Thursday, February 28, 2013

Random Musings

Well, my brief stint at Jury Duty ended earlier today. A lovely case of assault at a wedding reception AKA Just another day in South Carolina.
I'm just thankful no one was shot.
I love those Jacksons; they’re a wacky bunch. Remember when Janet got married, only we didn’t know she was married until she filed for divorce? Yeah, well, she’s kinda done that again, by getting married last year to some entrepreneurial kinda guy.
Why so secretive Janet? Is it about Control? Who knows? Still, she doesn’t take the Crazy Jackson Antics Award this time. No, this time it goes to Jermaine.
He has legally changed his name from Jermaine Jackson to Jermaine Jacksun. I know! From now on, remember to pronounce it correctly: it’s not Jackson it’s Jacksun.  Subtle, no?
A court commissioner signed off on the 58-year-old singer’s petition today, officially making him Jermaine LaJuane Jacksun. Still, Mister Jacksun has no official comment, but a spokesman said, way back when Jackson filed in November to change his name that it was a “personal choice” and “not a big deal.”
Well, that’s true; changing none’s name is a personal choice and it’s no big deal because, well, Jermaine Jackson and Jermaine Jacksun are over.
Inching closer and closer, the Illinois House Executive Committee tonight advanced SB-10, or the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, or as I call it, the It's About Time Act, passed by the Senate last week, in a 6-5 vote.
The bill now proceeds to the full House, and if passed, Governor Pat Quinn has said he will sign it.
Get it done, please. Let's keep those equality states growing.
Madge has got a brand new, um, face. See, that's Old Madonna, there on the left, and Madonna With A New Look, AKA Lifted, Tucked, Botoxed, Peeled, and Filled, on the right.
How does she stay so young?
Aalaya Walker, an 18-year-old Florida woman, is lucky to be alive this week after her friend’s stove went on a shooting rampage inside her home.
See, Walker was visiting JJ Sandy, a friend, in St. Petersburg when they decided they wanted some late-night waffles. Walker began preheating the oven—unaware that Sandy was storing a magazine from his .45-caliber Glock 21 inside.
The magazine exploded, spraying casing fragments at high speed and striking Walker. She managed to pick some of the fragments out of her leg and chest and then took a bus to the hospital, where she was treated and released.
It’s like I’ve been saying for years, ‘Guns don’t kill people. Ovens kill people.’
So, season three of American Horror Story, right?

Something witchy this way comes, and it's bringing back the fabulous Jessica Lange!
And now we get the news that none other than Kathy Bates [Misery] will be on board.
Seriously. Bates'n'Lange.
It doesn't get much better.
Those wacky One Million Moms are at it again.
The group—with numbers about 950,000 shy of a million—are targeting Geico for its latest commercial that features a talking pig.
Now, the OMM aren’t against talking pigs, per se, but are annoyed by this particular Porcine Orator.  See, in the Geico commercial, the pig and his female, human, date are parked on Lover’s Lane and that’s what has the OMM’s Granny Pants in a twist.
See, they think that the talking pig and the human girl date are promoting bestially, and have released a statement:
Geico has succeeded in offending its customers with this inappropriate advertisement. One Million Moms has received numerous complaints because Geico's new commercial plays with the idea of bestiality. Parents find this type of advertising repulsive and unnecessary. Airing a commercial with an animal in it will surely grab children's attention, but this is a horrible commercial for families to see. Geico does not have our children's best interest in mind. The Geico Marketing Team may have thought this would be humorous, but it is disgusting to see how the company takes lightly the act of bestiality. Let Geico know their new ad is irresponsible.
I wonder how many of these kids even knew what bestiality was before the OMM took their crazy public?
Tweet of the Week!

Parents Challenge School To Let Their Transgender 6-Year-Old Use Appropriate Bathroom

As we begin our jury deliberations this morning--yes, I am still on the doody--here's a little something directly from ThinkProgress LGBT:
Coy Mathis is six-years-old, and she's transgender. 

Biologically born male, she began asking her parents at a very young age when the doctors would make her the girl she was supposed to be, and, instead of going all crazy on their, at the time, son, Coy's parents began the process of letting their child live her correct life. They asked the school to use female pronouns when talking about Coy; her clothes became decidedly feminine, and, wonder of wonders, Coy Mathis changed from being a surly depressed child, into a fun-loving, out-going, happy little girl.

And, until December 2012, she was allowed to use the girls’ bathrooms at her elementary school in Fountain, Colorado. The administrators then informed her parents that she would be required to use the boys’ bathroom, a staff bathroom, or the nurse’s bathroom. 

The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) urged the school to reconsider, but the school refused, so now the group has filed a complaint on Coy’s behalf with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. This complaint will be the first test of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which includes protections based on gender identity. Other Colorado school districts, like Boulder Valley Schools, have already crafted policies guaranteeing “students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity consistently asserted at school.” 

Here, though, is how district officials at Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8 justified discriminating against Coy’s gender identity:
The District’s decision took into account not only Coy but other students in the building, their parents, and the future impact a boy with male genitals using a girls’ bathroom would have as Coy grew older. The reason it has not apparently been an “issue” to date is that fellow students and even the other teachers in the building are not aware that Coy is a male and at his young age, he may appear to be a female. In addition, when he was in kindergarten last year, the restroom facilities were gender-neutral, as opposed to the restrooms used by elementary school students.
I’m certain you can appreciate that as Coy grows older and his* male genitals develop along with the rest of his body, at least some parents and students are likely to become uncomfortable with his continued use of the girls’ restroom, and that it would be far more psychologically damaging and disruptive for the issue at an age when students deal with lots of social issues.
The lawyer who penned the letter clarified in a footnote that male pronouns were used “not in an attempt to be disrespectful, but because I am referring to male genitals.” 

But, of course, it is disrespectful, because Coy’s gender is not determined by her genitals—she is not a “boy with male genitals,” but a girl whose genitals are irrelevant—which is exactly the point of this entire issue. 

The state’s protections are determined by gender identity, not genitalia. Focusing solely on an individual’s anatomy is one of the biggest obstacles to respecting trans people as whole individuals, and it’s clearly the obstacle in this case.

Coy’s parents are currently homeschooling her until this situation is resolved.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Architecture Wednesday: The Edgemoor Residence

So, after last week's lush house in Thailand, I decided I needed a little something more suburban, and I stumbled upon the Edgemoor Residence, located in a post-war neighborhood of Bethesda, Maryland. The designer sought to create a home that satisfies modern tastes without clashing with its, um, older neighbors.
And I think it looks like the best of both worlds.
The original corner-lot house was torn down to its foundation and first floor deck, and then rebuilt on the existing foundation walls. The gable roof forms mimic the more traditional houses within the neighborhood.
The house combines the idea of an old stone cottage, with a more modern facade and enormous windows. The cast limestone brise-soleil, a sun-shading structure, recalls the scale of front porches found on the nearby houses and marks the axis of the entry, which acts as both a gallery--running the length of the house--and a way to divide the home into the kitchen-dining room along one side, and the guest room-family room on the other.
volume; the entry ends at the double-height master suite volume. A stairway overlooking the family room leads up to a catwalk between the guest rooms and a bridge to the media room.
The Edgemoor Residence really does create a bridge between the old homes in the neighborhood and the new homes to come, both inside and out.
It's suburban, but it ain't your Mama's house.


The All Occasion Party Place Hates The Gays

Ben Allen and Justin Hudgins are getting married, and planning a lovely wedding; the flowers, decorations, food. All was going well until Allen called one venue—the All Occasion Party Place near Fort Worth—and got the Gay Smackdown when he said he was marrying a man.
“She immediately responded with, ‘Well, no, I don’t do that,’ and that was just the end of that. It felt like somebody had just hit me in the face.”--Ben Allen
Allen and Hudgins were told both by phone and via e-mail that the All Occasion Party Place won’t serve gays.
“It is because of God that I will not be a part in your reception, and I know he loves you, but not what you are doing. I simply said I can not rent to you which is also my right.”—Robin Hearne, an All Occasion Party Place employee, via e-mail
I can totally get it; you don’t believe in same-sex marriage. Then don’t run any kind of business that might cater to same-sex couples wanting to get married. If the All Occasion Party Place had said they don’t rent to Jews, we’d all be pissed off; if they didn’t rent to Blacks, there would be outrage. But some folks think that if they toss around their religious beliefs they can get away with discrimination. And they can’t. Well, except that it’s a venue in Texas, where, unlike race or religion, state laws don’t consider sexual orientation a protected class.

The Gays may not be considered a protected class at the state level, but cities and towns, even in Texas, have been passing their own discrimination laws to protect The Gays from places like the All Occasion Party Place—which should change their name to the Some Occasions, But Not The Gay Occasion, Party Place.

Fort Worth has been one of those cities in Texas that have expanded their laws to not only forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, but also the more loosely-defined terms of gender identity and gender expression; the law applies to many groups of people and protects them from discrimination whether they are an employee or a customer. Sadly, though, the All Occasion Party Place sits just outside Fort Worth’s city limits, so they can be hateful and bigoted and homophobic and, well wrong.

“There’s nothing illegal about it,” said Peter Schulte, a Dallas attorney who has handled gay rights cases, but is not working on this one. “If a restaurant puts out a sign that says, ‘We’re not going to accept gays and lesbians,’ then they can do that.”

And I think they should. Please, please, please, all you bigots and homophobes and Bible thumping wingnuts who run businesses, please post signs saying No Queers Allowed, or Fags Stay Out. I want people to know you discriminate; and I want people who find discrimination of any kind to find your business, like the All Occasion Party Place, to be a disgusting business and not worthy of patronage from anyone. You don’t want The Gays, or, apparently, in this economy, the Gay’s Money? Good; then be prepared to have other folks decide they don’t want to give their Straight Dollars either.

In the end, the All Occasion Party Place has trampled on what could have been a happy occasion for a couple, and have denied yourself income because you found a passage or two in the Bible that says it’s okay to act like complete asshats to other people.
“We’re just people. We’re not a gay couple... we’re a couple that loves each other.”--Justin Hudgins
And that should be worth having a party.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Mississippi Newspaper Defends Same-Sex Marriage Cover Story

Last week there was the story that, after nearly 150 years, the state of Mississippi finally ratified the 13th Amendment, the one that abolished slavery. Yeah, that’s Mississippi, so behind the times, except ….

The Laurel Leader-Call, a newspaper in rural Mississippi recently published a story called ‘Historic Wedding: Women Wed In Laurel Through Smiles, Tears’ about the wedding of Jessica Powell and Crystal Craven.

No, that wasn’t a misprint; a rural newspaper in Mississippi published a story about a same-sex wedding ceremony. And then, when the proverbial sh*t hit the fan, and the ugly letters began pouring in, spouting their hateful comments about The Gays and The Sanctity of Marriage, the newspaper didn’t back down, and instead defended its decision to run the story.

Jim Cegielski, the paper's owner, wrote an editorial about the story, his decision to run it, and the backlash, saying in part, "We shouldn't have to defend every decision we make here at the Leader-Call. However, the intense reaction to our gay wedding front-page story, which led to a deluge of hate calls, letters, e-mails, Facebook posts, soundoffs and random cross stares thrown in my direction, warrants some sort of response. So here it is."

Cegielski continued:
We were well aware that the majority of people in Jones County are not in favor of gay marriage. However, any decent newspaper with a backbone can not base decisions on whether to cover a story based on whether the story will make people angry.
The job of a community newspaper is not pretending something didn't take place or ignoring it because it will upset people. No, our job is to inform readers what is going on in our town and let them make their own judgments. That is exactly what we did with the wedding story. Our reporter heard about the wedding, attended it, interviewed some of the participants and wrote a news story. If there had been protestors at the wedding, we would have covered that the exact same way … but there weren't any. We never said it was a good thing or a bad thing, we simply did our job by telling people what took place.
I took the bulk of the irate phone calls from people who called the paper to complain. Most of the complaints seem to revolve around the headline, "Historic Wedding," and the fact that we chose to put the story on the front page. My answer to the "Historic Wedding" headline is pretty simple. You don't have like something for it to be historic.
The holocaust, bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Black Sox scandal are all historic. I'm in no way comparing the downtown wedding of two females to any of those events (even though some of you made it quite clear that you think gay marriage is much worse).
We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children.
I had at least 20 or so readers express to me they think gay marriage is "an abomination against God." We never said it wasn't. We never said it was.
We were simply reporting to the best of our ability. However, I can't help but be saddened by the hate-filled viciousness of many of the comments directed toward our staff … No one here deserves to be berated or yelled at simply because we were doing our job.
Fifteen readers canceled their subscriptions in protest, according to Cegielski.

But Cegielski stood strong, reporting a story about same-sex marriage; in Mississippi.
And, as someone who was born there, I couldn’t be more proud.

Hey Kansas? Wha' Happened To You?

I mean, you went all equality and stuff when I had my back turned.

It seems that just last week the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the non-biological mother of children in a same-sex relationship is entitled to the same parental rights as the biological mother.

In Kansas … Take a moment and let that sink in.

The ruling involved the case of Kelly Goudschaal and Marci Frazier, whose long-term relationship deteriorated after they had become parents of two girls who are now 10 and 8; the girls were conceived by artificial insemination and carried by Goudschaal.

The women had a co-parenting agreement that stated Frazier’s “relationship with the children should be protected and promoted,” and that they intended “to jointly and equally share parental responsibility,” but after they separated, Goudschaal began to limit Frazier’s visitations and then moved with the children to Texas.

Frazier sued to have the parenting agreement enforced, and after a trial, Johnson County District Judge Kevin Moriarty found that joint custody was “in the best interests of the children.”

And, while Goudschaal was granted residential custody, Frazier was granted “reasonable parenting time” and will pay monthly child support.

The sad part of this is that Goudschaal, in her counterclaim argued that the parenting agreement was unenforceable under Kansas law: I say sad, because she was in a committed same-sex relationship, in which both women wanted children, and agreed to a co-parenting agreement, but the minute it was over, Goudschaal decides the agreement isn’t enforceable. Not playing nice.

Then Goudschaal said the courts had no authority to address issues of child custody, parenting time and support unless they were presented “in a divorce action involving two married persons, who would necessarily have to be a man and a woman in this state, or when considering a visitation request by a grandparent or stepparent.”

So, she originally had a same-sex partnership, with children, but then comes out and says because she’s gay the courts cannot decide child custody. Luckily, for the children, and for the rights of all same-sex couples with children, Frazier argued that the best interests of the child should outweigh the need to “strictly adhere to the biological connection.”
And the court seemed to agree:
“We have declared that the public policy in Kansas requires our courts to act in the best interests of the children when determining the legal obligations to be imposed and the rights to be conferred in the mother and child relationship.”
The court added that, in its opinion, Goudschaal wanted to renege on the co-parenting agreement without regard to the rights of or harm to the children, all in the name of constitutionally protected parental rights. And, if they decided to void the co-parenting agreement they would be denying the children the opportunity to have two parents as children in a traditional marriage would have.

I say, for one thing, shame on Kelly Goudschaal for trying to circumvent the agreement she signed by using the fact that, as a gay woman, she cannot legally marry, so therefore her partner, who had been in their children’s lives from birth, would suddenly be unknown to them.

And, I say Bravo to the Kansas Supreme Court for deciding to do what’s best for the children, best for the co-parents, and best for equality.

In Kansas.

Take another moment to let that sink in.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Oscar: A Few Highs to Some Mighty Lows

Okay, so the Gay Superbowl, AKA The Oscars has come and gone for another year and, well, I was less than impressed. The host wasn't much, the musical numbers, for the most part, were ho hum, and I kinda knew who would win and what they might say--except DDL and JLaw--before the show ever aired.
So, I'll give it Highs, and Lows, and some Medium Highs and Lows.
Let's rip....

High: Jennifer Hudson blowing the roof off the joint singing 'And I Am Telling You.' That's how it's done.
Medium High: Adele singing Skyfall all cool and slinky. And then being totally Adele-able when she won.
Medium: Dame Shirley Bassey and Goldfin-guh
Medium Low: Barbra Streisand, looking like she found her outfit during a garage sale at Cher's place, and not being in great voice.
Low: Catherine Zeta-Jones strutting around the stage, still riding the I Won An Oscar Train, and looking like she left her walker backstage.

High: Seth MacFarlane's Sock Puppet Flight.
Medium High: Seth MacFarlane and Sally Field.
Medium: Seth MacFarlane dancing with Joseph Gordon-Leavitt and Daniel Radcliffe. Points for JGL cuteness.
Low: Seth MacFarlane dancing with Channing Tatum and Charlize Theron. I had kinda hoped Channing would do a Magic Mike for us, but, alas .....

High: Daniel Day-Lewis' touching, humble, grateful, funny speech as best Actor. I would'a paid to see his Thatcher and I would'a paid to see Streep's Lincoln. Plus, he made history, being the first male to win Best Actor three times; for My Left Foot, There Will Be Blood, and Lincoln.
Medium: Jennifer Lawrence's acceptance speech for Best Actress. She's usually more irreverent, but maybe that trip on the stairs knocked the spunk out of her. "You guys are just standing up because you feel bad that I fell and that's embarrassing," Lawrence said to the standing ovation she received.
Low: Anne Hathway's mock surprise at winning. It's been a couple of months where everyone was saying she would win, so why the look of surprise. Next time just give us a 'Yeah, I got this' saunter up onstage, take the award, and go.

High: Jane Fonda, sleek and hot at seventy-something.
Medium: Jennifer Aniston looking like, well, Jennifer Aniston always looks. It's the Oscars, try something new!
Low: Kristen Stewart, looking like she'd just rolled out of bed and come to the show. It's the Oscars, bitch. Would it kill you to run a comb trough your hair and smile? I know, she had a sore ankle and was limping all over the place, but I heard it was because she'd fallen off her latest director.

High: Paul Epworth, co-winner with Adele for 'Skyfall,' looking cool and British and sexy.
Medium: Christoph Waltz, going nerdy sexy.
Low: Quentin  Tarantino, looking like he slept under his seat, accepting his Oscar. I get tired of him playing like he's the anti-Hollywood type when he's so plainly got his lips firmly pressed to Hollywood's ass.

High: Ben Affleck's speech. I am not an Affleck fan, but I thought his speech was touching. "I never thought I'd be back here .... It doesn't matter how you get knocked down in life, 'cause that's gonna happen. All that matters is you gotta get up."
Medium High The shade Rene Zellwegger was throwing at Zeta-Jones.
Medium Low: Some of those tech awards, with the guys with the heavy metal hair, who went on and on .... stop already.
Low: The appearance of John Travolta, free from any more groping accusations, for now, in an old Steven Seagal hairpiece with the pony tail chopped off.

High: Because I’m irreverent, this MacFarlane joke had me all giggling: “I would argue that the actor who really got inside Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth ... Too soon, huh? 150-years and it's still too soon?
Medium: Seth MacFarlane, the singer. While he has a nice voice, very 50s Sinatra lounge singer, his closing song, about the losers, seemed kinda wrong, even with Kristen Chenoweth.
Medium Low: Seth MacFarlane, the host; some jokes were good, while others fell flat. I cannot imagine he'll be asked back, though he did do one amazing thing that even Amy and Tina couldn't do at the Globes: he made Tommy Lee Jones smile!
Low: Channing Tatum and Jennifer Aniston honor, and I quote, "our incredible unsung heroes" which I thought meant the In Memoriam Death Parade, but they were talking about the heroes of the costume variety ilk. Heroes? Really?
Really Low: The playing of the Jaws theme if any winner overstayed their welcome at the podium. While I do like ‘em to get up, say thanks and get off, this was really rude, and not at all funny.

That's the recap.
It was part funny, and many parts not funny. There were no surprises, except maybe Ang Lee's win as Best Director; I'd thought it would go to Spielberg.
Seth was Meh. Actually, less than Meh. He's already said he won't be back, but he needn't have bothered saying so because about 5 minutes in i knew we'd seen the last of him.

What did YOU think?

Gay Dad Wants To Dine With Supreme Court Justice

I'm a huge proponent of Coming Out. I think all LGBT people should Come Out ... Right now. See, once we're out, there is no more fear; people will begin to realize that gay folks are pretty much like straight folks, except in terms of who we love. And fear, as we all know, is at the root of intolerance and bigotry and homophobia, and even hate; fear of the unknown.
So, it seems pretty clear that if we are all 'known' there will be less fear, and one man has a novel way to make certain someone's less fearful, and make himself more known.
Rob Watson, a gay dad, an LGBT activist and blogger, wants to become known to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he wants to do it in the best way possible: he's invited Kennedy to his home for dinner:
Dear Justice Kennedy: 
This is an invitation to dinner. I thought that would be the best way for you to decide how to vote on whether my family deserves the equal protections that other people's families enjoy. 
If you come, you will meet my 10-year-old sons, who will likely impress you, given how personable, articulate, polite and bright they are. You might ask, as many people we meet do, if they are twins. The answer will be, "They are 'almost-twins': Their birthdays are four months apart." That will bring a "huh, come again?" look, and I will explain how I adopted them as babies from different drug-addicted birth mothers through foster care. 
Many of the amicus briefs you've seen in these cases suggest that other families deserve legal protection over mine because those families were created more spontaneously or accidentally than the family of someone who went out to help children and save them from real danger. ("Marriage is ... inextricably linked to the objective biological fact that opposite-sex couples, and only such couples, are capable of creating new life together," says Dennis Hollinsworth.) I would just ask you to meet my sons, look them in they eyes and see their smiles before you decide whether the "procreation advantage" briefs are correct. 
If you were to come to dinner with my family, you would also meet Jim. He is the man in my life. It wasn't until our relationship became serious that he met my sons, and now he has taken up running a lot of the day-to-day needs of my family and has been an incredible support. He and the boys have already established a terrific bond. You will be able to see by the way I look at him, and by the way my sons look at him, that we love him. Deeply. 
Jim had a business life before he met me, as I did before meeting him. You and I can chat about how complicated blending all that can be, and what a terrific hardship it would be to each of us should the other die. Where opposite-gender couples have legal protections, we do not, and our attempt at blending our finances would fall apart, our pensions would be lost, and enormous taxes would be imposed on us. This would be the scenario even if our state allowed us to legally marry each other. If any of our biological next of kin were to interfere, then things could go badly very quickly. 
Some have told you that we gays are politically powerful. Paul Clement claims, "Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history." Around our dinner table we can discuss how it sure does not feel that way. On the sideboard you will see pictures of dear friends of mine who passed away from AIDS, a disease that ran rampant for years because, at the time, it was not politically defensible for the president of the United States -- the one who appointed you -- to say its name. We can try to name another health crisis in history that received such a lack of immediate action, but I don't think we will come up with one. 
We can also talk about my relationship with Jim, and how, before I met him, millions of strangers voted for me not to be able to marry him. Neither of us has yet brought up marriage, but you will see by looking at us that one of us probably will want to bring it up in the near future. We are happy and love each other that much. However, even if one of us were to propose, he would need to ask millions of people for permission to marry his love. Somehow that does not make us or my kids feel particularly "politically powerful." 
Republicans from the House of Representatives have asked you not to decide on the same-sex marriage issue as "a matter of sound social and political policy while the American people are so actively engaged in working through this issue for themselves." As I look across the table at the man I love, I would ask you to in fact decide on it so that he and I can work on our lives and our feelings for ourselves. 
If you come to dinner, we can chat about how you also started in California and whether you are liking your home in McLean, Va. I would tell you how I envy you. You see, even if Jim and I were allowed to marry in California, we could not move to Virginia as you and your wife have done, because the legal protections we'd have in California would fly out the window, and without them our family arrangements would unravel. Even if we could marry in California, we would be under statewide house arrest, essentially. We do hope that you are enjoying your freedom to move from state to state and continue to be considered married wherever you happen to live. 
We will probably then verify your taste in food and beverage, so that we can make any necessary last-minute changes in the serving of the meal. It is interesting how deeply ingrained our tastes are, in terms of what we are drawn to eat, what we desire and what our systems can tolerate. Those do not seem to be learned but something we were born with. Some people have tried to tell you that being gay is just an expression of chosen taste and behavior. "What lower courts have understood to be a homosexual 'orientation' is not a trait attributable from conception or birth. Rather, particularly as framed by Respondents here, it involves a species of conduct," states the Catholic Church in their brief. You will see me furrow my brow at such a suggestion, because every credible biologist states that sexual orientation is biologically based, as it is in most species of animals. I will also mutter under my breath, "Gee, I don't recall scientists declaring the discovery of the gene that makes one Catholic. Yet these bishops are crying that a pro-gay decision would impede on their religious freedom. If they have rights protecting their chosen religion, I should have rights protecting my innate nature." 
You may hear my comment, and that will enhance our conversation as we serve the ham. As I cut the boys' meat and try to convince Jesse that he does actually like it but just forgot, I will mention that I am glad that you did not require a kosher meal. Some of our friends do, and serving ham to them would be a faux pas. Eating ham is a sin, according to their religious beliefs. However, they do not seem to feel a need to turn their personal belief into a federal law that would require everyone to avoid ham, nor do they think that because people eat ham, society as we know it is coming to an end.

I hope that over dessert, you will just sit back and take us all in. We are not perfect, but we are a family. We love and plan and live just like any other family. Jim and I do not want anything special; we just want what we have worked for our entire lives to go to the benefit of each other and our loved ones. We do not consider ourselves better because of how we came together, but we also do not consider ourselves any worse. You will see that my kids have been raised with standards just like kids in other families have, and with manners, and that they too have bedtimes that we hit like clockwork.

With that, we would get your things, and I would walk you out to your car. I would look at you and say, "Thank you, Justice Kennedy, for coming. We were honored to have you. We know that the future of our family rests in your hands. You have the power to make it devastatingly difficult. You can make it confusing and convoluted. Or you can do the right thing. Please, Justice Kennedy, please, please, do the right thing.

Be a rock star.

Rob Watson

Like I said, once we're known, it becomes clear that we are so frightening; fabulous, maybe, but not scary at all.
We just want the same things that heterosexual people have been having for years: peace, love and understanding.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Sunday Funnies .... And Then Oscar!

It's Tonight!!
The night Awards Show Whores™ dream about! 
Though, sadly, tomorrow morning I start Jury Doody--not a misprint--so my Oscar Stream of Consciousness might be a day, or more, late ....