Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Just Call

Tonight Chris Matthews read a letter from a soldier currently fighting in Afghanistan. I'm a transcriptionist. It's what I do. So I have transcribed it here:

I found out this soldier under my command was gay. I learned about it after he died., when his longterm partner wrote to me, not knowing my orientation, to tell me how much this staff sergeant had loved that Army; how we were the only family he’d ever known.

In my own life, my partner has none of the privileges of a spouse. We have weathered three long deployments like any other couple might. My partner and I have happily accepted my various assignments because we’re truly committed to the Army, its soldiers and their famlies. But after our ten years together, my partner has earned the right to be told first about my death. He has earned the right to be recognized for his sacrifices just as any other spouse.

I deeply believe that America is fighting the right fight in Afghanistan. I believe in this battle against our enemies, and I believe that the U.S. Army is the greatest single force for good the world has ever known.

But I want to tell the guys I eat lunch with every day about my partner. After all, these are the guys I risk my life with, the guys who think they know me. I can tell you every detail about how each of them met their wives, how one of them still feels guilty about an affair he never had but thought about; how one of them cried so hard the day his son was born, yet they don’t know much about my life. Over the years, I have become good at evading and changing subjects artfully. To slip-up using the wrong pronoun when describing whom I was with during R&R, or mentioning who I talked to on Skype last night is no longer something I worry about. I have become so good at this lying game it eats at my soul.

A week ago two of my friends were killed in a bombing. The days since then have bled into each other. It is usually not until the evening that I allow myself to think about these things. I will risk my life. I ask to be treated simply like anyone else in the Service – nothing more, and nothing less.

The vote by the Senate Armed Services Committee to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell will take place tomorrow. Republicans have threatened to veto the entire defense department budget if a repeal of the policy is recommended.

There are hundreds/thousands of brave men and women fighting for our country, and hundreds/thousands of families waiting at home in silence because they aren't able to be recognized.

Won't you please call the Senate Armed Services Committee and ask them to vote for repeal of the policy?

(202) 224-3121

(If the voice mail box is full, as it was when I called, ask to be connected to the phone of Senator Carl Levin, the committee chair.)

Being Who You Are

It's the second Thursday and that means it was time for my next luncheon with my friend Kathy. You may recall that we reinstated these lunches at The Olive Garden in Sacramento last month and are slated for our next one on April 8. It's nice to get back together with her and to pick up where we left off, after our period of getting to know you again.

We talked about a lot of things today, but eventually got around to the note that was left on this journal on my "WWJD?" entry.

The entry said, in part,

we need for gay people everywhere to stop expecting everyone to accept and like them.
And we need for gays to STOP feeling the need to wear their sexuality on their sleeves.
Being in the closet? No
But there is an element of privacy and intimacy to anyone's sexual orientation that I don't feel the need to know.
Just be who you are and let me like you for that.
I don't care about your sexual preference.

On the surface this sounds like a nice, accepting way to live, but if you think about it, it's not possible.

If the writer walks hand in hand with her husband, is she wearing her sexuality on her sleeve? If Ellen and Sherry walk hand in hand, that's what they are accused of doing.

If the writer meets her husband at the airport and the two share a welcome home embrace and quick kiss, are they wearing their sexuality on their sleeves? If Adam and Steve do the same thing, are they?

If the writer goes on a vacation with her husband and some friends and comes back to work and shows everybody her pictures of the good time they had, is she wearing her sexuality on her sleeve? If Steve brings his pictures of his fun time with friends, is he? If he's in the military, he's in danger of being dismissed if he talks about the nice vacation he just had with his friends.

The writer may not "feel the need to know" about Adam and Steve's orientation and yet somehow feels they don't need to be in the closet, but that's what this whole thing is about--the ability to be who they are without someone accusing them of "wearing their sexuality on their sleeve."

Kathy and I were talking about the reaction of men to the idea of homosexuality (somehow women don't generally seem to have the same reaction). If two straight women check into a motel and their room only has one bed, they think nothing of sleeping in the same bed together. If two straight men check into the same room, one of them will probably sleep on the floor. They will go to great lengths to prove that they aren't "like that." Even entertainers whom I admire get that "ooo icky" tone to their voice when they discuss two men having any sort of affectionate relationship. They feel the need to pretend to be effeminate, raise their voices several octaves, and laugh about it. Even people I know to strongly support gay equality. But there is that need to prove that "I'm not that icky kind of person."

[Interestingly, though, Kathy pointed out, if you take two men into the wood to camp, they'll stand side by side and pee on the same tree, where two women will each seek their own private bush to pee on!]

And there is the whole "murder thing." Straight people who are murdered generally (not always, of course) are shot or blown up. Something that can be done at some distance from the victim. Gay people who are murdered generally (not always, of course) are killed in close up and personal attacks--stabbings, choking, beatings. There is some sort of visceral reaction in people who get angry with gay people. They have to touch them and make it as personal as possible. A gay man was stabbed in a robbery in Sacramento, Kathy told me, and when the police said it was a hate crime, someone questioned that...but the man was stabbed sixty seven times. That's not your random act of violence committed during a robbery.

The thing about just being who you are is that gay people can't do that. If one woman is the biological mother of a child, her partner can't go pick that kid up at school, because the school doesn't recognize her as a parent. If one person in a gay couple is injured in most states in this country, the hospital has the legal right to prevent the spouse from being with him/her, with making decisions about care, or making decisions about disposal of remains, if the person should die. If the patient is unable to communicate, her family (mother, father, siblings) have the right to remove her from the hospital, take her to another states, and not let her partner of many years know where she is (this has happened).

The horror stories about people who are "just trying to be who they are" are legion and one reason why gay people are fighting for marriage is to be able to say to the straight community: we just want to live our lives and not bother you, but you won't let us!

I'd also love to hear what the writer of my comment would say if someone showed up at her door and told her that a vote had been taken of all the citizens in the state and it was decided that she and her husband can no longer be legally married.

Gay people don't necessarily want her to LIKE them, but they do want to be respected for who they are -- and why the heck shouldn't they be respected?

---

Just as I went to post this, I read of a school in Mississippi which has canceled the senior prom rather than allow a lesbian girl to come and bring her girlfriend. Is bringing your girlfriend or boyfriend forcing your sexual identity on someone? Should she lie and come with someone she doesn't care about on what is arguable the most imortant social date of a student's high school career?

Not only does the girl not get to go to her prom, but NOBODY IN HER CLASS gets a prom...how much hatred against her do you think that is going to create?

Life and Times

For anyone who grew up, as I did, in the San Francisco of the 1950s, who lived in a nice white neighborhood and went to a nice Catholic school and was vaguely aware of the blaring headlines about raids on gay bars, with photos of men trying to hide their faces as they were pushed into paddy wagons; and who remembers Anita Bryant and the fight to take away civil rights from the gay community and the fundamentalists who brought Proposition 6 (which sought to remove gay teachers and straight people who supported them from their jobs) to California, which was going to be their moment of glory; and who remembers the murder of George Moscone and Harvey Milk and the aftermath -- the candlelight procession, the trial of Dan White, the "Twinkie Defense," the riot after his light sentencing and then his suicide...

...for anybody who was here and remembers that stuff, "Milk" will seem more like a documentary than a biopic. Midway through the film, I realized why Robbie, my hairdresser, said that he didn't want to see the film because he lived through it once and didn't want to relive it.

I wondered how it plays in Peoria, to a group of people who may never have visited San Francisco and who weren't intimately familiar with every single location in the movie, let alone the names of the principle characters. Who may not realize that they have ever met a gay person. I wondered how it played as "just a movie" about a gay guy who was murdered, if you had no connections to the incidents portrayed.

I made a huge mistake before we went to the theatre today. In my haste to get the puppies fed at the last minute so we could be gone for three hours, I forgot to stick some tissues in my purse, so my sweatshirt got a good soaking. I couldn't believe how moved I was by the movie. All of it. From my tears at the start, with Diane Feinstein announcing the murder of Moscone and Milk to the tender parts, to the triumphant parts, and back again to the tragic parts. This is a masterful film.

By the middle of the movie, I was very depressed. It was when John Briggs and Anita Bryant decided to make California the battleground in their fight to remove civil rights from gay people. Proposition 6 ("The Briggs Initiative") was a ballot initiative that would have made the firing of gay teachers -- and straight teachers sympathetic to gays-- mandatory.

I even heard the ludicrous statement made by Briggs in debate with Milk that yes, the greater percentage of pedophiles were heterosexual, but if they could remove all homosexual teachers from the schools, they would at least reduce the number of potential child molestations.

I listened to Bryant's speeches, given with that vacant stare of someone who knows God is on her side and unconcerned about the damage she would do to other human beings. I listened to Briggs equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. I listened to people in the conservative audiences talk about the need to protect their children from pedophiles.

I thought about where we are now as opposed to where we were in 1978. The gay pride parade is now an annual event, with the entire city participating, pink triangles on Twin Peaks and rainbow flags hung all the way from the Castro District to the Ferry Building. Prop 6 did not pass and discrimination in the workplace or in housing, based on sexual orientation is illegal. Anne Kronenberg, who was Harvey Milk's campaign manager is now Deputy Director for Administration and Planning of the San Francisco Department of Public Health and has worked with the Department for over 15 years.

And when was the last time you heard anything about Anita Bryant?

But California just passed Prop 8, once again removing civil rights from gay people. States all across the country are trying to do the same thing. The arguments used in that ugly battle again compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, parents still feel that they needed to protect their children from the deviant homosexuals.

Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in the country, opened the door to a greater acceptance of gay people, but thirty years after his death, many of the same fears and prejudices still exist and the same arguments by the same religious groups are still scaring people into separating human beings into "us" and "them."

How long is it going to take...?

Worse than Felons

A 2005 government audit found that 10,000 troops, including more than 50 Arabic translators, have been discharged because of the military ban on being openly gay. (Seizing on the latest discharges, involving three specialists, members of the House of Representatives wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman that the continued loss of such "capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war.").

Now, also according to the Associated Press, in order to beef up its shrinking ranks, the military is recruiting convicted felons instead.

Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

Data released by a congressional committee shows the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records jumped from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007. And the number of Marines with felonies rose from 208 to 350.

The bulk of the crimes involved were burglaries, other thefts, and drug offenses, but nine involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions. Several dozen Army and Marine recruits had aggravated assault or robbery convictions, including incidents involving weapons.

Apparently, according to our military, someone who has committed manslaughter or who has been convicted of a (presumably heterosexual) sex crime is a better member of The Few, The Proud, The Marines than someone who simply admits to being a homosexual.

Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (now that's an office which must be busy these days!), says, that "low unemployment, a protracted war on terror, a decline in propensity to serve," and the growing reluctance of parents, teachers and other adults to recommend young people go into the military, has made recruiting a challenge.

So....

Late last fall, the Pentagon quietly began looking for ways to make it easier for people with minor criminal records to join the military. The goal of that review is to make cumbersome waiver requirements consistent across the services — the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force — and reduce the number of petty crimes that now trigger the process.

According to the data released Monday, a bit more than half of the Army's 511 convictions in 2007 were for various types of thefts, ranging from burglaries to bad checks and stolen cars. Another 130 were for drug offenses.

The remainder, however, included two in 2007 for manslaughter, compared to one in 2006; five for sexual crimes (which can include rape, incest or sexual assaults) compared to two in 2006; and three for negligent or vehicular homicide, compared to two in 2006. Two received waivers for terrorist threats including bomb threats in 2007, compared to one in 2006.

[TERRORIST THREATS?????]

At least 235 of the Marine Corps' 350 waivers were for various types of thefts in 2007, and another 63 were for assaults or robberies that may also have included use of a weapon. The remainder included one for manslaughter in 2007, compared to none in 2006; four for sex crimes, compared to one in 2006; and five for terror threats, including bomb threats, compared to two in 2006.

The total number of sailors who received felony waivers dipped from 48 in 2006 to 42 in 2007. Most were for a variety of thefts or drug and drunk driving convictions. Two in 2007 were for terror or bomb threats compared to three in 2006.

But by God, none of those criminals now putting their lives on the line in Iraq looks fondly at the guy in the next bunk. Whew! What a relief. They might blow the barracks up or start a drug dealing ring in the Green Zone, but thank God they aren't gay.

What kind of stupid screwed up system is this?

This goddamn administration has so screwed up the system, stretched our military to the limits, and turned its back on everything that we once held sacred in this country that now that fewer kids are going into ROTC or rushing off to the nearest recruiting office to serve their country, we have to turn to the prisons to get guys to do our killing for us.

But heaven help us if a guy who knows the region, speaks the language and has a clean criminal record, but happens to have a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend, wants to serve his country. (Or vice versa for women.) That would bring about the fall of civilization as we know it.

Let's get the drug dealers, the burglars, the thiefs and the terrorists. At least they aren't gay.

Sometimes it just makes me want to stick my head in the oven. Fortunately (a) I can no longer get to my knees, and (b) it's an electric stove.

Not that there's anything WRONG with that

I read something disturbing yesterday that has been churning inside me ever since. This was an entry in a blog by a guy who is presently in a production of La Cage aux Folles. I'm not going to link to it because I don't have his permission. I suspect some of you will know who I mean--and if you don't, you don't need to. It's not necessary.

If there is anyone reading this who doesn't know the plot of La Cage aux Folles, the name is the name of a famous (fictional) nightclub on the Riviera and its performers are mostly male transvestites, with a few women thrown in to confuse the crowd. Albin is a fabulous drag queen who is the star of the show. He has been in a committed relationship with his partner Georges, the owner of the club, for 20 years, and the story revolves around what happens when their son (conceived in a one-night stand that Georges with a woman had many years ago) falls in love with the daughter of the French equivalent of the head of the Traditional Values Coalition. As they say, "much hilarity ensues."

When the show premiered on Broadway in 1983, it won all the big awards, including the Tony for Best Musical and best actor Tony for George Hearn, who played Albin.

The blog writer plays one of the "Cagelles" (the chorus girls) and also appears as a man who owns a cafe with his wife in one small scene. I have gone back to his blog today and can't find what I saw yesterday, so I'm wondering if he has edited it. If I remember accurately, he was talking about the experience of being a straight man performing in drag and how he agreed to take the role because too many men didn't audition either because it made them uncomfortable or the parents of the younger actors objected for moral reasons. What he wrote was really quite good and I'm sorry it's not available any more.

But it upset me on so many levels. Mostly because La Cage aux Folles isn't about being gay or being a drag queen. La Cage aux Folles is a love story about two people who have been committed to each other for 20 years and have raised a child together and the sacrifices that each makes because of his interpretation of what that child needs at a time of crisis. It also shows how a strong relationship holds together no matter what.

Until someone has shared a life with the love of his or her life for more than 20 years, nobody has any right to cast aspersions on the relationship between Georges and Albin.

But it brings up the old stereotypes and how they keep being trotted out time and time again. All gay men are effeminate, all lesbians look like truck drivers, gay people are only interested in sex and are incapable of controlling desires. You can't have a meaningful relationship with someone unless opposite sex parts are involved. All comments made by straight people about gay people, straight people who can never know what it's like to be gay.

Get a photo of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and see which one makes your heart go pitty-pat. If you were going to take one of them to bed, which would it be? If I pointed a gun to your head, could you make yourself feel the same way about the other one? If gender attraction is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?

I have heard time and time again about how people are nauseated at the thought of relations between people of the same gender. How it makes them want to vomit.

Why then, do straight people -- especially straight men -- have such a low opinion of themselves? If the thought of sexual relations with someone of the same gender makes you want to vomit, why in God's name do you think that if a gay man touches you, you might "catch it," that you would instantly toss aside a lifetime of heterosexual urges and suddenly "become gay?" Or that this thing that makes you want to vomit is somehow so wonderful that you would be willing to give up all the pleasures you've had to that point and take a class in "Being Gay 101."

Why are men so afraid to touch each other in a loving way, or if they accidentally happen to touch, make a joke about it or hasten to explain, with nervous laughter, that they aren't "that way."

One of the things I absolutely loved about Lawsuit, when the band existed, was that the guys all were openly affectionate with each other. They were completely comfortable with their sexuality and had no problem expressing their affection for the rest of the band, be they male or female. None of them "became gay." They are all now married with children and seem none the worse for allowing themselves to be openly affectionate.

I lost a lot of respect for George Hearn when, accepting his Tony, he went out of his way to say "it's amazing what a straight man will do to get a good role." He had to make sure the audience knew that he "wasn't like that."

I recently heard two straight women joking about lesbians and their fear that they might be showering with a lesbian and one said "just don't bend over." That doesn't even make sense. Though it's a stupid thing for men to say, at least male "bending over" exposes an orifice to a pointed object and if you're paranoid you might fear being struck from behind as it were, but with women? It does not compute.

The whole "don't ask, don't tell" arguments, by straight soldiers, make no sense (especially including the "don't bend over" remark). I've asked here before what semi-intelligent gay man, when in the company of a platoon of straight fellow soldiers at their peak of physical prowess would risk life and limb just for a quick moment of satisfaction. He'd be pummeled within an inch of his life, if not beaten to death. I know a lot of gay men and none of them are that stupid.

Generals say that in time of war, you have to trust your buddy. Who can honestly believe that if you're in a foxhole with a bunch of Marines and Al Qaeda is bearing down on you, that the only thing the guy next to you wants to do is get in your pants? (And what makes you think that you're God's gift to gay men anyway?)

I cringe when I hear gay jokes because they play on stereotypes and reinforce the kinds of attitudes that get gay kids beaten up or killed, and that cause parents to refuse to let their young men audition for a play.

Anybody who thinks lesbians all look like truck drivers hasn't watched The L Word and anybody who thinks that all gay men are effeminate doesn't know the truck drivers I know!

I just wish -- often, actually -- that people who make offhand comments and toss around funny one-liners would stop and just think about the whole thing rationally. Gay people are your doctors, your lawyers, your tax accountants, your mechanics, your teachers, your children's teachers, your ministers, priests and rabbis. There are wonderful gay people and there are jerks. Just like in the straight population. Why do we have to point fingers, make jokes, attack, shun, and deny rights to an entire segment of the population?

Any why, for heaven's sake, would you refuse to take a great role in a play just because you might have to put on a costume and wear make-up and act like a woman for a couple of hours? How could there possibly be anything morally wrong with that?

Double Standards

This is the December 2 entry, but I'm writing it on December 1, which happens to be World AIDS Day. This isn't an entry about AIDS, though (though in an age where more people are living with [instead of dying from] AIDS and so more people are being careless about sexual behavior, it's nice to remind everyone that no matter how well they are able to control it, it's still an incurable disease and the treatment is no picnic either. Steve used to be in great demand to speak to groups of kids on this day, and that demand has lessened in recent years, which is also too bad.)

AIDS is not a gay disease. That's also something else that needs to be said. When I was working with the group that helped people with AIDS with things like food, shelter and transportation, I almost never drove a gay man to a doctor's appointment. It was almost exclusively African American women, with a few Latina women thrown in for good measure. AIDS has become less a disease of the gay community and more a disease of the inner city. It is now the #1 cause of death of African-American men between the ages of 25-44, according to the CDC.

However, while thinking about that, I was taken back to the recent Republican debate and a conversation I had recently with a friend.

One of the YouTube questions (followed up by a question from a decorated veteran, who happens to be gay, in the audience) concerned the Don't Ask, Don't tell policy and whether there might be any thought of changing it.

Unanimously the candidates agreed that "don't ask, don't tell" is "working" (whatever that is) and it should be left alone.

In March of this year, USA Today reported that more than 11,000 Army troops have been dismissed under Don't Ask, Don't tell. The article goes on to state that a Government Accountability Office report in February 2005 found that at least 800 dismissed gay service members had skills deemed "mission critical" by the Pentagon. Among them: 54 Arabic-language specialists.

We are fighting a war in a country where language specialists are critical, but we'd rather dismiss them because of the gender of the people to whom they are attracted than keep them on doing the critical work of helping us communicate with the people are training.

An op-ed piece in the New York Times in June 2007 was written by an Arabic translator who had been dismissed under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The author states:

More than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was instituted. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm’s way?

In addition to those translators, 11,000 other service members have been ousted since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was passed by Congress in 1993. Many held critical jobs in intelligence, medicine and counterterrorism. An untold number of closeted gay military members don’t re-enlist because of the pressure the law puts on them. This is the real cost of the ban — and, with our military so overcommitted and undermanned, it’s too high to pay.

In response to difficult recruiting prospects, the Army has already taken a number of steps, lengthening soldiers’ deployments to 15 months from 12, enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42.

The Republican candidates, in stating that the policy was "working" (whatever that means) indicated that they had no difficulty with a person's sexual orientation, but that it was a matter of "morality," implying that the mere fact of being gay (or lesbian) means automatically that you are physically incapable of adhering to the same standards of morality as the straight counterparts.

Now comes the conversation I had recently. It concerned the news that the son of a mutual friend is about to become a father. He's not married. The mother of his child served in the Navy on the same ship as the father. Obviously more than military work was involved in the time that they spent together on the ship.

But are they being disciplined on any sort of a morality charge?

Of course not.

They are being given military housing so that they can raise their illegitimate child, conceived while they were both in the Navy and serving together aboard ship.

There is a double standard at play here. Gays and lesbians are found guilty even if proven innocent. Even if they have done nothing to violate anybody's standards of morality, even if they are in highly sensitive, highly important, highly necessary positions, they are terminated.

Straights who, by the very nature of the fact that they have conceived a child have violated strict morality codes, and yet they are being rewarded for it.

I don't understand. How screwed up are the moral values of this country anyway?

Speaking Out for Gay Marriage

I went to an ACLU informational meeting about gay marriage yesterday. Obviously this was "preaching to the choir" for me, but Ellen and Shelly were going to be speaking and asked me to come along.

It was a small group of people gathered around a meeting area in a local bookstore and I was sitting in front, so I don't really know what the makeup of the group was. People were, like me, there alone, there were some same sex couples and some heterosexual couples, so what the gay:straight ratio was was not possible to judge. It was also not possible to judge whether there was anybody there who was not supportive of gay marriage.

But even though I have been supporting and campaigning for gay marriage for years, having hard facts and figures at my fingertips was enlightening. The guy from the ACLU had put together a questionnaire that even Ellen and Shelly weren't able to answer 100% accurately. We all learned something. And it was nice to hear a married couple ask about having a smaller meeting in their home to pass along the information.

At the conclusion of the meeting we were all encouraged to "get the word out" and so that's what I'm going to do here, with some facts and figures that you might surprising or enlightening. Facts and figures don't give you emotion, though, and I only captured on video a small part of Ellen and Shelly's impassioned description of why it's "different" when you are married than when you are just legal domestic partners.

There are 20 questions on the list and I'm not going to go through all of them, but will just pick and choose a few.

In case you were wondering, there are six countries recognize gay marriage: The Netherlands, Belgium, Israel, South Africa, Canada and the list says England, but I think Ellen & Shelly said they have something that is "like" marriage, but is called something else, making it separate and unequal.

In the U.S. only one state recognizes marriage: Massachusetts. Connecticut, Vermont, California, Main, Hawaii, Washington DC, New York and New Jersey have some form of legal status, but not marriage. Marriage is prohibited by statutory law in 18 states and in constitutional amendments in 27.

Shelly talked about how when Vermont made domestic partnerships legal, she and Ellen flew to Vermont and registered. She smiled as she recalled their newfound status as they walked around buying souvenirs. But when they drove across the state line into New Hampshire, they were once again legal strangers to each other.

Many Americans think of "marriage" as both a legal and a religious institution, but in legal terms it is simply a legal contract and being denied this legal contract deprives gay couples of more than 1,100 rights that married couples enjoy. These include such things as hospital visitation, death benefits, spousal support, visitation rights with children if a couple splits, inheritance rights, the right to make decisions about the disposition of a dead partner's body, etc. Some of these can be taken care of with the help of an expensive attorney which many cannot afford. They come automatically with marriage. (Shelly points out that 40% of marriages in this country are civil marriages only, and do not involve the blessing of a church, which does remove the "religious" issue, don't you think?)

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage was legal throughout the United States (it was legal in California in 1948). At that time 80% (8 out of 10 people) of the population of the United States were against it.

The Catholic Church performed union ceremonies for same sex couples from the 5th through the 14th century. It always amuses (and frustrates) me that the Pope is supposed to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, and yet up until the 14th century the Pope apparently felt that it was OK for gay couples to marry but after the 14th century some pope decided it was not OK. Surely SOMEBODY wasn't infallible!!

It was not until the 18th century that people began to marry for love. Before that, people married to strengthen family alliances, to be socially acceptable, and for procreation. But since the 18th century, most people have been marrying for love. Gay couples just ask for the same right.

The Bible. Ah yes. The Bible. It's fair to say that few of us have the language ability to read the Bible in its original format and all of us rely on translations. "Leviticus 18:22" is the standard argument used by opponents of gay marriage. Here are some interesting English translations:

English Standard Bible: You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination.

King James Bible: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.

Living Bible: Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.

Net Bible: You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

New International Version: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

New Living Translation: Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Revised Standard Version: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

(by the way, relations between women are not mentioned in the bible at all, so lesbianism must be OK.)

In California there are more than 90,000 same sex couples who have been together more than 5 years (some much longer. Ellen and Shelly have been together 34 years; Steve and Jimmy have been together more than 20 years, for example). California couples are raising some 70,000 children. Nationwide, according to the 2000 US Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home.

Isn't it time to admit that gay couples are here to stay, that they are living in stable, monogamous relationships and raising children together and that they and their children should be afforded the same rights that straight families have?

Let's all just pretend it's somewhere between the 5th and the 14th century (but with indoor plumbing and Internet access) and follow the example of the Catholic Church.

Click To Play

When does it stop?

It's good for straight people to have to read about what gay people endure every day.

This is an article about a gay bashing incident which occurred in Sacramento recently. It is cruel and ugly, but it is reality for the gay community. Oh, most gay people will live their lives from day to day without ever encountering the degree of hate that drove the men in this article to kill a young man they only assumed was gay, but the fact is that this is the level of hatred that exists in some segments of our society and you never know when it's going to rear its ugly head.

A group of Slavic men encountered a family picnic, 3 married couples and a single man. Assuming the single man was gay, the Slavic men made threats. The people tried to leave, but the Slavic group blocked their way. One of the women was pregnant.

The pregnant woman said she didn't want to fight them.

"We don't want to fight you either," one of them replied in English. "We just want your faggot friend."

One of the Slavic men then sucker-punched Singh in the head. He fell to the ground, unconscious and bleeding. The assailants drove off in a green sedan and red sports car, hurling bottles at Singh's friends to prevent them from jotting down the license plate. Singh suffered a brain hemorrhage. By the next day, hospital tests confirmed that he was clinically brain dead. His family agreed to remove him from artificial life support July 5.

I strongly encourage you to read the full article.

I know these men. Well, not personally, but I have seen them, or some of them.

They attended a Valentine's Day demonstration that I attend each year, when a few gay and lesbian couples go to the county clerk's office to request marriage licenses. The Slavic community was out in full force that day.

I had seen anti-gay protesters before, but these guys scared me. They were big and burly and, though it doesn't show in this photo, their faces were filled with hatred. It took a couple of armed guards from the county office building to get them to leave. This was a far cry from the almost laughable Rev. Fred Phelps and his gang from the Westboro Baptist Church.

That first glimpse of the Slavic protestors on Valentine's Day was the first time in all the years of attending protest events with Ellen and Shelly that I really got a feel for what it must be like living in fear.

I next saw them when I went to act as a shield between them and the young people marching to the Capitol for a peaceful demonstration and to meet with their legislators to discuss legislation to protect gay kids in school.

Another side of the spectrum with respect to gay hatred is illustrated in a New York Times article today, about older gays and lesbian in nursing homes. "Elderly gay people...living in nursing homes or assisted-living centers or receiving home care, increasingly report that they have been disrespected, shunned or mistreated in ways that range from hurtful to deadly, even leading some to commit suicide."

The article goes on to list the discrimination against aging gay people trying to find help in their declining years.

I think back to my friend Gabi Clayton's son, the victim of a gay bashing incident which ultimately caused him to take his own life. I look at the hatred of the people who caused the murder of the young man in Sacramento.

Hatred of gay people, people who had no choice in their sexual orientation runs the gamut from the very young to the very old.

When does it stop? When do we just look at people as people, without labels?