When they thought the tape wasn't rolling

Here's what candidate Bush said in 1998 in one of the secretly taped conversations just released by a former associate:

Mr. Bush....said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

Compare President Nixon, taped in the Oval Office during a May 13, 1971 conversation with aide John Ehrlichman:

NIXON: You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.

EHRLICHMAN: But he never had the influence television had.

NIXON: You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France.

Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.

EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality.

NIXON: Huh?

EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage.

NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]?

EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over.

NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.

Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.

EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.

NIXON: Jesus Christ.

Fit to print

"The overt homosexual–and those who are identifiable probably represent no more than half of the total–has become such an obtrusive part of the New York scene that the phenomenon needs public discussion, in the opinion of a number of legal and medical experts."

---From a December 17, 1963 New York Times article, under the headline "Growth of Overt Homosexuality Provokes Wide Concern: Condition Can be Prevented or Cured, Many Experts say"

"I live in Seattle with my partner and son. Preventing us from marrying harms my child and does nothing to protect Jeff Kemp's. So in my darker moments I find myself hoping that one day Mr. Kemp will, like Randall Terry or Alan Keyes, find himself listening to one of his children explain that he is gay."

---From a February 17, 2005 New York Times op-ed piece by sex columnist Dan Savage, under the headline "The Gay Child Left Behind"

Notes on Heterosexuals

Oddly, it was the “Notes on Camp”, a series of humorous jottings, that launched her.
---The Economist's obituary for Susan Sontag, Jan. 6, 2005

"legal marriage remains unlikely for the foreseeable future"

From a Newsweek cover story, "The Future of Gay America," March 12, 1990:

Gay leaders all agree that "coming out" is the most important political and personal act anyone can make. Beyond that, however, there is widespread disagreement over how best to live outside the closet. Should gays pursue their own countercultural lifestyle in such urban ghettos as San Francisco's Castro district, or assimilate into the dominant straight culture? Should they continue--within the bounds of safe sex--to have multiple partners or emulate heterosexual monogamy? . . .

The ultimate act of assimilation would be marriage, a right some gays have placed on their future agenda. The impetus comes partly from AIDS, which revealed the degree to which gays did not have the rights straights take for granted. The partners of gay men who died intestate found they had no claims on property that would have gone to a spouse; others found themselves evicted from apartments because they weren't on the lease. . . . Seven U.S. cities, Los Angeles and Seattle among them, now have "domestic partnership" laws that grant gays a variety of spousal rights including insurance benefits, bereavement leaves and credit agreements.

Given the objections of church and state, legal marriage remains unlikely for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, gays themselves are divided over whether marriage hetero style is even desirable. Many in the community oppose quasi-straight unions, on the ground that they are too imitative and not uniquely gay. But Frank Kameny, a veteran gay activist, sees no reason why homosexuals can't have the whole package: "I've never heard a rational explanation for the prejudice against them--after all, marriage licenses arent's rationed, so we wouldn't be taking them from someone else." In The New Republic last year, Andrew Sullivan argued that marriage was not only good for gays but for society at large, because it would promote sexual and economic stability.

overheard, one homo to another:

"at twenty-five you don't have to go to the gym yet, but you really don't want to turn thirty and realize that you haven't been going."

Those were the days.

"...it is easy to lose sight of how much people's lives were changed by the expansion of federal responsibility during the 1930s. Even the conservative politicians of the late twentieth century who repudiate a strong federal government take for granted that working people will receive Social Security benefits upon retirement....A world without these protections is hardly imaginable."

---Lizabeth Cohen, Making a New Deal (1990), 267

P.S.: HRC sucks.

by the way, it is ridiculous that mayor bloomberg was a featured speaker at HRC's annual dinner at the waldorf-astoria in new york. totally ridiculous. although he has come out in favor of same-sex marriage, he just fucking decided to appeal the marriage case to the new york supreme court. republican bastard. i went last weekend to the equality illinois annual gala, and was quite stunned to find that the few republican politicians who showed up, such as state republican chair judy barr topinka, a pro-gay republican who nonetheless is personally responsible for alan keyes running for senate here, got the loudest cheers of anyone. for christ's sake. who are our fucking friends?

obama-watch

on inauguration day, at the "counter-inaugural" events at the U of C, professor melissa harris-lacewell said that she was currently on "obama-watch," now that our new senator seemed to be concerned, above all, with 1) appearing on oprah and 2) veterans affairs (which has recently become a huge issue in illinois, after a chicago sun-times investigation showed that illinois ranks 49th, or something, in benefits received among veterans through VA programs per capita).

after professor harris-lacewell made this remark, i went to oprah's website and viewed everything available there of obama's appearance. and, indeed, it was almost completely devoid of content. i want, of course, to give them some slack (and maybe i give them more slack than MHL does); after all, they are quite literally THE black chicago celebrities; they're allowed a bit of on-air banter. (for example: oprah notes that newsweek has declared obama capable of being "purple," i.e., uniting the red states and blue states, to which he responds by saying, "i guess you know something about the color purple," referring to her having starred in steven spielberg's version of the alice walker novel of that title. does ANYthing in that interaction mean anything? similarly, michelle obama, who appeared along with barack, allowed as how folks had said she'd need to keep an eye on her husband nowadays, but she wasn't especially concerned about it.)

(recently, after a meeting of the U of C's "reproduction of race" workshop, i got into a somewhat heated conversation about same-sex marriage with a fellow member of queer to the left, who is a postdoc at the center for the study of race, politics, and culture at the U of C. MHL eventually participated in our conversation, which i found flattering and interesting. she took a kind of middle ground between our two positions, actually - admitting (in support of my view) that it was imperative, whenever same-sex marriage appeared as a political issue, to take a position in favor of it, while also stating (in support of the other guy's view) that gays were making the same mistake that black folks had, in trying to work with the system. something like that. (i'm not sure what system. maybe she said more about that, but if so i can't remember it.)]

now, after visiting senator obama's website and reading the description there, i understood a little better what melissa is concerned about. but honestly, as much as this website caters, on a profound level, to a red-state audience - from the faux law-and-order preoccupation to the emphasis on his churchgoing character - these are, nonetheless, sacrifices i'm simply willing to concede.

this dude is not fucking kidding about making it as a national politician in 21st-century america. and if that means he talks about christ or about illinois veterans not getting enough pay, frankly, so be it.

however bad president clinton was - and i fully admit his deficiences, even on critical issues like welfare reform, NAFTA, and gays in the military - he's still better than the guy currently in the oval office. for one thing, he appointed stephen breyer and ruth bader ginsburg. and just those two appointments, by themselves, seem like treasures these days.

new york court rules for marriage equality

i like the remedy that she came up with - "husband," "wife," "groom," and "bride"...shall be construed to mean "spouse".

what's hillary going to say about this one?

-tim


--

Hernandez v. Robles (decided 2/4/2005)

Hon. Doris Ling-Cohan, Justice
Supreme Court of the State of New York - New York County

...the freedom to choose whom to marry has consistently been the subject of public outcry and controversy. In fact, ironically, the parents of one of the named plaintiffs were, themselves, barred from marrying each other by an anti-miscegenation law that made it illegal for interracial couples to marry. In 1966, in order to marry, plaintiff Curtis Woolbright's parents moved to California, the only state at that time whose courts had declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
Thirty-eight years later, their son (Curtis Woolbright), his partner, and four other couples, bring suit to secure the fundamental right to choose one's partner in marriage. Karen Woolbright, mother of plaintiff Curtis Woolbright, understands from her own experience a generation ago what this means for her son....The challenges to laws banning whites and non-whites from marriage demonstrates that the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners. Although anti-miscegenation laws were first enacted in colonial days, such laws were still common into the 1960's and upheld in case after case based on tradition rooted in perceived 'natural' law....It was not until 1948 that the first state Supreme Court rejected the reigning doctrine that laws limiting marriage to partners of the same race reflected natural law impervious to constitutional challenge....
Almost two decades after the groundbreaking and controversial California Supreme Court decision in Perez, the United States Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia...declared that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated the fundamental right to marry and the guarantee of equal protection. At the time, about one third of all States still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. In fact, the trial court in Loving, even as late as the 1960s, had rejected the rights of adults to choose their marital partners based on out-moded prejudices that are now recognized as illegitimate grounds for governmental action: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Loving, 388 US at 2 (quoting trial judge's opinion)....
The DRL does not bar any of the ten plaintiffs from entering into a civil marriage. The...aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which...this action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving; Perez; Goodridge....The Court of Appeals has specifically stated: "[T]he government [is] prevented from interfering with an individual's decision about whom to marry."....The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that "significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship" are subject to "rigorous scrutiny".... Both the New York Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have made clear that the State may not deny rights to a group of people based on no more than traditional attitudes or disapproval of that group....
While eloquently praising the indisputably central role that marriage plays in human life, neither defendant, nor amici indicate how that role would be diminished by allowing same-sex couples to marry, nor how the marriages of opposite-sex couples will be adversely affected by allowing same-sex couples to marry....the reality is that significant numbers of couples in New York have formed same-sex families, and numerous couples will continue to do so, whether they are allowed to marry or not. Neither defendant nor amici contend otherwise.
For purposes of due process analysis, the question is not, as defendant and amici formulate it, whether same-sex marriage is so rooted in our traditions that it is a fundamental right (it is not so rooted, of course). Indeed, to ask whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right is to make the mistake that the Supreme Court criticized in Lawrence, when it overruled Bowers v. Hardwick....As the Washington Superior Court pointed out, in overturning Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (which explicitly barred same-sex marriage), there was no fundamental right to interracial marriage at the time (1967) that Loving was decided...and there was no fundamental right for inmates to marry at the time that Turner v. Safley was decided....
Marriage is no more limited by the historical exclusion of same-sex marriage than it was limited by the exclusion of interracial marriage, the legal doctrine of coverture, the pre-1967 restrictions on remarriage following divorce in New York, longstanding restrictions on divorce, or the "marital exemption" to the crime of rape....In the mid-1800's, New York, like many states, began the more than century-long process of altering the age-old marital relationship by dismantling the entrenched tradition of coverture and evolving in its stead a legal marriage structure premised on full equality between the sexes....in 1966, New York changed another important aspect of marriage through the enactment of the Divorce Reform Law, permitting for the first time "non-fault" divorce in the State....
Defendant has articulated no legitimate State purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let along a compelling State interest in such a bar....The exclusion of plaintiffs from entering into civil marriage indisputably discriminates against them on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation "cannot be used as the basis for denying 'any person' the equal protection of the law." Under 21 v. City of New York ( 1985). New York, through its courts, legislatures, executive branch, and local governments, has acknowledged that the State's thousands of same-sex couples fit the definition of "family"; that they are able to provide a loving and stable home for their biological or adoptive children; and that they are entitled to benefit from the same rights accorded to married couples....The Governor and the Legislature have...issued multiple measures treating surviving partners of gay victims of September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attacks as surviving spouses. More recently, the State has extended certain government benefits to same-sex partners.
Defendant and amici argue that, if plaintiffs and other same-sex couples are to be allowed to enter into civil marriages, such decision should be made by the Legislature, rather than by the courts. This "legislature deference" argument was similarly used to urge the United States Supreme Court to uphold racial classifications in marriage in Loving v. Virginia....it is clear that the courts have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutes...this Court must construe the DRL in such a way as to cure its current constitutional defect. [The remedy ordered in People v. Liberta is instructive. There, the Court of Appeals...construed the [forcible rape] statute in a gender-neutral fashion, striking the gender exception and interpreting the law to apply to all persons.]....
It was only less than 40 years ago that the United States Supreme Court held that anti-miscegenation statutes, adopted to prevent marriage between persons solely on the basis of racial classification, violate the Constitution because they infringed on the freedom to marry a person of one's choice. Similarly, this Court must so hold in the context of same-sex marriages....the Court emphasizes that government recognition that same-sex couples may be civilly married does not impact on those married under the tenets of their individual faith, and does not require that religious institutions change their tenets, nor their definition of marriage under their faith. Moreover, such religious considerations cannot legally be the basis upon which to curtail the constitutional rights of plaintiffs....
Accordingly, it is hereby...ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the words "husband," "wife," "groom," and "bride," as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean "spouse," and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further
ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex....

I think I must be one of the cool kids.

Last summer, I randomly met a former child actor who starred in a popular TV show during my own childhood. We had a pretty interseting conversation and I thought about writing him a fan letter afterward. Tonight, while deeply immersed in preparing for my upcoming qualifying exams, I discovered that this former child actor is in fact part of my Friendster network.

Specifically, six of his friends are friends with four of my friends. One of these four is more fabulous and better-connected in the jet-setting gay 20something set than most of my friends are, and he personally accounts for three of the connections. But there are these three other people I know, who also know a friend of this child actor's, meaning that there are overlapping connections rather than one random link.

I think I must be one of the cool kids. The mystery becomes, how come nobody else realized this in my sixth grade class? And yet, on the other hand, it becomes less myserious when you realize that Friendster and its curious argot - "Is Jack really your friend?" "Jane has accepted your Friend Request" - are most likely the invention of former uncool sixth graders. Who else would be so interested in counting how many friends they have?

I Love Spam. I Love America.

Tonight I received a spam email with the subject line "in canadian pharm we trust." I found this strangely touching and poetical. It even prompted me to "click through" (as the spammers term the action of that one recipient in ten thousand who makes up, in their minds, for the rest of us), whereupon I was offered both "free Cialis with every order!" and, also, the opportunity to "remove" myself from their mailing list by entering my email address and clicking OK on a form. Umm, not so much. But, still, great subject line.

I was glad to learn that numerous corporations have suddenly decided that the growing numbers of Americans without health insurance constitute bring unacceptable costs to them through higher rates on themselves, and so they have banded together to create a pale, cheap substitute for health insurance to be sold to "uninsured part-time and temporary workers, contractors, consultants and early retirees, who typically are not eligible for employer health plans." The Times notes, "The employers will not subsidize the coverage," but somehow the participants will benefit from cost savings made possible by negotiations as a group (the kind of thing that, as I understand it, the federal government is explicitly forbidden to do under Bush's "Senior Prescription Drug Benefit" and Pharmaceutical Profitability Enhancement Act).

Meanwhile, we are thinking about bombing Iran, American soldiers are dying in record numbers in Iraq, and "Many lawmakers in both parties expect President Bush to propose major changes in the state-federal Medicaid health program in his budget next month, possibly turning it into a block grant to the states."

Today I received, in the U.S. mail, a blank envelope from Jason F-B. Not even any anthrax, so far as I could tell. The address and return address had been printed on a laser printed. Perhaps Jason had some sort of mass-mailing scheme in which a vital step was missed. I wonder how many Friends of Jason nationwide received empty envelopes today.

Jonah was supposed to email me some pictures today, of me, taken at the joint birthday party that he and Kumasi had last Friday night. Last night I ran into Jonah at Boost, where he was working, and, in fact, bought a sandwich from him, in addition to having this conversation with him about the pictures. But he hasn't emailed them yet.

It's too bad how I never socialize these days, due to my intensive schedule of day-and-night preparation for my qualifying exams.

Finally, the following precious material - and I am not making this up - comes from a Whitehouse.gov page of questions from the public answered by the Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy Alan Gilbert:

Daniel, from Lakeville, CT writes:

Hi, I am 14 years old and very interested in politics and such. My dad is a doctor and every year, he pays higher medical liability premiums. So that is a major concern for him. How is the president going to balance the need to help my dad with medical liability and to help keep docotds accountable for patients who do seriously get hurt by a bunch of bad apple doctors?

Alan Gilbert

Thanks for the question, Daniel. With a doctor for a father, and an interest in politics, you have the makings of a health care policy advisor. I’m sure you get lots of good first-hand perspective from your dad. As your father has probably told you, good doctors are targeted by frivolous and junk lawsuits. This raises medical liability premiums for all doctors, even those who have never been the target of a lawsuit. Ultimately, the availability of health care services in some communities is reduced. The President has met with many physicians who have been forced to leave their communities because of rising premiums.

The President has called to reform of the medical liability system so that trial lawyers are discouraged from filing frivolous and junk lawsuits in hopes of winning the litigation lottery. That way the legal system can be freed up to focus on ensuring appropriate damage awards for those who are truly victims of malpractice. The President also strongly believes that patients who have been truly injured should receive quick, unlimited compensation for their current and future economic damages such as wages, medical expenses, and the loss of ability to provide unpaid services like care for children or parents. In determining a plaintiff’s economic damages, juries can look at a plaintiff’s future income.

Again, I am not making this up, nor did it come from Jon Stewart (who could make this shit up?). It came from the White House.

Why are our panties in a bunch over Abe Lincoln in drag?

Dear Editor,

The published responses to the Robert Grossman cartoon display a troubling eagerness on the part of some gays and lesbians to disown the figure of the gender transgressor. (I am grateful to Greg Smith for eloquently sharing sentiments close to my own.)

Yes, the cartoon was illogical and its spirit of mockery problematic, and the writer who complained of its "adolescent vulgarity" hit the nail on the head. But since the inception of the gay liberation movement in the early 1970s, some gays have accused drag queens, trans folks, and other gender-nonconforming queers of perpetuating "old stereotypes," which apparently makes it harder for more mainstream gays to explain "the difference between gender and sexuality" (as the letter writers put it).

While not all queers are gender-nonconforming, gender inevitably shapes both our experience of biological "sex" and others' perceptions of our deviant desires. For this reason, gender transgression has been central to queer culture for decades. Drag queens and other nonconformists have long played a key role in carving out safe spaces for more conventional gays, even though the latter have sometimes reproduced the dominant culture's hostility toward them.

The eagerness to repudiate the figure of the gender transgressor can have profoundly destructive consequences. Drag queen and Stonewall veteran Sylvia Rivera was expelled from the rally platform at one of New York's earliest pride parades, and just ten years ago the organizers of New York's "Stonewall 25" march refused to include the word "transgender" in its name. Until just five months ago, Human Rights Campaign lobbied for the inclusion of only sexual orientation, and not gender identity, in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

We will never get where we need to be by demonizing some of the most vulnerable, and often the bravest, members of our own community.

Timothy ***

"You would not hear of that party again"

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again.... There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

---Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a letter to his brother Edgar, May 2, 1956

What's my ideal drug? The surprising results.

You scored as Ecstacy. Love, sex, parties, and DANCING! Just be wary of your mood coming down! www.dancesafe.org Ecstacy 88% Inhalents 75% Alcohol 69% Mushrooms 56% Cocaine 50% None! 50% Marijuana 38% What's your ideal drug? created with QuizFarm.com

I am NOT making this up

Hey-

Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE iPods!

I've joined and I think you should as well.

It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff!

All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it!

Here is my referral link. To help me get my iPod, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14099523

---tim

Cramming our agenda down Illinois voters' throats

"I believe this is the first step to cram down the throats of Illinois voters a radical homosexual agenda," Family PAC Director Paul Caprio said.

Thanks, Paul. It's always nice to hear you folks talk about our rights in terms of things being crammed down your throats. And you guys always talk about it that way. Why is that, Paul?

Here is the text of Senate Bill 3186 - from the first US state to decriminalize sodomy (back in 1961):

The Illinois Human Rights Act is amended ... as follows:....

It is the public policy of this State: .... To secure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, military status, sexual orientation, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations....

When used in this Act, unless the context requires otherwise, the term: .... "Sexual orientation" means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person's designated sex at birth.

with the following caveats:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring any employer, employment agency, or labor organization to give preferential treatment or special rights based on sexual orientation or to implement affirmative action policies or programs based on sexual orientation.

and just in case you were wondering:

"Sexual orientation" does not include a physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult.

And, as a final, rather odd, qualification:

Nothing contained in Section 3-102 shall prohibit: ....The owner of an owner-occupied residential building with 5 or fewer units (including the unit in which the owner resides) from making decisions regarding whether to rent to a person based upon that person's sexual orientation.

HRC adds, "The law will make Illinois the 15th state to ban workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people and the fifth state to protect transgender people against workplace discrimination." And, reflecting their newfound passion for transgender inclusion, they add: "Since 2003, all state laws protecting the community from discrimination have included protection for transgender people (California and New Mexico, both in 2003, and Illinois in 2005), indicating a positive trend."

My current LEGAL status is...

Earlier today, while avoiding preparing for my qualifying exams, I filled out a survey on the Internet that was aimed at gay men (it was sponsored by Pfizer and asked a lot of questions about whether I simultaneously use Viagra and other drugs during sex). Here was my favorite part of the survey:

My current LEGAL status is…

[ ] Single/Never Married

Domestic Partner / Civil Union

[ ] Opposite Sex
[ ] Same Sex

Legal Marriage

[ ] Opposite Sex
[ ] Same Sex (in Canada, Massachusetts, or another country)

Other Marriage (Legality to be determined)

[ ] Same Sex (in San Francisco, New Paltz, Nyack, or other US State County)

Divorced / Separated

[ ] Opposite Sex
[ ] Same Sex

Widowed

[ ] Opposite Sex
[ ] Same Sex

Feds tell religious pacifists, "Get ready for a draft!"

===========================
===========================
Brethren Agree to Revive 'Alternative Service' Draft Programs

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15893_1.html

[ 05 Jan 2005 ]
By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service

Leaders of the Church of the Brethren say they will follow through on a
request from the Selective Service to have "alternative service" programs
in place for conscientious objectors if a draft is reinstated.

As one of the historic "peace churches" that shun military service,
Brethren officials were "cautious" after an unannounced visit by a draft
official to a church center in Maryland last October. Officials were
worried that the visit signaled that a draft may be at hand.

In follow-up meetings, draft officials urged the church to dust off
long-standing "alternative service" programs that allow conscientious
objectors to serve in two-year domestic service projects in lieu of
military service.

In a meeting Dec. 10, the church's council voted to "maximize our efforts"
on alternative service, as well as help "guide our youth in their choice of
nonviolent service."

"We don't want to miss the part of providing resources to our youth that
will help them understand and embrace the Brethren peace witness," said
Chris Bowman, moderator of the church's 2004 conference.

Selective Service officials have insisted there are no plans to reinstate
the draft, and said Alternative Service Director Cassandra Costley stopped
by the Brethren Service Center simply because she was in the area.

Dick Flahavan, a spokesman for Selective Service, said officials did their
best to convince church leaders there is no draft on the horizon. "We
answered every one of their questions and they didn't leave with anything
hanging," he said. "What we were telling them was what we tell everyone.
The story hasn't varied."

Brethren leaders also agreed to meet in March with other Anabaptist
churches that oppose military service. The meeting in Elgin, Ill., will
bring together six Brethren and Mennonite groups to discuss "how to prepare
for alternative service opportunities."

Barbara Boxer is my hero

To: senator@boxer.senate.gov

Dear Senator Boxer:

I want to extend my warm thanks for your courageous willingness to stand with African American members of the House of Representatives in drawing attention to voting irregularities in Ohio.

I understand that you are likely to be the target of vicious attacks by the right-wing media because you took this stand. Please know that I'll do everything I can to support you in the future.

I have also written to the Majority Leader reminding him that, in spite of your disagreement about the particulars of this election, it is his duty as a patriot to respect your sincere and profound concern for the sanctity of voting rights.

I'm confident that my friends and relatives in California share my appreciation for your courage.

Sincerely yours,
Timothy ***

*************************************************
To: Senator_Frist@frist.senate.gov

Dear Senator Frist:

Although you disagree with Senator Barbara Boxer about the significance of voting irregularities in Ohio this November, I hope and expect that as a patriot, you will join me in saluting Senator Boxer's courage in standing up for her beliefs.

Will you join me in urging a bipartisan effort to discuss ways of safeguarding that most precious right for which so many Americans have given their lives, the right to vote?

Thank you in advance for your attention and reply.


Sincerely yours,
Timothy ***

"Pressure on the vacationing president" and "Among the lucky was celebrity interior designer Nate Berkus," or: which is worse, Bush or the gay media?

As the estimated death toll from Sunday's tsunamis in the Indian Ocean rises as high as 100,000, and in the wake of Bill Clinton's public statement that it's "really important that somebody take the lead" in organizing relief efforts, the Bush administration's indifference to human suffering has reached a level that can only be called obscene:

A White House spokesman said Mr. Bush could monitor developments at his Texas ranch without the need of a return to Washington or a public statement.

"The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain,'" a White House official told the newspaper.

The New York Times referred to "pressure on the vacationing president to appear more engaged in what aid groups are calling one of the worst natural disasters in history."

However, equally obscene, I must say, was the first and only story on the tsunami to appear on 365gay.com (motto: "More people get their LGBT news from 365Gay.com than from any other source" - I am not making this up). The original article seems to have been deleted at some point after it was posted (!), so I've linked to Google's cache as the only remaining evidence of this incredibly offensive article. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Gays Stranded Others Among Dead & Missing Following Tidal Wave
by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Asia Bureau Chief
Posted: December 27, 2004 2:14 pm ET

(Bangkok) Phuket, the most well known and popular gay beach destination in Southeast Asia lies in ruins in the wake of the most powerful tsunami to strike the region in decades.

As 365Gay.com first reported on Sunday (story) tidal waves, some measuring up to 20 feet in height and moving at more than 500 mph, swept over much of coastal Southeast Asia following a powerful earthquake centered off the coast of Indonesia's Sumatra island. The quake was measured at 9.0. The tsunamis which followed struck Sri Lanka, India and Thailand.

The death toll stands at more than 20-thousand but thousands more are reported missing and the death toll is expected to rise.

Among the lucky was celebrity interior designer Nate Berkus from Chicago.

Berkus, a regular on The Oprah Winfrey Show, was on Sri Lanka's eastern coast handing out backpacks to needy children.

"There was absolutely no warning," he told CNN.

Can you fucking believe this?! This celebrity interior designer is handing out backpacks to needy children? And this is fucking gay news because rich white gay Americans vacation in Phuket?

After following up Mr. Berkus's profound insights and humanitarian efforts with several more descriptions, plucked from other news sources, of bodies washing up on the beach, 365gay.com concluded its coverage of the tsunami with the following:

Tourism to Phuket has been cancelled. Anyone holding reservations is advised to contact their travel agency.

I actually had to read this several times because I found it so utterly improbable that somebody could actually print this article. The critical point is that you should call your travel agency before hopping on the plane for your planned Thai beach vacation? And gay political leaders wonder why Americans believe in the myth of gay affluence - that is, why Americans think of gays as well-heeled, educated, and in possession of much disposable income, even though (as the only full-scale analysis done on the subject by an economist shows) gays and lesbians, as one might expect of a stigmatized group, in fact make less money than straights?

I mean, seriously, folks. C'mon. This kind of coverage is like a wet dream for Jerry Falwell. You're doing the Family Research Council's work for them. South Asian countries face one of the worst natural disasters in recorded history, with a death toll nearing that caused by each of the two atomic bombs that the U.S. dropped on Asian people 59 years ago, the "gay community" is represented as worrying about their vacation plans? If this is what gay people are about, who could possibly give a shit whether, say, we're protected from job discrimination?

Indeed, one of the most underplayed arguments in the abovementioned economic analysis (published as Money, Myths, and Change, by M. V. Lee Badgett) is that the gay media happily propagates the myth of gay affluence. These periodicals survey their own readerships - skewed, naturally, toward those queers who patronize the bars, boutiques, and laser hair removal establishments that advertise in their pages - and then proclaim loudly to potential advertisers that they reach a thoroughly upscale community with lots of money to spend. Virtually every major-city gay newspaper, I might add, uses this tactic.

(Granted, the straight media ain't so great, either. As the Washington Post drily put it this morning, "Sunday afternoon, anyone turning on cable news would have seen two breaking stories: Thousands dead in Asian tsunami, and thousands of Americans delayed at airports.")

P.S.: Give to Doctors Without Borders or the organization of your choice