This almost sounds like a joke straight from Jay Leno or David Letterman. Sadly, it isn’t.

Two of the latest lawmakers to co-sponsor one of those ridiculous “Defense of Marriage”-type laws that define marriage as a union between man and woman have themselves demonstrated a somewhat unconventional standard within their own commitment.

First, there’s Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the man arrested a little more than a year ago in a Minneapolis airport terminal on charges of lewd conduct. Craig entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct after allegedly attempting to signal a male in the next stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. He has since attempted to withdraw the plea, but has so far been unsuccessful. He never even told his wife about the arrest, according to reports, until the story was made public.

The second lawmaker with the odd background is Louisiana Sen. David Vitter. In July of last year, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the woman dubbed “The DC Madam.” In a statement, he apologized for what he called a “a very serious sin” in his past for which he had apologized to God and to his wife.

I realize that there are a lot of people out there who still believe that marriage needs to be “protected” via the male-female definition. Until a few recent court rulings making way for same-sex marriage in a few areas, this country’s long history of the male-female definition by practice still managed to rack up a divorce rate somewhere around 50% or higher (depending on whom you ask). You’d have to believe, if you think same-sex marriage would destroy the institution, that these men and women who are so committed to fighting for the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with will somehow forget every ounce of commitment they displayed once the ring is on their finger.

But for those of you who still are so convinced of such a preposterous notion, does it at least seem odd to you that the institution of marriage needs the help of people who have been accused of either being unfaithful or taking the first steps toward infidelity?

Sure, I know what they say about forgiveness and redemption, and it’s great that these two politicians have seen the error of their ways and are surely committing themselves, through acts like these, to be good boys for the rest of their lives.

But if you are really interested in protecting the institution of marriage from all its various threats, and if you really want everyone to believe that you aren’t just being homophobic or blindly toeing a party line just so you can ignore really important issues like the economy or Iraq, you might wonder why there’s no proposal to punish adulterers; it seems to me that marriage needs a shot in the arm to protect the institution from them first.

I was just blog-jogging when I came across a meme at a random blog.  The first question just really hit a nerve with me, and I was left wondering if I’m the only one who feels this way.

Granted, I tend to be pretty old-fashioned about such matters.  On the other hand, I suspect if more people had maintained a little more old-fashioned sensibility, we’d have a lot less problems in today’s world.

But here’s the question…in question:

Does the last person you shared a bed with mean anything to you?

I think that if it had asked if you still have feelings for the person you last shared a bed with, it wouldn’t have bothered me as much.  But I guess it is a valid commentary as it stands:  for some, it’s perfectly acceptable to share a bed with someone who means absolutely nothing to you.

For some.

How sad.

John Cook, an 88-year-old retired teacher and school counselor, served in the Army during World War II, and was part of the second wave of troops that stormed Omaha Beach on D-Day. That was on June 6, 1944.

It would be another 14 years before he would meet the love of his life. Now, this still-happy couple is preparing to celebrate their golden anniversary.

There’s just one minor detail that unfortunately turns what should be an inspiring story about the endurance of love into story that disgusts some. Continue reading “The Threat”

Author J.K. Rowling has announced, to “gasps and applause,” that one of the characters in the seven ridiculously successful Harry Potter books just happens to be gay.

The character she drop-kicked out of the literary closet was Professor Dumbledore.  She made the announcement at an appearance at Carnegie Hall when she took questions from the audience that included a query about whether Dumbledore would ever find true love.

I haven’t read any of the Potter novels and have yet to find any overwhelming motivation to do so.  This little surprise makes me neither more likely nor less likely to pick up one of the tales.

But I do note this:  how odd it is that people find out that the character is gay after the novel series was concluded.  There are some writers who would have shoved his sexuality down the readers’ throats from the first chapter.

Everyone doesn’t feel so defined by their sexuality alone that they make issue of it to everyone they encounter, and that’s true for some straights and gays.  Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with being open, but I wonder why some people feel the need to be as open as they sometimes are.

Sometimes, there’s nothing wrong with keeping your business private.

Married and wishing you weren’t?  If a new proposal by a Bavarian lawmaker ever goes anywhere, it might be the news you’ve been waiting for!  (Although you’d probably have to have been married and living in Germany for it to have the impact you want.)

Gabriele Pauli wants marriages to last seven years, after which they can be renewed by the couple or the marriage would be automatically dissolved.

I wonder how long it’ll take the defenders of the “institution of marriage” to start protests over that idea.

I haven’t commented, yet, on Sen. David Vitter’s name appearing in the records of a woman nicknamed a D.C. “madam.”

Unlike many Democrats — and Republicans who are fed up with certain aspects of their party — I am not particularly happy that Vitter was caught up in such a scandal. It does, after all, provide a painful bit of embarrassment for his family, especially his wife, who Vitter says forgave him years ago for whatever he might have done.

On the other hand, I do point to a page on Vitter’s own website, in which he comments about protecting the “sanctity of marriage:” Continue reading “Sanctity”

It’s difficult to eat out when you’re on a 1040-calorie diet. Last night, I went to a local family restaurant that I like a lot and had a grilled chicken salad that I also like. I even ordered the low-calorie dressing.

I took a legal pad along with me, so I could write notes for a revision I’m working on. (Yes, sweeps are over so I’m back to my manuscript.) I was jotting away, despite some DeQuervain’s-inspired thumb pain, having just realized an important point I had missed in a scene I was having difficulty with before, when I began noticing a woman at the next table.

First, let me give you the layout of the restaurant. The dining section I was in consisted of a long, narrow area, split long-ways down the middle with an aisle, with two-person tables down the right side and four-person tables down the left and along the row of windows. I was seated at the the second table inside. This woman was seated at the third table. We faced each other, meaning I was sitting toward the interior of the restaurant, and that the was sitting three seats further into the restaurant.

She was an older lady with blondish-gray hair. I noticed her not because of her looks but because of the talking. She was alone. But she had struck up a conversation with a couple across the aisle from her. I had heard the conversation begin, but I hadn’t paid enough attention to be able to remember anything about it until I heard her start talking about the fact that her husband had recently left. It was at that moment that I realized that I had the impression that the woman and the couple didn’t really know each other that well, and I begin to think (while I wrote) that this was an odd thing to reveal to strangers.

Maybe it isn’t all that odd. Maybe the break-up of a marriage — in a society that seems so determined to put discrimination into law to protect “the institution” thereof — is perfect dinner conversation. It’s just not the kind of thing I would want to share with someone I didn’t know well if I had a wife who’d flown the coup. Even if it wasn’t my fault. (In fact, especeially if it wasn’t my fault!)

It took them a while to make my salad, which was surprising considering that it was mostly iceburg lettuce (a nearly calorie-free food), a little Romaine, a few shreds of carrot and radish, and chunks of a grilled chicken breast fillet. She talked to them for at least fifteen minutes. There was no let-up in the talk.

At this point, while I still had no salad, she noticed a foursome at the table directly across from me. She told one of the women at this table that she looked familiar, and then they ended up striking up a conversation. She actually walked over and stood over one of the couples and talked some more. This time, it was more like eight to ten minutes.

The whole time, I was thinking how intrusive this was. I don’t mind a little dinner conversation, even with strangers, but I hate to have someone looming over me while I’m trying to eat. And when I’m dining with someone, it’s even more inconvenient, because I’m having to divide my time with a stranger and the person I actually wanted to spend time with.

Apparently, this talker had already eaten her dinner and the check was waiting. Assuming that she had left the restaurant, a busboy cleared her table, except for the guest check in the convenient black leather portfolio. A waitress came by to collect that, opened it, noticed that it hadn’t been signed yet, then shrewdly noticed that the customer was still around and brought back a new glass of water to replace the one the busboy had taken.

After another minute or two, during which my salad arrived, she returned to her table, completely oblivious to the changes at her table. This time, she sat one seat closer to me, facing away, so she could more conveniently pick up the conversation with the first couple. Which she did.

I ate, looking mostly at the pad where I scribbled my notes, trying not to eavesdrop, because I wasn’t really interested in what she was saying as much as the way she was taking over everyone else’s dinner conversation.

By the time I was nearing the end of my salad, she had turned sideways in her seat, so that she was facing the aisle. She looked over at me and asked, “Is that good?” With only a few bites left, it was rather a silly question.

I said, “Yes, it is.”

She said, “Is that that cajun chicken salad?”

“Yes,” I answered.

“Oh,” she said. “I don’t like cajun.”

My first gut instinct was to point out that since I was the one who was eating it, her tastes really were immaterial. My second gut instinct was to simply say, “So?” My third gut instinct would have suggested that she try it next time because she might be surprised how good this particular concoction is. I went with my fourth gut instinct, said, “Oh,” and returned my attention to my writing.

I didn’t want to be rude, but I had seen with the two other tables before me that if I were to give her any kind of opening, I’d be trapped in a conversation for the rest of my meal, and I wasn’t in that much of a mood for talking. Generally, I don’t mind talking casually to strangers. But because I’m a good listener and am sympathetic, I sometimes run into people who don’t seem to mind telling me their life story — whether I want to hear it or not.

Don’t I have a right to enjoy a meal without interruption? Don’t any of us?

I don’t know if she took the hint or just found the first couple more exciting then I was — either would have been fine with me — and she went back to them.

By the time I had finished my salad and the waitress had brought me my check, which I quickly returned to her with my credit card to hasten my exit, the foursome had left and had been replaced by a couple. Wouldn’t you know it! She started speaking to this couple — apparently she had seen the woman somewhere — and I was leaving, she had pulled her chair into the aisle and was sitting at their table!

The last thing I heard her talking about as I rose to put on my jacket was that how her husband had left, and that she was fine with that. As I walked by, I heard her ask what the lady was planning to order. When the woman named her choice, she said, “Oh, I don’t like marinara.”

I felt bad for her. I still do. If there’s one thing she isn’t, it’s clearly “fine with it.” She obviously needs to talk to someone, preferably some kind of counselor. She’s obviously lonely and misses interaction with people.

But at the same time, I felt bad for those four couples (two couples and a foursome) who were just trying to enjoy their own company.

What do you say to someone like that without being rude? When does one’s own need for privacy or a quiet evening with someone you’ve chosen to be with (even if it’s only yourself) come before a stranger’s apparent need for your company?

Weigh-in: 260.5
Total Lost: 29.5
Lost on MUSC Plan: 19.5
Left to Go: 61.5

In the summer of 2006, a Washington State Supreme Court ruling in the case of Anderson v. King County stated that a “legitimate state interest” allows the legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together, and that because gay couples cannot have their own children, it is reasonable for the state to ban them from being able to marry.

So a new piece of legislation designed to challenge this ruling has been created. It will likely make some of those super-Conservatives who themselves have cited the impossibility of procreation as a reason that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry to do a double take!

The Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative comes in three steps. First, procreation becomes a legal requirement for marriage. Those couples who are, for whatever reason, incapable of producing children, would not be allowed to marry. Naturally, this would include gay couples. But it would also include straight couples in which one or both have a physiological condition that keeps them from being able to conceive.

Second, divorce or legal separation would be be prohibited when there are children. This would force couples who feel they have reached those famed irreconcilable differences from ending their marriage if they happen to be parents, likely forcing children to continue to live with parents in a deteriorating relationship.

And third, the act of having a child would be regarded as the legal equivalent of marriage. A couple who has a child out of wedlock, regardless of their intention, is suddenly legally married in the eyes of the law. If a man or woman who is already married has an affair that produces a child, one might imagine that this could be regarded as grounds for bigamy prosecution! What a great motivation for people not to cheat!

By now, this idea must sound ridiculous. And if you think it is, you might be surprised to know that its creators would be among the first to agree with you. In fact, that’s their whole point. Their very intention is, as they put it, to force those who have hidden behind the “marriage exists to raise children” argument to “choke on their own rhetoric!”

In my opinion, this is a brilliant political move. I wouldn’t support the initiative’s passing, and can’t imagine anyone who would. But it does require you to rethink the procreation position, especially when you know that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who either cannot or choose not to have children. Requiring procreation — or at least the ability to procreate — as a prerequisite for marriage is un-American. What if a married man or married woman develops a medical condition after they are married that makes them incapable of having a child: does this nulify their marriage? And if a straight couple who can have a child choose not to, should their marriage also be nullified to satisfy the state’s interest?

Should the state have such an intrusive power?

I have often asked, while discussing the topic of gay marriage, why those who seek to ban it on the grounds of “defending the institution” aren’t doing more to cut the number of separations and divorces. This initiative would certainly help do that.

But would anyone actually vote for this?

Yesterday, the Associated Press declared Democrat Jim Webb the winner of the Virginia Senate race over incumbent Republican George Allen.

Had I still been in Richmond, Webb would have gotten my vote as well. I didn’t like Allen’s stand on marriage discrimination, and then there was that ridiculous “macaca” incident: after all, if we took him at his word, that he really didn’t know that “macaca” was a racial slur, then we have to believe that he made up a word he’d never heard of, used it against an Indian man, the only minority in evidence, and that the word just happened to be a racial slur. No one with that singular bad luck needs to be in a position of leadership.

With this victory, the Democrats take control of Congress.

My Republican friends might be surprised to hear me say that I don’t mind that this has happened. The GOP has been promising to put this country on the right course and make us safer for years. Are we? I leave that to you, but I know my answer.

On the other hand, the Democrats have been promising for years now that they want to put this country on the right course. They’ve smugly called out every bad decision they can, and the more vocal critics have seemed to indicate that they have all of the answers. I look forward to seeing those with all the answers make real progress.

Now that they’re in control, the time for talk is over. It’s time for them to put their money where their mouth is. It’s time for them to make this real progress they’ve been assuring us they’ll make. And no one will be more delighted than I if they are genuinely able to do so.

I saw this delightful little handbill posted above the mailboxes yesterday:

The top line reads, “How do you feel about homosexuals getting married?”

The answer I have is this: Unless you’re a homosexual and you happen to have someone with whom you wish to spend the rest of your life, why is it even your business? Why, honestly, would you even care?

Then there’s that tired old, “Preserve marriage” line. Preserve it by blocking people who want to embrace it to form the kind of monogamous relationship they want to celebrate the way married couples they look up to do? Must the institution of marriage require “protection” from people who want to be part of it because they value its importance?

What if these same people then decide that marriage should not only be defined as being between a man and a woman, but also as between a white man and white woman, or black man and black woman, or Baptist man and Baptist woman? How many conditions are we going to attempt to place on marriage, if this one passes?

And in any case, whether you are married or not, if someone else wants to marry the person they love, whether they happen to be of a different race, different religion or even the same gender, how does that hurt your life?

I’m ashamed that there is even a debate in this country where “all men are created equal” that boils down to whether to give some people rights everyone else has, or whether to write descrimination of any kind into our laws.

What’s happened to America?

The most recent “Patrick’s Place” Poll asked you about your feelings on the controversial subject of gay marriage. Voters had three choices:

People willing to commit to each other should be allowed to marry like anyone else.
Same-sex couples should be allowed rights of marriage, but it should be called something else.
Same-sex couples should not be allowed any legal rights or recognition of their relationship.

I’m happy to report that 84% of those who voted feel that gay couples should at least have a legal option, whether it be called “marriage” or a “civil union.” Only 16% say the should not be entitled to any legal rights at all, which seems to me to be in direct opposition to that notion of all men being created equal that most of us hold so dear.

Of that 84%, it’s striking that 71% not only feel that gay couples should be allowed the legal rights of marriage, but that they also don’t have a problem with gay unions being called marriage. The remaining 13% feel that gays are entitled to the rights heterosexuals enjoy, but would be more comfortable if it were called something other than marriage.

What’s in a name? For many gay couples who want to be legally allowed to marry, having their relationship called a “civil union” rather than a “marriage” harkens back to the days of “separate but equal,” when children were segregated by race into separate school systems.

Granted, this survey was in no way scientific. But if this is even close to the “general population’s” view of things, why, other than for political posturing by a president desperate for a strong show of support on something, does this even need to be an issue? If the majority is supposed to rule, and if these results represent anything near what the majority really feels, it seems like it would be time to move on to more critical issues of the day.

Recently, President Bush has renewed his determination to get a ban on gay marriage on the books. It’s blatantly clear to anyone with even a nominal IQ that this is an attempt to bring support his way on something as his approval ratings continue to decline. It’s a shame that with the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, immigration and an ever-increasing national debt, we have to put priority on whether gay people should be afforded the same rights everyone else has.

Some time ago, I wrote a piece about being a fiscal conservative. I do believe in fiscal conservativism, but considering our deficit, it’s obvious that there aren’t many fiscal conservatives in any positions of power. In that post, I mentioned that when it comes to social issues, I tend to be more on the liberal side. The gay marriage debate is a perfect example of this.

Continue reading “The Gay Marriage Debate…Again”

It was a romance that began in AOL Journal-land. Many of us followed each new development with great eagerness as things seemed to go so well. There were bumps along the way, but many of us encouraged them to work their way through them and to keep the faith. It now seems that the relationship has come to an end.

I have suggested before that there are those here in J-land who are quick to side with whoever their friends are, and when one of them is hurting, they are ready to condemn the person who hurt them to hell whether they know the “whole story” or not. I suppose it is human nature to take sides.

I found myself in the middle of the situation to an extent, attempting to be the “sympathetic ear” for both of them. I was hoping that I could give them advice to keep them going, not because I wanted anything in return or hoped for any credit for having done so, but simply because I, like so many others, was living vicariously through them.

One of the things I told them recently was to sit down face to face and talk their problems out. If there were issues that either of them were concerned about, the other needed to hear them. They needed to get their likes, dislikes and fears out in the open, decide on a strategy to deal with them and then decide if the strategy was one they — both of them — could live with. (I suppose that what I’ve learned from Dr. Phil can come in handy every now and then.)

I had a few concerns in the back of my mind, but I didn’t make them known at the time, because I felt that as long as they were willing to work through their differences, it didn’t matter what anyone else thought.

I also told them that they might realize that their relationship wasn’t meant to be, but at least they’d know for sure. Now, it seems, that’s exactly what happened. If you’ve read this far in the hopes that I will reveal some of their dirty laundry, you’re going to be disappointed. What I know about the relationship that isn’t necessarily “common knowledge” will remain between me and them.

The reason I mention this breakup at all is to address one important point:

There have been those who have suggested that they never should have made their relationship so public. I told them that by doing so, they did put additional pressure on themselves. But I cannot agree with others who feel that they shouldn’t have written about their relationship. Their journals are, after all, theirs. A reader should expect one’s journal to reflect something of the writer’s life. There are plenty of journals that deal with personal relationships; those who want to address such personal topics have every right to do so. And since relationships are so important to people who want them, it’s hardly a surprise that such a subject might appear in a journal entry from time to time.

Unfortunately, the consequence of doing so is that pressure I spoke of. Those who have befriended either one or both naturally want happiness to be the end result of the journey. Some of us will follow it more closely than others; some will take sides at the slightest sign of trouble. But in the end, what does or doesn’t end up happening is their business, not ours, even if we have been “let in” along the way.

While the relationship didn’t end the way many of us who had been following the situation wanted, if it is meant to be that they aren’t meant to be, we should at least be relieved (as I hope they eventually will be) that this decision arrived sooner than later. If a relationship cannot survive, the sooner this realization comes to light, the easier it will be for the two people involved to deal with this fact, no matter how difficult it may seem at the time. And let’s face it: their feelings are far more important than ours in this situation.

I am disappointed about how things worked out. But I won’t attempt to debate who was hurt worse: they both were hurt in their own way. Since I value both of them, I will instead say that I hope both of them are quickly able to put the pain behind them, and I will hope that they will eventually be able to salvage a lifelong friendship. They have been through a lot together, and I hope neither is willing to completely throw all of that away.

Not that I really believe these things, but my horoscope tells me that I’m willing to strike up a bargain to please both sides. In that vein, perhaps I can tackle the hot topic of Gay Marriage versus Civil Unions.

As I understand it, (thanks to a few other journal entries), most homosexuals don’t like the idea of a “Civil Union” because it puts them in the position of being second-class citizens. (”Why can’t we have marriage the same as the ’straight world,’” I heard one gay man say.)

Many heterosexuals nix the idea of “Gay Marriage” because they believe the word “marriage,” by definition, implies a relationship between a man and a woman.

And meanwhile, while we’re all arguing over semantics, the issue goes on and on and on.

Perhaps it’s a sad truth of our society, but no problem is solved with a single piece of legislation or action. Personally, I don’t feel that I have the right to tell two homosexual people deeply in love and committed to each other, who happen to be willing to put that committment on paper and live a life as devoted to each other as a strong heterosexual marriage couple would that they don’t have that right.

If legislators are willing to pass “Civil Union” bills that at least give gays equal rights, isn’t this a good first step? Must it automatically be the end of the line? Does it have to mean that that the lawmakers are saying, “Okay, we’ll throw you this nugget, and you’ll never get anything else?”

The “all or nothing” mentality, it seems to me, can as easily alienate potential supporters as accomplish goals. Am I missing something here?