In a New York Times op-ed piece, David Blankenhorn (President of the Institute for American Values) and Jonathan Rauch (guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America”)  make a proposal that the federal govt jump in and determine the fate of gay marriage.  Their point is that gays and people with religious values will never be able to agree on the issue of same-sex marriage.

While I agree that it would be good for the federal government to intervene, this compromise will not work.  Here is their proposal:

"Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill."

We have already seen this in MA.  When the Catholic Church was told it needed to be open to gay adoptions or not facilitate any adoptions, the largest adoption agency in the state, Catholic Charities decided to stop adoptions all together.  If they took the same approach to gay marriage, we wouldn't be moving forward towards acceptance.

The NY Times piece, which can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?ref=opinion says that  a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under age 30 favor some form of legal same-sex union.  The fact is that clearly a majority of people under age 30 favor gay marriage.  So, it will come to be supported eventually.  In the meantime, a lot of money is going to be spent on this.  Money that could be better spent.  Unfortunately, to maintain our rights, we are going to have to spend this money and those who oppose our rights are going to have to spend too.  This is what's really crazy!                  

Geraldine Bedell, a newspaper journalist and the author of several novels, said organizers and her publisher, Penguin, had been discussing launching her new book, “The Gulf Between Us,” which is set in the Gulf, at the festival.  But now, she's been denied even attending.  All this just because she has a character in her book who is assumed to be gay (not stated, assumed). 

Isn't it about time US publishing focused on anti-gay discrimination in their industry?  Look at TV and movies, there are many gay characters.  But, not is commercial publishing.  It's time to change this now!

 http://www.365gay.com/news/british-author-banned-from-dubai-over-books-gay-reference/

Here is a poem I wrote about staying close in love.  With Valentine's Day approaching I thought it might be a good post!

Checking 
I am always
Just checking
To see
If you’re still there
Wishing
I wouldn’t have to wonder
Hoping
You’d just let me know
Wanting
To be close and together
Remembering
How good you make me feel
Dreaming
Of having more with you
Checking
To see
If you want more too 

The Lesbian Lifestyle (TLL) has just announced that nominations for their annual "Lesbian Blog of the Year" Awards, otherwise known as "The Lezzys." I have entered my blog into the contest. 

TLL is a lesbian blog that was created in 2004 and is comprised of over 250 lesbian authors who post stories on a monthly basis. The Lezzys are their way of highlighting the best of the best of lesbian blogs.

Nominations began on Feb 2nd and will go until February 9th. Voting begins on Wednesday, February 11th and will end on February 18th.

The catagories I am entered in are:

• Best Lesbian Parenting/Wedding Blog
• Best Lesbian 50 and over Blog

How voting works: You are allowed 1 vote per category within a 24 hour period. This is being tracked by email accounts so that more than one person can vote from the same computer/IP address. Voting will go from February 11-18. Votes will be tallied and the winners of all 9 categories will be announced on Monday February 23rd.

Please nominate my blog for one of the catagories!!!

Click here to vote for my blog.

The Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism has lauched a website to attract gays and lesbians to travel to MA.  It hightlights events and provides directions about how to obtain a marriage license.  The site is pretty basic right now, but with time, and more people posting events, it could become more robust.  To see the site click here.  http://www.lgbtmassvacation.com/

Now, when it comes to visiting MA, where I live, there are a lot of tremendous things to do.  Some I suggest are:

1.  On a Sunday afternoon or an early evening during the week, have a drink on one of the outdoor patios at one of the South End bars.  Tremont 647 is one of my favorites; a great place to people watch in a gay section of town.
 
2.  Go to the Colonial Inn in Concord on a Thursday night and listen to the music; its usually folk oriented.

3.  If you have kids, take them to Harvard's Museum of Natural History and then afterwards, walk around Harvard Square; go for lunch or dinner in the Square.

4.  Come in the fall and see a college football game; Harvard Stadium is a good place to go.  Or, in the winter see a hockey game.  If the Bruins are too expensive, try the Worcester Sharks. 

5.  If you like music and lights, go see one of the laser shows at the Museum of Science on Friday nights.  This Friday, there is a show set to Pink Floyd music!

Just some ideas!  MA is a great state!

If you go to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/03calif.html you will see a great article on the release of donor records in California.  At this website you can search the actual records http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/ .

If the vote had been based on # of donors, Proposition 8 would be defeated not passed (53,056 to 34,589 - although there was a little double counting due to multiple contributions on both sides at the larger contribution amounts). If the vote had been based on amount contributed, Proposition 8 would have been defeated ($45m to $40m).

We've all read about big contributions supporting the amendment to ban gay marriage by the religious right, Mormons, Catholic Bishops Fund and others.  I wonder how many people $85m could feed (the total amount contributed by both sides).  Why don't these religious people focus on what God set them out to do....carry on his mission of loving and taking care of the poor, weak, sick and lonely? 

Just think, if the CA Supreme Court doesn't decide to reverse the vote and throw out the ban, we'll be doing it all over again in 2010.  What a waste of money. Let's get a movement going to make those saying they are following God put their money where his mouth would be!!!

If you go to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/03calif.html you will see a great article on the release of donor records in California.  At this website you can search the actual records http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/03calif.html.

If the vote had been based on # of donors, Proposition 8 would be defeated not passed (53,056 to 34,589 - although there was a little double counting due to multiple contributions on both sides at the larger contribution amounts). If the vote had been based on amount contributed, Proposition 8 would have been defeated ($45m to $40m).

We've all read about big contributions supporting the amendment to ban gay marriage by the religious right, Mormans, Catholic Bishops Fund and others.  I wonder how many people $85m could feed (the total amount contributed by both sides).  Why don't these religious people focus on what God set them out to do....carry on his mission of loving and taking care of the poor, weak, sick and lonely. 

Just think, if the CA Supreme Court doesn't decide to reverse the vote and throw out the ban, we'll be doing it all over again in 2010.  What a waste of money. Let's get a movement going to make those saying they are following God put their money where his mouth would be!!!

If you go to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/03calif.html you will see a great article on the release of donor records in California.  At this website you can search the actual records http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/03calif.html.

If the vote had been based on # of donors, Proposition 8 would be defeated not passed (53,056 to 34,589 - although there was a little double counting due to multiple contributions on both sides at the larger contribution amounts). If the vote had been based on amount contributed, Proposition 8 would have been defeated ($45m to $40m).

We've all read about big contributions supporting the amendment to ban gay marriage by the religious right, Mormans, Catholic Bishops Fund and others.  I wonder how many people $85m could feed (the total amount contributed by both sides).  Why don't these religious people focus on what God set them out to do....carry on his mission of loving and taking care of the poor, weak, sick and lonely. 

Just think, if the CA Supreme Court doesn't decide to reverse the vote and throw out the ban, we'll be doing it all over again in 2010.  What a waste of money. Let's get a movement going to make those saying they are following God put their money where his mouth would be!!!

The New York Times reports that there are about 100 under the radar womyn's communities throughout the US.  These are places where lesbians live together as a family/community.  This article interviews several members of these groups about why they choose to live like this.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashion/01womyn.html?em

The comments are very anti-male.  One woman says that men are violent as if you could put all men in this category.  There is some discussion about difficulities recruiting new, younger women, now that the world is more open to homosexuality.  Many of the women seem to have fled to these groups to be able to live their lives openly in a supportive environment.

I believe that everyone has the right to live how they want to live.  And, if these women decided they had to live in a narrow community of their own types, it's obviously their choice.  But I do wonder if living a lesbian life in secrecy is really living life as a lesbian.  I mean, why not live out in the open and help push others to be open-minded towards your lifestyle.  There have been times when friends have talked about retiring together.  This sounded good to me, but I don't think we ever meant it to be in the absence of heterosexuals....certainly not in the absence of any men.

Best of luck to these womyn....but it's not for me.