“If we're growing, we're always going to be out of our comfort zone.” --John Maxwell
First off, let's please note the irony of an atheist quoting an evangelical pastor.
So noted? Good. Moving on...
Now, let's note Spike. He is the 19+ inch tall cactus you see just there on the right. When I received Spike as a gift about 6 years ago, he was two inches tall with a purple plastic flower glued to his top. He was purchased at a grocery store in that section where they retain all things green but not necessarily of the produce persuasion. I was in the hospital having a tumor removed from my spine (benign, of course), and husband knew of my love for all things plant, but not necessarily produce, related. It was one of those "I fall in love with you all over again" moments.
Spike himself won't naturally bloom until he is somewhere between three and four feet tall, as is the wont of his species of cacti. If I ever want to see Spike dressed to the nines in this fashion, I must make sure Spike gets all the things he needs to be a fully productive member of his species: water (if sparingly), sunlight, proper soil. If I fail, Spike may die. He certainly wouldn't flourish and grow. And he will never, ever bloom if I, as his caretaker, fail in any way to provide for his needs.
Moving on...
A few years ago, there was quite the bru-ha-ha in our family as we were all once again planning our giant family get-together for the summer. And I say "giant" because when you have four siblings, each with their partners and various children and the total number of people in your immediate family exceeds twenty individuals--well, not many can relate to an immediate family of that magnitude (which is why some of the in-laws have adjustment issues when they first join our clan), and it's always quite the production.
But the bru-ha-ha happened because of the youngest sibling: she wanted to take a "moral stand." She was afraid her two children would see me and the husband in the same bedroom and ask questions--questions she wasn't prepared to answer. She was afraid they would somehow be introduced to the "gay lifestyle" too early, that it would seem as if she were "endorsing" our relationship (a very bad thing to do when you're a conservative Christian, as some of you may know), and didn't think she should have to explain to her children why Uncle Jason slept in the same room as Uncle Rich...
Needless to say, they never did come on that family vacation with the rest of us...
Anyway, a recent blog post by a Catholic woman has gone viral (see here) and it reminded me very much of the incident in our own family three years ago. Some excerpts from her blog post:
At the pool this summer there were homosexual couples with children and, while I was polite as my own young daughters doted on the baby with two "mommies", I also held my breath in anticipation of awkward questions - questions I'm not ready to answer. My young daughters are all under the age of eight and they are not old enough to understand why a baby would have two women calling themselves "mommies".
...
When there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions. They don't see Daddy do that with anyone but Mommy.
...
Two of my daughters were in the sandbox, one on the slide, the other on the swings, and as I lifted the baby out of his stroller I looked up to see four women laughing at a baby boy as he was swinging in one of those bucket baby swings. That seems harmless enough, but I'm so sensitized to the strangeness in my community that I've developed this ever-present jumpiness whenever I'm in public. Sure enough, two of the women, so happy to see a baby boy laughing, embraced and remained standing there rubbing each other's back in a way that was clearly not just friendly affection.
...
I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. We are responsible citizens. We live by the rules, we pay our taxes, we take care of our things. I'm supposed to be able to influence what goes on in my community, and as a voter I do exercise that right. But I'm outnumbered. I can't even go to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality. We all know what would happen if I asked two men or two women to stop displaying, right in front of me and my children, that they live in sodomy.
Am I allowed to say how scared I am that this woman is raising seven children?
But I digress. What I really want to talk about is the rampant "sheltering" that goes on in conservative communities. As if "parenting" has come to mean giving your children "selective" information about the world instead of trying to teach them to live and cope within it. To protect them from differing people instead of trying to teach them about the differing people of the world. To raise kids in a bubble so impenetrable, so strong, that when they do hit the real world, when they do find out that there are people out there who don't share the same view that they had growing up--well, they either
fall back on that same mindset and continue to shelter themselves from the world (thus stunting their own growth even more than their "concerned parents" had...)
go crazy, not knowing how to cope, and go off the deep end in various ways (i.e., having no knowledge of the dangers of over-drinking, of unprotected sex, or any number of other, easily explained social dangers),
or they examine their beliefs, realize how they were failed as children by their uber-protective parents, and grow in the new sunlight of knowledge.
Did you notice the recurring fears in Stacy's post? Afraid of the "awkward questions - questions I'm not ready to answer"? "[W]atching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions"?
One of the (misguided? misunderstood?) recurring themes in the comments is the "if you're liberal, you should tolerate my viewpoint" persuasion. But the thing the right-wing doesn't seem to understand about tolerance is the fact that tolerance does not mean putting up with nonsense, does not mean putting up with ill-thought-out beliefs, does not mean letting them believe whatever the hell they want without challenge, especially if you are putting it out in the public sphere of a blog.
Tolerance IS ONLY ever meant to be the smallest part of patience. And when the patience has been tried, tolerance goes out the window. Tolerate is what you do when your two-year-old tried again to drink from a cup instead of his sippy-cup; or you tolerate the sales person who called during dinner only as long as it takes to get them off the phone; you tolerate a visit from some member of the family you dislike for the sake of a holiday, or some-such other type scenario. Tolerance is not letting you live in fairy-tale land where you get to tell everyone else how to live and making your religious preferences the rules the rest of us have to live by. We tolerate a plethora of beliefs in this country. We do not have to tolerate you trying to tell everyone else how to live, and we certainly do not have to stop holding hands just because of your failure to answer a child's questions, if indeed they even ask any.
It is not the rest of the world's job to protect your children from life. It is not the rest of the world's obligation to shelter your children. When you decided to become a parent, you assumed the role of care-giver, of knowledge-imparter, of teacher/guidance counselor/role model, and a plethora of other hats. It is not a parent's job to shelter children--in fact, that would be the exact opposite of being a parent.
In fact, that would be more the role of jailer; prison guard; totalitarian.
And in those conditions? Nothing ever blooms... Nothing good ever comes of it... Nothing productive ever will.
Unless you think the role of parenting is to stunt the growth, knowledge, and strength of the next generation...
There are a lot of bad LGBT movies out there. A. Lot. And I don't mean bad as in "The Christian right made a bunch of movies to make us all look like hedonistic bastards on the road paved for hell." I just mean badly conceived, badly written, badly directed, badly acted... Just bad. Two movies that come to mind that illustrate this point fantastically (and that is the only way to put a positive spin on these two films) are The House of Adam, which isn't quite sure whether it wants to be a crime mystery, a love story, or a horror film; and A Siren in the Dark, a wanna-be psychological horror film in which it seems the director (or someone else ill-qualified to make a film) found the use of the "play in reverse" feature on his camera to be the most phenomenal of tools... And don't even get me started on Dante's Cove and The Lair. I shudder at what people seem to think praise-worthy on gay television. (Dear LGBT community: Just because they're hot with their shirts off doesn't mean they can act, and just because the story features a gay lead doesn't mean it should be televised...) It's sad that most of the people creating television and movies for our community think that if you throw in a hot, shirtless guy, we won't notice everything else. That just isn't the case.
It almost makes a gay man want to commit suicide. Almost. Luckily, there are quite a few treasures out there, films done so well they are a credit to our community and to the film industry as a whole. Now realize I am no Siskel and Ebert; I am, however, a human being who can appreciate something done well and something done not-so-well. After all, I need not be a restaurant critic to know when a steak is prepared sensationally, or horribly horribly wrong. Therefore, if you find yourself needing something gay and GOOD to watch, here are my top-ten choices: The good, the better, and the best of (to date) the best I can find in queer cinema. Please note that I did not include Priscilla: Queen of the Desert, The Birdcage, or Too Wong Fu. By now you should know these are great gay films. If you didn't, now you do. They still aren't included below. Get over it. :) I'd also like to point out that these films are not perfect, but they are, however, a credit to their art and community. And while I also have not seen every LGBT film out there, it's easier to find the horrible ones than it is the good or great ones, which is why I felt the need to compile this list.
1. I begin with my all-time favorite to date: Latter Days (2003). So much my favorite I actually blogged about it immediately after viewing it.
Synopsis: A young Mormon missionary finds himself on a mission trip in Los Angeles, where he meets (and consequently falls into sin with) Christian, a young gay waiter who is known for his love of partying. A cliche type of bet is involved, but overall the plot is original, the characters will have you cheering, screaming, laughing, crying.
Director: C. Jay Cox Writer: C. Jay Cox Stars: Wes Ramsey, Steve Sandvoss, and Mary Kay Place
There are a few musical numbers by one of the co-stars, and the title song is by one of my all time favorite bands, Toad the Wet Sprocket. If it helps, it's by the same screenwriter that did Sweet Home Alabama (which, if you were me, that wouldn't help, but then again, that could just be me...). Overall, if you don't fall in love with this film, you are damaged. And by damaged, I mean severely. Get on the short bus, wear a helmet.
2.Hannah Free (2009). This gem was discovered one night through streaming Netflix on our Wii.
Synopsis: A sweet and touching story about an independent free-spirited feminist and her female lover. Hannah finds herself in an old-age home where she is unable to spend time with her dying partner with whom she has spent her life with since childhood. A great-granddaughter does what she can to bring them together without the consent of her grandmother.
Director: Wendy Jo Carlton Writer: Claudia Allen Stars: Sharon Gless, Maureen Gallagher, and Kelli Strickland
A beautiful film which captures a pure love between two women in the quiet Midwest. Hannah longed for freedom, but always came home to Rachel, and their unconventional relationship, long the talk of the small town, is vindicated when Rachel's daughter finally sees that love is love. Oh, how I cried!
3.BearCity (2010). We found this film from watching trailers from another film and procured it through disc on Netflix.
Synopsis: Tyler loves men--just not the typical skinny, pretty ones. Hairy, big, and manly, much to his twink roommates chagrin. But Tyler embraces his inner bear cub and goes out to find Mr. Right.
Director: Douglas Langway Writers: Douglas Langway, Lawrence Ferber Stars: Joe Conti, Gerald McCullouch, and Brian Keane
This lovely little romantic comedy had us alternately laughing and crying as it captured the whole subculture of the bear community with tenderness and compassion. Most gay cinema features your typical Abercrombie & Fitch-types, but this film embraced the bear community, bringing to light the fact that not all of us come in a size 32 jean, but we still love, are loved, and find love and joy within the gay community.
4.Strapped (2010). We also found this film from watching trailers from another film and procured it through disc on Netflix.
Synopsis: A young, handsome prostitute finds himself alternately lost and rescued in an apartment complex, learning about himself and others the harsher lessons of life, yet ultimately finding love.
Director: Joseph Graham Writer: Joseph Graham Stars: Ben Bonenfant, Nick Frangione, and Artem Mishin
I usually tend to avoid any film which makes prostitution or drugs seem commonplace, or "okay," as I have seen firsthand in my own family what such activities can lead to. However, the film takes the micro world of the complex and shows just how vastly different, yet the same, we all are as the young man travels from the penthouse to the basement and back. At times darkly humorous, tense, and romantic, it weaves together a story of learning about yourself through the actions and reactions of others. Truly well written, directed, and acted, this is one for the personal library.
5.Trick (1999). We first watched this film at a friends home during our monthly movie night, and is available through NetFlix on disc.
Synopsis: Gabriel, an aspiring musician in New York City, picks up a stripper at a local bar, and the evening is spent just trying to find a place where they can be alone together.
Director: Jim Fall Writer: Jason Schafer Stars: Christian Campbell, John Paul Pitoc, and Tori Spelling
A romantic comedy with it's fair share of humorous musical numbers, it's easy to relate to Gabriel's fascination with hunky Mark--sort of a nerd-meets-jock love story that will touch your heart and make you laugh at loud at times. And Tori Spelling is adorable, I just have to say it. :) You find out love can happen even if you can't find a place to make love, because it isn't all about sex. It's about the people who want to have it. :)
6.The Trip (2002). This lovely film is also available through NetFlix, disc only.
Synopsis: Tommy and Alan first meet in the 1970s, and they are political opposites. But they fall in love, and their story is followed through the 70s, 80s, and 90s as they navigate their way amid Tommy's secret past and Alan's gay-rights activism.
Director: Miles Swain Writer: Miles Swain Stars: Larry Sullivan, Steve Braun, and Ray Baker
The dialogue is at times contrived, and near the beginning the actors seem a bit stilted, as if unsure how wet they would like to get their feet, but soon we are plunged into the whirlwind romance of these two young men. Watching their, and their fellow actors', hairstyles and fashions change with the times is both hilarious and spot-on, and the car-hood stripping scene in the middle of the Mexican desert by Tommy is fantastic.
7.Shelter (2007). This film is available through NetFlix, disc only.
Synopsis: Zach's dreams of going to college are put on hold as he deals with one family emergency after another, all the while falling in love with his best friend's older brother, none of whom know Zach is gay.
Director: Jonah Markowitz Writer: Jonah Markowitz Stars: Trevor Wright, Brad Rowe, and Tina Holmes
A very touching film about the struggles of a young man to find his own identity amidst the chaos that is his home life, you can't help but root for Zach and the budding romance and escape he finds with his best friends older brother Shaun (played by Brad Rowe). They bond over a shared love of surfing, a love of art, and a love of reading. And let's face it--Brad Rowe is just nice to look at.
8.Camp (2003). Available through Netflix streaming, I first heard about this film from a co-worker.
Synopsis: High school misfits give up their summer vacation every year to attend Camp Ovation, a singing/dancing school that puts on a series of plays every year. This year, however, finds a jock named Vlad in attendance whom all the kids want to sleep with, and a new teacher who has had several Broadway flops turns to alcohol and teaching at Camp Ovation as a way to make ends meet.
Director: Todd Graff Writer: Todd Graff Stars: Don Dixon, Daniel Letterle, and Joanna Chilcoat
Next to these kids? Everyone who has ever auditioned for American IdolSUCKS. Not only are the musical numbers entertaining, well sung, and wonderfully choreographed, you feel their heart and soul. Some of these songs WILL get stuck in your head for weeks--and that's a good thing. The teenage angst is present, of course, but not only is it not over done, it also encompasses the true nature of what these teens are going through, from overbearing parents, demanding teachers, boyfriend/girlfriend problems, and a host of other daily issues for teens. A fantastic film!
9.C.R.A.Z.Y. (2005). We found this by accident through NetFlix and instantly fell in love...
Synopsis: Five brothers: Christian, Raymond, Antoine, Zachary and Yvan. But Zach is the only one who's gay, and has the added curse of being born on Christmas day, much to his Catholic mother's delight. Although truth be told all five brothers are very different, their father is a tough man who wants them to grow up to be men, not sissies. Zach retreats into music, unsure if he can live up to the expectations of his family.
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée Writers: François Boulay, Jean-Marc Vallée Stars: Michel Côté, Marc-André Grondin, and Danielle Proulx
If you don't like "reading" movies, don't rent this film. It's in French. The boys get their names from their father's love of the song "Crazy" by Patsy Cline, a song I remember fondly from my own childhood. The emotional issues that come from having four siblings I could also identify with, as I have four of my own as well! Touching, poignant, and overall fantastic, it's well worth "the read," if you get my drift!
10.Fruit Fly (2009). We found this film through watching the trailers on Strapped (above), and were able to get it through NetFlix on disc.
Synopsis: A young woman who performs a traveling "performance art" piece arrives in San Francisco, still looking for a place to call home. She ends up living in an artists commune, unable to find a venue, and also unable to locate her biological mother.
Director: H.P. Mendoza Writer: H.P. Mendoza Stars: L.A. Renigen, Mike Curtis, and Theresa Navarro
Between the fantastic, catchy musical numbers (including "Fag-Hag," "We are the Hag," and "Enough About Me"), and the story of the young woman who is simply searching for a place to call home, you will be alternately dazzled and slightly disappointed. Sometimes the songs are a bit too quiet, hard to understand what is being sung, but most times they are loud, brazen, and thoroughly enjoyable. One young man performs a duet with himself via his laptop--truly hilarious and well done!
There are a few more I'd like to mention--we'll just call this the honorable-mentions category of our Top-Ten, films and television shows that should be checked out and enjoyed:
The Donald Strachy Crime Dramas, a series of films based on the novels by Richard Stevenson. Only four are presently available, and I have no idea if the rest of Richard's novels on the character will be made into film as well, but the four available thus far are: Third Man Out (2005), Shock to the System (2006), On the Other Hand, Death (2008), and Ice Blues (2008). Chad Allen stars as Detective Strachy in all four films, and his lover Timothy Callahan, played by Sebastian Spence, brings dry humor and a sense of grounding and home as Strachy finds himself in all sorts of troublesome spots. A great series which I hope continues!
The Broken Hearts Club (2000) is a story about a small group of gay friends from all walks of life just trying to find love. They all hang out (and some of them work at) a local restaurant, which also has it's own softball team, The Broken Hearts Club, of which most of them play for. Definitely a must see. And it helps to have Dean Cain as one of its feature stars. Love him!
Is It Just Me? (2009). A young aspiring writer can't seem to find love, and when he thinks he has found it, he realizes that he was using his roommates online profile at the time. The roommates pit brains against brawn to win this new young man's heart.
Flawless (1999). Neighbors in the same apartment complex in New York City from two very different worlds--a straight, tough cop and the very loud and out drag queen--find themselves leaning on one another due to a stroke on the part of the cop and a crime lord on the part of the drag queen. They find they are not so different after all, and form a friendship. Starring Robert De Niro and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
I'm sure there are more you would like to add. Let me know what you've seen, what you've loved, and what you've hated! The only way to support quality LGBT films is to talk about them and give them props! (And hopefully, some of the very very bad filmmakers out there will either stop getting funding, or improve the quality of their work!) I guess we can only hope.
As it is, this list should be enough to get you started, and I do hope you enjoy them as much as I have! As I said, none of them are perfect films, but they are all GOOD films, and well worth the watch!
It was on today's date 12 years ago that Matthew Shepard was attacked, beaten, and left for dead, tied to a fence with his own shoelaces.
But the hate continues. In September alone, six young men--that we know of due to the media--took their own lives because they could no longer stand the hate. Spewed at them from classmates, at home, in church, on the television...
Tyler Clementi, 18, a freshman at Rutgers, jumped off the GW Bridge after his roommate broadcast a video of Tyler with another guy.
15-year-old Billy Lucas of Greensburg, Ind., committed suicide - an act that was suspected to have stemmed from daily bullying about his perceived sexual orientation.
Seth Walsh, 13, of Tehachapi, Calif., passed away Sept. 28 after he attempted to hang himself on Sept. 19. It is reported that Walsh identified as gay and suffered constant hate-motivated bullying from peers.
On Sept. 23, 13-year-old Asher Brown of Houston, Texas, reportedly shot himself, which his parents believe came as a result of allegedly unchecked anti-gay cruelty and harassment at his school.
On Sept. 29, Johnson & Wales student Raymond Chase, 19, hung himself in his dorm room.
14-year-old North Side High School student Caleb Nolt allegedly killed himself from anti-gay bullying in Fort Wayne.
It's not easy, being a gay teenager. What's even harder today is all the right-wing rhetoric bandied about on the waves: that gays destroy the family, ruin the military, are trying to destroy society... To listen to a sermon (like this lil gem from a moron--oops! Mormon--pastor in Utah right after the media aired a few of the gay suicides this past month...) and hear that you are evil and a tool of Satan? That you want to destroy social institutions? That what you are, that what you cannot stop being, that simply feeling love for someone of the same sex could scare so many, and bring about God's wrath?? Teens should be concerned about what they're going to wear, not if they can survive one more day of being called "Faggot!" in the halls, not of being beaten up for the way you run in gym class after school...
Jesus didn't say "Bully people until they commit suicide." [...] If you are a Christian that consider homosexuals and "gay activists" your enemies, then you have two options: love them, or stop pretending you're a Christian. I don't see that you're left with a third option.
I'm reminded of my own dark times as a teen, when I knew that I would either have to spend the rest of my life pretending, come out, or end it all. I risked my family, my friends, my whole world...
But it was a part of my journey, one that many others can probably relate to, and one that others may find foreign and dangerous...
This from 8/5/1998:
[...] I just want to get this all over with. I'm sick of this dragging out and no one at all aware of this inner turmoil. The struggle to gain my gay identity amidst the religious and family pressures & reasonings. Don't get me wrong--I love my family, I even love God in a very distinct way. I also know they ALL (including God) would not agree w/ what I am thinking and wanting to do. I don't blame them, really, either. But how long can the charade go on? [...]
This, a day later:
[...] I see what Q_____ goes through. I try to defend him from the jokes and such, but that brings it's own back on me. I know this is exactly how I would be made fun of & ridiculed if they ever discovered. Why shouldn't they feel that way as the very "life style" I desire goes against all they've embraced, all I've embraced, and accepted as truth?
Which is true, I suppose...
And I still desire it. I am worse than Q____ in at least he has spoken forth about the truth about himself, faced up to it. Of course no one knows about Q___ because then he'd be kicked out of church again.
But they all still know he's gay.
Oh, for such freedom... [...]
And apparently, on 9/6/1998, I agreed to enter "therapy" for my "problem."
[...] Had lunch with R.W. today, and we discussed when I would begin counseling with P.C. Tues. night I call him 'cause R.W. wants to "brief" him first. I said that was fine. :(
[...] I'm not sure this is going to "cure" me anyway. How do you cure feelings, emotions, and desires? How does one even ... Futile. Just futile. What if I am, though, by some miracle, cured? After all the years of prayer, all the nights spent in torment, what if the burden finally is lifted? Doubt clouds my mind, but I think that may be the devil.
And these are apparently my first thoughts after my first night of counseling with P.C.
P.C. strikes me as one who a lot of times neglects the emotional aspect of things and leaps right into "practical application" which can be all well & good at time I suppose.
And what will "therapy" actually do for me? Give me a better understanding of why I have the emotions and desires I do? Help me to cope w/ these thoughts? Make them disappear totally? The last is probably impossible, but P.C. thinks it is possible--I can tell he's never had this "problem."
R.W. suggested my "absent" father, and my desire to have a relationship with him is the root of this evil. And here I thought they always blamed the mother? :) What? A little humor isn't called for here?
If my father thought he was responsible for this it would kill him.[...]
One of my darker moments came a few weeks later, in October:
I hate them all, with their "eternal peace" and their "blameless before God" stance. They haven't a clue, have they? I asked P.C. if he even had a clue as to what I was going through. His reply: "I don't care. It's still wrong."
I must remember to ask him how he would feel if someone were to ask him to give up women, specifically his wife. Would he get a glimmer perhaps? Is it fair to blame them? I suppose not...
[...] They say this is the time of year for most suicides. I can easily believe that. So easily.
Would the family cope better with me dead, never knowing about the evil their son has within him? Would this be a kinder way to let go, and give up this evil burden?
Looking back at my list of benefits and losses, I do see I foresaw my loneliness coming... how wise of me... doesn't make me feel much better knowing I was wise, yet not wise enough, or strong enough, to find an alternative. I suppose I'm just a wise fool...
I survived this dark period, apparently. :D There's much more there, of course, but I thought this conveyed the gist without airing all my dirty laundry on the Internet.
Today is twelve years since Matthew Shepard was attacked and left to die. He was found in the bitter cold, beaten, bloodied, tied to a fence as if crucified. He died on October 12th.
I won't quote statistics at you, but know that this happens every day somewhere in the world. Additionally, every day a homosexual teen takes his or her own life from the verbal, mental, spiritual and emotional attacks that they can no longer live with.
Every. Day.
This post is for you, Matthew, and to all the other gay victims of hate in all its various forms. Someone somewhere is hurting because you are no longer here. You will be remembered.
And to all those who are contemplating suicide, please ask for help. Get in touch with The Trevor Project (866) 488-7386, or look up a number in your phone book! You are not alone, there are many of us who have lived through the hurt and the pain, and we want to help you! Please don't become another news story. Let us get to know you and love you by choosing to live.
Yeah, I suck at this blogging thing every spring. I know it, you know it, Fred Astaire would know it if he (a) were alive and (b) read blogs, but them's the breaks. I'm not quite sure he would appreciate the content, but I'd like to think he liked the style. I'd also like to think I could afford that trip to Europe, but then again, that's what the Discovery channel is for--we poor saps who dream big, get paid squat, and, in fact, consider putting on sun glasses and sitting in NYC with a metal coffee cup saying things like "Alms for the poor!", "The End is Near," and "Of Course God Loves Fags--They're the Best-Lookin' for a Reason!"
You get the idea. I'm rambling. It seems to be my writing of choice. I'd blame my mother, but she already gets blamed for the arthritis at an early age and trying to kill me three times as a child through pure ignorance and neglect, but that's a separate ramble. Altogether hilarious, mind you--any story involving my mother, a medical disease book her own doctor told her to throw away, and a medicine cabinet that contains Tylenol, Tums, and a can of Aquanet is sure to be a belly-buster.
Like the pic? Yeah, they're hot.
If I could go back in time and not almost die three times (still love you Mom!--does that mean I should be in therapy? I suppose I should ask a therapist...), I'd like to think that things would be different, things could have changed--but I also just watched The Time Traveler's Wife (cried like a baby, I did) so that theory got blown out of the water before it started... Much like my co-workers idea to smash into Taylor Swifts house just so he can meet her. (I advised him to think through that plan a bit longer than the half hour he'd claimed to put into it). I'm thinking he may just be too lazy to be an actual stalker... Something else that never seems to work out for anyone...
Where was I? Oh, yeah--they're hot, no doubt about it. And yes, they're turning blue. When your partner has a broken leg, inspiration is far and few between because you have... "other things"... on your mind. Did I just blame not blogging on not getting enough nooky? I think I did. But them's the breaks... No pun intended.
Hmm... Buns... (Pun is to Bun like...?) Yeah, well, it segued nicely for me.
It's been a looooooong three months, people. But we're getting there. One step at a time... With a walker...
Have you heard the story? Russ has a great post on this story as well which you should check out, but for what it's worth, here's my two cents... It's a simple, tragic tale, one that puts to rest the tired arguments of the right-wing Americans who claim that all we need to do ("we" being same-sex partners) is fill out the legal paperwork, spend the hundreds of dollars to ensure our wills and our estates are made out to one another, jump through the hoops and be good little gays and stay away from that word of "marriage" because that's "sacred" and only for straight couples...
Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place--wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.
You see, they lived together in California--you remember the fiasco that happened in California, do you not, dear reader? Prop 8? Ring a bell? Prop 8 repealed the right of same-sex couples to get married in the state of California under the guise of "majority rule" (i.e. Mob rule). The Mormon church, Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council," and a whole host of other right-wing lobbyists spent billions of dollars to make sure their right to marriage remained special and separate, and repeated, quite often, that the gays just needed to do their paperwork and leave that word alone, and we'd all be just hunky-dory. In fact, just a few days ago, Tony sent out an email which said the following:
Let me be clear--I agree that patients should be free to authorize anyone they want to visit them in the hospital and make decisions for them if they are unable to. In fact, they can already do so--through advance directives, such as a health care proxy or power of attorney. These are private contractual arrangements that do not require redefining "family" or "marriage." And they don't require the President of the United States to make himself "hospital-administrator-in-chief."
(Well, Tony, you're full of SHIT.) You see, Harold and Clay had done all of those things, but in the state of California, which just rescinded the rights of gay couples to have a marriage license... Well, this is what occurred next:
One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold's care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.
Ignoring Clay's significant role in Harold's life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold's "roommate." The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold's bank accounts to pay for his care.
Oh, it doesn't stop there, dear reader. Oh no, what happened next was beyond the pale. The fact that this can happen in America today, that this very well could have been Rich and I just a few short weeks ago--it terrifies me. The legal paperwork is only as good as the government issuing it, and if the government stance is "Gay relationships are nowhere near as special and important as straight marriage", well, this is what happens:
Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold's possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.
Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county's actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.
Their possessions--sold. They were separated against their will, both physical and legal paperwork notwithstanding. Harold died alone. All Clay has left to remember his partner, his lover, his HUSBAND, is a book of pictures. Pictures. A 20-year life together auctioned off like junk, two men torn apart because, according to the "law," they were just "roommates." ROOMMATES?!
I lay this at your feet, Tony. You and the Mormon church and the rest of your ilk. Harold died alone because their relationship wasn't "worthy" of a marriage license, because all they had to do was "fill out the paperwork." All Clay has left from the last 20 years of his life, of their lives, is a photo album. Of course, maybe you don't care, and that is your right. But imagine if it were you, and your loved one, your partner, the last twenty years of your life. Knowing you were barred from seeing them? That they died alone? You weren't there to say that last good-bye, for that last kiss, that last whispered "I love you" gently into the ear that lay by your side for the last twenty years. And all you had left to show for those twenty years--is a photo album. Not the house you both shared, or the yard you both tended, or that special something you both fell in love with at that yard sale... Nothing.
I hope Clay makes them pay through the nose. Even though money can't bring back his husband, I hope he makes them pay until it hurts, until those people responsible feel just a little bit of the pain they inflicted on these two, the pain they inflicted on Harold in the last moments of his life, and the pain and suffering Clay still goes through having been robbed of what should have been their final moments together...
This terrifies me, that this can and apparently does happen. And, dear reader? If it doesn't scare the shit out of you? Then you haven't actually thought about it...
Thanks to the Bilerico Project for bringing this story to light, when even the local papers weren't covering this tragic piece of news.
Do you remember first love, dear reader? The way your heart flopped around in convulsions on sight? Your eyes dilated, your brow began to sweat, your heart would race, butterflies scrambling about in the depths of your stomach? Among other bodily functions, as I'm sure you know...
Sigh...
First love... And when you see them again, twelve years later...? Well, let's just say your heart starts all over again, but because it's twelve years later, you wonder if it might be a stroke or a heart attack and not first love bursting forth from the corner where it's been hiding...
Now understand, dear reader--this is not the "How I broke up with Richard" story. Far from it! While first love is powerful, occasionally forgotten but just as potent, second love? Well, that's the keeper, isn't it? While first love teaches you about whirlwinds and tides and pain and lust and sex--oh, GAWD, the SEX!--second love is about maturity, love by choice, commitment--I know, I know, boring adult stuff, but sweeter yet in many other ways. The companionable silences... The automatic knowledge of the other's thoughts... The twenty minute conversation conveyed in a glance... Little things like coming home and realizing he bought your favorite brand of potato chips, or cooked your favorite meal, or even just that smile when you walk through the door and feel at home... And the sex?--oh, GAWD, the SEX!--can be just as good... :)
I didn't realize how powerfully first love would come back--I never expected to hear or see from him again. It doesn't hurt that he's only gotten hotter in the missing years either! (This is what we like to call "motivation" for our own waist lines...) But it does--as it should--remind you of how good you have it when you have it. Who knows where first love would have led? A romance like the one I have now? Disaster and heartache worse then the original loss of said love? No one knows, and perhaps that's part of the tight-fisted grip of first love--the "What ifs...?" The not knowing if you could have made first love work if only you hadn't been so young, so head-over-heels, if the distance hadn't been so great, if the sex hadn't been so----oh, GAWD, the SEX!-- Sigh... First love...
I know the flame will always burn bright and hot for him. It's just a fact. But I also know the flame I have now far outshines "What if...", even if "what if" does flare up occasionally...
To my first love, you will always have that piece of my heart, and I'll cherish it always. But to my second love? You hold the flame...
Hello, my friends. Rich is doing much better, thanks, and well on the road to recovery (give or take 8 weeks to 6 months for recovery), and Near the Beginning will be on a short hiatus until we get some type of schedule down in which I get back to personal computer time, but in the meantime...
Normally I get a lot of posts asking for me to advertise this, that, and the other thing on my blog (being the oh-so-popular, must-read-blog that I have here...), but this request struck a very personal note, having served in the military. Michael Anthony recently sent me an email asking if he could submit an article here on Life & Otherwise. He has served his country proudly and with honor as a medic in the Army, following in the footsteps of his father, grandfather, and numerous older siblings, as well as having written a book on his tours of duty. Michael's short yet concise post to this blog follows herewith, and I do hope you will take the time to visit his web site here, and share here and with him, your thoughts and feelings.
Don’t ask... ahh... too late.
My name is Michael Anthony, I am an Iraq war veteran and having spent six years in the Army, at the age of twenty-three, I have spent more than a quarter of my life in service to this country. I have four older brothers and an older sister, all of whom have been in the military: Air Force, Marines and Army. My father and both my grandfathers were in the military.
Hailing originally for a small sheltered town just south of Boston Massachusetts, I say this in all earnestness: the only gay people I know have all been in the military. This is not a joke or some talking point, it’s literal. Generals, Commanders and Civilians can talk all they want, but the fact of the matter is, the only gay friends I've had have all been in the military, in fact, my only experience of gay people(outside of the military) is when I once watched and episode of the TV show Will and Grace (it was kind of funny).
For the policy known as DADT, there is one thing people often forget. People forget that the policy doesn’t preclude gay people from entering the military it just precludes them from talking about their homosexuality. In short, someone can be gay in the military; they just can’t talk about being gay in the military.
If people are already in the military and gay—from my former unit alone I know close to a dozen—what is it that people are afraid will happen with the repeal of DADT? Are people afraid that the day after DADT is rescinded; gay soldiers are going to walk in wearing a feather boa and buttless fatigues? The uniform policy will still be in effect so we can cross that option out. Are people afraid that it’s going to hurt troop morale? The Military suicide rate is at a thirty year high having consistently risen for the past five years, with eighteen veterans killing themselves everyday (according to the VA) so it seems like it can’t get any worse.
With everything said, there is a negative aspect to repealing DADT. Having been in the military all my adult years, my peer group is filled with Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Several of these war veterans having done two or three tours, have sworn that they will never go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. Upon further questioning on how they plan to get out deployment if called, their answer is simple: “don’t ask, don’t tell,” expounding further, they say that if they’re called up, they will simply kiss a member of the same sex—in front of their commander. So how is repealing DADT going to affect the military? The answer is simple…my friends who jokingly suggested using DADT as a way to get out of a deployment are now stuck going to Iraq or Afghanistan.
And please don’t even get me started on the escapades that go on overseas. But hey, what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq... ahh not quite.
Michael Anthony is the author of MASS CASUALTIES: A Young Medic’s True Story of Death, Deception and Dishonor in Iraq (Adams Media, October 2009). The book is drawn from the personal journals of Anthony during the 1st year he spent serving in Iraq. It is a non-partisan look at some of the escapades that go on behind the scenes in Iraq.
Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council" claimed in a mass email on Thursday, 1/28, that "[Obama] is turning the military into a homosexual playground," among other things. Something tells me he's watched Saving Ryan's Privates too many times (only, of course, so he can let others know how bad gay porn is for American families...). Never minding that we always have been and always will be proud members of the military (as we are, in Tony's words, "militant homosexuals"...), serving with honor and distinction to the highest ranks of the military all the while keeping our personal lives separate and secret, Tony also wants everyone to "sign our new petition and remind Capitol Hill that the military isn't a laboratory for political correctness." As if the military were a democracy... Ha! What's truly hilarious is all the arguments Tony and his ilk are whipping out to "support" their position are the exact same arguments that were used to try to prevent blacks from serving alongside whites in the military. My friend Russ has an excellent post about this here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Discrimination against homosexuals isn't the same as what African Americans went through (and in many instances still experience), but there are too many similarities to not draw a comparison.In a semi-related incident, the "American Family Association" has come up with an even more brilliant idea to handle "the homosexuality problem." As they are apparently unaware that this isn't a theocracy (a mistake a lot of fundamentalists make), on the radio the other day one of their people advocated imprisoning us all and putting us through "reparative therapy"! (EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T WORK!) As Russ once again posted about, American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer stated on the air:
If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program. Secondly, I'm afraid you're simply wrong about the Bible's perspective on the law and homosexuality. Paul lists quite explicitly in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 the actions and behaviors that are the proper concern of the law:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...
The bottom line here is that, biblically, those "who practice homosexuality" should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery. You express a belief in the Scriptures, and I trust your confidence in Scripture is not selective. If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.
So not only do you want to round up all the men who have sex with men and lock them up together (rope no longer needed for soap!), but even more unbelievable is this man actually thinks secular laws should be based on the bible! Now, let me think, let me think... Who was it that also advocated rounding people up, jailing them, and, when possible, brain washing them? Oh, that's right: The Nazi's! Again, not exactly the same, but enough similarities to draw a pretty accurate comparison... After all, both the AFA and the FRC support Israel and all Jews, just as long as they aren't gay Jews, secular Jews, or unwilling to fight for the Holy Land Jews...
And, in regards to "Paul's list" in which "homosexuality" is included? As Russ pointed out, and as I've mentioned various times here on this blog and in other forums, the word homosexual didn't even exist back when Paul was writing his letters, and most of today's English translations are very crude paraphrases of the original Greek and Hebrew... See here for my own wonderful expose on Paul's letter to the Romans... (Sorry, Bryan Fischer, but bad paraphrasing of an ancient language can by no means be construed as "quite explicit"...)As a former soldier in the United States Army (and current homosexual), and knowing many homosexuals who are still in the military, as well as many former military members, I find it shocking that a former Marine (of all people!) DOESN'T realize he had served among many fine and upstanding gay and lesbian soldiers! (Of course, given the climate created under DADT [that's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for you acronym-challenged folks] and how out-spoken Tony is about his intolerance and fear of all things gay, one can only assume they were smart enough not to let him on the fact...)
Perhaps Tony's biggest fear (other than the fact that a homosexual might have seen his pee-pee in the communal showers during basic training) is the fact that if gay marriage does become recognized throughout the country, Jesus will pop down from heaven and ask for Tony's hand in marriage... Just to prove that he does, indeed, love Jesus that much. How gay would that be?
I don't even know where to begin... My dander is up for two completely unrelated topics:
Corporate Free Speech???, and
Hak-Shing William Tam of San Francisco
Between the Supreme Court and an "expert witness" on gay marriage...
One does wonder where one finds the time... 1. Corporate Free Speech?: When was the last time you hugged a corporation? When was the last time you saw a corporation burn a flag? When was the last time you were standing next to a corporation in line waiting to cast a vote? Never.
Ever since Theodore Roosevelt was president, there was a reason campaign finance laws restricting corporations donations and activities have been curtailed in American politics: because corporations were running the government instead of the other way around. From big oil (even back then) to the railroads, from the factory floors to the boardrooms, corporations were waving checks in front of politicians and saying, "Vote our way, or else..." Or else could have meant "We'll fund your opponent"; "We'll withhold our endorsement"; "We'll pay for radio ads and television ads that say you did this or that"; or, even worse yet, "We'll hand you a check for such and such an amount if you simply sign here..."
Here's the thing about businesses in America (you know, those entities which are so frail and poor and restricted by the free market, taxes, anti-trust laws and the like): They are in the business of making money.NOT, it should be noted, such a bad thing, until you consider that Money is the only thing corporations are about! The only reason they sell things is because we want the things they are selling--but is a society built simply on the exchange of goods? Do you think women gained the right to vote by buying only Wonder Brand Wonder Bread? In fact, if a corporation were to engage in anything "non-profitable," that part (or the whole!) of the corporation dies! If it can't be made into a good, packaged, or sold as a service--it doesn't serve the interests of the company, ergo it doesn't matter. Corporations exist at and by our discretion, by our willingness to purchase their goods or to work for them producing their goods. Corporations do not exist for the worker, the individual, the American citizen; they exist for money. WE the PEOPLE are the ones who fight for rights, enforce laws, vote for our leaders and not because we are trying to "maximize our profits" or "secure our bottom line," but because we want a better life, to pursue happiness, to feed our children, play in the park, hang out on the boardwalk, garden at our leisure, or, in the case of some individuals, work all the time.
And the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, just sold your vote. "Oh, the ads will be more honest now," I heard one commentator say on the radio. "No need to hide behind half-truths and such." Baloney! If you believe that, I have an electro-magnetic force field holding a microwave in orbit around Jupiter I'd like to sell you. (It's teal!--the microwave, not the force field...) Chief Justice John Roberts is quoted as saying, "The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." Excuse me? The First Amendment, your high and revered douche bag, is in the BILL OF RIGHTS, which is expressly for INDIVIDUALS! Another bright bulb in this mess is Gregory Casey, president and CEO of the Business and Industry Political Action Committee, who is quoted as saying, "The Supreme Court's ruling frees American business from the yoke of second-class citizenship. ... The reason American business is active in politics in the first place is to influence public policies that impact the prosperity of its employees and shareholders." Excuse me? "Second class citizenship" for a CORPORATION? When was the last time Reebok or McDonald's applied for a green card? When did Pfizer pledge allegiance to the flag? Who ever saw Greco or General Electric or WalMart apply for a drivers license? CORPORATIONS ARE NOT CITIZENS, they are ENTITIES led by SPOKESPERSONS in the BUSINESS OF MAKING MONEY. End of discussion! But then the dude said "influence public policies that impact the prosperity of its employees and shareholders." He should have left out "employees" but kept "shareholders," because that's really what it's about: When a company is in financial trouble, what happens? Employees get laid off, wages go down, pensions are scrapped, perks scrubbed, and why? So profits stay up and shareholders continue to make money! That's it! Nothing more, nothing less! There's a REASON there are laws protecting individual and workers' rights, and it's not because it's profitable! Child labor laws are due to society, non-discrimination laws are in effect because of society, corporations are only allowed to run and exist if they follow the rules of the society, NOT the other way around! But that's exactly where we're back to. As political analyst Michael Sandel says of corporations, they cannot "sacrifice individual interests for the sake of the common good, and the ability to deliberate well about common purposes and ends." And why? Because they exist only to make Money. Nothing more, nothing less.
I've never been so upset by a decision from the Supreme Court before, but they have really dropped the ball on this one, much like when they became involved in Bush V. Gore--FLATLY unconstitutional, despite the spin job of the 5 majority justices.2. Hak-Shing William Tam of San Francisco. In case some of you may not have noticed, there is a federal court battle playing out about Proposition 8, the voter initiative in California that rescinded the rights of same-sex couples to wed. Whatever your opinion on that might be (as it is rather moot, whether you like it or not), a friend sent me an email in regards to one of the persons who was behind the entire voter proposition to begin with: Mr. Hak-Shing William Tam. My brain was boggled by not only the fact that his trial appearance was put up with, but that his kind of ignorance still exists. From the article:
Tam testified that he spent a lot of time working on the campaign and communicated with its leaders but modestly added he did not consider himself a major player. He said became an official proponent because of his concern that legalizing same-sex marriage would encourage young people to pursue gay partners.
"I think it is very important that children won't grow up to fantasize or think about should I marry Jane or John when I grow up, because this is very important for Asian families."
Under questioning by Boies, Tam also said he agreed with a statement on the Web site for the Chinese-American Christian group that said if same-sex marriage was treated as a civil right, "so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest."
"And that is what you were telling people in encouraging them to vote for Proposition 8?" Boies asked.
"Yes," Tam answered.
Tam said he drew that conclusion after reading an Internet article that claimed incest and polygamy were legal in the Netherlands, a country where same-sex marriages became legal in 2001.
Boies: "You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy?"
Tam: "Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward."
"Who told you that? Where did you get that idea," Boies asked incredulously.
"It's the Internet," he said. "Another person in the organization found it and he showed me it ... I looked at the document and I thought it was true."
Well, if he found it on the Internet, it must be true, no? No matter where you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, is such a blatant "I can't think for myself" type ignoramus really someone you want on your side? Saying "I read it on the Internet so it must be true" is almost as bad as saying "I read it in the Bible so it must be true!" Have you people no critical thinking skills?? Does it cross no one's mind that they should stop and think, "Hmm, what web site is this? Are they a credible source? What facts do they have to back them up, and where did they obtain, and how did they obtain, these so-called facts?" (By the way, that teal microwave is still for sale, Mr. Tam. If you've read it here, it's on the Internet, and that's what I claim is important for Asian families! Teal microwaves in outer space!)
So, what have we learned? Oh, yes, corporations are endowed with inalienable rights according to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Tam can't think beyond his Internet connection, which, if you ask me, never fully connected...
Welcome to your country, my fellow American. You'll be pleased to know your leaders have been bought by General Mills, and you can't get married because some yahoo in California thinks it isn't good for Asians.
...tolerance is only ever meant to be the smallest part of patience. And when the patience has been tried, tolerance goes out the window. Tolerate is what you do when your two-year-old tried again to drink from a cup instead of his sippy-cup, or you tolerate the sales person who called during dinner only as long as it takes to get them off the phone. You tolerate a visit from some member of the family you dislike for the sake of a holiday, or some-such other type scenario.
While our capitol city council recently voted (and approved) a bill to allow same-sex marriage (much to the Catholic church's chagrin...), it seems that the church is also trying to influence politics in Uganda.(For those of you who are geographically challenged, that's in Africa...)
You see, they're trying to put a law on the books (PDF here) that, among other things, will:
Section 2 of the Bill is titled, "The offence of homosexuality". It reads as follows: Clause "(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if --- (a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption; (b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate the sexual organ of a person of the same sex; (c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality."
Clause "(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life".
Where does the death penalty enter this twisted world of sexual paranoia? Let me quote the applicable section and sub-section. Section 3 of the Bill is titled, "Aggravated homosexuality". It reads in part: "A person commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality where the offender is a person living with HIV". "A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death". And just in case there's any conjecture, we have this finale: "Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status".
I'm wondering how many "straight" politicians it takes to sit around the table to envision every conceivable type of "same sex" activity to make a law against it? I wonder if it was an "awkward" conversation as they drafted this "law" against their fellow human beings?
Even above and beyond the realm of 1984 is the fact that:
So now, not only are you guilty just by being gay; not only can you be put to death for having "gay" sex; you will be fined and go to jail if you don't report gay activity!(Strangely, on this last point, I'm reminded of the DADT policy... Wonder why, wonder why...)
A split is coming, fellow humans, and we watch it grow wider and wider every year, not only here in the United States, but the world over. We wonder why there can't be "bipartisanship"? The church is no longer content to be sidelined. As it did back in medieval times, it wants to rule again. It meddles in politics (while screaming about an individual right to worship freely and say any damn bloody thing that comes to mind no matter how idiotic...), lobbies to pass laws based on badly translated, sadly misinterpreted ancient texts, and it pits human against human to serve the "greater good" of "godly living." "Let's not simply punish them for the acts, let's also punish the other ones who don't tell!"
Let's face it--attempts at tolerance are out the door unless they think their freedoms are being somehow "infringed" because they can't have a mandatory recital of the Lord's prayer each morning in school. In fact, in North Carolina, a "Christian" would like an Asheville City Councilman removed simply because he's an atheist (because, in the fundamentalist mindset, you are free to believe whatever you want as long as it involves a bible, a god, a son crucified, and a steeple within a half-mile radius...)
"My father was a Baptist minister. I'm a Christian man. I have problems with people who don't believe in God," said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners.
The head of a conservative weekly newspaper says city officials shirked their duty to uphold the state's laws by swearing in Bothwell. David Morgan, editor of the Asheville Tribune, said he's tired of seeing his state Constitution "trashed."
The grand tradition of making Jesus proud by ignoring laws and reason and common sense. Never mind that the U.S. Constitution states that "no religious test" shall be used for any office holder anywhere within our boundaries (which, of course, nullifies the religious test called for in North Carolina's state constitution): Edgerton has a problem all right, not the least of which is his ignorance and idiocy. He's probably cheering on Uganda's "fight" to protect "normal" people.
Is this what "conservative" Christianity has come to? Fascism? Making people "tattle" on one another, basing civic laws on beliefs that, most often, can't even be agreed on by the plethora of denominations within the church itself?!
Let's see: what other "offenses" can be traced back as an "attack" on Christianity and the "traditional family"? Eating out? Teenagers working part-time jobs? Women in the workplace? Television? Skipping church on Sunday? I know! Let's make it all illegal, and punish anyone who knows of people "engaging" in these activities, as well as the criminals themselves!
Dictating dogma through the government... What will the church think of next? Something else, I'm sure, that I don't expect to tolerate...
I love you, blog, and here's why--I could bitch a blue streak for weeks on end with nary a positive thought or comment, and you just take it. You never bitch back, claim you feel used and unloved, and you never, never offer so-called "constructive" criticism... Although I can't claim what my millions of non-commenting readers are thinking, at least they have the decency to read and thus, I am comforted by the fact that perhaps some of the misery and too-infrequent joy is at the very least entertaining to some, if not others...I thought I was getting laid off today--it's never good when the director of HR and your boss call you in just twenty short minutes before the end of the day... I almost wish I had been now...
You see, last week's paycheck is going to bounce. It hasn't yet--I've just checked my checking account balance. But I've been assured in no uncertain terms that this is, in fact, the case. They will cut me a new check... Soon. No ETA on that, but soon. This week's paycheck, however, will only be late.(I was wondering if this was supposed to be the "good news.")Next week's paycheck will also be late, but that should be the end of "late" checks... (Because we plan on winning the lottery?) I kept wondering if this was how they explained the lay-offs and cut hours to the five employees last week... ("We plan on winning the lottery, so this shouldn't last long...")
The only thing I could think of at the time was that at least an unemployment check from the government comes when it's supposed to, and, as far as I know, anyway, doesn't rescind itself one week later! But having never had to collect unemployment before, I only have heresy to go by on that train wreck of a thought... I was thanked for my "understanding" (I'm still a bit unsure what that means in this instance...) and while I do understand that right now the economy sucks the big one (and if I hear one more goddamned cheery-ass reporter tell me "we're clearly in recovery," heads will roll!), I'm still left wondering if I should just cut my losses now and be gone before things get really bad! (Because, you know, this is just a mud puddle on the gold-paved road to financial independence!)Sometimes I catch myself sneaking furtive glances into the darker corners, looking for the hidden cameras. I've obviously volunteered for some type of psychological experiment in which every area of your life, while not quite collapsing, definitely contracts, squeezing and squeezing until you wonder where your next breath will come from.
Don't get me wrong--we are still a bit off from being homeless, or even completely broke! But from the ruined spring harvest due to three months of rain (thus killing the idea of "stocking up" on food), Rich having not gotten paid for a month and a half when the state couldn't pass a budget, to my parents having to sell their home because my father still can't find work, to having a $10,000 sewer bill staring us in the face as they "install" this state-of-the-art plumbing system in our township, watching my own job go through (death throes?) constricting times financially...
I could go on and make an entire list of the bad year this has been, but that would be an exercise in futility as, not only do I not care to actually think of it all, I also don't wish to type it all either... (Bad year, bad bad year!)
But--do you know me well enough to know what's coming next?--there is a bright spot, albeit tiny and insignificant in the face of the overwhelming darkness in my mind at the moment: You see, I've won something (and therefore, can never claim to be a total loser again!) Back in July when we went camping, I entered a raffle. You know the type, where they have a picture of the big beautiful quilt you could win, 5 tickets for $5, 15 tickets for $10? I always buy these tickets wherever we go, not because I could win (have you heard of my track record?) but because they are always to raise money for a charity or fund that's very worth while, and in this case it was to help pay for a certain person's medical expenses. So while I chicken-scratched some barely legible information on the stubs, I pocketed my half of the stubs and ultimately lost them(surprise, surprise!)
And then I received an email: Hi there! You won a prize in the ________ raffle! If you could please verify that you are Jason Huhs by supplying us with an accurate address... After a few back and forth emails, most of which involved my last name ("Hughes, not Huhs!"--I suppose I am starting to take after my mother more as I get older--the proof is in the chicken scratch...), I found out what I had won:
A rainbow-colored set of bears in a rainbow-colored bag with rainbow-colored straps... Could I win a gayer gift? And after this suck-ass week (month...? year...?), it was totally what I needed... A bright spot.
You just have to laugh... Life sucks so beautifully sometimes...
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law...
Because feeding and sheltering the homeless isn't nearly as important as gay couples getting married, right? Making sure orphaned children are adopted by loving parents isn't nearly as important as making sure lesbians don't tie the knot! It says it right there in the Bible!:
Deu 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Er... wait... Wrong verse... But you know it as well as I do, dear Christian! The gays can not, MUST NOT be allowed to get married! Jesus commanded it! Remember when he said:
Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Um... not there, but I'm sure he said something about it! He must have! I mean, homosexuality was rampant back in his day--the Romans and the Greeks! He was surrounded by those perverted homos!
And then Paul--you know, the guy most Christians worship?--HE was very adamant that the poor weren't nearly as important as the gays! He went into great detail saying about how the law of the land was the utmost of importance when it came to Christian/Government relations, like when we wrote:
1 Cor 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Oh... Well, I'm sure he said something about it...
And Jesus' brother, James? If one man was to know what Jesus and god thought of all this gay wedding nonsense, it was he! He wrote:
James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, [and] to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
Well, regardless of what the bible actually says, you as Christians MUST remember that your religious freedoms which are not affected by the gay marriage bills in the United States are MORE IMPORTANT than helping out your fellow man. Your religious freedoms are MORE IMPORTANT than being a stand-up guy for your Jesus. What you believe, what your opinion is on civil matters is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else! Even though the D.C. bill explicitly states that "religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings," what the Catholics really fear from this bill (and if you were to ask Jesus, rightly so!) is that "they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples."
God. Forbid. If Jesus were in a grave (and because the Bible says he rose, he isn't!), he'd roll over! Twice!
What is this world coming to, when the equal treatment of human beings trumps religious belief and opinion? I'm sure when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock to escape the religious persecution in England only to start religiously persecuting everyone else that also came here, they never envisioned this! Why, the nerve of our nation's capitol! The unmitigated gall!
Well, not to worry--just like when god threw Massachusetts into the ocean, Vermont was swallowed by a gaping sink hole, and in Iowa everyone was turned into a pillar of salt, Washington, D.C., will have its day of judgment to... I'm sure of it!
Just as soon as god becomes real and takes an interest in the overwhelming persecution of the United States Christian... (even if Christian beliefs and actions stemming from those aren't affected by the law, and even if homeless persons will go hungry and die...)
Now, let's note Spike. He is the 19+ inch tall cactus you see just there on the right. When I received Spike as a gift about 6 years ago, he was two inches tall with a purple plastic flower glued to his top. He was purchased at a grocery store in that section where they retain all things green but not necessarily of the produce persuasion. I was in the hospital having a tumor removed from my spine (benign, of course), and husband knew of my love for all things plant, but not necessarily produce, related. It was one of those "I fall in love with you all over again" moments. 
