Jane Rule, the acclaimed author and lesbian, has died at the age of 76. There are news bites on the internet that far surpass anything that I could say about her, but I didn't want her passing to bo by without at least saying that I felt the loss. One of my favorite quotes is hers:
"If men really are turned on by all that awful underwear, leg and footwear, all that paint and headachy perfume, then maybe they should have been wearing it all along."
Here are links to some of the news bytes:
The London Free Press
Regional Leader-Post, Canada
Vancouver Sun
Now Toronto
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Having an off Day!!
There are some definite pro’s to making your living traveling from one place to the next, spending thirteen weeks, and then moving on to the next hospital. I’ve been able to see places I probably would have never seen. Made friends is places I didn’t think I would. Learned from Nurses all over the country. It’s great.
But for all the pro’s there are some definite draw backs. Not the least of which seems to be the effect that age has on your ability to adjust to a new place, a new climate, and a new schedule over and over again. I’m finding myself struggling with the beginnings of menopause, which I personally believe I am much to young for of course. I remember thinking that my Mother had to be exaggerating when she talked about how miserable the hot flashes she was having were. Now, I realize that my mother must have been understating their effects in an effort not to terrorize me because it’s MUCH worse than she let on. As a matter of fact, this is the most agonizing thing I have ever dealt with. To make it worse, I am in a new place, where no one knows me and I’m not comfortable sharing my physical status. So, I am certain that they are looking at my dripping wet hair and thinking that I am either about to have a massive heart attack or that I have some disgusting personal hygiene problem.
Add to the hot flashes and the night sweats the fact that my body is irritatingly less firm, and my skin has these interesting little brown spots popping up all over it. I suppose I should be grateful. They’re just age spots and not carcinoma’s. My period, which for decades was as regular as clockwork and little more than a slight irritation in my day to day life, is now a dreaded week long struggle to find time to run to the bathroom every hour and wonder if it is actually possible to bleed to death during your period.
It would at least be some comfort to be going through this at home, where I have friends and family that know me, and will understand. Where my partner can offer me the pity that only someone ten years your junior can offer you, because they don’t yet understand that what they are seeing is an inevitability that is racing towards them like a freight train. Where I can spend my days off snuggled up on the couch with my pets, who truly understand my need for unconditional love, and don’t seem to be staring at the age spots on my arms. Lastly, where my Mother is right down the street and I can ream her out for not warning that this was coming so that I could have had a complete hysterectomy, started on hormones long before this all started! Now, where’s that G-D bottle of advil?
But for all the pro’s there are some definite draw backs. Not the least of which seems to be the effect that age has on your ability to adjust to a new place, a new climate, and a new schedule over and over again. I’m finding myself struggling with the beginnings of menopause, which I personally believe I am much to young for of course. I remember thinking that my Mother had to be exaggerating when she talked about how miserable the hot flashes she was having were. Now, I realize that my mother must have been understating their effects in an effort not to terrorize me because it’s MUCH worse than she let on. As a matter of fact, this is the most agonizing thing I have ever dealt with. To make it worse, I am in a new place, where no one knows me and I’m not comfortable sharing my physical status. So, I am certain that they are looking at my dripping wet hair and thinking that I am either about to have a massive heart attack or that I have some disgusting personal hygiene problem.
Add to the hot flashes and the night sweats the fact that my body is irritatingly less firm, and my skin has these interesting little brown spots popping up all over it. I suppose I should be grateful. They’re just age spots and not carcinoma’s. My period, which for decades was as regular as clockwork and little more than a slight irritation in my day to day life, is now a dreaded week long struggle to find time to run to the bathroom every hour and wonder if it is actually possible to bleed to death during your period.
It would at least be some comfort to be going through this at home, where I have friends and family that know me, and will understand. Where my partner can offer me the pity that only someone ten years your junior can offer you, because they don’t yet understand that what they are seeing is an inevitability that is racing towards them like a freight train. Where I can spend my days off snuggled up on the couch with my pets, who truly understand my need for unconditional love, and don’t seem to be staring at the age spots on my arms. Lastly, where my Mother is right down the street and I can ream her out for not warning that this was coming so that I could have had a complete hysterectomy, started on hormones long before this all started! Now, where’s that G-D bottle of advil?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Who are they lying to? Us? Or Themselves?
There’s a repetitive theme out there that tries to explain why Gay and Lesbian couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married. It is used over and again as if the more often it were cast out into the waters, more likely it would get a bite. It’s an argument that on the surface sounds as if it comes from a sincere concern, but when applied equally to both sides of the argument about gay marriage, it falls apart pitifully and questions the validity of not only gay marriages, but many heterosexual marriages as well.
Eric Hogue is a radio talk show host, and a syndicated columnist. He also calls himself a “contemporary cultural pastor”. On Crosswalk.com today, a for profit religious corporations web site, he has an article posted that argues once again that same sex marriage will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. He argues that marriage is not about spousal happiness, but about one thing. Rearing children. He makes the argument that marriage has historically been about that one thing, and not the mutual happiness of the two people who desire to marry.
Overlooking the fact that children raised in same sex families do just as well as children raised in heterosexual marriages and that adoption does indeed allow same sex couples to raise children who would otherwise have no family at all, he maintains that there is no validity to the joining of two same sex individuals because of two things. We can’t procreate and we can’t provide both a male and female role model.
I’m sure that it makes religious extremists feel better to say they are discriminating against other American’s because of concern for the well-being of children, than to admit that they just don’t want to grant the same rights and protections to that they enjoy to people who they see as different from themselves. But if you apply that concern to both sides of the issue, it just doesn’t hold water.
If marriage is all about procreation, then what about those tens of thousands of infertile couples in America? If they can’t procreate, should they not be allowed to marry. If marriage is to be defined not by love, but by a couples ability to have and raise children then what reason do those heterosexual couples who can’t have children have to get married? If children can’t be raised in a home that doesn’t contain both a male and a female role model, what about the vast number of children currently being raised in single parent families? Should those single parents have their children taken away from them because they weren’t able to make a heterosexual marriage work? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? It gets better. What about the elderly who can’t have children, or heterosexual couples who simply don’t want children?
My personal opinion is that the arguments they make are just sad attempts at hiding the truth from not us, but themselves. They don’t want to admit to themselves that they just don’t want to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, because they hate us. Deep down inside, they don’t want to share any of “their” rights with us because they don’t think we deserve to have them. They may say out loud that it isn’t hate or bigotry, but some altruistic concern for children. It makes you wonder who they are lying to. Is it to us, or to themselves, as a way of fooling themselves into believing that they aren’t denying the rights and protections of marriage to others simply because they don’t share their religious views? It doesn’t really matter who they are lying to, they’re the only ones who are buying the lies.
Eric Hogue is a radio talk show host, and a syndicated columnist. He also calls himself a “contemporary cultural pastor”. On Crosswalk.com today, a for profit religious corporations web site, he has an article posted that argues once again that same sex marriage will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. He argues that marriage is not about spousal happiness, but about one thing. Rearing children. He makes the argument that marriage has historically been about that one thing, and not the mutual happiness of the two people who desire to marry.
Overlooking the fact that children raised in same sex families do just as well as children raised in heterosexual marriages and that adoption does indeed allow same sex couples to raise children who would otherwise have no family at all, he maintains that there is no validity to the joining of two same sex individuals because of two things. We can’t procreate and we can’t provide both a male and female role model.
I’m sure that it makes religious extremists feel better to say they are discriminating against other American’s because of concern for the well-being of children, than to admit that they just don’t want to grant the same rights and protections to that they enjoy to people who they see as different from themselves. But if you apply that concern to both sides of the issue, it just doesn’t hold water.
If marriage is all about procreation, then what about those tens of thousands of infertile couples in America? If they can’t procreate, should they not be allowed to marry. If marriage is to be defined not by love, but by a couples ability to have and raise children then what reason do those heterosexual couples who can’t have children have to get married? If children can’t be raised in a home that doesn’t contain both a male and a female role model, what about the vast number of children currently being raised in single parent families? Should those single parents have their children taken away from them because they weren’t able to make a heterosexual marriage work? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? It gets better. What about the elderly who can’t have children, or heterosexual couples who simply don’t want children?
My personal opinion is that the arguments they make are just sad attempts at hiding the truth from not us, but themselves. They don’t want to admit to themselves that they just don’t want to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, because they hate us. Deep down inside, they don’t want to share any of “their” rights with us because they don’t think we deserve to have them. They may say out loud that it isn’t hate or bigotry, but some altruistic concern for children. It makes you wonder who they are lying to. Is it to us, or to themselves, as a way of fooling themselves into believing that they aren’t denying the rights and protections of marriage to others simply because they don’t share their religious views? It doesn’t really matter who they are lying to, they’re the only ones who are buying the lies.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
ENDA wins in the House
Watching C-span on television isn’t exactly my idea of a good way to spend a rare day off. But today, I watched. Sitting on the edge of my seat as if I were at a real cliffhanger, when in reality I knew what the outcome would be. It wasn’t the outcome that I was waiting to hear, it was the path to get to the vote that I was so interested in.
In case you live in a cave and haven’t heard, the House of Representatives voted today to extend the nation’s employment discrimination protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans. While the bill was first introduced years ago, this is the first time that it has made it to the house floor, and it passed with ease. The bad news is that even though it passed with an overwhelming majority, even that majority might not be enough to see it become the law of the land. It still has to pass through a thinly divided senate, and then of course, there’s our fearless leader standing with his veto stamp. No doubt he is drooling at the opportunity stamp out any hopes of having our jobs protected by the same laws that protect his.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a survivor of southern discrimination against black Americans, spoke of how today’s vote would “break down more signs”, referring to how protesters in the 60’s helped to break down the “whites” and “blacks” signs of those times. He spoke out about how he had fought too hard to end discrimination, to vote against it now.
There were many speeches of support, and I was thankful for each of the brave congressional representatives that stood up in defense of our right to have our jobs protected from bigotry, misunderstanding, fear, and hate. Unfortunately the speech that gripped me the most, was by the bills biggest opposition, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind). He made a comment about how offended he felt to see his religion and his beliefs portrayed as bigoted and hate filled. He just doesn’t get it. It’s not “his” religion that is hate filled and bigoted, just the way “he” interprets and practices it.
His argument against the bill was so ridiculous to me, that I found it hard to believe that he could even stand there and make it without being embarrassed by it’s lack of merit. I mean really, a religious book store being prevented from refusing to hire, or being able to fire a gay, lesbian, or bisexual employee? That argument is supposed to justify not offering any of us protections?
What about the GLBT book store down the street. Guess what? It’s against the law for that owner to refuse to hire a conservative religious employee, or to fire them because of their religious views. It’s an argument that he wants to use, but only if he’s allowed to define the circumstances under which it’s applied.
The world is changing, and the evangelical religious right is grasping at straws to try and maintain some control over the evolution of our society. It’s not going to work, it may take time for the change to happen, but it will happen just the same. Today, the US House of Representatives took a bold step in that direction, and they did it at the request of a majority of Americans. That majority believes that gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans deserve to be treated equally. Religion and personal beliefs are a choice. It’s a choice that is protected by law and rightfully so. It is not something that a minority group can dictate to the rest of the world, and punitively enforce.
If the bill passes the Senate, no doubt Bush will Veto it and the fight to override that veto will be a difficult one that we may not win. But this bill won’t go away. Another President is coming. A new generation is waiting in the wings to stand up and tell the religious right that they don’t want to be bullied into accepting their narrow minded, bigoted, discriminatory, and yes – hateful ideas.
In case you live in a cave and haven’t heard, the House of Representatives voted today to extend the nation’s employment discrimination protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans. While the bill was first introduced years ago, this is the first time that it has made it to the house floor, and it passed with ease. The bad news is that even though it passed with an overwhelming majority, even that majority might not be enough to see it become the law of the land. It still has to pass through a thinly divided senate, and then of course, there’s our fearless leader standing with his veto stamp. No doubt he is drooling at the opportunity stamp out any hopes of having our jobs protected by the same laws that protect his.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a survivor of southern discrimination against black Americans, spoke of how today’s vote would “break down more signs”, referring to how protesters in the 60’s helped to break down the “whites” and “blacks” signs of those times. He spoke out about how he had fought too hard to end discrimination, to vote against it now.
There were many speeches of support, and I was thankful for each of the brave congressional representatives that stood up in defense of our right to have our jobs protected from bigotry, misunderstanding, fear, and hate. Unfortunately the speech that gripped me the most, was by the bills biggest opposition, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind). He made a comment about how offended he felt to see his religion and his beliefs portrayed as bigoted and hate filled. He just doesn’t get it. It’s not “his” religion that is hate filled and bigoted, just the way “he” interprets and practices it.
His argument against the bill was so ridiculous to me, that I found it hard to believe that he could even stand there and make it without being embarrassed by it’s lack of merit. I mean really, a religious book store being prevented from refusing to hire, or being able to fire a gay, lesbian, or bisexual employee? That argument is supposed to justify not offering any of us protections?
What about the GLBT book store down the street. Guess what? It’s against the law for that owner to refuse to hire a conservative religious employee, or to fire them because of their religious views. It’s an argument that he wants to use, but only if he’s allowed to define the circumstances under which it’s applied.
The world is changing, and the evangelical religious right is grasping at straws to try and maintain some control over the evolution of our society. It’s not going to work, it may take time for the change to happen, but it will happen just the same. Today, the US House of Representatives took a bold step in that direction, and they did it at the request of a majority of Americans. That majority believes that gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans deserve to be treated equally. Religion and personal beliefs are a choice. It’s a choice that is protected by law and rightfully so. It is not something that a minority group can dictate to the rest of the world, and punitively enforce.
If the bill passes the Senate, no doubt Bush will Veto it and the fight to override that veto will be a difficult one that we may not win. But this bill won’t go away. Another President is coming. A new generation is waiting in the wings to stand up and tell the religious right that they don’t want to be bullied into accepting their narrow minded, bigoted, discriminatory, and yes – hateful ideas.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
More and More Hipocracy in the GOP Ranks!
If you've never visited Pam's Hous Blend blog, you're really missing one of the best LGBT blogs there is. I read it every day and this morning Pam has a fantastic post about ANOTHER GOP politician, who by the way voted against gay marriage and protecting gay jobs, that was caught with his pants down - so to speak.
Check out her post here.
Check out her post here.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Obama disregards the LGBT community to reach out to Black Voters
Barack Obama's decision to give Donnie McClurkin a public stage only goes to prove that Obama, like so many other candidates, is willing to look the other way when it comes to anti-gay rhetoric if it will help him win the democratic nomination. Donnie McClurkin is a Gospel singer who has publicly stated he believes that being gay is a choice, and that he "once involved with those desires and those thoughts", but believes that he was able to overcome them through prayer.
Once again, the LGBT community is being pushed aside in the political game to pander to ANOTHER religious group in order to get votes. It's like watching an old rerun on TV, only this time it's in color. Instead of the Republicans pandering to the religious right, it's a democrat pandering to churches in the black community. It feels like we're watching someone talking out of both sides of their head. To us, he says that he wants to see change, and to help the LGBT community in their quest to have their relationships recognized through civil partnerships. To them, he puts anti-gay performers on the stage. Then he wants to reassure us that he doesn't agree with McClurkin's views.
It's a tiring, pathetic observation about politics and politicians. Say anything, do anything, promise anything - as long as you can distance yourself from it later if you have to. The one thing that many of us want more than anything right now in any candidate, is someone that we can trust not to lie to us. We've been lied to for almost seven years now, and we're tired of it. Obama isn't fostering a lot of trust with his latest actions. It's just more of the same old game, not change.
Once again, the LGBT community is being pushed aside in the political game to pander to ANOTHER religious group in order to get votes. It's like watching an old rerun on TV, only this time it's in color. Instead of the Republicans pandering to the religious right, it's a democrat pandering to churches in the black community. It feels like we're watching someone talking out of both sides of their head. To us, he says that he wants to see change, and to help the LGBT community in their quest to have their relationships recognized through civil partnerships. To them, he puts anti-gay performers on the stage. Then he wants to reassure us that he doesn't agree with McClurkin's views.
It's a tiring, pathetic observation about politics and politicians. Say anything, do anything, promise anything - as long as you can distance yourself from it later if you have to. The one thing that many of us want more than anything right now in any candidate, is someone that we can trust not to lie to us. We've been lied to for almost seven years now, and we're tired of it. Obama isn't fostering a lot of trust with his latest actions. It's just more of the same old game, not change.
John Rich of "Big and Rich" Voices his Opposition to Gay Marriage
In an interview with The Tennessean, John Rich of the country music duo of "Big and Rich" voiced his opposition to gay marriage, and his support for Senator Fred Thompson. He went further to say that if you were going to legalize gay marriage, you would have to also legalize other "unsavory" things. He sites his upbringing, and his preacher, as the basis for his opinions. Later, he retracted his statement and made an apology:
“My earlier comments on same-sex marriage don’t reflect my full views on the broader issues regarding tolerance and the treatment of gays and lesbians in our society. I apologize for that and wish to state clearly my views.
I oppose same-sex marriage because my father and minister brought me up to believe that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe that intolerance, bigotry and hatred are wrong. People should be judged based on their merits, not on their sexual orientation. We are all children of God and should be valued and respected.”
I find it very comical, that in the same statement that he voices his own intolerance and bigotry, he then states that he thinks intolerance and bigotry are wrong. I'm sorry John, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are TOLERANT and are not a BIGOT, and DO NOT believe that your personal views are more important than someone else's right to protections and the pursuit of happiness in this country or you ARE a Bigot, and You ARE intolerant.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, you just have to realize that forcing your own religiously based views on others who do not share them means you don't get to call yourself tolerant, or deny being a bigot. You think that you deserve rights that should be withheld from us, because you believe that you are somehow better than us. More right. More Christian. More something. From our side of the fence, listening to your words, you sir sound just like a hateful intolerant bigot.
“My earlier comments on same-sex marriage don’t reflect my full views on the broader issues regarding tolerance and the treatment of gays and lesbians in our society. I apologize for that and wish to state clearly my views.
I oppose same-sex marriage because my father and minister brought me up to believe that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe that intolerance, bigotry and hatred are wrong. People should be judged based on their merits, not on their sexual orientation. We are all children of God and should be valued and respected.”
I find it very comical, that in the same statement that he voices his own intolerance and bigotry, he then states that he thinks intolerance and bigotry are wrong. I'm sorry John, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are TOLERANT and are not a BIGOT, and DO NOT believe that your personal views are more important than someone else's right to protections and the pursuit of happiness in this country or you ARE a Bigot, and You ARE intolerant.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, you just have to realize that forcing your own religiously based views on others who do not share them means you don't get to call yourself tolerant, or deny being a bigot. You think that you deserve rights that should be withheld from us, because you believe that you are somehow better than us. More right. More Christian. More something. From our side of the fence, listening to your words, you sir sound just like a hateful intolerant bigot.
Friday, October 26, 2007
More Genetic Proof
Erik Jorgensen, the Scientific Director at the Brain Institute has been quoted as saying that a recent experiment where a gene in the brain of a female worm was "activated" causing the worm to become attracted to other female worms, may be evidence that sexual orientation is genetically based. Here is a link to the Story
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Utah_Scientists_Create_Lesbian_Worms_09987.html
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Utah_Scientists_Create_Lesbian_Worms_09987.html
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Bull Bash - Gay Bashing
My partner and I went to the CBR Bull Bash in Longview, TX last weekend. The Bull Bash is similar to a rodeo, but with only one event - Bull Riding. For those of us in the LGBT community that live out here in the country, the Rodeo is something almost all of us are familiar with. If you lived here all your life, you would be to. You would have grown up going to FFA meetings and stock shows instead of Friday night football games. My partner went to a high school that was so fall they couldn't field a football team. You better bet they had a rodeo team though, and everyone wanted to be on it.
We had been looking forward to the Bull Bash all year long. My partner in particular is a huge fan of the PBR (Professional Bull Riders) and the CBR (Championship Bull Riders) and never misses a late night chance to see them on TV. We went to the Longview Fairgrounds early to get a good seat, bought our corny dogs, and were excited about having a great night in cool weather watching 45 Bull Riders compete for top honors.
A big part of the show is the barrel man. This is a guy dressed in a clowns outfit for the most part, who entertains the crowd in between rides. On this night, the barrel man was really very funny, and I found myself laughing out loud when he danced around on the dirt floor of the arena. But then he started making comments about a man "staring" at him while he was dancing. He continued to make comments about this fictitious man in the audience who was "staring" at him, and pretty soon I could hear comments from some of the cowboys sitting around me. Comments like "I'd have to gut that S.O.B." and "He needs to hop that fence and kick that fags ass".
The man out in the arena's comments weren't all that offensive, but what they elicited was offensive, and a little frightening. When he made one last mention of his imaginary admirer, I guess the woman sitting next to me could see the disgust on my face because she put her hand on my knee and smiled, then said "Don't worry about that, we're not all that ignorant." I smiled back at her, then turned away quickly when I noticed the scowl on the man sitting next to hers face. Still, I appreciated her comment. Then I realized that for her to make it, we had to be sticking out like sore thumbs as the only to lesbian's stupid enough to think we could go sit in the middle of a bunch of cowboys and be ourselves, safely.
We left before the Bash was over, I still don't know who won. It was a dramatic learning experience for me though, when I realized that accepting even a little bit of bashing even when meant as a joke, leads to other less harmless voices feeling free to spew their hate filled comments. I won't be supporting the CBR by going to any more of their functions, or watching them on TV now. My partner probably will, she's just that much of a fan. She also tends to believe that people don't really mean some of the hurtful things they say. She thinks it's "just talk" and it doesn't mean anything unless it's directed right at you. I guess that means that if I say the ignorant yahoo in clown make up couldn't attract a gay man if his life depended on it, it's okay as long as I say it behind his back and without meaning it in a malicious sense? I mean, I was just joking. Just trying to be entertaining to what I perceived to be my audience. That makes it okay, right?
I don't think so.
We had been looking forward to the Bull Bash all year long. My partner in particular is a huge fan of the PBR (Professional Bull Riders) and the CBR (Championship Bull Riders) and never misses a late night chance to see them on TV. We went to the Longview Fairgrounds early to get a good seat, bought our corny dogs, and were excited about having a great night in cool weather watching 45 Bull Riders compete for top honors.
A big part of the show is the barrel man. This is a guy dressed in a clowns outfit for the most part, who entertains the crowd in between rides. On this night, the barrel man was really very funny, and I found myself laughing out loud when he danced around on the dirt floor of the arena. But then he started making comments about a man "staring" at him while he was dancing. He continued to make comments about this fictitious man in the audience who was "staring" at him, and pretty soon I could hear comments from some of the cowboys sitting around me. Comments like "I'd have to gut that S.O.B." and "He needs to hop that fence and kick that fags ass".
The man out in the arena's comments weren't all that offensive, but what they elicited was offensive, and a little frightening. When he made one last mention of his imaginary admirer, I guess the woman sitting next to me could see the disgust on my face because she put her hand on my knee and smiled, then said "Don't worry about that, we're not all that ignorant." I smiled back at her, then turned away quickly when I noticed the scowl on the man sitting next to hers face. Still, I appreciated her comment. Then I realized that for her to make it, we had to be sticking out like sore thumbs as the only to lesbian's stupid enough to think we could go sit in the middle of a bunch of cowboys and be ourselves, safely.
We left before the Bash was over, I still don't know who won. It was a dramatic learning experience for me though, when I realized that accepting even a little bit of bashing even when meant as a joke, leads to other less harmless voices feeling free to spew their hate filled comments. I won't be supporting the CBR by going to any more of their functions, or watching them on TV now. My partner probably will, she's just that much of a fan. She also tends to believe that people don't really mean some of the hurtful things they say. She thinks it's "just talk" and it doesn't mean anything unless it's directed right at you. I guess that means that if I say the ignorant yahoo in clown make up couldn't attract a gay man if his life depended on it, it's okay as long as I say it behind his back and without meaning it in a malicious sense? I mean, I was just joking. Just trying to be entertaining to what I perceived to be my audience. That makes it okay, right?
I don't think so.
Monday, October 15, 2007
There's a fox in the hen house - AGAIN !
Sometimes I find it difficult to even relate to lesbians who live in well populated metropolitan areas. I live in a very rural area of east Texas, where there is NO lesbian or gay public presence to speak of. If you want to go to a pride parade, you can drive 130 miles to Dallas and catch one. If you want to go to a lesbian bar - same drive. There is ONE gay bar only 60 miles away, but it's predominantly for gay men. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that it's there. I love the drag show, and watching the never ending stream of straight cowboys coming in to "see what's going on behind the big red doors" is pretty funny sometimes. Still, there aren't many women there, and the ones that ARE there, are there ALL THE TIME. Know what I mean?
If there was one benefit to being a lesbian in such an out of the way, ultra conservative, right wing place - it's the closeness you develope with other lesbians living in your area. We develope very tight knit, almost family like, groups of friends. We have these incredible gatherings where we all get the chance to share our lives, loves, and happenings with each other. There's a problem with these tight little groups though. I call it the "fox in the hen house" problem. When you're entire lesbian community can fit into one living room, and you're in a committed relstionship, having a couple break up or having a new "single" lesbian enter the mix can be disturbing. It can be especially disturbing if the group consists mainly of coupled lesbians.
I mean, think about it for a minute. If everyone is coupled up, and suddenly you find yourself "single" again. Who the hell do you flirt with? Every lesbian you know is in this room, or around the same camp fire. Each one is your friend, and is holding ANOTHER one of your friends hands. Or worse, you've already dated everyone in the room at least once, maybe twice. It's not like you can run across town to the bar, or the local GLBT outreach center, and hook up with someone new and interesting. If you do make the drive to some metro area and hit the bar, and you do meet someone you're interested in then you're still going to have to drive 130 miles one way every time you want to see them.
What happens if you do hit it off? How do you maintain a relationship where you have to drive 260 miles just to see a movie? Who moves? Who quits their job and relocates? the "friends" around that campfire start looking real good to you. And you start looking a LOT like a fox to anyone in the group who has any insecurities about the hand their holding! What's really bad about the entire situation, is that you may have absolutely no intention whatsoever of homing in on one of your friends partner. But you don't have to. Now that once a week phone call that you make to someone just to say "Hi" becomes suspect. Believe me, I know it's true because I am guilty of pointing my finger and raising the alarm about a fox being in the hen house myself.
My partner and I have been together for 5 years. Five GREAT years I might add. We've built a home together, and have had only one real argument in all this time. Still, when one of our friends who just happens to be extrememly attractive, was suddenly single again, I lost my perspective completely. She and my partner were very good friends, and called each other frequently. It never bothered me when the "fox" was dating someone. But all of sudden, through no fault of her own, I was feeling threatened. Then I made the biggest mistake of all. I shared my fears with another person in our little group of lesbians. I was looking for someone to tell me how much my partner loved me, and that I had nothing to worry about. Well, needless to say that wasn't what I got. What I got instead was a not so subtle reinforcement of my own insecurities. Yep, what I got was "You better be carefull, she's a homewrecker." Which of course she wasn't.
The problem is, this other friend was in the middle of a little insecurity crisis of her own. So my problem hit home with her, and PRESTO! The fox became a vicious animal who would surely ravage my happiness if not stopped. So I then made my next biggest mistake, I told my partner that I thought the fox was after her and that I had it on "good authority" that she was a homewrecker and couldn't be trusted. It made perfect sense to me. I was trying to protect our relationship, our home, the 5 years of building we had done to get where we were. What I forgot was that by accusing her, I was also disrespecting my own partner and our relationship. She told me in no uncertain terms that our friend was NOT hitting on her, and that she resented my even thinking that it would matter if she were. It meant I didn't trust her, and she was very angry at me. She was even MORE angry at the person who had reinforced my fears. Suddenly our little group wasn't so comfortable together anymore.
Small circles of friends can be a wonderful blessing. For lesbians who live in the country, away from any community support, their even more so. They are our life lines, our only source for a feeling of belonging and acceptance. But they are fragile things. You can be "cast out" for creating any friction, and then you are truly alone. You see, the dating pool is more like a little bird bath here. Bottom line is that there is always going to be a "fox in the henhouse". But you better wait until it kills a chicken to shoot it.
If there was one benefit to being a lesbian in such an out of the way, ultra conservative, right wing place - it's the closeness you develope with other lesbians living in your area. We develope very tight knit, almost family like, groups of friends. We have these incredible gatherings where we all get the chance to share our lives, loves, and happenings with each other. There's a problem with these tight little groups though. I call it the "fox in the hen house" problem. When you're entire lesbian community can fit into one living room, and you're in a committed relstionship, having a couple break up or having a new "single" lesbian enter the mix can be disturbing. It can be especially disturbing if the group consists mainly of coupled lesbians.
I mean, think about it for a minute. If everyone is coupled up, and suddenly you find yourself "single" again. Who the hell do you flirt with? Every lesbian you know is in this room, or around the same camp fire. Each one is your friend, and is holding ANOTHER one of your friends hands. Or worse, you've already dated everyone in the room at least once, maybe twice. It's not like you can run across town to the bar, or the local GLBT outreach center, and hook up with someone new and interesting. If you do make the drive to some metro area and hit the bar, and you do meet someone you're interested in then you're still going to have to drive 130 miles one way every time you want to see them.
What happens if you do hit it off? How do you maintain a relationship where you have to drive 260 miles just to see a movie? Who moves? Who quits their job and relocates? the "friends" around that campfire start looking real good to you. And you start looking a LOT like a fox to anyone in the group who has any insecurities about the hand their holding! What's really bad about the entire situation, is that you may have absolutely no intention whatsoever of homing in on one of your friends partner. But you don't have to. Now that once a week phone call that you make to someone just to say "Hi" becomes suspect. Believe me, I know it's true because I am guilty of pointing my finger and raising the alarm about a fox being in the hen house myself.
My partner and I have been together for 5 years. Five GREAT years I might add. We've built a home together, and have had only one real argument in all this time. Still, when one of our friends who just happens to be extrememly attractive, was suddenly single again, I lost my perspective completely. She and my partner were very good friends, and called each other frequently. It never bothered me when the "fox" was dating someone. But all of sudden, through no fault of her own, I was feeling threatened. Then I made the biggest mistake of all. I shared my fears with another person in our little group of lesbians. I was looking for someone to tell me how much my partner loved me, and that I had nothing to worry about. Well, needless to say that wasn't what I got. What I got instead was a not so subtle reinforcement of my own insecurities. Yep, what I got was "You better be carefull, she's a homewrecker." Which of course she wasn't.
The problem is, this other friend was in the middle of a little insecurity crisis of her own. So my problem hit home with her, and PRESTO! The fox became a vicious animal who would surely ravage my happiness if not stopped. So I then made my next biggest mistake, I told my partner that I thought the fox was after her and that I had it on "good authority" that she was a homewrecker and couldn't be trusted. It made perfect sense to me. I was trying to protect our relationship, our home, the 5 years of building we had done to get where we were. What I forgot was that by accusing her, I was also disrespecting my own partner and our relationship. She told me in no uncertain terms that our friend was NOT hitting on her, and that she resented my even thinking that it would matter if she were. It meant I didn't trust her, and she was very angry at me. She was even MORE angry at the person who had reinforced my fears. Suddenly our little group wasn't so comfortable together anymore.
Small circles of friends can be a wonderful blessing. For lesbians who live in the country, away from any community support, their even more so. They are our life lines, our only source for a feeling of belonging and acceptance. But they are fragile things. You can be "cast out" for creating any friction, and then you are truly alone. You see, the dating pool is more like a little bird bath here. Bottom line is that there is always going to be a "fox in the henhouse". But you better wait until it kills a chicken to shoot it.
Monday, March 26, 2007
What does my bedroom have to do with anything?
I am so tired of listening to the religious right argue that what goes on my bedroom justifies their attacks on my personal freedom and the right to be treated like every other American. What exactly is it about my life that is so scary to them? I mean, do they think that I lay around naked all day long having sex and trying to think of ways to turn little heterosexuals into gays or lesbians? Get real.
I’m a travel nurse. I work away from my home for months at a time. I do this to try and build a life and financial freedom with the person that I love, who happens to be a woman. I work in Emergency departments from California to New York, and have had to trade being at home with my family for making a living that can pull us up into the middle class. My partner is a police officer. She spends her time at work protecting the people that live in our community and risking her life to do it.
Our intimate times consist of conversations on the telephone for the most part, and then two or three times a year we get to spend a few weeks together. Even then, she’s working and I’m either working locally or preparing to leave on assignment again. We pass each other in the hallway between shifts, and when we’re lucky, we may actually catch an hour or two to sit on the couch and watch a movie or even talk face to face. When we do get to actually occupy the bed at the same time, we’re usually too tired to do anything other than sleep.
On the rare occasion when we do manage to have a sexually intimate moment, it’s behind closed doors and not at all like they make it look in heterosexual porn movies, which by the way seem obsessed with lesbian sex. We work hard. We pay taxes. We support our community. We watch out for our neighbors. So when the religious right says that we don’t have the right to have our relationship protected and respected the same as theirs, what does my bedroom have to do with it? If you ask me, they’re the ones who are obsessed with my sex life, not me. Why is that? I mean, honestly, I couldn’t care less what Falwell or Dobson do in their bedrooms. I don’t even want to know. Let’s face it, Jim Baker’s and Jimmy Swaggart’s sexual escapades were way more information than I needed in my busy life.
I’m a travel nurse. I work away from my home for months at a time. I do this to try and build a life and financial freedom with the person that I love, who happens to be a woman. I work in Emergency departments from California to New York, and have had to trade being at home with my family for making a living that can pull us up into the middle class. My partner is a police officer. She spends her time at work protecting the people that live in our community and risking her life to do it.
Our intimate times consist of conversations on the telephone for the most part, and then two or three times a year we get to spend a few weeks together. Even then, she’s working and I’m either working locally or preparing to leave on assignment again. We pass each other in the hallway between shifts, and when we’re lucky, we may actually catch an hour or two to sit on the couch and watch a movie or even talk face to face. When we do get to actually occupy the bed at the same time, we’re usually too tired to do anything other than sleep.
On the rare occasion when we do manage to have a sexually intimate moment, it’s behind closed doors and not at all like they make it look in heterosexual porn movies, which by the way seem obsessed with lesbian sex. We work hard. We pay taxes. We support our community. We watch out for our neighbors. So when the religious right says that we don’t have the right to have our relationship protected and respected the same as theirs, what does my bedroom have to do with it? If you ask me, they’re the ones who are obsessed with my sex life, not me. Why is that? I mean, honestly, I couldn’t care less what Falwell or Dobson do in their bedrooms. I don’t even want to know. Let’s face it, Jim Baker’s and Jimmy Swaggart’s sexual escapades were way more information than I needed in my busy life.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Mohler's Little Moment of Acceptance
Changing you own opinions about something is at best, difficult. In some cases, where the opinion is a part of a deeply held belief system, it’s more than hard. It can challenge your views of the world, how you see yourself fitting into that world, and even your faith in God. It rarely occurs in one giant leap, where you cast aside beliefs that you’ve grown up with and latch on to an entirely new way of looking at something. Change happens in tiny moments of acceptance. These tiny moments build until you are faced with an obstacle of belief that no longer makes sense and can’t be justified based on what you know to be true. In that instant, you have to make a decision. You move forward, accepting that your views must change in order to include these new facts or beliefs, or you deny them and fall back on your old ideas.
We are beginning to see evidence of change even in the deepest recesses of our opposition. For such a long time, the conservative right has made a stand against science on many issues. They maintain that man emerged on the planet just a few thousand years ago, against all scientific evidence that man has evolved over the ages. They demand that creationism be taught as a SCIENCE in schools, not satisfied that it be discussed as a religious belief. They deny the evidence of the age of the planet and the universe itself, again in order to reconcile their belief that the biblical account of the creation of the heavens and the earth is fact, rather than a religious belief.
But recently, one well known conservative leader took a giant step of acceptance. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, admitted in an article earlier this month, that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality. Now when those of us who are gay and lesbians read the full text of this article, it’s wildly offensive. He asserts that he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment, if such a technology were developed, to reverse homosexuality. However, you can get past the abrasiveness of that statement and look deeper, this article is actually a step forward in conservative thinking. It’s a moment of acceptance in a long road toward change.
Conservative religious groups have long maintained that being gay was a matter of choice, and that homosexuality could be “overcome” with counseling and prayer. Even when every respected psychological, psychiatric, and medical organization stated that not only was sexual identity not a matter of choice, but denial of ones identity was destructive to the person – the religious right ignored the science and found fringe practitioners to back their own views. This acceptance that sexual identity is a biologically predetermined part of every human being is a giant step toward change, although I doubt he sees it that way.
What will their justification be for persecuting us, when even they have to admit that we are exactly as God made us? If I am as God made me, how can what I am be something that God does not love? When they accept that I can’t change the fact that I was born a lesbian, have always been a lesbian (even before I knew exactly what that was), and have no more control over that part of myself than I do the color of my eyes and hair – then maybe they’ll accept the idea that I shouldn’t have to be treated as less of a human being because I accept who I was born to be.
Don’t get me wrong! I hate the comments he makes about treating fetus’ prior to birth in order to make them heterosexual. I hate it the same way I hate hearing people talk about predetermining fetal sex, or trying to genetically enhance a fetus. But, I do acknowledge that even his acceptance that there MIGHT be a biological basis for sexual identity is a step in our direction. No matter how much back stepping he’s trying to do now.
We are beginning to see evidence of change even in the deepest recesses of our opposition. For such a long time, the conservative right has made a stand against science on many issues. They maintain that man emerged on the planet just a few thousand years ago, against all scientific evidence that man has evolved over the ages. They demand that creationism be taught as a SCIENCE in schools, not satisfied that it be discussed as a religious belief. They deny the evidence of the age of the planet and the universe itself, again in order to reconcile their belief that the biblical account of the creation of the heavens and the earth is fact, rather than a religious belief.
But recently, one well known conservative leader took a giant step of acceptance. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, admitted in an article earlier this month, that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality. Now when those of us who are gay and lesbians read the full text of this article, it’s wildly offensive. He asserts that he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment, if such a technology were developed, to reverse homosexuality. However, you can get past the abrasiveness of that statement and look deeper, this article is actually a step forward in conservative thinking. It’s a moment of acceptance in a long road toward change.
Conservative religious groups have long maintained that being gay was a matter of choice, and that homosexuality could be “overcome” with counseling and prayer. Even when every respected psychological, psychiatric, and medical organization stated that not only was sexual identity not a matter of choice, but denial of ones identity was destructive to the person – the religious right ignored the science and found fringe practitioners to back their own views. This acceptance that sexual identity is a biologically predetermined part of every human being is a giant step toward change, although I doubt he sees it that way.
What will their justification be for persecuting us, when even they have to admit that we are exactly as God made us? If I am as God made me, how can what I am be something that God does not love? When they accept that I can’t change the fact that I was born a lesbian, have always been a lesbian (even before I knew exactly what that was), and have no more control over that part of myself than I do the color of my eyes and hair – then maybe they’ll accept the idea that I shouldn’t have to be treated as less of a human being because I accept who I was born to be.
Don’t get me wrong! I hate the comments he makes about treating fetus’ prior to birth in order to make them heterosexual. I hate it the same way I hate hearing people talk about predetermining fetal sex, or trying to genetically enhance a fetus. But, I do acknowledge that even his acceptance that there MIGHT be a biological basis for sexual identity is a step in our direction. No matter how much back stepping he’s trying to do now.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Ann Coulter (Can I use the "B" Word?)
If you ever wanted to know just how deeply divided this country really is when it comes to the rights of gay and lesbian Americans to live their lives without discrimination, just do a google news search with the name “Ann Coulter” in it. You’ll see hundreds of items pop up with view points from both sides of the fence and a few that ride the fence as well. What’s interesting about this issue to me, is that it doesn’t represent a specific “issue” at all, it addresses how gay and lesbians are treated at a more basic level. It isn’t about our right to work (which many of us still don’t have – you can still be fired for being gay in a lot of states). It isn’t about our right to be at our partner’s bedside when they are ill (which many states have no provision for). It isn’t about our right to the same tax breaks that heterosexual couples get (even if they aren’t legally married). It isn’t about our right to anything at all, except respect as human beings.
Look recently at the use of the “N” word by a popular comedian in a club during his stand up routine. You didn’t see anyone defending his use of that word. But wait, the conservative right says that we aren’t allowed to compare the use of degrading terms used to humiliate a black person, and a degrading term used to humiliate a gay person. They say that Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot, can’t be compared to someone being called the N-word. The conservative right works very hard making sure no one publicly notes any similarities between the civil rights of a black person, and the civil rights of a gay person.
The American Daily web site has an article on it’s site by J. Matt Barber today. This article says “By comparison, homosexuality is rooted in disordered, unhealthy and changeable behaviors that have – prior to the onset of social post-modernism – been considered both immoral and repulsive. Being black is rooted in, well, being black.” That’s the kind of reasoning we’re dealing with. He’s basically saying that you shouldn’t discriminate against black people because they can’t help being born black, not because they are no different from him and deserve the same respect and dignity of life as he does without having to be compared to others as a measure of their worth. If you’d like to read the entire article you can find it at http://www.americandaily.com/article/17916. It would be a pretty funny read except for one thing, he’s not joking.
The conservatives are circling the wagons, with excuses that range from “it was only a joke” to “they call themselves faggots all the time.” Let me tell you something right now. I have never called myself or a friend a faggot. Never. Not once. I never would and I won’t put up with you calling me one either.
I hope these ridiculous, right wing, nut jobs just keep talking because no one can point out their bigotry better than they do themselves. It just amuses me at how upset they get when all we do is point it out to them. It’s a shame that using the “B” word to describe Ann Coulter isn’t an insult to her at all (No, not THAT “B” word) – Bigot!
Look recently at the use of the “N” word by a popular comedian in a club during his stand up routine. You didn’t see anyone defending his use of that word. But wait, the conservative right says that we aren’t allowed to compare the use of degrading terms used to humiliate a black person, and a degrading term used to humiliate a gay person. They say that Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot, can’t be compared to someone being called the N-word. The conservative right works very hard making sure no one publicly notes any similarities between the civil rights of a black person, and the civil rights of a gay person.
The American Daily web site has an article on it’s site by J. Matt Barber today. This article says “By comparison, homosexuality is rooted in disordered, unhealthy and changeable behaviors that have – prior to the onset of social post-modernism – been considered both immoral and repulsive. Being black is rooted in, well, being black.” That’s the kind of reasoning we’re dealing with. He’s basically saying that you shouldn’t discriminate against black people because they can’t help being born black, not because they are no different from him and deserve the same respect and dignity of life as he does without having to be compared to others as a measure of their worth. If you’d like to read the entire article you can find it at http://www.americandaily.com/article/17916. It would be a pretty funny read except for one thing, he’s not joking.
The conservatives are circling the wagons, with excuses that range from “it was only a joke” to “they call themselves faggots all the time.” Let me tell you something right now. I have never called myself or a friend a faggot. Never. Not once. I never would and I won’t put up with you calling me one either.
I hope these ridiculous, right wing, nut jobs just keep talking because no one can point out their bigotry better than they do themselves. It just amuses me at how upset they get when all we do is point it out to them. It’s a shame that using the “B” word to describe Ann Coulter isn’t an insult to her at all (No, not THAT “B” word) – Bigot!
Monday, March 05, 2007
Ann Coulter's "Faggot" Comment
John Edward's may be too nice a guy. When asked about his take on Coulter, Edwards replied: "Don't have one. Don't have anything to say about her." I respect his ability to keep his opinion about her to himself, especially when she called him a "faggot". Of course she did it in a setting where she knew it was acceptable - The Conservative Political Action Conference. Making a gay or lesbian slur in that room is about as risky as using the "N" word at a KKK meeting. Not only did no one inside the room stand up and denounce the statement immediately, but there was laughter throughout the room. If there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind about how far away from a real understanding between the LGBT community and the conservative right, there shouldn't be now. The laughter in the room demonstrates the kind of people that the Conservative Political Action Conference respects enough to have presenting to them, and the kind of people they represent - Hate filled biggots
I on the other hand am not a particularly nice person in the face of comments that are directed at me with that kind of hate, and her use of the term may have been AIMED at Edwards, but it was directed at all of us in the Gay and Lesbian community. I find Ann Couter to be a fine representative of the CPAC, which is about as big an insult as I can think of. Now I want to watch where the CPAC throws their support, there my friends, is where the real story is. Where does all the money and influence that CPAC has to offer go? Which candidate or candidates share their "sense of humor"?
I on the other hand am not a particularly nice person in the face of comments that are directed at me with that kind of hate, and her use of the term may have been AIMED at Edwards, but it was directed at all of us in the Gay and Lesbian community. I find Ann Couter to be a fine representative of the CPAC, which is about as big an insult as I can think of. Now I want to watch where the CPAC throws their support, there my friends, is where the real story is. Where does all the money and influence that CPAC has to offer go? Which candidate or candidates share their "sense of humor"?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Lessons I'm Learning
I’ve lost three people who were very close to me recently. One was my cousin, who died (young) of pneumonia. One was my friend, who lost his fight with cancer (also young). One was a colleague, who was killed in a car accident yesterday (and yes, he was young). As a Nurse working in the Emergency Department, I have seen death in all its myriad of disguises. I’ve seen tragic deaths, the ones that rip your guts out when you turn to the family in the hallway and tell them that a child is gone. I’ve seen reverent deaths, where someone who has lived a long and fulfilled life and faced the end of their days with a quiet calm that filled me with wonder and respect. I’ve seen death as a welcomed release from human suffering, and I’ve seen death pass itself off as an alternative to an unhappy life.
No matter what differences we all have, there is one thing that we all have in common. Death will come to us all. Having been a witness to it, I’ve learned a few things. Nothing earth shattering, or incredible. Just little things that I hope I can use to make my own days on earth mean a little more, and make my passing hurt a little less to those left behind.
The first thing that I’ve learned is acceptance. I’ve accepted the fact that I truly am a mortal human being who could die at any moment of any day, without notice and without time to “fix” anything I’ve left undone. It’s easy to say you accept death as a part of life, as a part of YOUR life. Truly grasping the undeniable truth of your own mortality is the key to making every day count. Tomorrow isn’t promised to any of us, so what you do today MATTERS.
The second thing that I’ve learned is that no matter when death comes, you’re almost never ready for it. There will be things left unsaid, things left undone. Even if you tell your partner “I love you” every time you leave their presence, you’ll still wish you could tell them one more time when that moment comes and you know you’ll never get the chance to do it. Life is a work in progress, so there will always be things not finished, not completed.
The third thing I’ve learned is that when death comes, how you feel about your life and the way you lived it, weighs on your mind. I’m not talking about religion, or faith, but something more basic and less demanding. How you feel about the way you used your time, the way you shared your life with others, and the way you gave mercy and compassion away weighs on your mind in the end. I’ve seen people of so many different faiths as they face their own, or their loved ones deaths. In that one moment, you can’t tell the difference between a Catholic, a Baptist, a Mormon, and a Jew except for the rituals of passing. The emotions are always the same. At the end of our days we all face death with only what we brought into this world, and what we made of our lives.
I hope I get struck by lightning someday walking down a beach and watching a gorgeous sunrise. I don’t want the opportunity to face death with the dignity I’ve seen others portray. I want to live my life as if it could happen at any moment, any second, and what I do right now, matters. Because, right now, may be all there is.
No matter what differences we all have, there is one thing that we all have in common. Death will come to us all. Having been a witness to it, I’ve learned a few things. Nothing earth shattering, or incredible. Just little things that I hope I can use to make my own days on earth mean a little more, and make my passing hurt a little less to those left behind.
The first thing that I’ve learned is acceptance. I’ve accepted the fact that I truly am a mortal human being who could die at any moment of any day, without notice and without time to “fix” anything I’ve left undone. It’s easy to say you accept death as a part of life, as a part of YOUR life. Truly grasping the undeniable truth of your own mortality is the key to making every day count. Tomorrow isn’t promised to any of us, so what you do today MATTERS.
The second thing that I’ve learned is that no matter when death comes, you’re almost never ready for it. There will be things left unsaid, things left undone. Even if you tell your partner “I love you” every time you leave their presence, you’ll still wish you could tell them one more time when that moment comes and you know you’ll never get the chance to do it. Life is a work in progress, so there will always be things not finished, not completed.
The third thing I’ve learned is that when death comes, how you feel about your life and the way you lived it, weighs on your mind. I’m not talking about religion, or faith, but something more basic and less demanding. How you feel about the way you used your time, the way you shared your life with others, and the way you gave mercy and compassion away weighs on your mind in the end. I’ve seen people of so many different faiths as they face their own, or their loved ones deaths. In that one moment, you can’t tell the difference between a Catholic, a Baptist, a Mormon, and a Jew except for the rituals of passing. The emotions are always the same. At the end of our days we all face death with only what we brought into this world, and what we made of our lives.
I hope I get struck by lightning someday walking down a beach and watching a gorgeous sunrise. I don’t want the opportunity to face death with the dignity I’ve seen others portray. I want to live my life as if it could happen at any moment, any second, and what I do right now, matters. Because, right now, may be all there is.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
A Woman in the Whitehouse
Well, she finally did it! Senator Hilary Clinton announced her candidacy for president of the United States. It wasn’t a surprise by any stretch of the imagination, everyone knew she would. The latest poll showing her way ahead of all of the other candidates in Democrats eyes would also indicate that most Democrats wanted her to do just that. She was at 41%, while her nearest competitor (Obama) was in the teens.
I am so looking forward to the debates and the campaign trail this year. I can’t wait to see this strong and capable woman show the world that not only is the United States ready for a woman in the White House, we have one who has more to bring to the table than just being female. Senator Clinton is a savvy politician, and she knows what it takes to win an election. She won’t be easily intimidated and because of previous campaigns and her high profile life, most of us have already had the chance to see what’s in her closet and put it to rest.
There’s no doubt that I’ll vote for whatever candidate that the Democrats put forward for president. I won’t vote for a republican, and I won’t waste my vote on a candidate that has no chance to win. Now more than ever we need our votes to count, and seeing a Democrat in the White House is a major step toward equality for us. I’ll vote for a Democrat in November, but I sure hope that Democrat will be Clinton. I’m ready to have a woman lead this country. Women have been underrepresented in top political positions for far too long, and it’s about time that we stepped out of the wings and onto the stage.
I am so looking forward to the debates and the campaign trail this year. I can’t wait to see this strong and capable woman show the world that not only is the United States ready for a woman in the White House, we have one who has more to bring to the table than just being female. Senator Clinton is a savvy politician, and she knows what it takes to win an election. She won’t be easily intimidated and because of previous campaigns and her high profile life, most of us have already had the chance to see what’s in her closet and put it to rest.
There’s no doubt that I’ll vote for whatever candidate that the Democrats put forward for president. I won’t vote for a republican, and I won’t waste my vote on a candidate that has no chance to win. Now more than ever we need our votes to count, and seeing a Democrat in the White House is a major step toward equality for us. I’ll vote for a Democrat in November, but I sure hope that Democrat will be Clinton. I’m ready to have a woman lead this country. Women have been underrepresented in top political positions for far too long, and it’s about time that we stepped out of the wings and onto the stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)