If you haven’t been following the news, the California legislature passed a marriage equality bill that would have made gays and lesbians truly equal in the eyes of the law of that state. And their governor, The Governator, vowed to veto it immediately, noting that it should be the courts that decide. He likes him some activist judges, that Governator.
But it took him over a week to get around to his veto paperwork.
A journalist whom I really respect supposed in his blog that The Governator was postponing his veto of this bill passed by the representatives of the people for a good reason. This journalist supposed that Arnold was worried about his place in history. That maybe his conscience was getting the better of him.
But, of course, The Governator did veto the bill. Naturally.
Men of power and ambition are willing to hurt anyone as long as it benefits them. Arnold may have actually wanted to sign the bill. No, really. Maybe he did. But I imagine he didn’t really care one way or the other.
What Arnold cares about it is him. What Arnold cares about is getting where he wants to be. He wants another term, to make his rich friends richer, and to amend the US Constitution so he can do it all for them again from the comfort of the Whitehouse. This is what The Governator wants.
And make no mistake about it, any principle he has is for sale if it will get him closer to his goals. There is no one he wouldn’t hurt. No one.
As for the journalist… he may have been right. I do hope that the Governator cared about his place in history. I hope he saw the ad comparing him to George Wallace and felt a pang of guilt. I hope he looked at his signature line over and over again, delaying the act of vetoing because he knew it was wrong. I hope he had long talks with Maria trying to justify what he knew was nothing more than a career move.
But what if he did? Does it matter?
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Sodomite Companies Want Your Children!
The lovely, witty, dirty-minded Wonkette posted today regarding an article at the World Net Daily website about corporate America’s pro-homosexual cuddling.
The World Net Daily is what is increasingly called wingnut, or extreme right-wing. For those of you who wish to know what the opposite of that would be, that’s moonbat. I have no idea what moonbat comes from or what it implies, but wingnut seems pretty obvious.
Although I don’t recommend anyone else do this, I actually took at look at their related reader poll and a handful of linked articles.
As I said, I don’t recommend it for the faint of heart. I am a calloused, jaded homosexual and reading vitriol about people like myself doesn’t shock or dismay me the way it might someone who were simply a friend of equality, say. Think of this as your “Do not attempt. Professional driver on closed course” warning.
One thing I noticed, however, was the repeated use of the term pro-homosexual. Now don’t get me wrong, I definitely advocate for my fellow sexual outlaws. I loves me my homo homies. However, I wouldn’t even describe myself as pro-homosexual, let alone America’s Fortune 100.
To me, pro-homosexual is a lot like the term you used to hear for reproductive choice advocates. Back when, they were “pro-abortion.” But saying someone is pro-abortion is like saying they advocate for abortion in all instances of pregnancy, which is clearly absurd and very misleading.
Similarly, I would expect a company that takes a pro-homosexual stance to be holding classes on homosexuality to teach people the upside of being gay, and discouraging heterosexuality. They could perhaps have a same-sex mentoring program where women taught each other proper cunnilingus techniques, and gag reflex suppression sessions during lunchtime for the boys. They might feature an article in their company newsletter that talks about the diseases you can get from heterosexual intercourse and the horrors of child bearing/rearing, noting that people who date same sex partners need not worry their pretty little heads.
And then, of course, they could throw separate company parties for women and men. The boys would be treated to a white-party styled dance, and they could give out ecstacy and condoms and make sure there’s a back room lit by a dim red light. I don’t know what would be the equivalent for lesbians. Maybe an Indigo Girls concert.
Now that’s what I call a pro-homosexual company. Down with all the trappings of heterosexuality, up with sodomites!
No, instead all we have are these rich firms who simply acknowledge that homosexuals work for them, and promise not to treat them any differently than straights. Although that’s really quite kind of them, it’s hardly what I would call pro-homosexual.
But oh well.
The World Net Daily is what is increasingly called wingnut, or extreme right-wing. For those of you who wish to know what the opposite of that would be, that’s moonbat. I have no idea what moonbat comes from or what it implies, but wingnut seems pretty obvious.
Although I don’t recommend anyone else do this, I actually took at look at their related reader poll and a handful of linked articles.
As I said, I don’t recommend it for the faint of heart. I am a calloused, jaded homosexual and reading vitriol about people like myself doesn’t shock or dismay me the way it might someone who were simply a friend of equality, say. Think of this as your “Do not attempt. Professional driver on closed course” warning.
One thing I noticed, however, was the repeated use of the term pro-homosexual. Now don’t get me wrong, I definitely advocate for my fellow sexual outlaws. I loves me my homo homies. However, I wouldn’t even describe myself as pro-homosexual, let alone America’s Fortune 100.
To me, pro-homosexual is a lot like the term you used to hear for reproductive choice advocates. Back when, they were “pro-abortion.” But saying someone is pro-abortion is like saying they advocate for abortion in all instances of pregnancy, which is clearly absurd and very misleading.
Similarly, I would expect a company that takes a pro-homosexual stance to be holding classes on homosexuality to teach people the upside of being gay, and discouraging heterosexuality. They could perhaps have a same-sex mentoring program where women taught each other proper cunnilingus techniques, and gag reflex suppression sessions during lunchtime for the boys. They might feature an article in their company newsletter that talks about the diseases you can get from heterosexual intercourse and the horrors of child bearing/rearing, noting that people who date same sex partners need not worry their pretty little heads.
And then, of course, they could throw separate company parties for women and men. The boys would be treated to a white-party styled dance, and they could give out ecstacy and condoms and make sure there’s a back room lit by a dim red light. I don’t know what would be the equivalent for lesbians. Maybe an Indigo Girls concert.
Now that’s what I call a pro-homosexual company. Down with all the trappings of heterosexuality, up with sodomites!
No, instead all we have are these rich firms who simply acknowledge that homosexuals work for them, and promise not to treat them any differently than straights. Although that’s really quite kind of them, it’s hardly what I would call pro-homosexual.
But oh well.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Rededication
Call it a crisis, call it what you will. I am rededicating myself to myself.
Over the past 9 years or so I developed a body I was not ashamed of. A taking-the-shirt-off-in-public(-sometimes) type of body that I liked. I put on 50lbs of mostly-muscle over the course of those years and I liked it.
But my ectomorphic body relishes the opportunity to drop weight and has shed 15 of those pounds this year. It has been maliciously rejoicing the entire time. I am not amused.
So this morning I dragged my shriveled and smug body back to the gym for a reasonable (re)starter workout and a stern talking-to. It was a rude awakening. I forgot my sweat towel. I realized my workout shorts did not stay round my waist the way they did before. This eliminated the possibility of cardio lest I provide an entirely inappropriate and potentially illegal erotic exercise show. I pressed weights, and realized just how much strength I’ve lost. The mirrors mocked me. I did not step on the scale for fear the alarms would go off.
Disappointing, yes. But this is where it starts. I’ll be sore, and I’ll build the strength and size back. Quickly, even. I will defeat my nature yet again. I might even be in better shape than before.
I’m only telling you so you’ll hold me to it. I mean, we have guests coming for the Holidays!
Over the past 9 years or so I developed a body I was not ashamed of. A taking-the-shirt-off-in-public(-sometimes) type of body that I liked. I put on 50lbs of mostly-muscle over the course of those years and I liked it.
But my ectomorphic body relishes the opportunity to drop weight and has shed 15 of those pounds this year. It has been maliciously rejoicing the entire time. I am not amused.
So this morning I dragged my shriveled and smug body back to the gym for a reasonable (re)starter workout and a stern talking-to. It was a rude awakening. I forgot my sweat towel. I realized my workout shorts did not stay round my waist the way they did before. This eliminated the possibility of cardio lest I provide an entirely inappropriate and potentially illegal erotic exercise show. I pressed weights, and realized just how much strength I’ve lost. The mirrors mocked me. I did not step on the scale for fear the alarms would go off.
Disappointing, yes. But this is where it starts. I’ll be sore, and I’ll build the strength and size back. Quickly, even. I will defeat my nature yet again. I might even be in better shape than before.
I’m only telling you so you’ll hold me to it. I mean, we have guests coming for the Holidays!
Thursday, September 15, 2005
What I Am Doing
I am wasting away a bit each day, but I am doing it for a good cause. I am running into battle and swinging with all my might. I am falling behind schedule before I even begin, and going home on time anyway. Some nights I send my animal in to do the dirty work while I thumb at the trigger of my rifle. I am making grand plans and procrastinating on their execution. I am distressing at the condition of the carpets and replacing them even as the menagerie atop them runs amok.
I am watching my expenses. But I am not clipping coupons.
I am standing at the garden silently, watching the life unfold even as my intellect tells me I can’t. I am seeing change that is not yet there.
I am watching my expenses. But I am not clipping coupons.
I am standing at the garden silently, watching the life unfold even as my intellect tells me I can’t. I am seeing change that is not yet there.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Someone Truly Remarkable
What a lot of thoughtful, amusing, absurd, and delightful fiddle-dee-dee!
We do so miss the Boulanger in all her prickly pearishdom.
We do so miss the Boulanger in all her prickly pearishdom.
Help John Mayer Find A Boyfriend
I guess he’s a really 00’s man, that John Mayer. His song “Daughters” is a touching lesson on how important it is to treat daughters well. Because the wrongs parents impose on their girls scar them forever.
And isn’t it true? Really? I mean, think of the stories you know. We can all tell one.
But John Mayer is overexposed. On local Hawai`ian (and Utahan) pop radio, “Daughters” has been on a twenty minute rotation for weeks and weeks. And weeks.
At first, I loved the song. I sang along with the lyrics I knew and enjoyed the warm fuzzy I got. Then it became a little too common. And then I heard this lyric:
Boys, you can break
You'll find out how much they can take
Boys will be strong
And boys soldier on
But boys would be gone without warmth from
A woman's good, good heart
And now I’ve had quite enough. Boys, you can break!?
John Mayer has clearly never dated one of those boys who’s been broken. Just like girls, John, they stay broken. And they hurt people – their daughters included. The best wo/man’s good, good heart does nothing to fix them.
So ladies and gentlemen, let’s all help John find a boyfriend who’s been broken to help shake him out of his anachronistic mindset. Shall we?
And isn’t it true? Really? I mean, think of the stories you know. We can all tell one.
But John Mayer is overexposed. On local Hawai`ian (and Utahan) pop radio, “Daughters” has been on a twenty minute rotation for weeks and weeks. And weeks.
At first, I loved the song. I sang along with the lyrics I knew and enjoyed the warm fuzzy I got. Then it became a little too common. And then I heard this lyric:
Boys, you can break
You'll find out how much they can take
Boys will be strong
And boys soldier on
But boys would be gone without warmth from
A woman's good, good heart
And now I’ve had quite enough. Boys, you can break!?
John Mayer has clearly never dated one of those boys who’s been broken. Just like girls, John, they stay broken. And they hurt people – their daughters included. The best wo/man’s good, good heart does nothing to fix them.
So ladies and gentlemen, let’s all help John find a boyfriend who’s been broken to help shake him out of his anachronistic mindset. Shall we?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Unlikely Times
Who would have thought that these days you could elect an actor as your state’s Governor, and then not end up with gays marrying each other?
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Maybe The Ocean
When I talk to off-islanders who want to know what it’s like to live in Paradise, the first thing I tell them is that there’s a price to pay for everything. This city is not without the same downsides that are found in any city. Soul-crushing traffic, high prices. You name your gripes about Big Town X, and they’re here, too.
But I begin my list of things that make it worthwhile with the quality of the air. I may be facing another twelve or fourteen hour day at work, but in the car drive to the office I roll down the window and breath deep as I listen to Hawai`ian on the radio. And it’s not just that the air is clean, either. It has magic in it. It has life. And I guess maybe that life seeps into us, because people in Hawai`i live four years longer than people on the mainland.
Or maybe it’s that our own lives don’t seep out as fast.
I also end my list with the ocean. Because no matter what’s wrong, I always feel better if I can just float in the ocean. Just bobbing in the waves for a few minutes does something to the mind and body. It lifts one out of depressions and worries so effectively that sometimes I wonder if it’s my outlook that’s changing, or if the world actually improves as I rock in the ocean’s hands.
So it should come as no surprise that Tuesday came today and I’m a happier man. Lei Bear Day was a wonderful laundry list of goodness. Friends, jovial santa-shaped men, debauchery, late nights, bright beaches, Hawai`ian music, keiki hula, important conversations, invigorating air, and floating in the ocean.
Maybe the Pacific lifted my spirits, or maybe it was just a very excellent weekend.
But I begin my list of things that make it worthwhile with the quality of the air. I may be facing another twelve or fourteen hour day at work, but in the car drive to the office I roll down the window and breath deep as I listen to Hawai`ian on the radio. And it’s not just that the air is clean, either. It has magic in it. It has life. And I guess maybe that life seeps into us, because people in Hawai`i live four years longer than people on the mainland.
Or maybe it’s that our own lives don’t seep out as fast.
I also end my list with the ocean. Because no matter what’s wrong, I always feel better if I can just float in the ocean. Just bobbing in the waves for a few minutes does something to the mind and body. It lifts one out of depressions and worries so effectively that sometimes I wonder if it’s my outlook that’s changing, or if the world actually improves as I rock in the ocean’s hands.
So it should come as no surprise that Tuesday came today and I’m a happier man. Lei Bear Day was a wonderful laundry list of goodness. Friends, jovial santa-shaped men, debauchery, late nights, bright beaches, Hawai`ian music, keiki hula, important conversations, invigorating air, and floating in the ocean.
Maybe the Pacific lifted my spirits, or maybe it was just a very excellent weekend.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Lei Bear Day
This weekend we will celebrate Labor Day and Lei Bear Day. It’s not Gay Pride, but, as Boulanger would say, it’s still “Homosexual Weekend.” Some of the friends who will be joining us would have been in New Orleans being decadent, but a certain storm you may have heard about changed their plans. We’re glad they’re here, and not there, needing help.
Our guest is still here, and thankfully, has managed to extend his stay. Apparently, he’s having a good time despite the fact that Head Chef and I are working during the days and the house is in full remodel and filled to the rim with dogs. He’s been the perfect sort of guest, and I’m so glad we’ve gotten to know him better.
I’m still feeling very dissociated, though. And irritable. Getting back into the groove has been very challenging, and I think part of it may have to do with the simple fact that the routine I left isn’t here any more. I have lots of questions and so very few answers.
Head Chef wants to know what the questions are, but there are so many that I keep losing track of them. It’s like walking into a record store with a mental list of everything you want to buy. By the time you get back out to your car with your new CDs, you realize that not one of them was on your list. But the list was also full of good, even important stuff. It’s just that you’ve already spent your money and it’s time to get on with the rest of your plans, so you don’t go back in.
Our guest is still here, and thankfully, has managed to extend his stay. Apparently, he’s having a good time despite the fact that Head Chef and I are working during the days and the house is in full remodel and filled to the rim with dogs. He’s been the perfect sort of guest, and I’m so glad we’ve gotten to know him better.
I’m still feeling very dissociated, though. And irritable. Getting back into the groove has been very challenging, and I think part of it may have to do with the simple fact that the routine I left isn’t here any more. I have lots of questions and so very few answers.
Head Chef wants to know what the questions are, but there are so many that I keep losing track of them. It’s like walking into a record store with a mental list of everything you want to buy. By the time you get back out to your car with your new CDs, you realize that not one of them was on your list. But the list was also full of good, even important stuff. It’s just that you’ve already spent your money and it’s time to get on with the rest of your plans, so you don’t go back in.
Tour Of The Possum Pie Kitchen
I’m something of a privacy advocate. That may seem contradictory if you don’t know me, since I have a public weblog that will be indexed, cached, and searchable for all eternity. If you know me, though, it may seem even more contradictory, since I can’t keep my mouth shut about every detail of my personal life.
Still, you won’t find my name in here, and you won’t find the names of the other cooks who have a hand in making Possum Pie. People who read the menu but don’t order anything I may refer to by name, and I think that’s fine.
After all, I will be talking about my life, and that will inevitably give the truly clever plenty of information to piece together my identity.
Still, if you’re interested in knowing more about the qualities of some of the people in the kitchen, I will update this entry from time to time for that purpose.
- Head Chef: The most important cook in this kitchen. Bubbly, affable, and imminently likable, he inspires confidence and respect in all who know him. He’s always on the lookout for something fresh and exciting to put on the menu.
- Boulanger: The Bread Cook. As infinitely satisfying for the soul as the fresh-baked goods she prepares, Boulanger is lovely and stylish. She possesses a wicked wit, a hearty laugh, and a fervent drive to make a positive difference in people’s lives.
- Friturier: The fry cook. Living his life by a creed of excessive indulgence, he knows well the finer things and people who simply must be known. Easy to laugh or gossip and always ready to entertain, Friturier lives in the moment.
- Grillardin: The grill cook. Grillardin is animated and excited, a lover of food, drink, and a very good time.
- Tournant: The rotating cook. Tournant is someone I like, but not necessarily always the same person. I will probably be sharing the relevant qualities of each Tournant in the entry in which they are named.
- The Butcher Commis: The common cook. Not necessarily someone I’m fond of, and not always the same person. People like co-workers, service personnel, and the like are most likely The Butcher Commis.
- Pastry Chef: The maintainer of this journal.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Aloha
I've been writing privately. Once in a while, as a sort of test.
1) Would I blog if I could?
I've passed the first test, and so, since Blogger is free, I am starting the second test.
2) Will I blog when I have one?
I've posted a few of my past writings from the last few months that I felt fit for public consumption, just to make sure there's some content.
If I pass this test, I get to have my own hosted, customized blog that's more full featured. But that's for the distant and uncertain future. We can plan for that just like everything else we do. Naturally, all plans work out perfectly.
1) Would I blog if I could?
I've passed the first test, and so, since Blogger is free, I am starting the second test.
2) Will I blog when I have one?
I've posted a few of my past writings from the last few months that I felt fit for public consumption, just to make sure there's some content.
If I pass this test, I get to have my own hosted, customized blog that's more full featured. But that's for the distant and uncertain future. We can plan for that just like everything else we do. Naturally, all plans work out perfectly.
Monday, August 29, 2005
For Grounding
We stayed up late last night entertaining a houseguest, and I’m horribly jet-lagged and possibly hung-over. I can’t tell which, or in what ratio.
My return to Honolulu has not been as triumphant and celebratory as I had imagined. On the contrary, I’ve felt disconnected and like I don’t belong here. My home doesn’t feel like home, welcomes have been scant and from people I needed them from the least.
It’s like I have been granted this overwhelming feeling of dread.
But I just saw something that grounded me for a fleeting moment. And you won’t believe what it was. A nametag. Yeah. Of a co-worker I really like and admire. She wasn’t even there, and I think that if she had been the effect wouldn’t have been as profound.
For that moment I felt like my head cleared, and I stopped walking and smiled. “Oh, wow,” I thought to myself. “Her.”
And then I started walking again, and these familiar but unwanted feelings returned.
My return to Honolulu has not been as triumphant and celebratory as I had imagined. On the contrary, I’ve felt disconnected and like I don’t belong here. My home doesn’t feel like home, welcomes have been scant and from people I needed them from the least.
It’s like I have been granted this overwhelming feeling of dread.
But I just saw something that grounded me for a fleeting moment. And you won’t believe what it was. A nametag. Yeah. Of a co-worker I really like and admire. She wasn’t even there, and I think that if she had been the effect wouldn’t have been as profound.
For that moment I felt like my head cleared, and I stopped walking and smiled. “Oh, wow,” I thought to myself. “Her.”
And then I started walking again, and these familiar but unwanted feelings returned.
Friday, August 26, 2005
What I’m Waiting For
I was sent off to Utah for 2 months, and I was furious. But I calmed down, as I do, and I got used to the idea that it was really just like an excruciatingly long workweek. With one day weekends every 11 days.
For a while, I tried to have a life here. I tried to make the best of the pitiful hotel gym facilities and to be interested in going out to dinner with these strangers that have become my co-castaways. But finally, there was no denying it. The gym is just unworkable and my fellow victims here in exile are not my friends, no matter how much I try. And it’s a shame, really, because they’re not my kind of people and they don’t seem to like one another very much, either.
So I found myself playing my video game, setting goals and being excited for the next milestone. And I knew the whole time that I was really just escaping. Just biding my time till I was permitted to return home.
Isn’t that funny? I’m an adult, but I have to ask for permission to go home.
But I’ve reached my in-game goal and I’m stymied on what to do with myself. I’m waiting to go home, to run a house and work in a yard. To have a dog stand with her nose less than an inch from mine as I intone her name in a sacred chant of praise.
For a while, I tried to have a life here. I tried to make the best of the pitiful hotel gym facilities and to be interested in going out to dinner with these strangers that have become my co-castaways. But finally, there was no denying it. The gym is just unworkable and my fellow victims here in exile are not my friends, no matter how much I try. And it’s a shame, really, because they’re not my kind of people and they don’t seem to like one another very much, either.
So I found myself playing my video game, setting goals and being excited for the next milestone. And I knew the whole time that I was really just escaping. Just biding my time till I was permitted to return home.
Isn’t that funny? I’m an adult, but I have to ask for permission to go home.
But I’ve reached my in-game goal and I’m stymied on what to do with myself. I’m waiting to go home, to run a house and work in a yard. To have a dog stand with her nose less than an inch from mine as I intone her name in a sacred chant of praise.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Diary Entry From Above The Pacific
So, I've been away from home for about three weeks now, but I got to go home long enough to have a taste. And it was a good taste, too.
I arrived in Honolulu on Friday night, and was a bit sleepy. On Saturday, Head Chef and I slept in, but of course sleeping in for me is a bit different than it is for him. I slept till 6am. What can I say, I'm on Mountain time. That was sleeping in for me. :)
I had some computery things I wanted to do, and my Head Chef was still tired when he got up. It was still 7:00 and Fred, the contractor we're using to work on the house, wasn't due for another hour, so I upgraded the computer in the living room and Head Chef hung out and napped next to me on the couch with Enzo and Bella and Popoki. I ran the upgrades and then even played the game for a little while during our wait for Fred.
I got some decent pointers from Head Chef on how to play even better, as well as my 25th level. Yay. I like Mormodes, the Shaman. He's a cool dude, and he's powerful when forced to do things on his own. But he's still got a soft side and needs his druid, Kapok, because he just can't do it all himself. Who can, you know?
Fred arrived about an hour late, so we got him set up and then headed out to the beach. We weren't sure which beach we would go to, but we ended up deciding to go Waimanalo beach (say it: Why man ah low). We spent an hour or two on the beach, napping and talking. I enjoyed the sun and Head Chef's presence, and I let my hand rest against his side as we lay there silently.
The beach in Waimanalo is perfect. Wide and bright with just enough surf and never very many people. I'm always nervous about getting in the water there, but I didn't see any jelly fish washed up on the shore, so we went in and of course it was fantastic. The waves there are very fun and once you're in, the water temperature is really comfortable. We bobbed in the waves for a while and watched a turbo prop plane in the distance silently performing aerial acrobatics. And then as we were climbing out of the water, we spotted not one, but two jellies on the beach. But we didn't get stung, so that's what counts, right?
When we got home a bit after 1:00pm, Fred had made a lot of progress on hanging the new door, but he had to completely rebuild the entire frame because the old door and frame were custom but awful. It had been a non-trivial job, for sure, but it looked good. Head Chef and I hung out and helped a little, talked with Fred about the changes he was making, and then surfed the web looking for a new doorbell ringer and thinking about design for the kitchen.
When Fred got the door hung, it was time to tear the kitchen cabinets off the wall he's going to remove for us, so we helped him to hold stuff and move the cabinet pieces outside. Head Chef was really excited. You could see the energy in his eyes in the way one can... As more and more cabinetry disappeared, he was starting to see the kitchen finished in his mind's eye, and his imagination wouldn't let him leave the room for a while. Fred had a couple of beers while he chatted with Head Chef about other plans they're going to work on. Finishing the flooring, replacing the stairs, and adding windows.
Head Chef's plan is to have it done when I get back. Knowing him, I'll be very impressed.
I busied myself with getting ready for dinner and making sure that everything was in place for my departure the next morning. And then Cindy showed up looking for the package I had brought back for her from Utah. She's my co-worker's wife, and she was nothing like I had pictured her. It was kindof awkward and so we hurriedly exchanged our items. Her husband's package went with her, and the shirt I was to bring back to Utah with me went into my carry-on bag for the next day.
Finally, Grillardin showed up and it was time to go to dinner. We had chosen to go to Gyu Kaku, a fun Japanese barbecue place that we knew Grillardin hadn't been to and would love. She's new to the island and needs to be shown around a bit, so we took her out for an "E komo mai" dinner, and naturally, she loved it. I leaned forward and reminded Head Chef, "Boulanger's going to LOVE this place," and he heartily agreed. Everything was delicious, including the yakidori dessert. I was content.
But I had a plan, and we couldn't linger to savor the sensation of full bellies. So we headed down into Waikiki to catch the movie on the beach. They never play old classics like "Some Like It Hot," so I was kindof excited to check it out. We got a great area in front of the big screen, and from observation of others, learned a new technique for digging into the sand and getting comfortable. We drank pre-mixed cocktails while the sun was setting. The Honolulu Jazz All-Stars performed magnificently from the movie screen stage, and we agreed that everything was better when enjoyed in the light of a Honolulu sunset.
When darkness set and the movie started, Head Chef nudged me out of sleep. I was still on mountain time, and it was nearly midnight according to my body clock. I watched Jack Lemmon for a while before my eyes closed and Head Chef woke me again. And after a third time, Grillardin volunteered that she was tired, too, so we gathered our empties and our beach mat and headed for the car. I was all yawns and when Grillardin dropped us off, I had only enough energy to stack my items near my bag and curl up next to Head Chef.
He wanted to chat as we lay in bed, but I must've fallen asleep in mid-sentence at some point. He said something that woke me, and I opened my eyes and he smiled before turning off the light. He has such a nice smile.
Now it's Sunday, and I'm back on the plane on my way to San Francisco to catch my connecting flight to Salt Lake City. All my friends from the area - and many from Honolulu, Portland, Seattle, Texas, and elsewhere - are finishing a week-long camping trip/binge in Guerneville, not far from The City. I've heard from many of them, and it sounds like they're having a good time. Head Chef and I will plan well ahead, and we'll meet them there next year.
Head Chef and Fred are going to tear down the wall today and finish some touch-up work that needs to be done on the new front door - which looks beautiful, by the way. I begged Head Chef to send me pictures, but he wants the new lofted second level to be a surprise for me. Already, the suspense is killing me.
I won't arrive in Salt Lake until almost 8:00pm. My co-worker, The Butcher Commis, has said he'll pick me up, so I won't have to take a taxi down to Provo. Hopefully the air quality will be better in Utah Valley this week. I'm supposed to have a better hotel room for this next stay, too. Much more like the condos in Waikiki.
In the meantime, I've been listening to the new Coldplay album while I work on the plane. I only have a few albums on the computer to listen to, but this one is a gem. I might never have heard it if it weren't for my friend Tournant, who shared with me one of the two finest tracks on the album. And now I listen to the track and think of the people I'm so far away from, and think about how... I don't know - accurate - it is.
I arrived in Honolulu on Friday night, and was a bit sleepy. On Saturday, Head Chef and I slept in, but of course sleeping in for me is a bit different than it is for him. I slept till 6am. What can I say, I'm on Mountain time. That was sleeping in for me. :)
I had some computery things I wanted to do, and my Head Chef was still tired when he got up. It was still 7:00 and Fred, the contractor we're using to work on the house, wasn't due for another hour, so I upgraded the computer in the living room and Head Chef hung out and napped next to me on the couch with Enzo and Bella and Popoki. I ran the upgrades and then even played the game for a little while during our wait for Fred.
I got some decent pointers from Head Chef on how to play even better, as well as my 25th level. Yay. I like Mormodes, the Shaman. He's a cool dude, and he's powerful when forced to do things on his own. But he's still got a soft side and needs his druid, Kapok, because he just can't do it all himself. Who can, you know?
Fred arrived about an hour late, so we got him set up and then headed out to the beach. We weren't sure which beach we would go to, but we ended up deciding to go Waimanalo beach (say it: Why man ah low). We spent an hour or two on the beach, napping and talking. I enjoyed the sun and Head Chef's presence, and I let my hand rest against his side as we lay there silently.
The beach in Waimanalo is perfect. Wide and bright with just enough surf and never very many people. I'm always nervous about getting in the water there, but I didn't see any jelly fish washed up on the shore, so we went in and of course it was fantastic. The waves there are very fun and once you're in, the water temperature is really comfortable. We bobbed in the waves for a while and watched a turbo prop plane in the distance silently performing aerial acrobatics. And then as we were climbing out of the water, we spotted not one, but two jellies on the beach. But we didn't get stung, so that's what counts, right?
When we got home a bit after 1:00pm, Fred had made a lot of progress on hanging the new door, but he had to completely rebuild the entire frame because the old door and frame were custom but awful. It had been a non-trivial job, for sure, but it looked good. Head Chef and I hung out and helped a little, talked with Fred about the changes he was making, and then surfed the web looking for a new doorbell ringer and thinking about design for the kitchen.
When Fred got the door hung, it was time to tear the kitchen cabinets off the wall he's going to remove for us, so we helped him to hold stuff and move the cabinet pieces outside. Head Chef was really excited. You could see the energy in his eyes in the way one can... As more and more cabinetry disappeared, he was starting to see the kitchen finished in his mind's eye, and his imagination wouldn't let him leave the room for a while. Fred had a couple of beers while he chatted with Head Chef about other plans they're going to work on. Finishing the flooring, replacing the stairs, and adding windows.
Head Chef's plan is to have it done when I get back. Knowing him, I'll be very impressed.
I busied myself with getting ready for dinner and making sure that everything was in place for my departure the next morning. And then Cindy showed up looking for the package I had brought back for her from Utah. She's my co-worker's wife, and she was nothing like I had pictured her. It was kindof awkward and so we hurriedly exchanged our items. Her husband's package went with her, and the shirt I was to bring back to Utah with me went into my carry-on bag for the next day.
Finally, Grillardin showed up and it was time to go to dinner. We had chosen to go to Gyu Kaku, a fun Japanese barbecue place that we knew Grillardin hadn't been to and would love. She's new to the island and needs to be shown around a bit, so we took her out for an "E komo mai" dinner, and naturally, she loved it. I leaned forward and reminded Head Chef, "Boulanger's going to LOVE this place," and he heartily agreed. Everything was delicious, including the yakidori dessert. I was content.
But I had a plan, and we couldn't linger to savor the sensation of full bellies. So we headed down into Waikiki to catch the movie on the beach. They never play old classics like "Some Like It Hot," so I was kindof excited to check it out. We got a great area in front of the big screen, and from observation of others, learned a new technique for digging into the sand and getting comfortable. We drank pre-mixed cocktails while the sun was setting. The Honolulu Jazz All-Stars performed magnificently from the movie screen stage, and we agreed that everything was better when enjoyed in the light of a Honolulu sunset.
When darkness set and the movie started, Head Chef nudged me out of sleep. I was still on mountain time, and it was nearly midnight according to my body clock. I watched Jack Lemmon for a while before my eyes closed and Head Chef woke me again. And after a third time, Grillardin volunteered that she was tired, too, so we gathered our empties and our beach mat and headed for the car. I was all yawns and when Grillardin dropped us off, I had only enough energy to stack my items near my bag and curl up next to Head Chef.
He wanted to chat as we lay in bed, but I must've fallen asleep in mid-sentence at some point. He said something that woke me, and I opened my eyes and he smiled before turning off the light. He has such a nice smile.
Now it's Sunday, and I'm back on the plane on my way to San Francisco to catch my connecting flight to Salt Lake City. All my friends from the area - and many from Honolulu, Portland, Seattle, Texas, and elsewhere - are finishing a week-long camping trip/binge in Guerneville, not far from The City. I've heard from many of them, and it sounds like they're having a good time. Head Chef and I will plan well ahead, and we'll meet them there next year.
Head Chef and Fred are going to tear down the wall today and finish some touch-up work that needs to be done on the new front door - which looks beautiful, by the way. I begged Head Chef to send me pictures, but he wants the new lofted second level to be a surprise for me. Already, the suspense is killing me.
I won't arrive in Salt Lake until almost 8:00pm. My co-worker, The Butcher Commis, has said he'll pick me up, so I won't have to take a taxi down to Provo. Hopefully the air quality will be better in Utah Valley this week. I'm supposed to have a better hotel room for this next stay, too. Much more like the condos in Waikiki.
In the meantime, I've been listening to the new Coldplay album while I work on the plane. I only have a few albums on the computer to listen to, but this one is a gem. I might never have heard it if it weren't for my friend Tournant, who shared with me one of the two finest tracks on the album. And now I listen to the track and think of the people I'm so far away from, and think about how... I don't know - accurate - it is.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Behind The Choice Claim
After all these years and despite scientific evidence to the contrary, anti-gay extremists still base their positions on sexuality-related issues on their belief that homosexuality is a choice. They believe it very fervently, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade them. In recent weeks, I’ve stumbled across various pieces of literature that have helped me get inside the head of the anti-gay activist. To understand, even if I cannot agree.
Poor Mayor Jim West of Spokane has struggled with sexuality issues his entire life, it would seem. Even if the allegations of predatory sexual abuse of boys aren’t true – we may never know either way – it would seem he’s spent a career profiting off of what closet cases do best. Denial. In the eighties, he was one of the most vociferous anti-gay voices in Washington State and had a brief abortive marriage to a woman. Now, the guy has been caught having virtual sex with young men over the internet. With his hypocrisy now laid bare, he is suffering demonstrably.
Jim West’s story has been potent for me, in no small part because of the luridness of the detail with which it has been told. I never had to deal with the denial Jim did because I came out as a relatively young man. But Jim – well, he was in law enforcement, then political office. A conservative man, he couldn’t even come out to himself, and reacted against what he felt was wrong with him, voicing his self-loathing as a public position against others like him. And as the classic scenario goes, we find him coming out at the age of 54, struggling and embattled, as conflicted with himself as ever.
Neil Horsley was on the Alan Colmes show on the Fox Radio Network twice during the past couple of weeks. If you’re not familiar with Neil’s work, he’s an aggressive anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-everything Christian extremist who has a lot of opinions about just about everything. And he’s an expert on sexuality, it turns out, due to his experiences with men and mules alike. Yes, I said mules. On the Alan Colmes show, he said he’d have even had sex with a watermelon or a washing machine under the right circumstances.
Neil has found god, of course, and so he condemns all that which he once enjoyed because the Lord doesn’t approve. I can’t say I approve of sex with things other than humans, either. However, in reading about Neil and the prevalence of bestiality, I learned that about %13 percent of men have had sex with an animal at some point. That was a big surprise to me, and it validated Neil’s assertion that sex with farm animals is actually common.
Reading Jim’s story and hearing Neil talk, I found myself thinking about sexuality and choice, and how it fit for these two men. Both have had sex with men, and both have dealt with it in different ways. Neil appears to have chosen to abstain from sex with men, animals, vegetables, and machinery for religious reasons. Barring contrary evidence, we can only assume he has been successful. Jim, however, has tried to be with women and failed. He’s acknowledged that he seeks men for sex and engages in romantic discussions with them online.
To me, this fits perfectly with Kinsey’s continuum of human sexuality. Jim is predominantly attracted to men. Like me, Jim may be a five out of six on Kinsey’s scale, indicating that he is almost exclusively attracted to men for sexual relationships, and is only incidentally heterosexual. What is currently known about his relationship history supports this assertion.
Neil, on the other hand, may be a two or a one on the Kinsey scale. He’s had sex with men, and so he obviously finds them sexually attractive at least part of the time. This excludes him from being classified as a zero on the scale, the point for a person who is exclusively heterosexual.
Obviously, then, both men are attracted to both sexes, albeit to different degrees. And they did not choose this for themselves. Most likely, both would have chosen to fall onto the Kinsey scale at the zero point. But both have had to make a choice as to whether to honor their natural tendencies or to suppress them. For Neil, this might simply have been like turning down chocolate for someone who only likes to have it once in a while. Neil’s choice to give up men may have been an easy one.
For Jim, however, his sexual attraction toward men was too strong to deny. He tried for many years because social mores and his own beliefs told him he should, but he was unable to succeed. Jim clearly struggled with his options for a lifetime, and ultimately decided that he could not suppress his innate sexuality.
Both men did choose, based on the sexuality they developed. Neil chose to lead a straight life and Jim chose a gay, albeit closeted and contradictory, one.
Neil and Jim are interesting because they represent voices opposed to societal acceptance of homosexuality despite their own histories. According to Kinsey’s research, they are among the roughly 60% of young men who have a homosexual experience or relationship during their youth. But if only four to six percent of them turn out to be gay, what happens to the rest?
Presumably, most find that gay sex is not as satisfying to them as relationships with women. But that’s no different from discovering that you prefer chocolate over vanilla. The choice is easy if you have a clear preference. But they carry that memory. And in the context of strong social mores against homosexuality, they attribute their experiences and resulting choices to their own strength of character, or to the wisdom and influence of their God.
The rest – those like Jim – make a choice to be less happy. They take vanilla, even though they’d prefer – through no choice of their own - chocolate. Perhaps even if they hate vanilla, they’ll deny themselves the happiness that only chocolate could bring.
The “Yes or No,” “True or False,” “Black or White” crowd would say that I am in essence agreeing with my Christian adversaries, but they’re wrong because the underlying preference for male or female is never a choice. And so the key to my understanding of their perspective is that, statistically, men who claim that being gay is a choice think they know first hand because they themselves have made that same choice. They just never say it. And they don’t disclose their classification on the Kinsey scale, either.
My father occasionally repeats his advice to me when I’m facing a dilemma. “Make the choice that will increase your happiness,” he says. Given that Jim and I are fives on the scale, the choice that will make us happiest is to be with men. We did not choose to be fives, but we did have to choose between acknowledging our nature and suppressing it. To different degrees, we made the choice that increased our happiness.
Anyone who asks someone to reconsider their choice, more than half the time, is asking him or her to make a choice they themselves have already made. One that was either easy for them, or makes them unhappy. And it’s funny how so many of them seem so very unhappy. Makes me think that misery really does love company.
Poor Mayor Jim West of Spokane has struggled with sexuality issues his entire life, it would seem. Even if the allegations of predatory sexual abuse of boys aren’t true – we may never know either way – it would seem he’s spent a career profiting off of what closet cases do best. Denial. In the eighties, he was one of the most vociferous anti-gay voices in Washington State and had a brief abortive marriage to a woman. Now, the guy has been caught having virtual sex with young men over the internet. With his hypocrisy now laid bare, he is suffering demonstrably.
Jim West’s story has been potent for me, in no small part because of the luridness of the detail with which it has been told. I never had to deal with the denial Jim did because I came out as a relatively young man. But Jim – well, he was in law enforcement, then political office. A conservative man, he couldn’t even come out to himself, and reacted against what he felt was wrong with him, voicing his self-loathing as a public position against others like him. And as the classic scenario goes, we find him coming out at the age of 54, struggling and embattled, as conflicted with himself as ever.
Neil Horsley was on the Alan Colmes show on the Fox Radio Network twice during the past couple of weeks. If you’re not familiar with Neil’s work, he’s an aggressive anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-everything Christian extremist who has a lot of opinions about just about everything. And he’s an expert on sexuality, it turns out, due to his experiences with men and mules alike. Yes, I said mules. On the Alan Colmes show, he said he’d have even had sex with a watermelon or a washing machine under the right circumstances.
Neil has found god, of course, and so he condemns all that which he once enjoyed because the Lord doesn’t approve. I can’t say I approve of sex with things other than humans, either. However, in reading about Neil and the prevalence of bestiality, I learned that about %13 percent of men have had sex with an animal at some point. That was a big surprise to me, and it validated Neil’s assertion that sex with farm animals is actually common.
Reading Jim’s story and hearing Neil talk, I found myself thinking about sexuality and choice, and how it fit for these two men. Both have had sex with men, and both have dealt with it in different ways. Neil appears to have chosen to abstain from sex with men, animals, vegetables, and machinery for religious reasons. Barring contrary evidence, we can only assume he has been successful. Jim, however, has tried to be with women and failed. He’s acknowledged that he seeks men for sex and engages in romantic discussions with them online.
To me, this fits perfectly with Kinsey’s continuum of human sexuality. Jim is predominantly attracted to men. Like me, Jim may be a five out of six on Kinsey’s scale, indicating that he is almost exclusively attracted to men for sexual relationships, and is only incidentally heterosexual. What is currently known about his relationship history supports this assertion.
Neil, on the other hand, may be a two or a one on the Kinsey scale. He’s had sex with men, and so he obviously finds them sexually attractive at least part of the time. This excludes him from being classified as a zero on the scale, the point for a person who is exclusively heterosexual.
Obviously, then, both men are attracted to both sexes, albeit to different degrees. And they did not choose this for themselves. Most likely, both would have chosen to fall onto the Kinsey scale at the zero point. But both have had to make a choice as to whether to honor their natural tendencies or to suppress them. For Neil, this might simply have been like turning down chocolate for someone who only likes to have it once in a while. Neil’s choice to give up men may have been an easy one.
For Jim, however, his sexual attraction toward men was too strong to deny. He tried for many years because social mores and his own beliefs told him he should, but he was unable to succeed. Jim clearly struggled with his options for a lifetime, and ultimately decided that he could not suppress his innate sexuality.
Both men did choose, based on the sexuality they developed. Neil chose to lead a straight life and Jim chose a gay, albeit closeted and contradictory, one.
Neil and Jim are interesting because they represent voices opposed to societal acceptance of homosexuality despite their own histories. According to Kinsey’s research, they are among the roughly 60% of young men who have a homosexual experience or relationship during their youth. But if only four to six percent of them turn out to be gay, what happens to the rest?
Presumably, most find that gay sex is not as satisfying to them as relationships with women. But that’s no different from discovering that you prefer chocolate over vanilla. The choice is easy if you have a clear preference. But they carry that memory. And in the context of strong social mores against homosexuality, they attribute their experiences and resulting choices to their own strength of character, or to the wisdom and influence of their God.
The rest – those like Jim – make a choice to be less happy. They take vanilla, even though they’d prefer – through no choice of their own - chocolate. Perhaps even if they hate vanilla, they’ll deny themselves the happiness that only chocolate could bring.
The “Yes or No,” “True or False,” “Black or White” crowd would say that I am in essence agreeing with my Christian adversaries, but they’re wrong because the underlying preference for male or female is never a choice. And so the key to my understanding of their perspective is that, statistically, men who claim that being gay is a choice think they know first hand because they themselves have made that same choice. They just never say it. And they don’t disclose their classification on the Kinsey scale, either.
My father occasionally repeats his advice to me when I’m facing a dilemma. “Make the choice that will increase your happiness,” he says. Given that Jim and I are fives on the scale, the choice that will make us happiest is to be with men. We did not choose to be fives, but we did have to choose between acknowledging our nature and suppressing it. To different degrees, we made the choice that increased our happiness.
Anyone who asks someone to reconsider their choice, more than half the time, is asking him or her to make a choice they themselves have already made. One that was either easy for them, or makes them unhappy. And it’s funny how so many of them seem so very unhappy. Makes me think that misery really does love company.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Fixing Marriage Once And For All
Just about everybody seems to agree that marriage is broken. Progressives see it as discriminatory by design, inappropriately regulated by the government, or too limiting to encompass the full spectrum of loving commitment between people. Conservatives see it as plagued by divorce born of temptation and vice, under siege by sinners who wish to disgrace it, and not defended or supported ardently enough by governmental bodies. Just about everybody seems to have an opinion.
One of the key assertions currently being used by conservatives to argue their perspective in the media, courts, and legislatures, is that marriage is a sacred institution designed to create children. That the one man, one woman tradition and federal and state recognition, protections, and responsibilities they wish to have exclusive access to are justified by the Nation’s interest in promoting the rearing of new generations.
Frankly, I don’t have any way to dispute this. But I was raised thinking that marriage was about love, not procreation. As such, I feel that the contemporary function of marriage is to bond with a chosen mate for life more than it is to rear offspring. However, I recognize that the health of economies is tied closely to population growth rates. And so beyond my own personal belief that marriage’s function is for acknowledging love rather than creating a support structure for child rearing, I can’t really argue against conservatives on that particular point.
(Of course, I also think that birth rates in the US might actually go up if marriage were abolished. While the quality of child rearing might also drop, I imagine the value to our economy of a population surge would outweigh any dip in deficits in child upbringing.)
Despite this, I still feel that current marriage laws unfairly discriminate against gays and lesbians. Nowhere in marriage laws does it state that marriage is defined for purposes of raising children. Furthermore, lots of heterosexual couples get married with absolutely no intent of birthing or adopting a single child. Not one. So where’s the equity there? Marriage is for raising children, but people who never intend to have kids can reap the benefits? Aren’t they abusing a loophole in the system, in that case? They’re taking advantage of benefits designed to support those raising children without contributing to society as expected, and this puts an undue burden on legitimately married people, singles, and couples that cannot be married.
My thinking on this matter has brought me to the point at which I feel I can propose a reasonable solution:
Marriage is defined as a union of no more than two persons who are primarily responsible for the rearing of at least one child, for the duration that children are dependent, and no longer. All marriages performed prior to the conception, adoption, or other acquisition of a child for rearing are void. All marriages persisting past the termination of child dependency are also terminated. This law is retroactively effective on all current marriages one year from its passage and all those henceforth.
That may be harsh but it’s totally fair. If marriage and all benefits of marriage are for the purpose of raising children, then this protects all couples raising children, regardless of whom they are, for the duration of the dependency of the children. This means that both John and Mary and John and Mark can get married if they’re raising a child, and they are assured of all the protections of marriage for the duration of their parenting.
And yes, this means that both couples’ marriages terminate when the bouncing babies grow up (unless they’re dependent for life due to various factors) or die. Remember, the benefits of marriage are there for supporting the rearing of children. Love alone is not justification for government benefits, and 18 years worth of tax breaks, hiring preferences, and special treatment aught to be enough reward. Thank you for your service, Parents, but your service is complete.
Not only does this ensure that marriage is conferred only on those who really need it, it prevents the abuses of the system that are currently rampant. Childless couples – even those who are infertile through no fault of their own, unfortunately – do not deserve the assistance of the government that couples with children have earned.
Of course, we could always set up civil unions for childless couples, but those would be mostly for feel-good purposes and the assignment of power of attorney in medical and financial matters associated with death or disability. Childless couples don’t deserve any more protection than that, and they shouldn’t have it.
Unless, of course, everybody can get in on the action.
One of the key assertions currently being used by conservatives to argue their perspective in the media, courts, and legislatures, is that marriage is a sacred institution designed to create children. That the one man, one woman tradition and federal and state recognition, protections, and responsibilities they wish to have exclusive access to are justified by the Nation’s interest in promoting the rearing of new generations.
Frankly, I don’t have any way to dispute this. But I was raised thinking that marriage was about love, not procreation. As such, I feel that the contemporary function of marriage is to bond with a chosen mate for life more than it is to rear offspring. However, I recognize that the health of economies is tied closely to population growth rates. And so beyond my own personal belief that marriage’s function is for acknowledging love rather than creating a support structure for child rearing, I can’t really argue against conservatives on that particular point.
(Of course, I also think that birth rates in the US might actually go up if marriage were abolished. While the quality of child rearing might also drop, I imagine the value to our economy of a population surge would outweigh any dip in deficits in child upbringing.)
Despite this, I still feel that current marriage laws unfairly discriminate against gays and lesbians. Nowhere in marriage laws does it state that marriage is defined for purposes of raising children. Furthermore, lots of heterosexual couples get married with absolutely no intent of birthing or adopting a single child. Not one. So where’s the equity there? Marriage is for raising children, but people who never intend to have kids can reap the benefits? Aren’t they abusing a loophole in the system, in that case? They’re taking advantage of benefits designed to support those raising children without contributing to society as expected, and this puts an undue burden on legitimately married people, singles, and couples that cannot be married.
My thinking on this matter has brought me to the point at which I feel I can propose a reasonable solution:
Marriage is defined as a union of no more than two persons who are primarily responsible for the rearing of at least one child, for the duration that children are dependent, and no longer. All marriages performed prior to the conception, adoption, or other acquisition of a child for rearing are void. All marriages persisting past the termination of child dependency are also terminated. This law is retroactively effective on all current marriages one year from its passage and all those henceforth.
That may be harsh but it’s totally fair. If marriage and all benefits of marriage are for the purpose of raising children, then this protects all couples raising children, regardless of whom they are, for the duration of the dependency of the children. This means that both John and Mary and John and Mark can get married if they’re raising a child, and they are assured of all the protections of marriage for the duration of their parenting.
And yes, this means that both couples’ marriages terminate when the bouncing babies grow up (unless they’re dependent for life due to various factors) or die. Remember, the benefits of marriage are there for supporting the rearing of children. Love alone is not justification for government benefits, and 18 years worth of tax breaks, hiring preferences, and special treatment aught to be enough reward. Thank you for your service, Parents, but your service is complete.
Not only does this ensure that marriage is conferred only on those who really need it, it prevents the abuses of the system that are currently rampant. Childless couples – even those who are infertile through no fault of their own, unfortunately – do not deserve the assistance of the government that couples with children have earned.
Of course, we could always set up civil unions for childless couples, but those would be mostly for feel-good purposes and the assignment of power of attorney in medical and financial matters associated with death or disability. Childless couples don’t deserve any more protection than that, and they shouldn’t have it.
Unless, of course, everybody can get in on the action.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Enforcing Religious Pluralism
I’m all for Freedom Of Religion. Truly. It seems to me that if I want to be a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Scientologist, Atheist, or Christian, that I should be able to do so freely, and without restraint. I should not be punished for my beliefs, and I should not be forced to suffer discrimination by governmental agencies that prefer a particular belief structure over the one I hold.
This is pretty simple, I think. Freedom of religion is about honoring all beliefs that we variously call religion, spirituality, or lack thereof. It’s about respecting every individual’s means of explaining their existence in terms of that great Other and answering those questions about Why and How.
It baffles me that some people don’t understand this respect, and feel that their particular set of beliefs should be enshrined in law and displayed everywhere in public at the expense of others. This strikes me as being an example of lessons from childhood that were not well learned.
Sharing, see, is important. Not just in pre-school, and not just on the playground. We teach children how to share because sharing is vital to the operation and survival of communities. Without individuals who can share, communities become conflicted and fail.
Separations of church and state as well as freedom of religion are about equal access and freedom to practice our religion, even if that religion is complete rejection of everything outside of our corporeal existence. But the concept of separation of church and state enforces that freedom by acknowledging that there are many religions, and that they cannot all be reasonably represented everywhere. As a result, all religion is banned from promotion via public funds because to promote one religion would be unfair to those who practice any other. It’s a tactic that has angered a lot of Christians for decades.
It wouldn’t have to be that way, of course. But for it to work, individuals and communities would have to be willing to share their space, time, and resources with others who may not practice their particular canon. And that sharing works both ways, because in some places in this country, Christians are the minority, not the majority. Freedom of religion is a concept created to allow them to practice without discrimination or fear.
When the Alabama Supreme Court forced a judge to take down a tablet of the Ten Commandments from public property, there was an incredible uproar. During that time, I watched a video of a man completely overcome, yelling and screaming, “Put it back! Put it back” till he could hardly stand.
I remember watching the video, listening to him repeat himself over and over, and thinking to myself, “Poor guy.” The man was so overwrought that even his fellow protesters were asking him to calm down, but he was so aggrieved as to be inconsolable. He swayed on his feet like he was about to lose consciousness due to blood loss.
But I would not have put the tablets back. However, I would have offered to share. All I ask is for equal representation. Indeed, if the Ten Commandments belong on public property, so do the guiding principles of every single faith in the country. So had I been in a position to bargain with the man who was overcome by the loss of the Ten Commandments, I would have proposed the following rule:
When concepts of faith, religion, or spirituality of any sort are described, displayed, taught, or are otherwise made available using Federal, State, or other public funds, equal representation of all other faiths practiced within the community serviced by the entity must also be present, in an order determined by audited, witnessed lottery.
In addition, entities that engage in any faith-related activities using public funds must publicly designate and maintain personnel responsible for support of faith presentation, and these personnel must be readily available to accept public input. If any two individuals residing within the community (regardless of relation) request the addition of the guiding principles of their belief system, the entity must make all accommodations necessary to complete equal presentation of the requestors’ faith within one calendar year of the written request’s submission.
Entities must fund adjustments to faith presentations through their own budgets, and are authorized to request voter-approved taxation, including taxation of community churches, to support the maintenance of religious presentation.
For the purpose of ensuring fairness in faith representation, the Federal Government will establish the National Bureau Of Equitable Religion And Faith Presentation and will designate personnel in all postal offices who will accept public comment for oversight of local faith presentation. The Bureau will act in an administrative function to support the direction of community complaints to the National Faith Presentation Review Court, comprised of a single representative of each major religion and faith nationwide. Funding for this Bureau will be provided by a national sales tax on items of religious or spiritual nature. This tax will be implemented and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.
Complaints regarding unequal representation of community beliefs may be submitted jointly or separately by any two individuals within the community (regardless of relation). Entities that fail to provide equal representation of faith in placement, content, and accessibility in the judgment of the Court are required to remove all representation within three months of a guilty verdict. No exceptions are made for space, time, or funding constraints. All entities that fail to comply will be subject to withdrawal of federal funds during the following quarter, Bureau intervention and subsequent presentation removal, or both.
I doubt that the man screaming to Put It Back would have agreed to my compromise. But it would address many issues with the current situation. Yes, it would eliminate some of the aspects of the separation of church and state, but it would encourage the celebration of freedom of religion, rather than prohibiting religious expression altogether. In addition, it would clarify that Atheism, so derided as “freedom from religion” is also a fully valid religion, too. Whether they were the majority or minority, every religion with unique practices could be ensured equal time and validation in schools, parks, public buildings, and any public venue that used public resources to discuss faith. Furthermore, funding for all of this is borne by the religious community as a whole, sharing the burden of protecting freedom of religion equally.
If my proposal is adopted, Christian beliefs can be placed on display in courts, schools, and agencies of all types and Christians can know that their beliefs are protected and guaranteed fair representation, just like Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist, Rajneesh, and Satanic principles are. When this proposal is implemented, separation of church and state, while still important for legislative matters, will no longer impose limits upon the public display and practice of faith in America.
This is pretty simple, I think. Freedom of religion is about honoring all beliefs that we variously call religion, spirituality, or lack thereof. It’s about respecting every individual’s means of explaining their existence in terms of that great Other and answering those questions about Why and How.
It baffles me that some people don’t understand this respect, and feel that their particular set of beliefs should be enshrined in law and displayed everywhere in public at the expense of others. This strikes me as being an example of lessons from childhood that were not well learned.
Sharing, see, is important. Not just in pre-school, and not just on the playground. We teach children how to share because sharing is vital to the operation and survival of communities. Without individuals who can share, communities become conflicted and fail.
Separations of church and state as well as freedom of religion are about equal access and freedom to practice our religion, even if that religion is complete rejection of everything outside of our corporeal existence. But the concept of separation of church and state enforces that freedom by acknowledging that there are many religions, and that they cannot all be reasonably represented everywhere. As a result, all religion is banned from promotion via public funds because to promote one religion would be unfair to those who practice any other. It’s a tactic that has angered a lot of Christians for decades.
It wouldn’t have to be that way, of course. But for it to work, individuals and communities would have to be willing to share their space, time, and resources with others who may not practice their particular canon. And that sharing works both ways, because in some places in this country, Christians are the minority, not the majority. Freedom of religion is a concept created to allow them to practice without discrimination or fear.
When the Alabama Supreme Court forced a judge to take down a tablet of the Ten Commandments from public property, there was an incredible uproar. During that time, I watched a video of a man completely overcome, yelling and screaming, “Put it back! Put it back” till he could hardly stand.
I remember watching the video, listening to him repeat himself over and over, and thinking to myself, “Poor guy.” The man was so overwrought that even his fellow protesters were asking him to calm down, but he was so aggrieved as to be inconsolable. He swayed on his feet like he was about to lose consciousness due to blood loss.
But I would not have put the tablets back. However, I would have offered to share. All I ask is for equal representation. Indeed, if the Ten Commandments belong on public property, so do the guiding principles of every single faith in the country. So had I been in a position to bargain with the man who was overcome by the loss of the Ten Commandments, I would have proposed the following rule:
When concepts of faith, religion, or spirituality of any sort are described, displayed, taught, or are otherwise made available using Federal, State, or other public funds, equal representation of all other faiths practiced within the community serviced by the entity must also be present, in an order determined by audited, witnessed lottery.
In addition, entities that engage in any faith-related activities using public funds must publicly designate and maintain personnel responsible for support of faith presentation, and these personnel must be readily available to accept public input. If any two individuals residing within the community (regardless of relation) request the addition of the guiding principles of their belief system, the entity must make all accommodations necessary to complete equal presentation of the requestors’ faith within one calendar year of the written request’s submission.
Entities must fund adjustments to faith presentations through their own budgets, and are authorized to request voter-approved taxation, including taxation of community churches, to support the maintenance of religious presentation.
For the purpose of ensuring fairness in faith representation, the Federal Government will establish the National Bureau Of Equitable Religion And Faith Presentation and will designate personnel in all postal offices who will accept public comment for oversight of local faith presentation. The Bureau will act in an administrative function to support the direction of community complaints to the National Faith Presentation Review Court, comprised of a single representative of each major religion and faith nationwide. Funding for this Bureau will be provided by a national sales tax on items of religious or spiritual nature. This tax will be implemented and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.
Complaints regarding unequal representation of community beliefs may be submitted jointly or separately by any two individuals within the community (regardless of relation). Entities that fail to provide equal representation of faith in placement, content, and accessibility in the judgment of the Court are required to remove all representation within three months of a guilty verdict. No exceptions are made for space, time, or funding constraints. All entities that fail to comply will be subject to withdrawal of federal funds during the following quarter, Bureau intervention and subsequent presentation removal, or both.
I doubt that the man screaming to Put It Back would have agreed to my compromise. But it would address many issues with the current situation. Yes, it would eliminate some of the aspects of the separation of church and state, but it would encourage the celebration of freedom of religion, rather than prohibiting religious expression altogether. In addition, it would clarify that Atheism, so derided as “freedom from religion” is also a fully valid religion, too. Whether they were the majority or minority, every religion with unique practices could be ensured equal time and validation in schools, parks, public buildings, and any public venue that used public resources to discuss faith. Furthermore, funding for all of this is borne by the religious community as a whole, sharing the burden of protecting freedom of religion equally.
If my proposal is adopted, Christian beliefs can be placed on display in courts, schools, and agencies of all types and Christians can know that their beliefs are protected and guaranteed fair representation, just like Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist, Rajneesh, and Satanic principles are. When this proposal is implemented, separation of church and state, while still important for legislative matters, will no longer impose limits upon the public display and practice of faith in America.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Repeat Offenders
One of the peculiar things about being a haole here in Hawai`i is that I am a foreigner. Frankly, most people here are, but it's only a few generations ago this island really did belong to the Hawai`ian people who arrived thousands of years ago. They had their own language and culture, and it was wonderful, unique, beautiful, and even cruel.
But of course, the white men took it. We take a lot of things. Like North America, or South Africa, or Hong Kong. We're conquerors. It's nothing personal, it's just how we are. Everybody else does it too, we've just historically been the best at it. And besides, if the Polynesian people who live here now didn't speak English, they'd be speaking Japanese, right?
You know what? None of that makes it OK. Really, it doesn't. Saying "Oh, well, somebody else would have done it if we hadn't" doesn't make the Trail of Tears OK, and it doesn't make the overthrow of Lili`u`okalani all better, either.
Head Chef and I and a cadre of other haole friends had the (oddly) rare occasion to hang out with a man the other night who is half Samoan and half Hawai`ian, and he was a beautiful, gentle person who embodied Aloha. He blessed us in the ocean, and told us not to worry about the Hawai`ian people, as they'd be just fine.
And of course, he's right. Hawai`ian blood may be diluted now, and the culture may have gone through astonishingly rapid change over the past one hundred years, but the people are still here. Still here, in the form of men like him, gently or even sometimes not-so-gently reminding us that we're blessed to be here, but that they were here first. And letting us feel welcome anyway.
But of course, the white men took it. We take a lot of things. Like North America, or South Africa, or Hong Kong. We're conquerors. It's nothing personal, it's just how we are. Everybody else does it too, we've just historically been the best at it. And besides, if the Polynesian people who live here now didn't speak English, they'd be speaking Japanese, right?
You know what? None of that makes it OK. Really, it doesn't. Saying "Oh, well, somebody else would have done it if we hadn't" doesn't make the Trail of Tears OK, and it doesn't make the overthrow of Lili`u`okalani all better, either.
Head Chef and I and a cadre of other haole friends had the (oddly) rare occasion to hang out with a man the other night who is half Samoan and half Hawai`ian, and he was a beautiful, gentle person who embodied Aloha. He blessed us in the ocean, and told us not to worry about the Hawai`ian people, as they'd be just fine.
And of course, he's right. Hawai`ian blood may be diluted now, and the culture may have gone through astonishingly rapid change over the past one hundred years, but the people are still here. Still here, in the form of men like him, gently or even sometimes not-so-gently reminding us that we're blessed to be here, but that they were here first. And letting us feel welcome anyway.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
No Votes For Renters
It's an interesting experience being the target of the President’s Hate Of The Union Address. It gives me a sick feeling and makes me angry - it makes me doubt the greatness of this country, and drapes everything else the USA does in shades of selfishness and harm. I don’t feel like a threat to the nation, and I don’t see how my would-be-husband is a threat, either. And so I can’t understand how our successful, loving relationship is worthy of changing the Constitution to discriminate against us, unless that action is based solely on hate, greed, and, fear.
I guess I shouldn’t feel too singled out or shocked about it – arguably less despotic men than George Bush still engage in genocidal binges from time to time, and black men are still lynched in the South. But it still hurts, knowing that I am so hated by so much of America that while the rest of the world acknowledges my human rights, this country’s President can get away with pedaling discrimination in front of Congress. I can’t imagine another scenario in which Bush could advocate for blatant hate-based discrimination without facing immediate impeachment.
I mean, really, can you imagine if he’d said that the nation needs to revoke inheritance rights for widows, or voting rights for people who don’t own land? Or that Latinos should be denied access to public education? He’d be immediately censured by Congress and demanded to resign. He would go down in history as a horrible embarrassment and an example of what to never, ever do. But stand up in front of television cameras and say that my partner and I don’t deserve the same rights as widows, renters, and Latinos, and that’s just fine. That’s just public discourse.
I realize it’s a rallying cry and something that the Republicans are using to “energize their base,” but if it is successful, it also heralds the end of the great American experiment. The President’s Amendment, not two men building a stable home and a loving family together, is the single greatest threat to what it means to be the United States of America, and what it means to say “I am an American.” Because if he is successful, it will mean that America is no longer the beacon of freedom.
And you’d think someone who invokes freedom so much would realize that.
I guess I shouldn’t feel too singled out or shocked about it – arguably less despotic men than George Bush still engage in genocidal binges from time to time, and black men are still lynched in the South. But it still hurts, knowing that I am so hated by so much of America that while the rest of the world acknowledges my human rights, this country’s President can get away with pedaling discrimination in front of Congress. I can’t imagine another scenario in which Bush could advocate for blatant hate-based discrimination without facing immediate impeachment.
I mean, really, can you imagine if he’d said that the nation needs to revoke inheritance rights for widows, or voting rights for people who don’t own land? Or that Latinos should be denied access to public education? He’d be immediately censured by Congress and demanded to resign. He would go down in history as a horrible embarrassment and an example of what to never, ever do. But stand up in front of television cameras and say that my partner and I don’t deserve the same rights as widows, renters, and Latinos, and that’s just fine. That’s just public discourse.
I realize it’s a rallying cry and something that the Republicans are using to “energize their base,” but if it is successful, it also heralds the end of the great American experiment. The President’s Amendment, not two men building a stable home and a loving family together, is the single greatest threat to what it means to be the United States of America, and what it means to say “I am an American.” Because if he is successful, it will mean that America is no longer the beacon of freedom.
And you’d think someone who invokes freedom so much would realize that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)