments on moral grounds, point at us and call us sinners, as if that were all the explanation that was required to deny us the same rights that they enjoy in their own families. But their arguments lose merit when you shed a little light on them.
What relationship diminishes marriage more: a same-sex couple in a committed and loving relationship who somehow manage to keep their union together without the ties of a legal or moral contract, or a legally married heterosexual couple who have stood in their communities church amongst their friends and family and made vows of commitment, and then broken them? According to these so called “conservatives” definitions of an acceptable candidate for marriage, the only absolute necessity appears to be that you be heterosexual. You can be a murderer, an adulterer, a child molester, a drug dealer, or a thief and still pass their litmus test for being morally adequate to stand in their church and receive blessings on your union to anyone you like, unless they are of the same sex.
They say they are not trying to deny us our civil rights out of hate or religious bias, and they may even believe that. However, until they no longer allow thieves, murderers, adulterers, liars, drug dealers, and divorcees the right to marry it simply will not be a believable argument.
If their opposition were based on anything other than their own personal dislike for our way of life, then these other lifestyles that would be considered even by them to be morally objectionable would be left out in the cold as well.
What makes this even more difficult, is that it is impossible to argue a point with someone who can’t even admit what the point is they are trying to make. How do you confront an issue and work for change when your opponent won’t even admit what they are really fighting you for?
They are making us expend time, money, and energy to prove that same-sex marriage won’t diminish “traditional” marriage, when that’s not the point at all. They know that. They know very well that the couple across from the street from them has no impact on their own marriage vows. If your neighbor cheats on his or her spouse, does that obligate you to do the same? It’s been going on for centuries, and somehow marriage has survived.
The reality is that they choose not accept us for personal reasons, and that is just plain discrimination. It’s not moral high ground.