According to Mitt Romney, speaking today at a National Rifle Association function, Judicial Review of Laws by the Supreme Court is "Required" to protect us all from laws that restrict our constitutional rights. He is of course talking about the Supreme Courts review of President Obama's Health care reform law. But, I wonder what his opinion is of the California Supreme Courts review of proposition 8, or of The Federal Supreme Courts review of Proposition 8 or DOMA, which will undoubtedly come.
I actually completely agree with him on the point that Courts must be able to review laws made by popular votes or by legislative votes. Looking back through our history, it has been the Supreme Court that protected the rights of minority groups from laws passed by popular votes that discriminated against them. Civil rights for people of Color, Interracial Marriage, both of these issues were not popular in the public view. Left to popular votes alone, how many years would have passed before these discriminatory laws were toppled?
So, let the Supreme Court review health care reform. If they find that some part of it is unconstitutional, I can live with that. We need health care reform, no doubt, and even if the current law is found to be unconstitutional I believe it will come because it has to. There is no way to support the current system financially. But I hope that when other issues, like Same Sex Marriage are there in "Judicial Review", that Romney and the Republican Party will remember his comments today.
Somehow, I doubt it.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Rick Santorum say's marriage is a privilege, not a right.
I firmly support Rick Santorum's right to his personal belief system. I don't agree with it, and I find people who use their religious beliefs to harm the lives of others sad and hypocritical, but I support his right to believe it.
A bigot is defined as someone who is utterly intolerant of a different creed, belief, or opinion. So yes, Rick Santorum is a bigot. He is intolerant of gay people, and their lifestyles. He has chosen to base his bigoted statements on his religious beliefs, which I suspect we will see more and more of as the elections draw nearer. The far right-tea party to which he must ingratiate himself eats that stuff up!
Well, here's the thing. By definition, I'm a bigot as well. I am utterly intolerant of people who insist on legislating their personal religious beliefs. I respect their right to believe what they want, and to worship in the way they please. But when they start trying to place restrictions on my own life, and to limit the expression of love between me and my partner based on those beliefs through LEGISLATION then I become as intolerant a person as anyone walking the earth.
Government should protect the weak and the minority from the demands of a religious majority who seeks to keep a privilege unto themselves by making laws that recognize them as a "special" group, deserving of something while others are not.
I regret that they make this a religious issue over and over. As a person of faith, I recognize that each of us has the right to choose how we worship and what we believe. Until, that is, you cross the line and start targeting those who believe differently and trying to harm them either physically, emotionally, or financially. This religious right is trying to do all three of these things to us, and they do it pridefully, as if it were something to brag about.
I am a fiscal conservative, but I vote exclusively democratic because of the hard right turn that the republican party has taken. I want a smaller government, one that respects EVERY individuals rights, not just the lucky ones that were born 'privileged'. I want aggressive changes to social entitlement programs that encourage people not to work, to be irresponsible, and to live like parasites on those of us who work so hard to take care of our families.
I'm a nurse. My partner is a police officer. We both work hard in careers that involve taking care of the people in our communities. We've been together for almost 10 years, share a mortgage and make car payments just like everyone else. I love her, and want the right to protect her financially in the future just like any heterosexual couple out there. So when Rick Santorum says that we have no 'right' to marriage because we don't deserve the same 'privilege' that he enjoys, I have to say you call a spade a spade. He's a bigot. Just like me.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I know what I WISH I could give her
I haven't been updating here as much as I'd like to lately. To tell you the truth, the whole proposition 8 thing really disheartened me for a while. It made me angry that so many Americans would go so far out of their way just to hurt me and those like me. I like to think that I'm fair minded, and that I understand why some people disapprove of my sexual preference. But in reality, I don't. Not really. I mean, it doesn't bother me that they are heterosexual and even though I find that lifestyle distasteful, I wouldn't walk across the street to keep them from being able to be happy. I certainly wouldn't carry hateful posters, yell ugly remarks at them, and spend my hard earned money to make sure that they can't be together in same meaningful way that I could.
Maybe that's the problem for us. We aren't willing to attack their rights, as a means of asserting our own. Perhaps begging for table scraps off of their buffet isn't the answer. If equal protection under the law is the basis for our argument for equality, then maybe the strategy we need to employ is attacking those rights that they enjoy that we don't, instead of begging for them.
We can't marry and have the benefits of that union, then instead of this endless fight to marry why not just start demanding that the rights that they enjoy that we are denied be removed from the union of marriage? If you MUST be married to have survivor benefits of social security, then that benefit should no longer be given on the basis of marriage. If every American can't have it, then none should.
Perhaps by trying to take away those things that make marriage such a valuable and desirable institution, we can make them understand just how important marriage really is to every American. Not just to heterosexuals.
If they are going to use religion to continue this campaign of hate and prejudice, then I don't want to make spreading those views to another generation any easier for them. I don't want their religious views to be taught or respected in any venue or institution that my tax dollars support (especially since I have to pay more of those taxes than they do, as a "single" person). I've never voted to keep prayer out of schools, or to limit religious organizations tax free status' before. But my thinking on that issue is changing. The freedom to exercise one's faith is important, I believe that. But if your faith demands that you persecute and hurt others, then there must be limits.
I think I'm just getting tired of waiting. Tired of trying to be patient and hope that as time passes people will change. We keep pointing at the inequality that exists between us, and trying to change minds without being as brutal and hateful as those who oppose us. I doubt we ever could be. I don't think that my circle of gay friends even have it in them to mirror the mindset of the people who apparently hate and fear us more than anything else.
Christmas is right around the corner, and my partner of 7 years and I are still here. Still together. Still loving each other and trying to build a life and future together. I don't know what I'll get her this year, but I know what it won't be. It won't be that one thing that I've always wanted to give her, a wedding ring.
Maybe that's the problem for us. We aren't willing to attack their rights, as a means of asserting our own. Perhaps begging for table scraps off of their buffet isn't the answer. If equal protection under the law is the basis for our argument for equality, then maybe the strategy we need to employ is attacking those rights that they enjoy that we don't, instead of begging for them.
We can't marry and have the benefits of that union, then instead of this endless fight to marry why not just start demanding that the rights that they enjoy that we are denied be removed from the union of marriage? If you MUST be married to have survivor benefits of social security, then that benefit should no longer be given on the basis of marriage. If every American can't have it, then none should.
Perhaps by trying to take away those things that make marriage such a valuable and desirable institution, we can make them understand just how important marriage really is to every American. Not just to heterosexuals.
If they are going to use religion to continue this campaign of hate and prejudice, then I don't want to make spreading those views to another generation any easier for them. I don't want their religious views to be taught or respected in any venue or institution that my tax dollars support (especially since I have to pay more of those taxes than they do, as a "single" person). I've never voted to keep prayer out of schools, or to limit religious organizations tax free status' before. But my thinking on that issue is changing. The freedom to exercise one's faith is important, I believe that. But if your faith demands that you persecute and hurt others, then there must be limits.
I think I'm just getting tired of waiting. Tired of trying to be patient and hope that as time passes people will change. We keep pointing at the inequality that exists between us, and trying to change minds without being as brutal and hateful as those who oppose us. I doubt we ever could be. I don't think that my circle of gay friends even have it in them to mirror the mindset of the people who apparently hate and fear us more than anything else.
Christmas is right around the corner, and my partner of 7 years and I are still here. Still together. Still loving each other and trying to build a life and future together. I don't know what I'll get her this year, but I know what it won't be. It won't be that one thing that I've always wanted to give her, a wedding ring.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Gay Rights Are Civil Rights
Gay Rights Are Civil Rights
by: Dr. Maura J. Cullen
(This article is from ArticleCity.com and is written by Dr. Maura J. Cullen)
Our biggest tragedy as a country was the enslavement of Black people who were stolen from their native lands and forced into slavery. In order to end this tyranny, courageous people risked their own lives in what has become known as the Civil Rights Movement. This movement was forged on the backs of People of Color and has become a force that has changed the face of America. Because of its success it now serves as a powerful model for every civil rights movement that followed.
There is a saying that history repeats itself and without a doubt that is what is currently taking place in this country with the gay rights movement. People who supported slavery, denied white women and people of color the right to vote, were all on the wrong side of history by denying people’s basic human and civil rights. And today, there are many who are still on the wrong side of history by denying gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans basic civil rights.
We are governed, in theory, by a document that allows all citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and where all people are treated equal. Yet it is very apparent that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans are exempt from these equal rights. That is how it is now, but not as it always will be, because as history demonstrates, justice will eventually prevail, but unfortunately it always takes a fight.
This country was founded on the premise of protecting the minority view, of allowing all voices to be heard and to provide equal rights for ALL Americans. Democracy has never been a majority rules proposition and nor should it be. Many fled to this country to escape religious persecution. Now, many of those very people’s ancestors are the same people persecuting gay Americans today.
Same-Sex Marriage
The religious-right has taken it upon themselves to be the torchbearers for denying equal rights to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. They assert that permitting same-sex marriage would jeopardize the institution of marriage. It is challenging to take this claim seriously given that heterosexuals have a divorce rate of close to 50%. You can’t blame that failure on gay people. In fact, it is hard to believe that same-sex couples could do any worse than their heterosexual counterparts in the marriage department.
As a lesbian couple, my wife Dawn and I were legally married in the great state of Massachusetts, which was the first state to permit same-sex marriage with all of the rights and benefits that go along with it. We have since moved to Maryland, a state that does not recognize nor permit same-sex marriage. As a result, we no longer have the rights that we had once experienced in Massachusetts including health care. We are now once again relegated to second-class status.
Yet history is repeating itself. Just as same-sex couples are now denied the right to marry in most states, there was another group of people in our history as a nation who were also denied the right to marry.
It was not until 1967 that inter-racial marriage was legalized. As a result of the case of Loving v Virginia, all race-based legal restriction on marriage were prohibited. Opponents believed inter-racial marriages to be repugnant, abhorrent and an attack on morality. Sound familiar?
In 2006, South Africa became the 5th country to legalize same-sex marriage. This is impressive given apartheid was legal until 1994 and where the impact of unequal treatment is still apparent today. South Africa has done what the United States has yet to fully grasp; they have taken a lesson from their own history and are determined not to repeat that painful chapter by imposing injustice on a different group of people.
Military—Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Until the 1954 decision of Brown v The Board of Education, legal segregation existed in the U.S. Military. Black soldiers have participated and died in every war this country has fought and has done so with distinction.
The 1994 passage of the Clinton’s administration of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
To date, over 12,500 gay and lesbian soldiers have been forced out of the military as a result of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. These soldiers have served with distinction. They are willing to lay down their lives to bring democracy to other countries, yet they are denied equal treatment in their own. Military men and women have been trained to handle all situations and yet we have dismissed 12,500 well-trained soldiers because some of the heterosexual soldiers are afraid they may make a pass at them? The United States military is over-taxed with our involvement in so many regions of the world and we cannot afford to lose so many qualified and talented people.
It is time that we as a country learn from our past mistakes. These mistakes have taken a huge toll on all of us. Some history does not bear repeating.
About The Author
Dr. Maura Cullen is the author of the bestselling book "35 Dumb Things Well-Intended People Say: Surprising Things We Say That Widen the Diversity Gap". She is a highly-acclaimed diversity trainer who has educated and inspired people worldwide in over 400 universities and organizations on how to be more inclusive and authentic when communicating with others. With over 25 years of experience as a keynote speaker and her doctorate in Social Justice & Diversity Education from the University of Massachusetts , she is widely considered one of the nation's foremost authorities of diversity issues today. Visit http://www.TheDiversitySpeaker.com
by: Dr. Maura J. Cullen
(This article is from ArticleCity.com and is written by Dr. Maura J. Cullen)
Our biggest tragedy as a country was the enslavement of Black people who were stolen from their native lands and forced into slavery. In order to end this tyranny, courageous people risked their own lives in what has become known as the Civil Rights Movement. This movement was forged on the backs of People of Color and has become a force that has changed the face of America. Because of its success it now serves as a powerful model for every civil rights movement that followed.
There is a saying that history repeats itself and without a doubt that is what is currently taking place in this country with the gay rights movement. People who supported slavery, denied white women and people of color the right to vote, were all on the wrong side of history by denying people’s basic human and civil rights. And today, there are many who are still on the wrong side of history by denying gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans basic civil rights.
We are governed, in theory, by a document that allows all citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and where all people are treated equal. Yet it is very apparent that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans are exempt from these equal rights. That is how it is now, but not as it always will be, because as history demonstrates, justice will eventually prevail, but unfortunately it always takes a fight.
This country was founded on the premise of protecting the minority view, of allowing all voices to be heard and to provide equal rights for ALL Americans. Democracy has never been a majority rules proposition and nor should it be. Many fled to this country to escape religious persecution. Now, many of those very people’s ancestors are the same people persecuting gay Americans today.
Same-Sex Marriage
The religious-right has taken it upon themselves to be the torchbearers for denying equal rights to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. They assert that permitting same-sex marriage would jeopardize the institution of marriage. It is challenging to take this claim seriously given that heterosexuals have a divorce rate of close to 50%. You can’t blame that failure on gay people. In fact, it is hard to believe that same-sex couples could do any worse than their heterosexual counterparts in the marriage department.
As a lesbian couple, my wife Dawn and I were legally married in the great state of Massachusetts, which was the first state to permit same-sex marriage with all of the rights and benefits that go along with it. We have since moved to Maryland, a state that does not recognize nor permit same-sex marriage. As a result, we no longer have the rights that we had once experienced in Massachusetts including health care. We are now once again relegated to second-class status.
Yet history is repeating itself. Just as same-sex couples are now denied the right to marry in most states, there was another group of people in our history as a nation who were also denied the right to marry.
It was not until 1967 that inter-racial marriage was legalized. As a result of the case of Loving v Virginia, all race-based legal restriction on marriage were prohibited. Opponents believed inter-racial marriages to be repugnant, abhorrent and an attack on morality. Sound familiar?
In 2006, South Africa became the 5th country to legalize same-sex marriage. This is impressive given apartheid was legal until 1994 and where the impact of unequal treatment is still apparent today. South Africa has done what the United States has yet to fully grasp; they have taken a lesson from their own history and are determined not to repeat that painful chapter by imposing injustice on a different group of people.
Military—Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Until the 1954 decision of Brown v The Board of Education, legal segregation existed in the U.S. Military. Black soldiers have participated and died in every war this country has fought and has done so with distinction.
The 1994 passage of the Clinton’s administration of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
To date, over 12,500 gay and lesbian soldiers have been forced out of the military as a result of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. These soldiers have served with distinction. They are willing to lay down their lives to bring democracy to other countries, yet they are denied equal treatment in their own. Military men and women have been trained to handle all situations and yet we have dismissed 12,500 well-trained soldiers because some of the heterosexual soldiers are afraid they may make a pass at them? The United States military is over-taxed with our involvement in so many regions of the world and we cannot afford to lose so many qualified and talented people.
It is time that we as a country learn from our past mistakes. These mistakes have taken a huge toll on all of us. Some history does not bear repeating.
About The Author
Dr. Maura Cullen is the author of the bestselling book "35 Dumb Things Well-Intended People Say: Surprising Things We Say That Widen the Diversity Gap". She is a highly-acclaimed diversity trainer who has educated and inspired people worldwide in over 400 universities and organizations on how to be more inclusive and authentic when communicating with others. With over 25 years of experience as a keynote speaker and her doctorate in Social Justice & Diversity Education from the University of Massachusetts , she is widely considered one of the nation's foremost authorities of diversity issues today. Visit http://www.TheDiversitySpeaker.com
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Proposition 8 Upheld In California
I'm dissappointed to say the least that the California Supreme Court upheld proposition 8 in California today. But it isn't quite the victory that the Conservative and Religious right think it is. Reading through the decision comments it becomes apparent that the Justices were not repealing a gay couples rights as a married couple in California, but simply the ability to call their union a marriage.
I have to tell you, that if that were the case federally, I wouldn't care what they called my union with my partner. Give me the same rights and protections under the law (including the tax laws), and you can have your claim to the term marriage. I'll take Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, whatever. It's the rights that are conveyed by the union, not what it's called. That clearly was protected by the Justices comments.
I have to tell you, that if that were the case federally, I wouldn't care what they called my union with my partner. Give me the same rights and protections under the law (including the tax laws), and you can have your claim to the term marriage. I'll take Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, whatever. It's the rights that are conveyed by the union, not what it's called. That clearly was protected by the Justices comments.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Tired Old Arguments
I was cruising around the internet today, reading my favorite blogs, and then heading over to facebook to catch up with friends. I clicked on the twitter application link there and was browsing through topics on their page, and found this one below. I was in a pretty good mood today. I had spent a great weekend at home with my partner, celebrated Mother's day with my Mom, gone fishing and actually caught fish! Then, I read this thread on twitter. Not is such a good mood anymore. Disgusted actually. You'll just have to read it for yourself, and you'll see what I mean. Post after post after post of hatefull, prejudiced, angry statements back and forth between "Christians", and "Homosexuals". The same usual arguments, that start out sounding caring and disintegrate into inflamed and agitated statements when no one agrees with anyone else. Christians and Homosexuals.......Man, you're really screwed if you happen to be both.
Here's the link to the twitter discussion on facebook.
Here's the link to the twitter discussion on facebook.
Monday, October 13, 2008
New friends at home
I got to spend a little time at home this past summer, and had a great time watching two little birds working feverishly to build this nest, and then raise their family. It was built on the front porch, and when we would come in late at night, the parents would dive bomb us as we walked up onto the porch. The little ones stuck around for a while, and then were gone. I'm hoping they'll choose the same spot for a new home next year.
Monday, October 06, 2008
McCain throws in the towel on the Financial Crisis
Senator McCain apparently realizes that he has nothing of any substance to add to the conversation in America about the financial crisis. He’s decided to just avoid the issue completely and try to distract the American voter with misleading adds that are just more of the same mud slinging he’s becoming known for.
The problem is, it’s hard to distract someone from the heat, when their hair is on fire. We’ve watched our retirement savings disappear, and been saddled with debt that it will take us years to pay off. Many of us are losing our jobs, or live in fear of it. The cost of living is going up, and the amount of money we’re bringing home is going down. People are losing their homes, and watching their single largest investments lose value as the housing market is flooded with foreclosed properties that no one can get a loan to purchase.
I’m sorry, but refusing to talk to me about this doesn’t make me feel any better about what you’re going to do to fix my problems. I have to admit though, that when Senator McCain was actually talking about the crisis, he wasn’t making me feel much better either. It was so apparent that he didn’t even realize that there was a crisis until late in the game, and then his response to it was to go to Washington and accomplish nothing.
If the best that you have to offer in the conversation about how to help this country crawl out of the pit we’ve been thrown into over the last eight years, is to point out to me that your opponent has a middle name that you don’t like, then perhaps just keeping your mouth shut and letting the people out there who actually understand the trouble that we’re in discuss the issues might not be such a bad idea. On that note, Senator McCain, I applaud your decision to just stop talking about the crisis. Since that is all that I really care about today as I watch my retirement savings go down every time the market opens, it keeps me from having to waste my time trying to listen to your ideas. After all, I can just look back at the past eight years and get a pretty good idea.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Vote Republican? Not a chance.
Driving through town, I noticed a political poster for John McCain in the yard of someone that I know personally to be gay. Not just gay, but OUT gay. At first I thought it was probably put there by someone without my friend knowing it, so I gave him a call and was shocked to discover that he had put the sign up and was planning to vote for the republican candidate in the general election.
I just couldn’t believe it. I asked him why? Why would you even consider voting for ANYONE in the republican party if you are a gay American with any concerns for not just furthering equality, but maintaining the gains we have achieved? He told me that he was voting against the democratic party, more than voting for the republican party candidate and admitted that in truth, he knew very little about McCain’s views on equal rights for gays and lesbians, or gay marriage (although he assumed that he was no different from any of the other republicans and opposed it). His major voting concern was the economy, and he felt that the democrats gave too much of his money away to people who sat at home and didn’t work, or were here illegally. He wanted less social program spending and a hard lined approach to immigration reform.
When we hung up, it took me a long while to get past my disbelief and to focus on what he was saying. He wasn’t voting for the people that he knew would help him achieve personal freedoms, his main concerns lay lower in the list of essential human needs.
It’s my belief that people vote according to their perception of needs. If you’re hungry, poor, have no roof over your head, then you vote for the person who is going to help elevate you to a point where you get these basic needs met. Once those needs are met, you start focusing on your future needs, and who will help you meet those needs. When you think you have those needs met, you begin to focus on your personal freedoms and the things that you’d LIKE to have, but don’t need to survive.
For my friend, who had been impacted greatly by the economy, and by workers in our area who are here illegally taking jobs for much less pay, the questions of immigration and taxation were at the base of his needs list, overpowering his desire to have his relationship protected. But there is a problem with that thinking. What benefit do we as gays and lesbians get from tax reform that doesn’t recognize our relationships or our families? None.
We will still be taxed as singles even though we have been in relationships for years and have bought homes and have mortgages and bills just like the heterosexual neighbors do. We still won’t be able to claim the children of our partners, or to write off the medical expenses that we pay for these children, because our relationship with them isn’t recognized. We can’t write off the mortgage interest that we pay on the mortgage if the mortgage is in our partners name. Bottom line, the republican tax cuts aren’t helping us, because they don’t even recognize that we exist. If you’re an adult in a committed relationship with a home to maintain, working hard and making a decent living, then you’re still just a single person making too much money as far as the tax code is concerned so you get to pay more taxes so that the neighbors don’t have to. Why, because they have the benefit of marriage. You don’t.
The republicans want to keep it that way. At least the more progressive republicans want to keep it that way. The really conservative ones want to take away our rights to even have legal contracts that protect our finances and our health care decisions and take care of our need to protect our partners both financially and medically. They want to push us back into the closet, and out of their lives. They like the idea that we pay a disproportionate amount of money in taxes, because it means they don’t have to. It helps them, hurts us, and they love that idea.
I wish I had an answer for him on the immigration issue. He believes that deporting millions of illegal aliens is an option. Realistically, I just don’t. I don’t see that even being physically possible, so we need to work on a solution that is feasible. One that addresses the impact that these workers have on working Americans, and has a realistic chance of success. I don’t see that either party has a real answer yet, but can’t argue that my friends experience certainly justify his frustration and willingness to vote to relieve it.
For me, even the idea of voting for a candidate that courts the religious right is out of the question. Not just because I am gay, but because I hate the idea of any president sitting in the oval office, and giving one ounce of weight to the demands of someone like Dr. James Dobson, or Pat Robertson, or any other ultra conservative who thinks they have the right to define the values of an entire nation based on their own personal beliefs. If the republican party wants to align itself with these kinds of far right extremists, and will do anything to try to make them happy, then they are leaving ME out in the cold and certainly will never get my vote.
Both democratic candidates are right. It is time for change in this country. It’s time for people to be seen as individuals who have the right to live their lives according to their own values and beliefs within the constraints of the law. It’s time for religion to take it’s place in peoples personal lives, and to get out of political policy decisions where it has no place. It’s time that a persons actions be allowed to define them, and not their sexual orientation.
I can’t change my friends mind, he’s still going to vote for McCain. I’m just glad my vote will be there to cancel his out. But that’s what it’s all about. Two people standing on opposite sides of a fence, talking about how each of us thinks change needs to occur. In the end, we’ll still be friends, and one of us will have to buy the other dinner. Hope he can afford the seafood feast he’s going to be buying me when the democrats win in November!
I just couldn’t believe it. I asked him why? Why would you even consider voting for ANYONE in the republican party if you are a gay American with any concerns for not just furthering equality, but maintaining the gains we have achieved? He told me that he was voting against the democratic party, more than voting for the republican party candidate and admitted that in truth, he knew very little about McCain’s views on equal rights for gays and lesbians, or gay marriage (although he assumed that he was no different from any of the other republicans and opposed it). His major voting concern was the economy, and he felt that the democrats gave too much of his money away to people who sat at home and didn’t work, or were here illegally. He wanted less social program spending and a hard lined approach to immigration reform.
When we hung up, it took me a long while to get past my disbelief and to focus on what he was saying. He wasn’t voting for the people that he knew would help him achieve personal freedoms, his main concerns lay lower in the list of essential human needs.
It’s my belief that people vote according to their perception of needs. If you’re hungry, poor, have no roof over your head, then you vote for the person who is going to help elevate you to a point where you get these basic needs met. Once those needs are met, you start focusing on your future needs, and who will help you meet those needs. When you think you have those needs met, you begin to focus on your personal freedoms and the things that you’d LIKE to have, but don’t need to survive.
For my friend, who had been impacted greatly by the economy, and by workers in our area who are here illegally taking jobs for much less pay, the questions of immigration and taxation were at the base of his needs list, overpowering his desire to have his relationship protected. But there is a problem with that thinking. What benefit do we as gays and lesbians get from tax reform that doesn’t recognize our relationships or our families? None.
We will still be taxed as singles even though we have been in relationships for years and have bought homes and have mortgages and bills just like the heterosexual neighbors do. We still won’t be able to claim the children of our partners, or to write off the medical expenses that we pay for these children, because our relationship with them isn’t recognized. We can’t write off the mortgage interest that we pay on the mortgage if the mortgage is in our partners name. Bottom line, the republican tax cuts aren’t helping us, because they don’t even recognize that we exist. If you’re an adult in a committed relationship with a home to maintain, working hard and making a decent living, then you’re still just a single person making too much money as far as the tax code is concerned so you get to pay more taxes so that the neighbors don’t have to. Why, because they have the benefit of marriage. You don’t.
The republicans want to keep it that way. At least the more progressive republicans want to keep it that way. The really conservative ones want to take away our rights to even have legal contracts that protect our finances and our health care decisions and take care of our need to protect our partners both financially and medically. They want to push us back into the closet, and out of their lives. They like the idea that we pay a disproportionate amount of money in taxes, because it means they don’t have to. It helps them, hurts us, and they love that idea.
I wish I had an answer for him on the immigration issue. He believes that deporting millions of illegal aliens is an option. Realistically, I just don’t. I don’t see that even being physically possible, so we need to work on a solution that is feasible. One that addresses the impact that these workers have on working Americans, and has a realistic chance of success. I don’t see that either party has a real answer yet, but can’t argue that my friends experience certainly justify his frustration and willingness to vote to relieve it.
For me, even the idea of voting for a candidate that courts the religious right is out of the question. Not just because I am gay, but because I hate the idea of any president sitting in the oval office, and giving one ounce of weight to the demands of someone like Dr. James Dobson, or Pat Robertson, or any other ultra conservative who thinks they have the right to define the values of an entire nation based on their own personal beliefs. If the republican party wants to align itself with these kinds of far right extremists, and will do anything to try to make them happy, then they are leaving ME out in the cold and certainly will never get my vote.
Both democratic candidates are right. It is time for change in this country. It’s time for people to be seen as individuals who have the right to live their lives according to their own values and beliefs within the constraints of the law. It’s time for religion to take it’s place in peoples personal lives, and to get out of political policy decisions where it has no place. It’s time that a persons actions be allowed to define them, and not their sexual orientation.
I can’t change my friends mind, he’s still going to vote for McCain. I’m just glad my vote will be there to cancel his out. But that’s what it’s all about. Two people standing on opposite sides of a fence, talking about how each of us thinks change needs to occur. In the end, we’ll still be friends, and one of us will have to buy the other dinner. Hope he can afford the seafood feast he’s going to be buying me when the democrats win in November!
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Jane Rule - Dead at 76
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
"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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)