Leave a Comment Sagesse
Seizing our national moment
January 27, 2011
By Adam Bink
A quick thought. Over at AMERICABlog, my friend Joe Sudbay hits on an important point: through anti-equality efforts to repeal the freedom to marry in Iowa and New Hampshire, and President Obama’s “evolving” moves of late, it’s becoming virtually guaranteed that marriage equality will be a subject in the 2012 Presidential debate. I think perhaps especially in the Republican primaries, given Iowa and New Hampshire’s prominence, will it be particularly spotlighted.
It also represents some excellent organizing opportunities around both President Obama and the Republicans. My head’s been firing some neurons on some really interesting useful, and fun projects to help drive the debate. More on that when they’re finalized- including a project Courage will be rolling out next month- but I just think it’s important to keep in mind that this, combined with the Prop 8 trial ongoing, represents perhaps the biggest opportunity to come along in years to take the stage at a national level and win people’s hearts and minds. The possibilities are endless to drive this conversation into American homes. Let’s seize this national moment.
Filed under: Community/Meta,Marriage equality
139 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Kathleen | January 27, 2011 at 5:38 am
√
2.
Rhie | January 27, 2011 at 5:40 am
Watching
3.
Sagesse | January 27, 2011 at 5:41 am
Scribin'
4.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 5:43 am
Good to keep in mind Adam. It would be wonderful to see CC and HRC nay any and all other organizations pull together a national ad campaigne or TV spot geared towards answering the reams of disinformation (lies) NOM and the like keep pushing on America.
I for one would sell my left 'arm' to help raise monies for a project like that. A project that would help 'us' put a face to this issue…..one that NOM would be hard pressed to discredit or spin.
5.
Mouse | January 27, 2011 at 5:51 am
I'd like to see more positive representation of gays and lesbians living in healthy marriages in our television shows. People will relate much more to the characters they see in their favorite prime time dramas than they will any 30-second ad spot.
6.
Peterplumber | January 27, 2011 at 5:58 am
♂♂
7.
Straight For Equalit | January 27, 2011 at 6:01 am
❄
8.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 27, 2011 at 6:08 am
Keep us posted so we know what is being planned and how we can be part of it!
9.
anonygrl | January 27, 2011 at 6:09 am
I think, too, with all the possible states we can accomplish things in before then, we have a great opportunity to "tune" the engine, as it were, get the topic in the forefront now and keep it there.
I am going to push on the state level here in NY, and we need to remember that this movement is winning not from the top down, but from the roots up.
Every day more people are realizing that marriage equality is just fine, as the polls show. Every day more and more people are actually becoming aware of the court battles, and what they mean. Every day someone else in politics or entertainment comes forward and says "I support equality", "It gets better!" or something similar.
THAT is why it comes to the forefront and is a presidential issue. Because we are making sure that people are educated better about the issues, that they understand we are all the same, people who want to love each other and raise families, just like everyone else.
10.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 27, 2011 at 6:12 am
Absolutely agreed. Don't forget that things like this can spur an otherwise complacent person to activism. I was so horrified by the number of evolution deniers in the last GOP Presidential primary debates that I got off the sidelines and started speaking out and making contributions. A similar thing happened to me after Prop 8 – there was a time, not having given the issue much thought, when civil unions instead of marriage didn't seem like such a problem to me.
11.
anonygrl | January 27, 2011 at 6:12 am
Very good call.
12.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 6:12 am
Well that's very true Mouse, but since CC has no controll over prime time TV, we have to make do with what we have.
I would love to see 'us' put together a prime time special program or some such that could address all the lies and half truths from 'them'.
13.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 6:21 am
Just today I was again surprised when a co-worker was shocked to learn Robert and I were not legally married.
They had no idea Washington state didn't allow SSM.
REALLY!!!???
Only goes to show we have A LOT of people yet to reach.
Courageous conversations seem for me to be a daily event
14.
Kathleen | January 27, 2011 at 6:41 am
You're absolutely right, Mark. And it is just this kind of one-on-one education that develops the groundswell that eventually leads to the change in public perception.
I was having a conversation with someone recently who was shocked to learn that so many places in the country don't protect someone from being fired from their job for no reason other than being l,g,b or t.
There are many people out there who have a basic sense of fairness and justice bu who just don't understand the reality of the (lack of) legal protections.
15.
Ann S. | January 27, 2011 at 6:41 am
√
16.
Rebecca in Chicago | January 27, 2011 at 6:58 am
I was hoping "The Kids are All Right" would be this kind of good example for lesbian couples. Then I was super disappointed that the movie recycled that tired "all a lesbian really wants is a man" theme. And now the movie is Oscar-nominated. An opportunity was missed there.
17.
karen in kalifornia | January 27, 2011 at 6:58 am
Unfortunately, most people don't read this blog and unfortunately most people don't have a clue.
Like Mark, we all have to keep talking and educating allies, straight and gay alike.
18.
Peterplumber | January 27, 2011 at 7:25 am
UPDATE Mass DOMA cases
Amicus briefs in support of reversal of the district court decision
National Legal Foundation http://www.scribd.com/doc/47688872
NARTH http://www.scribd.com/doc/47689082
19.
Ronnie | January 27, 2011 at 7:31 am
=
<3…Ronnie
20.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 7:32 am
I feel like a broken record some days as I listen to myself saying the same things over and over again…..but if even half of the information gets in than I've done my job.
As frustrating and exhausting as it may seem some days it is important work.
21.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 7:36 am
You made a good point there Karen….so often we focus on our straight friends and family and forget that many LGBT persons are just as il-informed or rather misinformed as the straight community.
I can't tell you how many young people I have explained the importance of marriage equality to who just didn't understand all that this means. They may not be thinking marriage YET, but someday………
22.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 7:38 am
Agreed! I had such high hopes for this movie….but it took the easy way
Still hope it wins on Oscar night
23.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 7:50 am
Looks like one of our enemies is moving forward on his bid for the White House
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8717922/23973767” rel=”nofollow”>http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/video/yblog_news…
24.
Brainstormer | January 27, 2011 at 8:02 am
It is a very interesting coincidence that we have marriage equality in the two states that begin the Presidential election season, i.e., Iowa and New Hampshire, and that probably marriage equality is safe in both places through at least 2012. I think it's a major opportunity to publicize to both Presidential candidates and the general public that nothing negative has happened in either state as a result of marriage equality, that just the positive of greater stability in human relationships, and greater human dignity, has resulted.
Empirical reality is anti-marriage equality people's worst enemy.
And it's not going to look good for Presidential candidates, who are unlikely to be residents of either state, to march in and say, "I don't like what you are doing here in this state." I think it's very reasonable to (1) make any anti-marriage equality candidates feel very unwelcome in those states (e.g., greeting them with protests with signs held by married same-sex couples saying things like, "So, you actually want to end my marriage?"); and (2) use the apparently to create more cognitive dissonance in Obama — e.g., "So, Mr. President, do you actually disapprove of my marriage?"
Obviously things shouldn't always be confrontational. There are many, many opportunities, and possibilities, for education and conversation.
25.
Ronnie | January 27, 2011 at 8:02 am
Hillary Clinton Issues Official Statement On Murder of Ugandan LGBT Activist David Kato
"This crime is a reminder of the heroic generosity of the people who advocate for and defend human rights on behalf of the rest of us — and the sacrifices they make. And as we reflect on his life, it is also an occasion to reaffirm that human rights apply to everyone, no exceptions, and that the human rights of LGBT individuals cannot be separated from the human rights of all persons." ~ Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State
(me) I would like to join in with Secretary of State Clinton in keeping my thoughts with those who were close to our Rainbow Brother, David Kato…..a true hero…an innocent life lost…… : ( ….Ronnie
26.
Manilow | January 27, 2011 at 8:06 am
I was so shocked by the news about Mr. Kato. I just can't fathom his bravery – we have lost a true and amazing figher.
27.
bJason | January 27, 2011 at 8:07 am
Thanks, PeterP.
NARTH??? Really? NARTH???? Can't wait to read this!
28.
Kathleen | January 27, 2011 at 8:07 am
President Obama releases statement on Kato murder: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/0…
29.
Ronnie | January 27, 2011 at 8:11 am
The original link is not posting…You can see the full statement through towleroad.com:
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/obama-statement-…
President Obama also released a statement:
"I am deeply saddened to learn of the murder of David Kato. In Uganda, David showed tremendous courage in speaking out against hate. He was a powerful advocate for fairness and freedom. The United States mourns his murder, and we recommit ourselves to David’s work.
At home and around the world, LGBT persons continue to be subjected to unconscionable bullying, discrimination, and hate. In the weeks preceding David Kato’s murder in Uganda, five members of the LGBT community in Honduras were also murdered. It is essential that the Governments of Uganda and Honduras investigate these killings and hold the perpetrators accountable.
LGBT rights are not special rights; they are human rights. My Administration will continue to strongly support human rights and assistance work on behalf of LGBT persons abroad. We do this because we recognize the threat faced by leaders like David Kato, and we share their commitment to advancing freedom, fairness, and equality for all."
(me) Again Mr. President…the words are awesome….action would be better….just saying…..
Here is a CNN report including a past interview with the late brave David Kato (RIP)…. : ( …Ronnie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed…
30.
bJason | January 27, 2011 at 8:21 am
From Obama's statement: "At home and around the world, LGBT persons continue to be subjected to unconscionable bullying, discrimination, and hate."
My response: Yes, Mr. President, and YOUR Justice Department is a perpetrator of this "unconscionable bullying, discrimination, and hate"! Thank you for your rhetoric, anyway.
Also notice in it that he didn't call Mr. Kato a "FIERCE advocate". He probably feels about that utterance the same way that Charles Cooper feels about "I don't know".
Our President should remove the log from his own eye.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that he issued a statement saying what this one does. It is just hard for me not to scream "hypocrisy" inside just a little bit.
31.
Rowdy | January 27, 2011 at 8:22 am
Mark, along those lines are issues like… I get taxed on the benefits provided to my legally married husband (in California) by my employer. My heterosexual counterparts are not taxed this way.
Many people are just not aware of these inequalities.
32.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 27, 2011 at 8:33 am
And in NC, even though BZ and I are legally married, since NC does not recognize our marriage, if he makes provisions for me in his will, his daughter can challenge the will and win, because she is recognized in NC as his legal next of kin, but I am not!
33.
JonT | January 27, 2011 at 8:34 am
☮
34.
Rhie | January 27, 2011 at 8:35 am
Exactly!
Honestly curious here, and have no opinion on this as of now:
Have you ever seen Modern Family? What do you think of the couple in that?
35.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 8:36 am
Many many more have no clue this and issues like this exist Rowdy.
We also have to pay extra for Robert's insurance coverage through my work…but not one single straight married couple does
My husband and I lost our home because the Feds could not/would not see us as a couple and fit us in to one of the many refi programs geared towards striaght couples.
The list of things liike this is endless……
36.
Rhie | January 27, 2011 at 8:40 am
That's encouraging in a way because that attitude comes from the assumption that gay marriage is just as valid as straight marriage.
But yes, we gotta get those people to move from that to actually DOING something with that.
37.
Ed Cortes | January 27, 2011 at 8:41 am
More emails!!!!
38.
Ed Cortes | January 27, 2011 at 8:43 am
and now…da box!!
39.
Maggie4NoH8 | January 27, 2011 at 8:48 am
Posted to the President/Administration via whitehouse.gov
____________________________________________
I was saddened today to learn of the murder of David Kato in Uganda.
And I applaud both the Secretary of State's and the President's statements in regards to this crime.
However, something in the President's statement struck me as dissonant: LGBT rights are not special rights; they are human rights.
How can the President square this statement with NOT supporting full marriage equality?
I heard the President say his thoughts are "evolving" on this subject – does this mean he supports marriage equality, or that marriage is a special right, given only to select people?
____________________________________________
I had to "say" something! The President's statement clearly states LBGT rights are not special, they are human rights.
SO… either he is being a hypocritical politician, or he believes marriage isn't a human right, but a special right given only to heteros…
I am disappointed that have even have to consider either option of him….
40.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 8:50 am
I love them but wish they were not the butt of so many of the jokes on that show.
Figure skater
Clutsey goofball
Emotional/high strung
Drama queens
41.
Rhie | January 27, 2011 at 8:52 am
Ah, Ok. That sucks that we are still seeing that. I've only seen a couple episodes of the show. It looks funny in general. But I will watch out for the stereotyping. Thanks.
42.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 8:53 am
Thank you for speaking up Maggie….I will be writting a similar email very shortly.
43.
Peterplumber | January 27, 2011 at 9:03 am
UPDATE Mass DOMA cases:
Amicus brief submitted by U.S. Catholic Bishops, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, et al, in support of reversal of the district court decision. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47693187
44.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 9:05 am
They aren't terrible stereotypes, but there none the less.
At least they had the couple adopt a baby girl….
The biggest thing about them as a couple that bothers me is they refer to each other as boyfriends…not husband, or partner, but BF
At least they aren't using the AWFUL term 'lover'
UGH!!!
45.
nightshayde | January 27, 2011 at 9:06 am
♫ They're Pinky and the Brain… ♫
Poit!
46.
Mark M - Seattle | January 27, 2011 at 9:06 am
Great ideas Brainstormer!
And welcome! I don't believe I've seen a post from you before
47.
Jyo | January 27, 2011 at 9:07 am
Ever wanted to marry a *city*? Now you can:
http://marrydurham.com/
I'm waiting for NOM to gin up their outrage in three, two, one … still waiting. *tap tap* Is this thing on?
48.
Kathleen | January 27, 2011 at 9:08 am
LOVE Pinky and the Brain.. and the Animaniacs. Really miss those cartoons.
49.
Kathleen | January 27, 2011 at 9:12 am
No idea where this post went….
Sorry, that should be U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (that's my bad – I've edited the description at Scribd).
I thought the LDS church had learned their lesson about keeping out of this; I guess it's just the political campaigns they're backing out of.
For balance, a bit of good news on the religious front:
Virginia Episcopalians OK same-sex unions http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergo…
50.
Maggie4NoH8 | January 27, 2011 at 9:12 am
Be sure to post your email – I'd be curious as to what you send…
51.
fiona64 | January 27, 2011 at 9:17 am
Heh. I stopped reading very early in. The majority of citations are articles by Julie Hamilton, the president of NARTH … which means that their reasons are "because we say so."
Love,
Fiona
52.
LCH | January 27, 2011 at 9:27 am
Re. David Kato. The White House, Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Tammy Baldwin have all expressed that they are saddened at the death of David Kato. Saddened is when your grandmother dies. Dammit. I don't want them to be saddened I want them to be OUTRAGED. I am.
53.
nightshayde | January 27, 2011 at 10:33 am
*nods*
Yup — they were brilliant. Except for Buttons & Mindy. I absolutely LOATHE Buttons & Mindy.
54.
Sheryl Carver | January 27, 2011 at 10:33 am
Thanks for doing this, Maggie.
You inspired me to send my own email:
Dear Mr. President:
You are in a powerful position to further equal rights for ALL U.S. citizens by openly & publicly supporting marriage equality for LGBTs.
Law in our country is a civil matter, not a religious one. It should not matter what any religious organization believes about marriage equality; they are & will be free to conduct whatever marriage ceremonies they wish, the same way the Catholic Church is free to refuse to marry a divorced person.
Your own parents would have been unable to marry in some states many years ago. That was wrong, as are state laws preventing LGBT couples from marrying now, & DOMA which discriminates at the federal level.
Please, please step up & publicly state that this discrimination is wrong! Then use your power & influence to make equal rights for all a reality in the United States!
Thank you,
Sheryl Carver
55.
Ann S. | January 27, 2011 at 10:44 am
Interesting. This was in the Q&A:
56.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 27, 2011 at 10:58 am
I appreciated reading the uplifting Epsicopalian article very much! : )
While at that same site (Washington Post – On Faith) site, I saw this article about Ted Haggart, wealthy Christian minister who was "outed" 4 years ago…now delcaring himself bisexual. http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergo…
the original GQ article: http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201102…
57.
bJason | January 27, 2011 at 11:15 am
NARTH cracks me up! (quotes are from the NARTH brief unless otherwise stated)
For starters, in their brief, there are 6 pages of Authorities”. 3 Authorities (not pages, Authorities) are cases. One of which is Perry vs. Schwarzenegger (which they cite only to spend space crying about).
Most recent Authority:
James E. Phelan, et al., What Research Shows JOURNAL OF HUMAN SEXUALITY (NARTH 2009) – did you get that? PUBLISHED (? or not) by NARTH
Next most recent Authority:
A. GOLDBERG, LIGHT IN THE CLOSET: TORAH, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POWER TO CHANGE (2008)
Who is A. Goldberg, ask you?
Dr. Arthur Goldberg is co-director both of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing), a non-profit international organization dedicated to educating the world-wide Jewish community about the social, cultural and emotional factors which lead to same-sex attractions, and the Jonah Institute of Gender Affirmation (www.jonahweb.org). Basically, JONAH is “kosher” for NARTH.
There are actually 2 Authorities listed from the 1800s!! My Pavlovian response is already in overdrive! The bell is ringing. See how I did that ACTUAL science thing (NARTH, take note).
Anyone who knows anything about NARTH could dismiss this brief from their opening statement alone: “The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is a professional, scientific, organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.” Scientific? Offers hope?? Those struggling (recurring theme, watch for it). However, let us continue.
“While no published study has sought a random population from which to assess treatment success rates for clients seeking to change their unwanted homosexuality and develop their heterosexual potential, such treatment has been widely documented in the literature since the late 19th century.” What they are saying here is that even though there is no scientifically acceptable proof that this type of treatment works, it has existed. The fact that the treatment exists does not mean that it is valid. They are admitting here that no random sample study has been done to assess the success rate of people WHO WANT TO CHANGE THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY. Never mind the “change rate” of those who are completely fine with their homosexuality!!
How does this make any sense:
“In 1892, Albert von Schrenck-Notzing reported success in treating twenty patients who had homosexual desires, behaviors, or both. 12 of the 32 cases on which he reported (some did not involve same-sex attractions), 12 (37.5 percent) were classified as 'cured.'” Carefully read that again before proceeding. He reported on 20 cases (some of whom didn't have same-sex attractions). He reported success in treating 12 of 32 patients (AGAIN, some of whom didn't have same-sex attractions). Was it 20 or 32 cases?? How many of them had same-sex attraction?? Beyond that – this was in 1892!! How can we take any of this seriously? Seriously, I'm asking!
NARTH then goes on for pages to cite “studies” of incidents of “conversion” through the decades of the 1900s. Such nuggets include one doctor reporting (not a study verifying) “a 33 percent success rate with success understood as the patients being able to function as heterosexuals”. Well, I CAN function as a heterosexual but that is not success – with or without treatment. Another nugget: “Ludwig Eidelberg reported that two out of five cases that he had been involved with were still successfully functioning as heterosexuals three years after treatment.” Two of the five he was INVOLVED in… wow, a whoppingly persuasive scientific sample of a couple of folks “functioning as heterosexuals” – not actually BEING heterosexual! Most of the remainder forward numbers of heterosexual-acting people after treatment but offer no numbers of their treatment subject group. The recurring theme is some people who seek treatment to be “straight-acting” can act straight. EUREKA!?!
The most recent decade fairs no better. One example: “Elan Karten’s 2006 dissertation studied 117 men who had participated in some type of reorientation activity, and found that meaningful sexual reorientation had occurred.” They don't point out here that this Dissertation WAS NOT PUBLISHED.
Even when they get to Meta-Analysis, their Freudian slip shows: “A number of meta-analyses (articles that review numerous studies on a subject and report the combined results) also disclose reports of change. J.A. Clippinger demonstrated that of 785 homosexuals treated, 307 (40 percent) either significantly improved in the direction of their desired goal, or had made at least some shift toward heterosexuality.” The key phrase here is “in the direction of their DESIRED GOAL”. Could people who want to change their sexuality ever positively self-report on treatment they sought whether it ACTUALLY worked or not? Nah, that would never happen – this is scientific stuff, here!! And even if they did, there was “at least some shift toward heterosexuality”. That makes it all OK.
Then they actually have the balls to forward this: “Anecdotal reports and experiences of individuals seeking religious assistance also indicate the possibility of change.” This is actually a section heading of their brief to a court of law! My rant is long enough already – I won't touch this except to say that an anecdotal report on the possibility of change from a religious-assistance seeker of change is one of the things that just don't belong here.
Finally they try to wrap it up by saying that sexual orientation can't be easily defined, can be fluid and that most research involves men. They offer no definition(s) of homosexual as it/they relate(s) to the pages and pages of “studies” upon which they rely. They even admit that “[i]n the absence of more objective measures, self-reporting by clients may be an unavoidable benchmark” and that “the client’s motivation and determination to comply with treatment predicts the greatest positive response in most cases”. They do not, however, connect these very important factors back to the perceived positive results of their cited “studies”. More brazen is the catch-all final statement in their argument: “But even when clients have failed to change sexual orientation, other benefits commonly have resulted from their attempts”.
All in all, this was a great and hilarious read. I highly recommend it!! I would, however, caution one against submitting anything remotely resembling this treatise to the scrutiny of anyone with any amount of reasoning skill – official or not.
58.
JonT | January 27, 2011 at 11:27 am
Heh, actually Jason, I gave up after reading the table on contents:
'
Table of Authorities ……………………………………………………………………………………..iv Interest of the
Amicus
……………………………………………………………………………………. 1
ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 I.
Research and reports from a century of experience suggest some people canand do experience changes in sexual orientation. ……………………………………. 3 A.
Historical research points to a real possibility of change in sexualorientation. …………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 B.
Recent studies support the idea that individuals can experience change inorientation. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 C.
Meta-analyses provide further evidence that change is possible. …………….. 15 D.
Anecdotal reports and experiences of individuals seeking religiousassistance also indicate the possibility of change. ………………………………….. 16 E.
There are inevitable limitations in the existing research data, but the studiescited here provide important evidence to rebut the claim of immutability. .. 20
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
'
Formatting probably looks like crap pasted here, but you get the gist
In other words: Nothing to see here, move along.
59.
Kathleen | January 27, 2011 at 11:31 am
Kudos to you for getting through that, bJason! Like JonT, I just couldn't bring myself to actually read the thing.
60.
Ray in MA | January 27, 2011 at 11:31 am
Mark, that's a new one on me! This place is full of info you don;t get anywhere else!
61.
Furface | January 27, 2011 at 11:37 am
I've noticed a couple of things 'bout this fight we're dragged into.
The anti-equality minions are in lock step, tight enough to make the Rockettes look like klutzes. Granted they're control freaks and live in a world of authoritarian strictures; tp down imposition of ideas and actions.
We're only 'bout two steps up from herding cats. I don't know why it's so difficult for us to communicate and coordinate with each other at an organizational level and direct our message on point. There seems to be some sort of meme that all our messages in a particular political locale must jibe and mesh together. I don't see that as either a necessity or even a good thing.
Of course there's the purely logistical problem of how do you respond to lebenty-seben lies and half truths dropped in a 60 second spot? It can't be done. It takes several minutes to refute each talking point. Simply dropping our talking points into a similar length spot becomes the advertising equivalent of Did So!! Did Not!! Did So!! Did Not!! It's a losing strategy for our side.
Since we know their talking points so well, and they have a habit of recycling spots and concepts (cheap, lazy buggers), it might be worth crafting tight spots responding to the likely anti talking points/lies in advance. Might even strike first rather than playing catch up. Intro voice over might run: "NOM professes to be interested in protecting marriage nebulous threats to society if marriage equality is approved. Yet they have never said what these threats are in the real world. They have never fought against divorce. They have never operated any programs to counsel troubled couples. All they have done is conjure up some unnamed danger to the world as we know it if civil marriage is allowed to all couples." (hey, I ain't a copy writer.)
Maybe our own using the shotgun aspect to put them on the defensive. says . Yet they never offer any real world examples or evidence. Put up or shut up!
In short, strike first, strike often, hit and run type tactics. Just make sure to have reference points and links to full information.
One suggestion I have for any web work that goes up is KISS! Good clean graphics and layout. Easy and obvious site navigation. Lose the pop ups, mouse overs, "easter eggs" crap. The idea is to pass on the information, not impress folks with how clever and skilled you are at perl, php, xhtml, etc. Save that exercise in geek/nerd pride for MySpace and the like.
Hold the local outposts of the fourth estate (fish wrap and electronic) accountable for the accuracy and fairness of their reporting. Hold their feet to the proverbial fire. But also have a big ole bucket of salve handy for those torched toes when they do a good job. Folks respond much better to kudos that brickbats, though unfortunately the latter is needed to get their attention.
Of course the best way to influence folks in the mushy middle is to live your life as out as you can (within personal safety limits). The more folks who see us as people and not as 'the other', the more likely they are to see the justice of our cause. They may still not like who we are or what we do in private, but they'll be more likely to live and let live if we are not 'the other'
I've run my phat phingers long enough..
62.
nightshayde | January 27, 2011 at 11:39 am
Without having read either article, I'd like to give a big ol' DUH!!!!
Right after he was outed 4 years ago & was saying to anyone who would listen that he wasn't gay, I was screaming at the TV — "No – you're not gay! You're bisexual!!"
When his wife was talking more recently about how the anti-gay therapy had ended her husband's homosexuality, I again screamed at the TV — "He never WAS gay! He is bisexual! Right now he's not sleeping with men — but he's still bisexual!!!"
*sigh*
63.
nightshayde | January 27, 2011 at 11:40 am
The itinerary for the day mentions that it will be a mass civil union.
I guess cities aren't as special as straight people. They're not really allowed to be "married." (insert rolling eyes here)
64.
Peterplumber | January 27, 2011 at 11:45 am
bJason,
You did a great review! I did not read THIS NARTH brief, but I did read the one they submitted in Perry. From your review, it sounds as if they simply submitted the same brief with a different address.
65.
Canadian JAG | January 27, 2011 at 11:49 am
I'm not too sure about pressing him on this now, he is aware that he needs to get through another election and may be a tough fight, equality is a divisive issue (sadly) and he is trying to appeal as broadly as possible for now and maybe his revelation moment from his evolution on the issue will come out when he no longer needs to worry about being elected?
Not saying he should be let off the hook but just acknowledging that given his position and the current landscape in the US he is making strides
66.
Ray in MA | January 27, 2011 at 12:30 pm
OT or NOT?
[youtube
67.
Peterplumber | January 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I don't think NARTH actually "cures" gay. I went onto thier site to see if I could sign up to be "cured". I figure if they can cure ME, then they might be telling the truth. But there is no place to sign up for getting "cured". There is a place to donate money to them, tho.
68.
Casey | January 27, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Huzzah! I live in Richmond and am very glad to hear this news. Thanks!
69.
Sagesse | January 27, 2011 at 1:39 pm
$4.71 million in Minnesota.
Family Council to spend $4.71 million to ‘ignite’ gay marriage battle
http://minnesotaindependent.com/76727/family-coun…
Unfortunately, some people have more money than brains.
70.
karen in kalifornia | January 27, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Brainstromer, those ideas are both a must.
71.
Mark M (Seattle) | January 27, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Only in the last 2 weeks has HUD opened its programs up to SS couples…and lenders are no longer allowed to rate SS couples lower or disqualify them based on orientation or gender identity.
To late for us, but at least other couples won't suffer.
72.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 27, 2011 at 2:24 pm
They're Maggie and the Brown
They're Maggie and the Brown
One is a harpy, the other's a clown
They're paid to hate the gays
They'll never change their ways
They're Maggie, they're Maggie and the Brown, Brown, Brown, Brown, Brown, Brown, Brown, Brown, Brown!
NOM!
73.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 27, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I want Scott Lively up on charges for crimes against humanity. And Bahati, Ssempa, and the rest with him.
74.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I'll say it again. Evil f**ks.
75.
Kathleen | January 27, 2011 at 3:05 pm
76.
Ed | January 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Hey NOM, is it time to use all those donations to buy a better spin machine? One with maybe, oh I don't know, 4 turbo chargers, 2 superchargers, and maybe an afterburner? Or…..just close shop and go home.
On a side note, if NOM does go under (we can hope), can ya'll imagine Bryan's and Maggie's resume? Would they *really* want NOM on that?
77.
Steve | January 27, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Not literally marriages, but on "Grey's Anatomy" (at least until Season 6) and "Stargate Universe", the gay relationships are the most stable on the entire show.
78.
Steve | January 27, 2011 at 8:58 pm
It's actually true. Female sexuality in particular is pretty fluid. It's not unheard of to change later in life. Which IMHO (and totally unscientific opinion) may point at some hormonal influences.
Where they are sorely mistaken is that they can somehow actively induce such a change. In reality, it just happens. There is nothing anyone can do about it.
Most of what they report is probably simply suppression though.
79.
Steve | January 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Again, it's mindboggling how that they all just have these enormous amounts of money lying around.
80.
Sagesse | January 27, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I'm curious to know who's behind it. Even NOM doesn't commit that kind of money to a single state.
81.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 27, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Empirical reality is anti-marriage equality people’s worst enemy.
Indeed, it's the worst enemy of fundamentalists in general.
82.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 27, 2011 at 10:41 pm
good news Mark about HUD….I appreciate your encouragement for others….as did not work out so well for you : *(
Story time:
Some here have followed my insurance saga…well, I realized first hand the significance of this earlier this week. My hubby need to go in to have his ears cleaned…I accompanied….we opted out of health insurance for him because of prohibited cost, HOWEVER, my company recognizes him as my "domestic partner" for eye care, dental…and we can use the Health Savings acct to pay for services….anyway, when checking in at the clinic/doctor I mentioned I'm the responsible party to pay and was asked what my relationship to the patient is and I proudly stated I'm his "domestic partner". The receptionist understood this, entered in my information then linked my hubby's info to me with same address and same phone #
This experience gave me a glimpse what it will be like to be married…the receptionist felt more at ease when she understood our relationship…I was beaming like a proud father or groom @ a happy wedding…the doctor treated us with respect as a couple and didn't question why I wanted to accompany my hubby during the procedure(as he reviewed the paperwork). Best of all my hubby smiled and felt cared for in a way he has not for many years. This simple change of status made ALL the difference.
Thanks to ALL of you who are working to make the world a better place for all of us. With sincere love, appreciation and grateful tears, Gregory
83.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 27, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Someone look and see if Rupert Murdoch is tied into this somewhere.
84.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
It's a different situation, but Kato's death reminded me of this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXMUDofxGs
85.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 27, 2011 at 11:31 pm
!!
86.
anonygrl | January 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Once again, you make me cry Gregory. The fact that something so simple as a person saying "Oh, I get it" can make you both feel so good throws into drastic relief how BAD it is when you don't get that little, tiny bit of recognition.
Thank goodness that every day, more and more people are "getting it".
87.
anonygrl | January 27, 2011 at 11:36 pm
LOL! Love it!
88.
anonygrl | January 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm
And this brief does not read at all like an arguement for a case, but more of a long winded and not terribly informative commercial for NARTH.
Maybe because they can't get anything of theirs published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, they figure having submitted their info to the courts will suffice?
Judge: "And how do you qualify as an expert witness? Have you ever been peer-reviewed? Do you have any hard data to provide? Can you prove any of your claims?"
NARTH "No, your honor… but look at all these amicus briefs we filed!"
89.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 27, 2011 at 11:42 pm
LOL! I'm not entirely sure why nightshayde but your post caused me bubbly/cheerful giggling….maybe the picture of you dramatically screaming at the TV….perhaps partly because of the fondness I feel for you as I've appreciate your contributions @ this site? Anyway, thank you for the good feelings and entertaining image : D Happy Friday!
p.s. – I appreciate learning more about bisexuality @ this site as sometimes the term is mis-used by closeted gay persons in a straight relationships.
90.
anonygrl | January 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Mass civil union? One city and lots of people? Does that count as polygamy? (Or rather, polyamory?)
91.
Mackenzie | January 27, 2011 at 11:55 pm
good news!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/pentag…
92.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 27, 2011 at 11:55 pm
lol! now you are making me cry anonygrl smiling…crying…trying to work…ridiculous! ; )
93.
Catherine | January 28, 2011 at 12:04 am
My thoughts exactly!!! I was actually offended by that idea in the movie. I was so surprised that a lesbian produced (wrote also?) that movie. I brought my young daughter to it, thinking it would be good for her to see a loving lesbian couple like her own parents and we ended up leaving part way through the movie. Some have told me that it redeemed itself but I was so disappointed. I made it as far as the first time Julianna Moore's character bedded Mark Ruffalo. Her reactions to him were the reactions of a raging heterosexual – not those of a lifelong lesbian, it bugged me. Just like the stereotypes of gay men as all being crazy, flamboyant, "sissies". Annoys the hell out of me.
94.
Sheryl Carver | January 28, 2011 at 12:17 am
I ran across this piece, "Kaufman asks, is Marriage the Right Battle for Gay Families?" at NOM's blog: http://nomblog.com/3968/#comments
Decided to leave a comment. Not surprisingly, it seems to be in the "awaiting moderation penalty box."
Sheryl Carver
Posted January 27, 2011 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ConservativeNY:
Marriage equality is NOT redefining marriage, any more than letting women vote redefined voting. Civil marriage is a legal construct conveying legal rights & responsibilities many of which cannot be obtained in any other way; thus, it should be available to ALL couples. Religious groups are & will be free to allow or deny their marriage ceremonies according to their rules/beliefs.
The time & money spent by anti-equality groups to deny
marriage to LGBT couples could have been much better spent on efforts that would actually help improve marriage for everyone, or even only heterosexual couples.
95.
Catherine | January 28, 2011 at 12:30 am
Their position is so ridiculous. People who are seeking to change their sexuality voluntarily at NARTH are generally individuals who have been raised to believe their homosexuality is wrong, sinful and/or shameful. Most are religious. These people are trying to not be gay so, it works like a diet. I can cut out sweets for a while – maybe I can do it forever – but that doesn't mean that when I see and smell a batch of homemade chocolate chip cookies all warm from the oven that I'm not lusting in my heart over them!!! And, generally speaking, we all know I'm gonna sneak that yummy cookie. Then, I might even lie and say I didn't. NARTH has a a lesser true success rate than a lifelong yo-yo dieter.
96.
Catherine | January 28, 2011 at 12:35 am
Here is an excerpt from an upublished editorial written by Mr. Kato.
"It must be said again and again in any society where
religious teachings on homosexuality dominate, that the
view of the religious majority is not to be legislated onto
the views and practices of the sexual minority. As long
as a gay man or woman does not infringe upon the rights
of other individuals, the homosexual (who is often
Christian) has the same right as his heterosexual
counterpart, to interpret the Bible according to his or her
understanding and to answer only before God (and not to
the government or to the church)."
97.
Steve | January 28, 2011 at 12:46 am
The idea was the she enjoyed the sex on a physical level, but had no true emotional connection. It wasn't to suggest that she "went straight" or anything like that. Maybe not the best, given the stereotypes, but there are other ways to look at it.
Towards to the end, he suggests that they try to be together and she vehemently refuses, telling him that she is gay.
98.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 28, 2011 at 12:48 am
That's awesome news! hope its true…3 months : D
99.
Catherine | January 28, 2011 at 12:49 am
I also love how he says that he's perfectly happy to restrict himself to sex with his wife in his marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, being bisexual doesn't mean that you constantly want to have sex with everyone all the time. It means that you can fall in love with/be attracted to those of either gender. So, failling in love with a person and committing to them isn't necessarily sacrificing that all-consuming desire to screw the other sex, right? I mean, c'mon Ted! If he feels he's giving up his desire for men in order to be with his wife – maybe he is gay and just doesn't want to be.
100.
mackenzie | January 28, 2011 at 1:00 am
Also just came across news that Fred karger made a new YouTube video……battle of concord 2011. NOM is gonna be pissed!
101.
Kate | January 28, 2011 at 1:02 am
Goodness. The title of that article alone admits that "gay families" exist, even in the minds of NOMbies.
102.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 28, 2011 at 1:06 am
reminder to self: "don't read fox news comments….EVER!"
103.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 28, 2011 at 1:07 am
great point! Woot! thx Sheryl and Kate!
104.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 28, 2011 at 1:18 am
I only knew Fred Karger from his contributions to 8: The Mormon Proposition…thank you for reference…and sparking my interest to learn more about this fierce conservative advocate. I will watch video(s) this weekend. Here is a pretty good intro I googled on Fred Karger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Karger
105.
LCH | January 28, 2011 at 1:32 am
Re: Seizing the moment and driving the conversation. I wonder if someone might convince our patron Rob Reiner to make a theatrical release movie about Prop 8's journey through the courts. Not a documentary but a Milk style movie.
The youtube re-enactment was awesome but the people we need to convince most, the older generation, are not your typical youtube viewer.
106.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 28, 2011 at 1:34 am
I can relate to your post Catherine. I was married to opposite person for 22 years to a dear person ….and sex could be very good….however my heart was never committed and in-love in a way that felt authentic to me. It wasn't until I met and fell in-love w/my hubby that I found the true meaning of romantic love. I used to say "I'm bi-sexual" but now I know more about gender identity I'm not so quick to place any label on myself. All I really know is I'm in love with my hubby *happy sigh*
There were birds, in the hills, but I never heard them singing…
107.
adambink | January 28, 2011 at 1:54 am
Thanks for the thought, Mark.
108.
mackenzie | January 28, 2011 at 1:55 am
Hahaha yeah i don't venture to the comments for fearing throw my computer across the room!
109.
adambink | January 28, 2011 at 1:56 am
A colleague of mine noted that he thought the mission of getting more gays/lesbians represented in a "positive light" on television had been fulfilled. I think we have made significant advances, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I have yet to see gay/lesbian couples in committed marriages on popular television shows.
110.
adambink | January 28, 2011 at 1:56 am
I will.
111.
adambink | January 28, 2011 at 1:56 am
"tune the engine" is a very good point.
112.
fiona64 | January 28, 2011 at 2:00 am
Apropos of nothing: There was a fire at one of the satellite adoption centers attached to the Humane Society where I volunteer. This is the information that was on our website this morning:
News Alert Update!
A fire broke out in PETCO in the El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center Thursday night where one of our satellite adoption centers is located.
It is believed that the fire was started by an electrical short in the grooming center.
Jamie Emming, Jackie Torres, Aurora Chamberlin and Volunteers Maureen and Nancy were able to rescue all of the HSSV animals once the Fire Department secured the building and cleared them for entrance. No one was injured and all of our animals (5 cats, 7 rabbits and 17 pocket pets) were evacuated to our Animal Community Center in Milpitas.
Dr. Julia examined the animals and none of them suffered any physical ailments or injuries. They are all resting comfortably at HSSV.
How You Can Help!
Donate towels, cat beds, sheets and area rugs in good repair.
Adopt a rabbit or pocket pet at our satellite adoption center in PETCO Sunnyvale or at our Animal Community Center in Milpitas.
—-
To this, I will add that there is a donation link at http://www.hssv.org. Humane Society Silicon Valley is a wonderful facility, and if you can help at all it will be most appreciated. Even if you have items on the want list to mail, it will be received in gratitude. The address is at the link as well.
Thank you for your consideration; the staff, volunteers and shelter guests thank you as well. (Prayers count, too.)
Love,
Fiona
113.
Mackenzie | January 28, 2011 at 2:10 am
I am excited he is trying to run on the Republican ticket. It will be a cold dayin hell before that party nominates him, but he can force the issue amd have an honest debate about it. No more of this bs about being bad for families and marraiges and not having a bit of proof.
114.
anonygrl | January 28, 2011 at 2:11 am
What is a pocket pet?
115.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 28, 2011 at 2:27 am
donated…..and I'm curious too what a "pocket pet" is? today is payday….reminds me its time to tithe courage campaign too….
116.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 28, 2011 at 2:42 am
indeed! : /
117.
Furface | January 28, 2011 at 2:46 am
"Pocket pets" usually refer to small mammals like hamsters, gerbils, mice, etc. Small enough to be carried in one's pocket.
118.
Mark M. (Seattle) | January 28, 2011 at 3:01 am
Here is a copy of what I sent to the President
Mr. President;
I am writing you today to thank you for speaking out publicly regarding the murder of Mr. Katos in Uganda.
I was please to read your words that human rights are NOT special rights and that MUST include LGBT persons, regardless of country of origin.
However, these words leave me wanting more…they ring rather flatly in my ears when one considers what is happening right here in our own country regarding the second class citizenship of our own LGBT persons.
Discrimination in so many areas here in the US still exist and seem sanctioned by our own government leaders.
Housing issues
Employment discrimination
Marriage discrimination / DOMA
Adoption issues
Immigration issues
The list could go on and on but I know you get my point.
Until such time as we see more action and less speech giving it is hard to take your words to seriously.
Even the repeal of DADT is being dragged out and made to be more than it need be. When desegregation of the armed services took place there was no polling to see how others would react…..there was no delayed implementation….no months long re-education of staff and troops.
The implications of these delays is that of bigotry.
In the words of the great leader Martin Luther King Jr. "Justice delayed is justice denied"
Mr. President I urge you to stop delaying justice.
Respectfully
Mark M
Seattle, WA
119.
Mark M. (Seattle) | January 28, 2011 at 3:04 am
I would beg to disagree with your colleague on this…but we are all entitled to our opinion…and allowed to see things differently.
120.
fiona64 | January 28, 2011 at 3:17 am
In this specific case, they are hamsters and rats. Anyone who saw the Hoarders episode about the Los Angeles rat breeder? We have some of the rats that were taken from her.
Thanks to all who have helped already. If you cannot help without hurting your own pocketbook, prayers are welcomed.
The good news is that no one (animal or human) was hurt, but we do need to replace smoke-damaged items such as those listed.
You guys rock.
Love,
Fiona
121.
anonygrl | January 28, 2011 at 3:39 am
Oooooh… I see. My two cats (both rescued) would LOVE me to bring home a pocket pet for THEM to play with.
I have made donations to our pet shelter here (and, in fact, my young kitty, Thing 2, was adopted from their pet center at the local Petco) and will have to, at the moment, just think good thoughts for yours.
122.
Mark M. (Seattle) | January 28, 2011 at 3:53 am
Oh heavens Gregory NEVER read Fox or Yahoo comments
Not at all good for the blood pressure
123.
Mark M. (Seattle) | January 28, 2011 at 4:00 am
Wouldn't that just be wonderful!
There are so many LGBT movers and shackers in Hollywood that could/should step up and work on a project like this.
I have sent many a letter/email to Michael Moore regarding marriage equality (DOMA) and DADT….have never heard back but at least I tried
I would love to see Reiner, Geffen, Hanks, Tomei, Howard, Speilberg, and on and on pull their great fortunes and influence to make such as this happen.
The impact they could make would change this nation, this world in ways we can't even imagine.
124.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 28, 2011 at 4:42 am
And I agree with you , Mark. I for one, would like to see more representations of life-long, married LGBT couples who have children and grandchildren.
125.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 28, 2011 at 4:44 am
Thank you, Fiona. You have just given me a very good reason to clear out the excess in our linen closet here. I am assuming that sheets and so forth are also needed, correct?
126.
Ronnie | January 28, 2011 at 4:52 am
ROFL…..<3…Ronnie
127.
fiona64 | January 28, 2011 at 5:37 am
Yes, Richard, sheets, etc., are definitely needed. You can ship them to the shelter at the address on the site.
Love,
Fiona
128.
Rhie | January 28, 2011 at 6:06 am
Aw Gregory
It could be that he's gay. It could also be that he's bisexual. I'm bisexual. I wouldn't be totally happy in an exclusive relationship with either sex, because to do so would always be denying my attraction to the other sex.
If I were in a monogamous relationship with a man, I would be denying the part of me that is attracted to women and might want to have a relationship – sexual or otherwise – with a woman.
If I was in a monogamous relationship with a woman, I would be denying the part of me that is attracted to men and might want to have a relationship with a man.
So my solution is to have a polyamorous relationship. This leaves me open to pursuing any relationship that comes my way, either with someone of my sex or of the opposite one.
But this is me. I don't think it's impossible for a bisexual man or woman to be happy and fulfilled in a monogamous relationship. Monogamy is just not for me on so many levels.
129.
Kathleen | January 28, 2011 at 6:15 am
I would just like to point out that your desire to have a relationship with both a man and woman at the same time likely speaks more to your desire/willingness to be in a polyamorous relationship than it does to your being bi.
I am in a monogamous relationship because I am more comfortable being in a monogamous relationship. The fact that I'm bi just means that it's possible that the person I chose might have been a man or might have been a woman.
Just as some straight people are willing to be in non-monogamous relationships, so are some people who are gay, lesbian or bi. But I don't think that my desire to be in a relationship with just one person at a time is denying my attraction to one or the other sex any more than a straight person choosing monogamy is denying their attraction to other people.
130.
Rhie | January 28, 2011 at 6:28 am
I agree with you. There still needs to be more. Will and Grace was groundbreaking at the time, but we need more than that.
As far as committed couples on prime time TV shows: This was a while ago, but the best relationship on "Friends" was Carol and Susan.
And of course, Modern Family. It plays to stereotypes, yes. But at least they have an open, committed, gay family included in as an every family/family next door.
I have only seen a few episodes of that show, though so correct me if I am wrong about the family there being a good thing.
131.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 28, 2011 at 6:38 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_s…
132.
Rhie | January 28, 2011 at 6:47 am
Thanks for commenting on what I wrote. I can see in re-reading it how what I said might give the impression that I think that any monogamous bisexual person is somehow wrong. I really, really don't think that. I am mortified it comes off that way.
I don't think you are denying yourself at all. I think that any and all configurations of consensual adult relationships are perfectly fine if they aren't hurting anyone and are making people happy.
For me that's poly – partly because of how I see *my* bisexuality. And, partly for other reasons.
For you it's clearly different. And that's fine. I am sorry I came off as saying anything other than that.
I was just trying to clumsily say that George Rekers could actually be bisexual and not just gay and denying it.
133.
Rhie | January 28, 2011 at 6:48 am
Thanks!
134.
Brainstormer | January 28, 2011 at 8:46 am
I've been quietly lurking. In item (2), I meant "opportunity," not "apparently." Sorry about that.
135.
Ray in MA | January 28, 2011 at 10:22 am
ABSOLUTE B.S.
136.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | January 29, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Items I can handle. Am in the process of spring cleaning. thanks for sharing this.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
137.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 30, 2011 at 11:05 pm
catching up from the weekend…
I appreciate the conversation Rhie (and Kathleen) : )
I've heard you speak before Rhie about polyamorous relationships and if that works for you and those you love "good for you!" I hope everyone can find their happiness, their bliss.
It would seem there are many rainbow shades of bi-sexuality just as there are many types of "gay" relationships and each conversation here gives me insight to the way other think and live… its invaluable and precious information to me. Some choose "open" relationships and seem perfectly content with that. Others choose monogamy with many various of each.
Coming back to my original post I don't really care what label is applied to me or my hubby or what category we might be classified as. I rely on the indescribably bliss I feel when he smiles at me…the sheer joy and contentment I feel as we cuddle each night while falling asleep, as we express feelings of love via close proximity and/or touch, feelings that seem impossible to articulate through words. Its Monday morning I'm at work…my hubby is not with me…l miss him *sigh*
138.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 30, 2011 at 11:07 pm
thanks for warning about Yahoo!
139.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 30, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I'll had my HOPE for such a project! Lovely thought!
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.