Am I becoming my father?

I know this is a very strange question coming from someone who has never had a father, but I do remember a few things about my biological father: one of them being a penchant for being confrontational and belligerent with total strangers in public venues. Almost as a reflex. When going out in public, some people put on a nice hat or fancy gloves... wait--why do I think I live prior to 1960?



Rephrasing, when going out in public, some people put on their sunglasses. Or perfume or cologne. My dad always put on his fightin' pants, which kept him ready at literally a second's notice to react combatively to any number of public encounters. Always super classy, my dad.

So getting out of class tonight, I waited on the bench at my usual bus stop waiting for my usual bus to come by at its usual time.



Sure enough, Valley Metro's Route 66 turned the corner on to College Ave. As usual, I stand up to let it know I need to get on. The bus driver continues as if he hasn't seen me, so I stick out my arm at a 90-degree angle, Mexico style, to hail the bus. Still no reaction from the geriatric bus driver, which quickly pushes me to my last resort: yelling. Begrudgingly, the bus stops and waits for me to catch up to it. The embittered golden-age bus driver then refuses to open the doors until I get RIGHT up to them. As I'm scanning my pass, he yells at me--in that abrupt style that is unique to public transport discourse in the greater New York area--that if I would've been at the actual bus stop, he would've seen me. Since I'm fluent in New Yorker, I jumped right in and fended off the ridiculous accusation: "That's where I WAS!" That's where I'd ALWAYS stood up! I'd NEVER had a problem getting a bus to stop before, and I've been taking that route for months. MONTHS!

*Throws hands up as if complaining about the sudden increase in the price of shmear at the 72nd Street bagel shop he's been going to every Friday morning for years. YEARS! I'm veklempt! The whole world's gone mashuganuh!*



So anyway, the argument goes on a bit more, then Grandpa Metro goes back to inattentively driving whilst daydreaming about Betty Grable...



...and I go sit in the back and listen to my iPod, contemplating what has just happened. When suddenly confronted with ridiculous or false accusations or any kind of dispute with a random, unknown person, my initial reflex is almost ALWAYS to play the peacemaker. Just like my mom, I'll lower my eyes to avoid adding flames to the fire, accept whatever trivial bullshit is being flung my way, and just seek to end the situation as quietly as possible and avoid a confrontation. It's not worth dealing with the negative vibes, man!



Grandpa Metro was clearly a little off and well past retirement, so when we got to my stop, I was sure to say "Thank you, sir," to which he responded appreciatively. There: I've got my Kathy St.George hippy zen back. Namasté. As I'm crossing the street to get home, an oncoming car--who didn't need to slow down for me but for some reason just felt REALLY put off that he had to see a pedestrian anywhere near the front of his car--flashed his lights, rolled down his window and said, "Damn jaywalker!" To which I INSTANTLY shouted back: "¡TU PUTA MADRE!" Without even thinking about it. So much for ending my night in zen-like bliss.

Having just screamed "¡Tu puta madre!" as a knee-jerk reaction to a total stranger in the street, I'm pretty sure that, like it or not, I have some of my biological father's blood in my veins. And not even when I'm drunk.

Have you noticed how it's been 9 months since my last blog? Remember how my parents suddenly transferred me to a private, all-girls school to finish my senior year? An all-girls boarding school with no internet access, and therefore, no blogging? Well the truth is that the boarding school was a monastery, and I was gone for 9 months because, well, I got pregnant, and mom and dad didn't want the townspeople to see me that way. They didn't want our family's reputation to be forever tarnished, since apparently, the family reputation and my personal honor are based entirely on whether or not my hymen is intact.



Well guess what? I'm 18 now, and I'm keeping my baby!

Oh, that's right. I need to keep reminding myself that, when the question of whether or not I'm a free-thinking 18-year-old girl who refuses to play by the rules arises, the answer is no. At the time, however, it seemed like the best explanation for my 9-month absence from the blog. Most of you know about the drama that has kept me busy since my last entry (let's be sure to blame this entirely on my life's drama and not at all on my laziness, my procrastination, or my crippling meth habit):

*Semester-end crunch, Fall 2008
*Holidays, Winter 2008
*Took too many classes, Spring 2009
*Moved TWICE during the same semester, Spring 2009 (thanks, surprise foreclosure!)
*Taught class I've never taught before, Spring 2009
*Out of the country most of Summer 2009
*Shoelaces became irreparably frayed, Summer 2009

As you can see, it has been QUITE hectic. I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. Instead, I'll focus on what a lovely person that Meryl Streep seems to be.



Never mind that she's the most talented and skilled actress in modern history. I've seen her as a guest on SEVERAL talk shows now, so I feel like I've REALLY gotten to know the real Meryl, and she is LOVELY. I just want to hang out with her all day, every day. I'm pretty sure I'd never need a break from her; I'd just be forever blissful at her side. Her aura of peace and harmony would permeate my existence to the point that I would completely forget about war, injustice, vericose veins, and the fact that some people actually consider Fox News to be a valid news source instead of a never-ending dramatized opinion column/letter to the editor.



Incidentally, having noticed that in 2008 my blog became increasingly political, I have decided to start a second blog that is dedicated to politics as they affect me. If you're interested, you can read all about it on my new political blog! I'm starting it off with last year's marriage equality post but will be adding to it soon, hopefully. Unless my shoelaces become irreparably frayed again, that is. In that case, I don't know what the hell I'll do.

In any case, that should keep my personal blog light and occasionally (and mediocrely) entertaining. I won't be posting any pictures of my baby since he looks a LOT like his father: a man who will only publicly reveal his identity if and when he feels it is prudent. His name may or may not rhyme with Shmark-Shpaul Shgosselaar. So far he hasn't paid a dime of child support, but I still love him. You hear that Shmark-Shpaul? You can come back home to me and it won't be awkward. I promise.

RECONCILING MORMONISM WITH PROP 8



Alright, my friends. You knew this was coming: I couldn't let Prop 8 come and go without talking about it. I've been through a lot of emotions since it narrowly passed earlier this month, but I think I've gotten to a point where I can post a healthy essay on the subject. A (Mormon) childhood friend with whom I've had little-to-no contact as an adult has been going back and forth with me in an e-mail debate over Prop 8 (which she actively supports). She revealed to me that she felt qualified to speak on the matter because she herself questioned her sexuality at one point before getting married to a man. The following is an excerpt from my last e-mail, which begins with a quote from her last message:

"You are so incredibly intelligent, understanding, talented, and really gifted. Your sexual orientation doesn't change that one iota in my eyes."

Thank you for the compliments.

"But ultimately, do you really think that you will discover lasting joy in the life to come by pursuing this lifestyle?"

What lifestyle would you be referring to? Without sounding too accusatory, it sounds very much like you're tapping into that tired, intellectually bankrupt cliché that claims there is a heterosexual lifestyle (perceived as long-term commitment/marriage/family-centered) and a homosexual lifestyle (perceived as short-term/promiscuous/anti-family). My response to this claim is always: what do you know about my lifestyle? I have to laugh out loud every time I hear homosexuality referred to as "that lifestyle," because it is absolutely absurd to insinuate that sexual orientation is what defines a person's lifestyle.

I have plenty of straight friends who are at the bars every weekend looking for new, exciting sexual encounters. They are promiscuous and then some. They are not interested (at least at this point in their lives) in settling down, committing to one person, getting married, or having kids. Since you and I haven't been close enough to know about each other's "lifestyles" since we were in high school, let me tell you a little bit about my lifestyle. I haven't had sex in nearly two years, and that was when I was in a relationship. I am looking (and have been looking for many, many years now) for a long-term relationship: long-term happiness. I'm not interested in short-term happiness/fulfillment.

What I'm trying to do here is make you aware of the subtleties of epistemic violence against entire groups of people: referring to homosexuality as "this lifestyle" when you know nothing at all about my lifestyle. Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. I've seen plenty of straight friends and family sleep around, do drugs, drink and drive, produce offspring in and out of wedlock, and traumatize that offspring in outrageously selfish attempts at short-term fulfillment. I am morally opposed to their lifestyle. Would it be fair or logical for me to refer to that as "the straight lifestyle?" That would be laughably absurd. Individuals determine their lifestyle--their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

“Aren't Heavenly Father's laws in place to guide us and protect us? Don't you think that we will be better off by obeying them than by seeking our own way around them? [. . .] You know my upbringing. You know me. I am no moral giant, but I do think that there is a plan in place and that we will be happiest if we stick to it.”

You do realize I’m not Mormon, right? I can appreciate your personal faith, but when you try to impose your doctrine on me, it comes across as disregard for my own personal/moral beliefs. I have no right to tell you you’re wrong, because the Baptists will tell you you’re wrong, and the Muslims will tell them they’re wrong, and the Jews will tell them they’re wrong, and the atheists will tell them they’re all wrong … it’s just one vicious, counterproductive circle.

Personal faith isn’t a topic for public debate, since faith is defined by believing in that which cannot be proven through logic. It is when this faith becomes institutionalized and then politicized, however, that we have a moral obligation to apply some critical thinking skills to the rhetoric that is being presented. Trying to contain this debate within the confines of Mormonism is not likely to create mutual respect or understanding. On the contrary: it only attracts unwanted scrutiny to your belief system and reinforces the widely-perceived stereotype that Mormons are narrow-minded, xenophobic, and dogmatic. Knowing as many Mormons as I do, I know this is not necessarily true (I often hear complaints about narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, and dogmatism from Mormons about other Mormons). There are plenty of Mormons who shudder at the mere mention of three particular letters in succession: BYU. By definition, stereotypes are inaccurate, unfair generalizations.

Interestingly enough, I believe the argument for equality can, in fact, be made from within Mormonism, just as there are Mormons who voted no on Prop 8 and Mormons who are Democrats--not in spite of, but because of their moral beliefs. The following three examples come to mind:

1) Establishing a homogenized master plan for universal happiness and discouraging free agency… I believe that’s referred to as “Satan’s plan” in Mormon pre-existence theology.

2) Article of Faith #11: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” There are churches that believe sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis for moral or legal discrimination. Some of them performed same-sex marriages in California while they were legal and continue to do so in states and countries where they are legal. As a church with a history of being persecuted and marginalized by mainstream Christianity, it seems a bit hypocritical for the Mormon Church to tell these churches they don’t have the legal right to perform and bless marriages “according to the dictates of [their] own conscience.” I think the 11th Article of Faith is a fantastic one. I would invite the Yes-on-8 Mormons to revisit it and contemplate the historical context and spirit in which it was written.

3) The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A central principle for any Christian, and decidedly the thesis statement of the Bible.

Since you have stated some your religious beliefs, I will state some of mine in the spirit of the 11th Article of Faith (that is, recognizing that neither of us has the right to speak from an absolute moral high ground). I believe that plurality and difference exist for a divine reason. Human beings come in different shapes, sizes, and colors for a divine reason: so that we can intellectually/spiritually rise above the differences our eyes perceive and connect with each other’s spirits.

Just as skin color falls upon a continuum, so does human sexuality. The majority of professionals in the fields of medicine, academia, and psychology agree that sexuality is not a binary concept. You yourself are a great example of this: you fall somewhere along this continuum that had you questioning/analyzing your sexuality at one point. Apparently, your position on this continuum is somewhere in between 100% gay and 100% straight. This position was moderate enough to where you were able to embrace the part of you that’s attracted to men and commit to a heterosexual marriage and find happiness in that. I think that’s fantastic, and I completely support you. I do not consider your sexuality to be superior or inferior in any way, despite the fact that it is different from mine (just like snowflakes, no two sexualities are completely identical).

Do rainbow flag-toting activists have the right to tell you that, since you were doubtful about your sexuality at one point, you’re obviously gay and that you would be happier if you would stop living in denial and just accept a prescribed gay sexuality? Of course not! Only you can make that call. It’s your happiness. Sexual orientation and happiness are extremely personal, individual matters. They are matters of the heart, and no one can see inside or judge your heart except for you. Can you see where I’m going with this? Can you see the problem with trying to subject me to a prescribed sexuality?

When religious and/or political groups start throwing around rhetoric about sexual orientation, it’s a very sensitive, delicate issue because it goes so much further than what we give the term “sexuality” credit for at face value. When you’re talking about someone’s sexual orientation, you’re talking about their heart: the very core of them--the part of them that seeks love, companionship, and happiness. Surely you can see why I take this extremely personally. When you support discriminatory measures like Prop 8, you’re saying that my heart is somehow flawed and inferior--unworthy of the same legal protections as your heart. You cannot support Prop 8 and truly regard me as an equal.

When it comes to our relationship as friends, other political issues are trivial in comparison, since political stances and beliefs are something that we choose. I did not choose to be gay. When we're talking about me being gay, we're not talking about what I believe in or what I chose. We're talking about who I am. Since you were brave enough to share your story with me, I’d like to share mine with you. As you have alluded to, my position on the continuum of human sexuality has never been as ambiguous or as moderate as yours. I’ve been very strongly attracted to guys from a very young age. At what point is it morally justifiable to marginalize someone because of their sexuality? When I was a sweet, loving, innocent 10-year-old who happened to be attracted to other boys, was I still too young to be legislatively marginalized? Is that attitude cruel when directed to a child, but morally sound when directed to an adult?

Every single birthday cake that came my way between the ages of 10 and 21 meant one thing for me: I got to make a wish. And every time, that wish was to not be gay. When I was 12 and the van carrying my Boy Scout troop to a Phoenix Suns game passed through the tunnel between Globe and Superior, I held my breath and silently wished to not be gay. I didn’t say a single prayer that didn’t involve a desperate plea to my Creator to take these immoral feelings from me and make me “normal” and “worthy.” Despite being an “incredibly intelligent, understanding, talented, and really gifted” person (to use your words), I allowed others to convince me that I was a terrible, immoral person because I could not force myself to be attracted to girls. There were even times when I considered killing myself to end the torment (I know of one Safford-area teenage boy who did just that). Suicide is probably the most “unnatural” act a human being can perform, wouldn’t you agree?

I finally took a moral stance, however, to stop hating myself, because God isn’t hate. God is love. I took a moral stance to be honest (see the 13th Article of Faith: “We believe in being honest”) about who I am. I took a moral stance and decided that I would not force myself into a heterosexual marriage by using deceit to fool some poor girl into marrying me when I could never be in love with her (much less have sex with her--yuck!). Our friend [NAME OMITTED] actually thanked me for being courageous enough to take this moral stance. She knows first-hand what kind of damage can be done when gay people try to force themselves to follow a prescribed path of happiness. Now she’s a single mother with two kids. In retrospect, she really would’ve preferred honesty from her ex-husband rather than obedience to “Heavenly Father’s laws” (to use your words again). How can God command me to be straight but also command me to be honest?

When I finally fell in love for the first time (at the tender age of 23), it was like I had at long last discovered the secret of life. When I fell in love with someone and knew that he loved me back, the experience was indescribable: life-affirming, transformative, spiritual. I finally understood what all those love songs were about. My entire life, I had heard countless songs about love: allegedly the most powerful force humans can experience. Powerful enough to cause immense happiness, immense sorrow, obsession, devotion... a whole range of powerful emotions that up until I was 23, I truly did not understand. It seemed like every singer and song writer was ridiculously obsessed with this thing called love. The whole idea of being in love with someone seemed so illogical to me: so alien. I felt like I was outside humanity looking in. When I met my first boyfriend, I finally understood the elation human beings feel from love. It was a positive, truly spiritual experience. My spirit doesn't have to live in solitude and self-loathing afterall!

You have used “nature” to justify your support of a proposition that adds discrimination to California’s state constitution. I would remind you that homosexual activity does occur within nature (dogs come to mind). But human nature is a little bit more complex, isn’t it? For me personally, I can’t think of anything more unnatural than kissing a woman. Nothing was more natural than kissing my first boyfriend. I believe God and nature are One. A certain portion of every human population finds itself so far along the continuum of human sexuality that they are naturally inclined to find love and companionship with members of the same sex. I believe this is God’s/nature’s way of 1) taking the edge off of exponential procreation, 2) making sure there are enough adults to take care of those unwanted children whose existence is a result of irresponsible heterosexual activity, and 3) encouraging spiritual evolution (just like with racial differences, challenging us to intellectually/spiritually rise above the differences our eyes perceive so that we connect with each other’s spirits).

Those are my spiritual beliefs. You may not agree with them, which is fine. I believe in the 11th Article of Faith, which means that I shouldn’t impose my beliefs on you and vice versa. What a great country we live in: one that allows for plurality, coexistence, and equality. Despite suffering institutionalized marginalization in 19th Century America, Mormons are now free to engage in their own pursuit of happiness “according to the dictates of [their] own conscience” on a level (equal) playing field. Even though being Mormon constitutes making a choice and adopting a set of beliefs, as far as the law is concerned, they are equals. Other religions may (and do) continue to preach that Mormons are immoral, misled enemies of true Christianity. They are entitled to their opinions. As churches, the State has no right to force them to preach equality. As churches, however, they have no right to force the State to adhere to their discriminatory beliefs.

Seeing any parallels here? Despite current institutionalized marginalization, gay people are working towards a level (equal) playing field. The difference? Being gay does not constitute making a choice (other than choosing to be honest about one’s sexual orientation), nor does it constitute adopting any set of beliefs. Gay people are as heterogeneous as any other group when it comes to what they believe spiritually. Other religions may (and do) continue to preach that gay people are immoral, misled enemies of true Christianity. They are entitled to their opinions. As churches, the State has no right to force them to preach equality. As churches, however, they have no right to force the State to adhere to their discriminatory beliefs.

SOME AFTERTHOUGHTS:

Yes-on-8 people have claimed that a marriage and a family are defined as "one man, one woman." I grew up with just the "one woman" part. Do I not come from a real family? Is my family suddenly invalidated? Were there adverse consequences to coming from a single-parent home? Yes. Many of the issues my siblings and I have stem from the fact that my mother--who is amazing and did her very best--was physically/logistically incapable of being there for us as much as we needed (a) parent(s) to be there for us. Would I have been better off in the system or in a foster home? No. Would I have been better off with two mothers? Without a doubt. The Tanner family on Full House had zero women and three men. Are you really going to tell Michelle Tanner that she doesn't come from a real family?



Can you take a look around you at some of the child-producing "one-man-one-woman" unions in any given supermarket and honestly tell me that their family environment is better for children than one I could provide, simply because I'm gay? Even if they're drug-dealing, welfare-collecting, hideous people? It's OK for them to make a family with kids because they're straight, but it's not OK for a socially-responsible PhD candidate to marry a like-minded person and adopt children (who would otherwise be in the system) to form a family simply because we're gay? It's even OK for them to get married while one of them (or both of them) is incarcerated, since they're straight? Really? What kind of message does this kind of institutionalized narrative send to gay kids everywhere?

Money donated to Yes-on-8 was used to propagate the lie that allowing gay marriage to remain legal would force clergy to perform same-sex marriages. Really? Church and State, people. Church and State. Only Mormon weddings are allowed to take place in Mormon temples. Can a Catholic sue the Mormons for not allowing him/her to get married in their temple? No! Churches have always had the right to decide whom they will marry.

There is a video from the “Family Research Council” (viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puI4pfRB0w0) that erroneously states that, because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, primary schools there are now forced to incorporate “gay marriage” literature into their curriculum. Blatantly false. It highlights the case of a Massachusetts family whose son was sent home from kindergarten with a book about two men who fell in love with each other and lived happily ever after (as part of a “diversity packet”). The parents were outraged, and the purpose of this ridiculously sensationalist video was to spread that rage and fear to as many people as possible and somehow connect the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts with the stance that particular school board took. This alarmist, dishonest video has everything to do with one isolated quarrel between two parents and their son’s school administration and nothing to do with a legitimate debate about gay marriage.

Having previously enjoyed a position of non-involvement, Yes-on-8 Mormons now find themselves uncomfortably associated with the blatant lies and misrepresentations launched by the religious right, with whom they have formed an unprecedented official alliance to support Prop 8. No-on-8 Mormons have found themselves doubly marginalized by the fierce anti-Mormon reaction that has followed the outcome. To reconcile Mormonism with Prop 8, I propose that those who are fighting against discrimination and bigotry be very careful with their reaction. We can’t fight discrimination with discrimination. Gay people did not appreciate being grouped into one homogenized category and targeted under a microscope. There are some Mormons who feel the same way now that they are under the microscope. The difference, of course, is that their civil rights aren’t at stake (while ours were), but labeling all Mormons as bigots is counterproductive and inaccurate. There are precious moderate voices from within Mormonism who are calling for reason, just as we are. I suggest we find common ground rather than subjecting anyone else to unfair generalizations.

And for my Yes-on-8 Mormon friends, I would like to leave you with a quote from the fantastic PBS documentary Anyone and Everyone, which highlights parents from several different religious and ethnic backgrounds and interviews them to see how they dealt with the news that their child was gay. Sister Lanette Graves, an active Salt Lake City No-on-8 Mormon, says the following:

"We all realize life is short. Life is precious. We need to not let doctrine or dogma divide us. What ought to be most holy of all are the issues of the heart. And as I said befeore, God is love. That is the Great Commandment. They said to Jesus (trying to trick him up), 'What is the Great Commandment?' and his answer was, of course, to love God and to love one another. The Great Commandment is the commandment to love. And so I decided long ago I'm probably gonna make some mistakes in life, and even on this issue, if I'm gonna make a mistake, I'm going to boldly make it on the side of love."

Although they started almost a day ago thanks to the time difference in Beijing, the Olympics start in roughly one hour. Channel 12 here in Arizona. NBC. 7:30 Eastern, 6:30 Central and Pacific. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that. That's all. Thank you.

I know I promised to keep the political rhetoric to a minimum, but I just finished writing a small essay for my roommate's little sister (who is a freshman at BYU writing a paper on the questionable constitutionality of an amendment banning gay marriage), and I felt compelled to post it to my blog. Call it personal conscience or self-important civic duty (both of which are valid points). Here it is:

So why do I think marriage between two consenting adults should be a civil right for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation? It certainly isn't so I can get married. First of all, I'm not even dating anyone right now. Secondly, even if I were, I've seen enough divorce in my family to make me think twice before combining my hard-earned credit score with someone else's. I'm perfectly content finding that special someone, settling down with him, and sharing a committed partnership with him for the rest of our lives. I don't need to be legally tied to him to feel like we're as legitimate a couple as any married heterosexual couple--especially since half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce and I've seen my fair share of miserable marriages.

Simply being heterosexual doesn't magically improve the quality of your relationship or diminish the chances that your marriage will end up being dangerous for society. On the contrary--since heterosexual couples frequently produce offspring (regardless of marital status), they often bring children into this world when they themselves are not ready for the enormous responsibility of parenthood. What could be more dangerous for society than heterosexual couples who continue to procreate at exponential rates without making the sacrifices necessary for proper child-rearing? These neglected children are at higher risk for delinquency, drug use, and teen pregnancy, causing the cycle to repeat itself in growing numbers with each generation.

Many opponents to gay marriage claim they don't hate gay people; they're just protecting the sanctity of marriage. I certainly agree that, conceptually, marriage is a sacred institution in which children are born and families are raised. If that isn't a core value for any human society, then what is? I can't think of a more important responsibility than raising a child. The funny thing is that, no matter what we do, some children turn out to be gay: rich children, poor children, married-couple children, single-parent children, first-and-last children, middle children, Jewish children, Mormon children, white children, black children, etc. Whether their sexual orientation is a result of their DNA or their circumstances is irrelevant. Do these children suddenly stop being important if they find themselves attracted to the same gender? Do responsible parents love their gay children any less, view them as being any less legitimate, or consider them to be dangerous for society simply because of their sexual orientation? That would be cruel and counterintuitive: personal accountability and responsibility are what determine the impact someone has on society.

If a woman takes no personal responsibility for her actions and decides to hand her life over to drug addiction, welfare checks, and multiple pregnancies from multiple fathers, her impact on society will be negative. The fact that she is heterosexual does not make her any more or less of a danger to society. Her poor decisions and lack of personal responsibility are what make her a danger to society. Conversely, the fact that I am homosexual does not make me any more or less of a danger to society. My personal accountability is what determines the effect I have on society (refusing to litter, refusing to drink and drive, volunteering for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, continuing my education, etc.). Consequently, my civil rights as an American citizen (including marriage) should not be affected by my sexual orientation. Allowing her the right to marriage by virtue of her heterosexuality but denying me the same right because of the illogical perception that my homosexuality is somehow more dangerous for society or intrinsically inferior is not only counterintuitive--it's unlawful.

Writing discrimination into the constitution in order to deny civil rights to an entire sector of the American population on the sole basis of their sexual orientation runs counter to the values that we stand for as Americans. We believe in personal accountability and that all men are created equal. If conservative activists want to add wording to legal documents in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, they should take aim at Las Vegas' 24-hour wedding chapels or pursue an amendment prohibiting Britney Spears from pulling any more publicity stunt weddings. Despite widespread efforts to polarize American society into conservatives and liberals (and despite activists' efforts to label people as good or bad based on their sexual orientation), level-headed, constitutionally-minded people know that all Americans should be entitled to the pursuit of happiness. They know that people's eye color, skin color, sexual orientation, or music preference should have nothing to do with their inalienable rights. The true measure of a (wo)man is what s/he does with those rights as an individual.

I could continue with this essay and address the harmful societal effects caused by an institutionalized, national narrative that categorically classifies citizens who happen to be homosexual as inferior (and therefore, unworthy of the basic civil rights so freely granted to Britney Spears). I could talk about epistemic violence, the politics of hatred, and the hypocrisy of being a self-proclaimed conservative while supporting amendments to the constitution that extend into the personal lives of American citizens, but at this point, you probably have more material from me than you initially wanted. :-) I hope this helps! Please let me know if I can help expand on or clarify anything.

I'm done teaching my night class!!! Now I FINALLY have time for a LOVE LIFE! God, I've missed my LOVE LIFE SO much! I finally have time for romantic dinners and long walks along one of Phoenix's lovely beaches...



...or perhaps a stroll through one of our charming historic districts...



Oh that's right. I live in a soulless city that's saturated with nationalized chains and a half-wit, coked-out, materialistic gay community. Oh well. I probably should work on adopting a more positive attitude about my personal life. Or I could wait 'til after I'm 30. I'm MUCH less likely to be bitter, sarcastic, and lonely after I pass that milestone, I think.

I AM going to New York tomorrow, so that will be a nice change. I'm going with my sister Andrea, who, in case you haven't met her, IS Phoebe from Friends.



She's going to be a surrogate mother for a couple who can't have kids, and the embryo transfer is scheduled at a clinic in Connecticut. I'm going to New Jersey on Saturday to see my friends Mike and Aarti, and as stupid as it sounds, we actually have a layover both ways in Philadelphia. So in the next 2 days, I'll be in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. I'm not sure what I'll do with myself in so many blue states, but don't worry. I'm sure I'll find SOMETHING to be outraged about.



And Phoenix: if I hear about you having a SINGLE MONSOON STORM without me, I will file divorce papers--I swear to Mel Gibson I will. The billboard around the corner from my house says I can get a divorce for just $200. The monsoon is the ONLY thing keeping this marriage together, and if I find out about so much as a single LIGHTNING BOLT while I'm gone, we're THROUGH! You save that monsoon for ME. It's all we have at this point, you dirty, dirty whore.



If you care about this marriage at all, you'll have a couple of flash floods and a power outage waiting for me when I get back.

You probably won't hear much from me this month, since I am working 13-hour days Monday through Thursday through the entire month of June. ASU has asked me to teach a night class of SPA 101, so I now do THAT right after working a full day at Walden University. I hate my life this month, but the double income will be FANTASTIC for my savings account as I brace myself for the financial plunge of graduate school.



Hopefully I won't have a creepy old guy directly on top of me throughout grad school. Yeck. Other than the creepy old guy, though, that whole skydiving thing looks pretty damn cool. I think I might do it one day. Or maybe I'll just entertain the notion of skydiving throughout the remainder of my life and then die, putting an end to a skydivingless existence. Probably the latter.

I drove to Thatcher yesterday to spend the day with the family, since everyone else in my immediately family just happened to be at my mom's house and I didn't want to miss out on the chance to see everyone. My 5-year-old nephew Tanner was showing me how high he could count in English (we had already covered Spanish) when he asked me how I old I was. His response was: "Twenty-nine?! You're almost THIRTY!!!" I laughed, then immediately started crying. I gave him a giant bear hug and kept him tightly clutched to me while I had a good cry, occasionally muttering unintelligibly and sporadically shaking/convulsing. He managed to escape my grasp about 20 minutes later when my tears began to dry, and he ran away in terror, screaming something about "Uncle Charlie's mentally unstable and potentially dangerous." 5-year-olds are getting smarter and smarter these days.

It was insane having so many children (ages 7 and under) running around, and I have to admit my immediate reaction was thank God I'm gay and will never have to deal with this full-time, but once I got over the brief culture shock, the chaos was kind of nice. Mom was making bread (as is her ritual, and I got the recipe yesterday and will be trying it out soon), the kids were running around, competing for attention, and the adults (I guess that's us now) attempted snippets of conversation. It was really great. I wish I could be geographically closer to my insane family. Did I just say that? Yes, I think I really did just say that.

My last thought today is that yesterday, Hillary officially bowed out of the race to the White House.



She's an amazing woman who was worked tirelessly for what she feels is best for our country (and I tend to agree with her on most things). In terms of the economy and affairs both foreign and domestic, the Clinton years were great years (especially when compared to the last 7 years of apocalyptic disaster). Whether you agree with her or not, you have to respect her for standing up the way she has after so much mud has been thrown at her over the years. A LOT of the mud thrown at her has not derived from legitimate political/intellectual debate, but rather from reactionary ignorance and good old-fashion He-Man-woman-hating pigheadedness.



A lot of people passionately hate Hillary Clinton, but when asked for a logical, INFORMED, justifiable reason as to why, they are unable to respond.

Having said that, after voting for her in the Democratic primary, I had second thoughts about my vote. Strategically, one good thing about her is that she knows how to play hardball politics. Morally, one bad thing about her is that she knows how to play hardball politics. We all know that, when it comes to political TV ads, taking the moral high ground in the face of a smear campaign is the quickest way to lose an election.



Well--that and using super-secret voting machines that are manufactured by private corporations whose CEOs openly support the opposition's campaign and have even raised funds for it:

Wikipedia: Premier Election Solutions

PS, I encourage you to read up on this particular topic, since being a democracy is kind of important to most Americans, and a democracy can be easily turned into an oppressive oligarchy depending on who's counting and manipulating the votes (just ask Russia). If reading isn't your bag, rent "Hacking Democracy." It's pretty interesting. Of course you can take it with a grain of salt, but it raises some interesting points to ponder.

But anyway. Getting back to Hillary. Her famous 3:00-a.m.-phone-call ad against Obama was something I'd expect out of the Republican playbook. It used post-9/11 fear tactics, playing on basic, Neanderthal human impulse in an attempt to discourage higher, more developed planes of thought and reasoning. "It's a dangerous world out there! Be afraid! We're the only ones who can protect you! Does anything else matter if your children run the risk of being blown up by terrorists? Of course not! We're the only ones strong enough to protect you. Don't forget to be afraid! No--no more thinking! Just fear... yes... excellent. Fearful and patriotic. Quick to react and slow to think. That's how we like 'em. [Insert George W. Bush laugh here]"



I also have to say that, if you're in the national spotlight and you're going to repeat a story over and over again about how you had to duck into a military vehicle right after landing in Sarajevo because there was sniper fire everywhere, MAKE SURE THAT STORY IS TRUE. Ya--between the fear-tactics commercial and the embellished memory from Sarajevo, I became disenchanted with Hillary's campaign. Of course a politician's a politician. Finding a politician who doesn't bend the truth is kind of like going to Olive Garden for lunch, placing your order, then going to the restroom before your waiter comes back, washing your hands, reaching for the paper towels, but instead of paper towels, oh my God--it's a unicorn!



But still. So now it's down to Obama and McCain. Both have their pros and cons. I'm obviously voting for Obama, but there used to be a few things about McCain that I respected. He's had to suppress those things and replace them with extremely conservative rhetoric in order to pander to the right far enough to win the Republican nomination, but hopefully he'll remember part of what he used to stand for if he's elected president, and HOPEFULLY he'll choose a moderate (and not a Bible-thumping sociopath like Mike Huckabee) as a running mate, since that running mate would probably end up as president at one point or another considering Grandpa McCain's age.



That's honestly what scares me about a McCain victory. I can live with McCain as president. After 8 years under the most damaging, incompetent, embarrassing f**ktard this side of the Pecos (or any side, for that matter), even another Republican like McCain in the White House won't seem as bad. It can only get better from here, right? Besides, the Democratic majority in Congress is projected to expand this year. And in the wake of the disastrous Bush years, the pendulum is swinging towards major change--especially with young voters, for the majority of whom a candidate's racial background is of no major concern.

Wow--how did this become a political blog? I promise to keep my political commentary down to 1 or 2 postings per year (this obviously being one of them). In the meantime, let's focus on what really matters: yesterday's injury to one of the Hamm twins. This throws an unsettling wrench into the US Men's Gymnastics Team's strategy going into the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.