Weekend

Not much of an event, as this is not an election year, but on Saturday we had the Salt Lake County Democratic Convention. Both Rob and I are delegates, and so we are both obligated to go and represent our neighborhoods, even if all we have to vote on is vice chair and maybe the secretary. Our chairman ran unopposed, but he's a good guy, brought into politics during the gay clubs fights many years ago. It just seems important for our representatives to see us involved, to keep us in mind; not to mention the fact that I want our caucus, the Stonewall caucus, to remain the largest in the county.

Because our only trusted baby sitters are out of town, the boys got to go and they were amazing in their patience and silence as candidate after candidate came through to ask for endorsements. To look at them you'd think they were 100% engrossed in their coloring, but Brian must have been listening as he asked me what "redistricting" means on the way home :-).

I hope they do take something away from such experiences. I hope they fold them into their future as a normal part of being a citizen. I have only been so involved in politics for about six years now, and it is clearly no coincidence that our boys are six years old. Their birth changed us in many ways, of course. I regret that it took becoming a parent to put a fire under me, but without them I'd probably be content as just another quiet guy, concerned mainly with what goes on in his home and his lab.

However... Sunday we spent the morning up in Ferguson Canyon. I used to spend a lot of time hiking and rock climbing up there with friends as a teen. Man, I remember going up there some weekend nights... It's a good thing I was always the designated driver, as wild teens and cliffs at night do not mix well even while sober :-). It's surprising, in retrospect, no one got seriously hurt. Anyway, it's one of our favorite places to take the kids nowadays.

We hiked up and sat by the stream and let the kids play with the dog in the water for about an hour. Nothing but the stream, my husband, a canopy of trees and the sounds of our kids playing... I just wish it didn't take Saturday to protect Sunday.

Dear John,

Can you believe I’ve never broken up with anyone before? I must be one of the only guys I know who’s never had his heart broken by another, never thought up a way to cut a lover loose, never been cut loose.

I’m just saying I hope you know this is hard on me, honey. In general, I do not give up on established relationships. I’m not sure why; it may be because I tend to and prefer to see myself as being defined by my roles in my relationships. To lose a relationship is to lose a part of myself. To lose a significant relationship, say, with my husband or kids may as well mean to remove a vital organ, and I don’t want to know and I don’t even care about the new man that could come from such losses in life.

Of course, my dearest Utah, you know a relationship between a person and his state is not that serious; we’ve never even kissed. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that I reflexively see a big part of myself as your good friend from birth, as a Utahn by heart. From my polygamist pioneering ancestors to the accent in my English, you are a part of me, and I don’t want you to ever doubt that I love you. I do. It’s evidenced right there in the blog title, in our many dates together in your beautiful deserts and mountains. Heck, I said my first words cradled in your suburbs, I learned to ride a bike on your streets, I had my first date and fell in love in your capitol city, and, so far, I’ve raised my children here… Good times, many great memories that I will cherish forever. I hope you will too.

It’s no secret we’ve had our differences, though, and I’ve been happy in the past to just try to manage them, but we both know things have changed, dear. Primarily, my children came into the picture, and that changed things for my husband and me in ways I couldn’t predict. So I’d say "it’s not you, it’s me", but, lets be honest;Utah, it’s us both. Your love has become even more moody and sharp, and you’ve really let your religious and legal attractiveness go downhill. For just one example, I knew you had issues with me too, but I didn’t think your culture, or the faith of my youth would attack our children’s character.

Now I find my husband has, in his mind, already severed ties with you. Any married man knows how hard it is to keep a friendship when your spouse can’t stand the person, and I wish I had the motivation to make a case for you, but I don't and you don’t make it easy. Frankly, you’ve betrayed our trust; you take our money and play me like a chump. Sure, you love me when you want to buy yourself some bling: slick digital road signs, or guns for your armories, or health insurance for your legislators. But then you dig in your heals on most any small form of fair treatment for me, for those relationships sacred to us. If I want equal access to wrongful death rights, or housing, or health insurance for my spouse (not even the sweet deal I help buy for you), then you’ve suddenly got vague plans with someone else.

Yes, I've been naive, and kind of thought we had a deal; you’d come around when you understood how you been treat’n me. However, for the sake of legally and socially protecting the relationships more vital than the relationship I have with you, I’ve had to make some tough decisions about our future together.

I best just say it: Utah, honey, I’m breaking up with you.

Now now, let’s not cry.

Oh… yeah, okay… you’re not a bit upset or even listening to me? I’m being a whiny b*beep*ch, and you never loved me? Sure, whatever. I guess I knew it was a one way relationship, the bulk of you being glad to see my family cut ties and try to leave, if the bulk could even notice us. That’s how you want to be, then fine.

What kills me, though, is that I know you. You’ll break another boy’s heart. Right now, to you, that heart is a time bomb ticking in some Salt Lake Bishop’s son, or in some 3rd grade girl in, say, Nephi or some other dainty small town appendage of yours. They will love you too, and then, come puberty, they’ll realize you've been leading them on; who they are is exactly who you don’t want to associate with. And I’ll be gone, off to love another state, like a quitter, along with all the other people and families I’ve seen leave over the past decade for kinder jurisdictions.

Good riddance you may say; and yeah, I’ll not let the door hit us on my way out. I hope if anything, though, you recognize one of my larger fears for you, for a state I still love even as we part ways. I fear you’ll step up your work in creating the sort of gay people you claim to fear most, after you drive out those I suspect you truly do fear, deep down: those who got by your roadblocks and don’t conform to your stereotypes, those who have a good marriage and children and homemakers to protect, from you. No one in charge of an abusive relationship wants their partner to see a way out; they want to “love” them from above, as their "beloved" struggles. Your legislative body language has made it clear; when it comes to your gay citizens, you don’t want to have a relationship with an equal, or with someone healthy. You've even proudly tattooed it on your face, right in your constitution, that you don’t want equals in your gay citizens or their families.

I just hope you consider, Utah, that you can be uniquely sadistic in your love, particularly of “the children” and "the family", and you have a tendency to create the problems you often speak out against. Even forget us and my whining; the fact is you do hurt yourself and your character each time you make an excuse for not following the golden rule when it comes to your gay citizens. I know you think it's no big deal and blow off the ridicule of outsiders and my concern for you as worldly forces trying to bring you down or something. You'll do what you want. But I know you've thought that before, and I'll keep my hope in the fact that you have stopped and taken a good look at yourself in times past, and turned yourself around. I know you can do it again.

Anyway, take care honey, and here’s to hoping time can bring us back together some day. I do not and will not look back in anger, and you’ll always be a part of me, even if I do have to excise most of what you once owned. However, I'm taking the kids, the dog, all our possessions, including our record collection; you never liked my music anyway.

Yours truly and with some non-ironic sadness,
Your Ex-Utahn Looking for a New State to Love.

A Bright Spot

I also wanted to point out Councilwoman Jenny Wilson, just not in the same post about Buttars :-). Her bill allowing partners of gay and lesbian county employees to get on their health insurance passed yesterday (see here).

We met with Jenny last week about this bill; I left very impressed with her sense of fairness, knowledge, and compassion, if not a bit worried about her plans to bring this up while the legislature was in session. This bill should even allow children of gay employees to get health insurance like any other child would, and it may cause a backlash. Anyway and regardless, I just want to say thank you! Thank you Jenny and thanks to all those on the council who voted for it, particularly Max Burdick, the only republican member who did the fair, right thing.

As of now, all the Common Ground bills have been killed. It seems common ground, at least today, is a sad illusion--I think even I forgot who we are dealing with and had too much hope than was reasonable--but there's this one new thing to hang hope on; there is a spark of the golden rule in Salt Lake County. That means a lot.

Anything Goes

Where I blog on isocrat is kind of a place for my political frustration, and I posted about this there. But I want to be sure as many gay Utahns as possible understand what we're up against. Sun Tsu and all that.

From Reed Cowan's documentary, the words of Senator Buttars:

Take a listen.

Or read the story.

...comparing us to terrorists, calling us "the greatest threat to America", insinuating we aren't monogamous, saying that making it illegal to fire or evict a person, gay or straight, for their orientation is giving gays special rights, calling us abominations, saying we have children in order to "indoctrinate" them, saying we don't have morals... "anything goes"... That familiar mess of falsehoods and inhumanity is coming from one of the most powerful law makers in this state, and he seems to feel ethically good about it. I have to wonder, if we're the "greatest threat", what would he do to our families if he had more power than the significant amount he already wields, or if there were more of him up on the hill?

What do I do when my kids are at the age to catch wind of such leaders on the news? And that's why I'm hoping to get out of here.

I mean, how can you talk to, or reason together with a person who won't even see or hear you?

Ug, I can't wait for Utah's political season to be over.

Metal Brigham

Last night we attended the rally up at the capitol regarding the adoption bill. It's being held in committee where its opponents hope it will die. We want it to be debated and voted on, even though it doesn't stand much of a chance.
The problem is most up there will look at this bill and see it as giving rights to gay people, the equivalent of tattooing the bill on the back of a drunk Wiccan leper in a legislature of so many Ultra-conservative LDS lawmakers. In actuality this bill is more about helping people who are neither gay or lesbian.

So many of our Utah children, even when raised by two loving and wonderful parents, can only have one legal parent in this state because of the current adoption law, leaving them with far fewer rights than other children when it comes to items such as getting on their breadwinner's health insurance or keeping both their parents legally responsible for, say, child support. Some of our friends have children where a fraction are legally attached to both parents and their younger siblings, born or adopted under this law, only have one legal parent. You can imagine the legal mess they're in. Instead Utah tax payers pick up some of the slack when something bad happens in these families... and that's the difference between conservatism and wacky social conservatism :-): they'd rather the state pay than a child have two legal parents, both with personal responsibilities to be held to.

Utah is in fact one of the top 5 in the US in the percentage of same-sex headed households also raising children, and gay people can still adopt here as single people and they do. These laws do nothing measurable to stop gay parenting. So many children are in need of homes and they just cannot stop families from forming, even when they legally hobble them. But, yeah, most lawmakers will only see in this bill "gay=bad", and come next year these kids will still only have one legal parent. I'm just grateful we are both our boys' parents by heart, mind, and law, even though our legal route hasn't yet been tested in Utah (and I hope we're not here the day it is tested).

Anyway, the twins were just goofing off but I thought this picture was kind of funny:

Like Brian, we're up there, with our dukes up, trying to fight the deaf, 12 foot tall, metal Brigham Young, Utah's beloved founder and symbol of tradition. I bet he shoots lasers from his eyes too.

There would not be enough room in Brigham's corner of the capitol to also fit the metal forms of his 50-something wives (or is that "civil partners"?), but we're the controversial ones :-).

Huntsman

I knew I voted for this guy for a good reason:

Guv, at odds with most Utahns, backs civil unions for gays

Thank you Governor Huntsman! This more than makes up for the time your dad hit me when I was just an undergrad (there's a story behind that but I think I like it better with fewer details :-)).

The Sutherland representative's response was telling:

"He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3," Reynolds said in an e-mail, "and everyone has known since then that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

Everyone, huh? At least this Reynolds knows he's being mean. It's just a matter of getting him to see what should be obvious, to see the morality in the Golden Rule. The fact that he finds nice and right to be at odds should be bothering him.

Boy, I have a hard time understanding this mindset, but it clearly works. As I write in amazement too often here, this same thinking--hurting people is helping them, it's self preservation, it's long-term loving and for their own good--has done much worse. It has put gays on burning piles of wood. Again, it's what you find in books like the Malleus Maleficarum, and it can justify far worse than firing someone for being gay in many human minds. Maybe I just don't want to get it.

Anyway, it is much better to be "dragged to the altar of Amendment 3" than have your family offered up on it, and I would have appreciated the Governor not going there in the first place. Nevertheless, this is a big and much appreciated step for a highly popular Utah govenor to make. I have to think it will be a significant help in bringing justice a bit closer to the Beehive State, if not on the Hill, then in the minds of the public.

Thank you again Governor Huntsman.

Sutherland's Ground

Last night I was supposed to go to that Sutherland Institute event. I was personally invited ;-) but others hoped to "infiltrate".

However, I've been up two nights in a row with sick fevery kids, and I came home from work yesterday to find everyone but me had finally shared the germs. As any parent knows, it's much easier to be sick than the only healthy person in your home :-).

So I skipped the event and took care of dinner for my three sick men. Fortunately many others from the gay community went, and even though the Sutherlands tried to keep gay people out, some got in and were able to hear what they were selling our fellow Utahns.

This morning, the fevers were gone and just a cold remained for the kids, and so I got them ready for school, after a brief debate about germ theory and immunology. No, Alan you'll not get a worse version of the cold you gave to Brian if you use Brian's bath tub... I only won by invoking my Dr. title and an argument from authority; thank goodness he's still young enough to fall for it :-).

I read the paper before taking the boys to school, and found the Tribune article on the Sutherland gathering, though. It turns out they're main hope is that lawmakers will fall for a bunch logical fallacies, much more blatant than the one I used to get my kid in the tub.

600 Utahns gathered inside to answer what they saw as a "challenge to family and freedom."

Appeal to fear, begging the question... It's just simple double speak: we have to limit their freedoms and harm their families to answer a challenge to family and freedom? But people buy it easily. Very often here, limiting a person's and their entire family's rights just on sexual anatomy is called standing up for freedom. I have to wonder what these groups will do when faced with the business end of their own tactics; how will they react if given the sort of freedom they now want gay citizens to have?

The Common Ground Initiative, declared former Rep. LaVar Christensen, the author of Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Amendment 3, "is actually very uncommon."

Well, that's just demonstrably false. According to public opinion polls and even the church to which most of them belong, there is common ground. It's there in words and PR at least, and only seems to disappear when anyone tries to stand on it.

"It would be groundbreaking and lead to what we just witnessed in California," he told the crowd,

Slippery Slope fallacy, one countered just today even by one of the anti-marriage equality architects of our Amendment 3. But that won't matter, not up on the hill. Rights for gay people mean pride marchers will be sauntering through the Celestial Room, and jacuzziing in the baptismal tubs in a matter of months.

Groundbreaking, though? I'd love to take a look at Christensen's dictionary, right? :-) Yeah, truly new and shocking to all sensibilities if my husband could sue a drunk driver who killed me, as most people could and as has been possible for gay couples for a long time in many other jurisdictions.

"Some claim that standing up for the enduring, even sacred, definitions of marriage and family is showing hate for those who disagree," she said. "They are wrong. Defending marriage and family is an act of love for our children and our children's children."

Where to start in this mess of non sequiturs? Who doesn't want to defend marriage and family? How is making it illegal to fire or kick someone out of their home because of their sexual orientation (gay or straight) even touching their definition of marriage? This is just weird and yet I know it sells with an easy nod.

Anyway, I don't think, Sutherland Institute, you're hateful; I think you can be hysterical and cruel to your neighbors and still enjoy feeling a sort of love for them. History is ripe with so many good intentions.

I wish you'd listen to us, though. No one is mad at you for "standing up for the enduring, even sacred, definitions of marriage and family", no matter how wrong you are in this fallacy of argument from tradition (e.g. 1, 2). Stand up and believe all you want; I won't care. Just stop trying to take my tax dollars with one hand and push your rules about which anatomy goes with which into my home with the other. It's your harm to real people and real families that get's them frustrated, not your special dictionary or beliefs or what you want for yourself. The problem is your hope to, based only on their sexual anatomy, make legally invisible another family's "enduring, even sacred, definitions of marriage and family". From my view, you are a threat to the definition of marriage and family.

The difference between us, though, is that I want the government we are all forced to share and pay into to respect your family and how you want to define it. I want your family to be treated in law the way I'd want my family treated.

Again, I have to wonder, these people who disdain the idea of finding common ground and claim to be the only side holding sacred ground, how would they defend themselves if the tide turned and the weapons of thin "love" and "freedom" they work to establish now were pointed back at their families? I bet the Golden Rule, live and let live, and common ground would look a lot better to them than it does now, and I would hope to be the person to do my best then to be on their side.

Anyway, I guess I'm glad I missed it, took care of my sick guys, and stayed in our world. This morning was "Moms and Muffins" day at our boy's school. We all went, had a great time, runny noses aside. No one shows any care if two dads sit on the floor and read books and eat muffins with their kids along with a bunch of mothers. We have as many friends there in parents as our boys do in classmates. No one there sees excluding our family as somehow "upholding" anything near right or sacred. They're all reasonable enough to understand that there are exceptions, and there's no threat to the majority to treat the minority how they'd want to be treated. If only we could have muffins with all those other folks :-).

If Then Else

Okay, I screwed up in moving us back to Utah.

Simply, I’m realizing we shouldn’t have moved back. I’ve got some comforting excuses: We needed our family, wanted our friends around, and Gay rights weren’t as much of a topic in Utah’s legislature back then and only became so after we returned. To my shame, I never even knew who my representative was before then.

Looking back, I misjudged two things: 1. I forgot in great part what Utah was like with the strong LDS church influence, and 2. I didn’t realize how practically important the legal rights they don’t want us to have would become to us once Rob became a stay-at-home dad. I’d never had to, for example, get him on my health insurance before as he had his own. I guess I kind of also got used to not realizing we were gay while in California, and was caught off guard when I found again that living in Utah makes being gay a very important characteristic. I’m just feeling grateful now it wasn’t as bad as it could have been; at least neighbors and school friends have been great to our kids and they haven’t noticed any problem yet. However much I love our state, though, we are essentially working without a legal net here, the religious and political climate is getting more heated, and fighting it is taking too much of my attention; which I would feel was my duty to give if not for the fact that I am a father of young kids. Importantly, Utah law would simply not be there for them in an adequate or just way, should something happen to me.

It was a complicated decision to live here and it still is, but, looking back, I think it was a poorly made, naive decision.

It’s funny how hard it is for me to admit that, but it’s true and I think, especially now, I need to put that out on the table. I want to be the perfect husband and father but my decade-ago self had some unwarranted optimism for living here and he tripped up, and—he being me plus ten years—he may again, right?

So now what is often on my mind is how to be sure I don’t mess up a move again?

It's a decision we need to make in a hurry too. We’ll need to find a house, new job, and a new school before the summer is up or it will be more tempting to let the kids finish another school year here. Ug, what about the new research grants I have been applying for, with researchers here?... Then there’s the fact that our decision will decide where my parents end up retiring; I’d like to keep them out of harsh winters and snow shoveling while past their 70’s... In short, it’s a mess of considerations and I’m stressed. And I guess I’m venting here as we can’t let it show at home, around the kids.

The trouble is that we won’t know our best options until after the legality of Prop 8 is decided in Ca (late spring, if I understood). Will it be overturned? If not, will those marriages performed still be legal? We most want to move back to Ca but Ma and even Canada come into the picture if we can’t have full equal treatment and protections in Ca. Then will DOMA be repealed anytime soon, as it seems it should with the new leadership? I just don’t trust not having my family in the same boat as everyone else anymore, and I don’t want to have to pull up our roots twice.

So, a plan for the record, to be held to: If our Ca marriage is still legal come early summer (Prop 8 overturned completely or not), then I’ve got a good job prospect there to follow up on and hopefully it will all work out, and we’ll be in the golden state before second grade starts. Heck, if we keep legal marriage but prop 8 is found valid and prevents future marriages, at least I can quell some of my guilt of leaving Utah by fighting for equal rights to return to Ca. Else, well, for now I’m looking for openings in Vancouver or Ma or Ct, and will just hope none of those are the best solution come Summer; that’s just too far from what will always be my home.

Wrongful Death, SB32

Yesterday I wrote "If I could get close enough to the men in power I'd be begging." Yesterday, that's what I did.

Though I did not talk to those LDS church leaders weighing in on law, of course :-). I've no right to speak to those leaders, but lawmakers are another matter, and so I phone banked with Equality Utah yesterday, calling those on the committees that will be hearing SB 32, Wrongful Deaths Amendments.

You can read the bill here.

In short, it would let Rob sue my killer for compensation if, say, I was killed by a drunk driver, something he could only do if he were a legal spouse. As with all the common ground bills, it applies not only to same-sex couples; a dependent nephew could be given grounds for compensation, for example.

To me this bit of equal protection for my family would mean some peace of mind, to know Rob, our main homemaker, could have some recourse to be compensated for my death, if I were killed on my way home from work. Our loss of companionship and support, both emotional and material, is every bit as horrible as the average person's loss and the law should respond with that in consideration when someone acts to take our life, as it would for any other family. We're human too.

I'd like to think, "How could anyone argue?", but they will. Last night, I got the answering machine of almost every lawmaker I called and I left a lot of messages. But, when I did get a person on the line, I heard some resistance. We'll see.

Please though, this bill may be voted on in committee Monday or Tuesday. Call your senator if they are in the committee:

Gov’t Oper. & Political Subdivisions
Peter Knudson, Chair
Greg Bell
Jon Greiner
Scott Jenkins
Dan Liljenquist
Scott McCoy
Luz Robles

Well, you probably don't need to call McCoy... he's the sponsor. You can find their contact info here.

All we need to do for now is express support of SB32 (I'll try to find the IDs for the other bills as they come in). You should probably point out that the bill doesn't only help gay couples; helping gay citizens isn't often seen as a plus here :-). Also, point out the bill should decrease reliance on government welfare and transfer the costs of supporting a homemaker who's breadwinner has been killed on to the killer instead of the taxpayer.

Call your state senator or representative on SB32 and the other "common ground" bills anyway, even if they are not in this committee. Call them on any bill that interests you. With the number of them, I'm sure there are some on which you would want to be heard.

They are your representatives, your voice on what becomes law; they should hear you.

More Utah Haze

In the Salt Lake Tribune: LDS open to liquor change

"The effort to do away with Utah's private club law received a major boost Wednesday, as LDS Church officials told Republican leaders they would be amenable to an alternative put forward by Utah's hospitality industry."

As a side note in this article about the liquor laws discussed by "GOP legislators and LDS Church officials Wednesday", the Common Ground initiative was mentioned:

"Officials did not specifically address a series of proposed "Common Ground" bills that would extend some rights to same-sex couples, except to refer lawmakers to their previous statements on the topic."

Why take the time to clarify the LDS affirmative position on liberalizing alcohol laws but not where they know people are hanging on their every word for more clarity in their opinion? They know their "previous statements" are being taken in a hundred different ways. They don't need to reference specific bills or even the common ground initiative by name, if it's a face saving thing. I'm sure they know that all they'd need to do is what they've done for alcohol laws. All they need to say to sway some lawmakers is that what they said in the Prop 8 fight in California is also what's right in Utah, otherwise capitol hill takes it as "only in California". So why?

If I could get close enough to the men in power I'd be begging. Real families and children are hurting because of the laws here. This is much more important to Utah homes and families than a guy in a bar being able to buy a drink without first buying a club membership, isn't it? Not that I don't think our liquor laws are ridiculous in parts, but why do bar goers get a big discussion but my husband and my kids get a side note?

I have a hard time figuring out why the LDS church leaders are okay clarifying that they're okay with making it easier to get a drink in Utah but not health care for homemakers. Personally, equal access to health insurance alone would be a huge help to our home and our ability to take care of each other. Making job and housing discrimination on orientation illegal will strengthen many homes too.

It's just tough living here, you know? Knowing my family's legal fate is decided in significant part by such meetings, by a Church to which I do not belong. The sense of helplessness in defense of my family and the frustration it breads is another sort of pollution I take in too much of while here. I think I can feel it take a toll, every bit as much as our polluted air.

Can't those Ca Supreme Court Judges hurry up and decide, so that we can finally decide where best to head? Man, I can smell the ocean breeze of our old home if I think hard enough.

Dear Friend....

Rob called me yesterday while I was at work and asked me if I was a straight, anti-gay rights spy, like some mix between Ted Haggard and James Bond. Had he been sleeping with the enemy?

Now, I want to be clear. I am not straight. I have never been straight. I don't even have a wide stance.

While I have many straight friends, who I love with all my heart, I do not even condone their lifestyle or encourage that perverted predilection under which they suffer. Really. I'm so moral that I want to keep them from or annul the legal rights that strengthen their families (or at least that's what it would seem us gays were out to do by what Rob told me next).

After I assured Rob that I was truly gay (by reciting Olivia Newton John's part to"Hopelessly Devoted" from Grease, backwards), it came as a surprise that Rob was referring to a letter, addressed to me, from the Sutherland Institute, one of Utah's many groups out to harm our families in the name of Family(TM).
Click on it to better see the full text.

How sad and disturbing is that? You should have seen the donation card that came with it too. For 5K you can help them make decisions on how to best legally hurt us and our kids. What a bargain.

I am, of course, kind of surprised to be their "friend" and to be invited to such an event. Maybe I should go and bring all my friends, as they suggest :-). Hey, it's free; we should all go!

Seriously though, it may be educational to just sit there quietly and listen in order to hear what arrows they have waiting in their quiver, ready to hit my home. It would be educational... but difficult.

For example, I guess they are now calling the Common Ground Initiatives a dire threat to Utah's man-woman marriage law, one for which they need a bunch of money? What else could it be? Nevertheless, these bills don't touch Utah's man-woman marriage law, seem to at least be not objectionable to the LDS church (I just wish they'd stop this and say so), and they would help many Utah families and children.

It is disturbing to know these people will be getting together, scheming about how get money to best legally harm my most sacred institution, the people I love most and am absolutely obsessed with protecting. It can keep a man up.

They'll do it while imagining righteousness and God's blessing; imagining they know what being gay means. They'll do it while pretending it's moral to harm us in a way they'd never want their family harmed. They'll use words like "defend" while they attack families, and call our hope for equal treatment under law an "attack", as though taking our families' tax dollars puts no responsibility of equal treatment on their shoulders. They will say we are against traditional marriage when nearly every marriage we respect and support is traditional. They'll hope to hurt our children under another name, will probably insult them as morally deficient as the LDS press room recently did, and pretend it's all for the good of "the children". They'll believe it like a faith, with the best of intentions. And, frankly, that sucks too :-), because I know they aren't all bad folks, and I don't even get to blame it on evil or indulge in anger.

My best option is to just listen and try to react as best I can... Things like this really do make me feel like the stick gatherer. We don't share the same faith with these people; it often seems we don't even speak the same language. What I see as glorious in family--the dedication, the sacrifice, the love--they see as trash, or as something to fight, if the wrong anatomical shape is attached to it. Nevertheless, I'm caught here, and they will ditch the Golden Rule and force my home and even minority churches to live by their faith in law, if they can. And in Utah, they can.

Anyway, Sutherland Institute, nope. I'll not be sending you money to pay you to "fight to the bitter end", whatever that means for my home.

Eh, they will get something back, though. Rob stuck their return envelope in the mail with some coupons in it; he donated a little :-). At least that postage won't go to funding their righteous crusade again us enemies of proper society.

Common Ground Initiative in Moab

We just got back from a Common Ground Initiative Rally in Arches National Park. As a result, I've come to believe all activism should be performed in national parks: you get in for free and no one could argue with the scenery.

I wish I could feel more optimistic about the prospect of these bills. For those who don't know, they would:

1. Give our families equal access to health care. Personally, health insurance is killing us, as we can't all be on the same policy.
2. Keep us from being fired from our jobs or kicked out of our homes for the makeup in anatomical sex of our families.
3. Allow, say, stay-at-home parents to sue someone who kills the breadwinner of a gay couple. Right now the spouse in a gay marriage in Utah has no recourse and many would likely just end up on government assistance if, say, medical malpractice killed their loved-one.
4. Create a domestic partner registry to which the above rights may be attached.
5. Finally to get rid of the "substantially equivalent" part of Amendment 3 which may stand in the way of all of the above.

Please; contact your state representatives; I know mind will soon be sick of me :-).

However, the LDS church as backed away from supporting any of these, and without them the legislators will not help us in Utah. Even a statement of non-opposition for same-sex domestic partnerships, as they did for California, would be a huge help for our families here, but, if the blogs and the editorials are any measure, this is nearer amusing to many in the church than a chance to find some common ground and help strengthen minority families.

Is it just me or do many LDS here still feel like they were the victims in the Proposition 8 events? No matter how hard they make it on our homes or debase our marriages or even our children, I fear that will be the case, especially since forcibly divorcing a family in law from their most sacred union doesn't even seem to register as carrying much weight in some of their minds. Now they can keep us from victimizing them again by keeping these rights away from us too? Or do some feel this is a tit-for-tat thing? But, eh, such worldview of persecution is a strong, ingrained part of our local culture; I can't really get mad. It's just sad, and hard to understand why they won't stop, consider the real people in our families, and trust in the Golden Rule.

Nevertheless, even if it all comes to nothing, there was great worth to us in being among those who didn't feel my family was something to fight, all under such a beautiful backdrop.
I thought this was symbolic/kind of funny: as the pro-gay rights rally was hiking up the trail, a Mennonite couple was going the other way.
After the rally we went to a couple other arches:
We went with another gay-headed family that has three kids about our boy's age. By the look of things, I think their daughter may end up marrying Brian and end up with the first children who have 4 doting grandpas. I wish I felt okay showing a picture of the two... adorable.

Anyway, we took them up one of our favorite canyons (see last year).
The next day we went on a hike with Rob's aunt, to another favorite ice skating rink.

As I had to assure my parents, the ice there is much thicker than it looks :-).

Anyway, I wish I could quite you, Utah. You're just too pretty, or handsome in my case I suppose. The Common Ground Initiatives may be a long shot... but I can't help but hold out hope for the state that will always be my home, no matter where I have to take my family.

Something Fishy

In the Tribune today is an article about Bruce Bastian donating in the fight against Proposition 8, here.

Get this: Mr. Bastian made this donation back in June! The tribune did a story on it way back then, so why pull it up and print it again? Why make this old donation seem like new news? Why print "Ex-Mormon donates $1M to kill LDS-backed California marriage proposition"? And why would Mr. Bastian want to murder a proposition?

I fear the motivation here is not good. The new article basically points out how little LDS Utahns have given to Prop 8, while the church told them to do all they can. It describes Bastian as a rich "upset" openly gay ex-Mormon, negating the giving of Utah Mormons "in one fell swoop." That's scary. In some LDS families, the kids believe openly gay ex-Mormons live in their closets as domestic partners of bogymen.

Also, the article uses probably one of the worst quotes they could have taken from Bastian (if you ever talk to the press, though, expect that).

In the article a site to which readers can go and donate to help annul our marriages is given multiple times. Not once is a url given for a pro-marriage site. The author of the article has the owner of mormonsfor8.com (That's mormonsfor8.com) describe it as "informational and neutral on Prop 8". Sure, they don't openly take sides, but if it's used to track which LDS are following the church's directions, they should know for which side mormonsfor8.com is best used.

The story ends like a church talk with the last paragraph being the quote:

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the creator's plan for his children."

As if such a religious belief can reasonably be imposed on your neighbor's family, a family that does not share your faith. The people who are working to keep entrenched such a precedence should be aware that times change and different faiths take hold. From personal experience I can tell you that you do not want to be on the business end of this weapon decades later, as the LDS were many years ago.

Sadly, this article seems to basically be a pro-prop 8 commercial, using a months old story to prod Utah LDS into donating more. If I'm right, shame on the author, Rosemary Winters, and whoever went along with it up there at the Trib.

As always I hope to be told I'm wrong here, though. Maybe political season is giving me Acute Voter Dimentia, but this looks like something fishy is going on, no?

Regardless, we sent him a letter months ago, but I'll say it again: thank you Bruce, my family, for one of many, very much appreciates your help.

A Note to the Utah Pride Center

(EDIT: I feel now I was quite wrong with my first impressions in this post; this incident may have been a genuine anti-gay hate crime. Thanks to those of you who've shown me the other side of the story presented in the Tribune. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.)

I'm out of town so this will be quick, but I just read this story in the trib, here.

A man (who happens to be gay) is accused of a kidnapping. Read the story for the details, or the following may not make sense.

I just want to say, I hope your stance on this was misrepresented, Marina Gomberg, spokeswoman for the Utah Pride Center.

Even if everything went down as the suspect claims (originally) and even if he thought he was doing right to help get these kids some z's, he took children from their parent's home without telling their parents (allegedly...). Thank goodness nothing happened to the children. That is the most important fact here. Look though, even with the kids being okay, I'd be likely to have performed a "hate crime" on that gay man if I were those parents. My sympathies are with them here, not the gay man, and the leadership of the gay community should not be putting a concern about whether or not the family overreacted because of the suspect's orientation at the top of the heap. I mean, who the h*beep*l does the suspect think he is? And now he wants to claim his beating was some anti-gay hate crime?! When he was supposedly invited to their party? It makes no sense.

This is exactly the thing that makes hate crimes laws less and less likely. As a gay man, I don't feel threatened by this man's beating, why? Because I'd don't take children from their parent's home. I feel threatened by the gay man's (alleged) actions here, as a parent. It's that simple. Gay community leaders, backing this guy seems like a good way to sink hate-crime laws and hurt us everywhere else.

In fact, next to anti-gay rights activists, such gay men and women, crying homophobia when they are at fault, are the greatest threat to our rights. Most conservative LDS in Utah reading that article are going to think, "Yep, look at that. Look at how those gays want to kidnap and molest children. And they want marriage rights? To be parents?! No way." They will use this to harm the gay community on whole and my family. It doesn't matter that in the same paper, the same day, a heterosexual was convicted of much worse, of actually kidnapping and raping a child. They won't see that as a critique on themselves. As a minority we are judged by the worst of us and no one thinks, for example, "Remember Wanda Barzee and Brian David Mitchel? I guess you just can't trust those straight folks with children."

So please, Utah pride center, be careful and thoughtful. When interviewed, try to find some objective perspective, if not for the right reasons, for sake of justice, then for the sake of the gay community on whole. It is not pro-gay to be only pro-gay.

I hope I'm wrong and that you'll tell me so. I hope it's not like it seems in the article: that your main concern was that these people will be prosecuted for beating a man who took their children, gay man or not. Please, tell me I'm way off base; this is one instance in which I'd love to be reprimanded for jumping to conclusions.

A Note to the LDS Church

The LDS church has put out more info on their hope to limit marriage to heterosexually headed families, Here. Thanks for pointing me to it MoHoHawaii (or maybe I should be mad at you; I've not yet decided). I'll jump right in.

"The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."

That's not advocating for equal rights and it's smartly worded so they can wiggle out of any one of them, but there's a big step for them there. I'll give them much credit for that.

Only four years ago, during the Amendment 3 debate (an amendment which took away marriage and any other "substantially equivalent" rights), they had a chance to speak up for these rights and say exactly this. They only spoke up for denying marriage and added:

"any other sexual relations, including between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of family."

The message sent was clear, they knew what their followers heard and they were just fine with letting the enforcement of denying all those other rights stand. I am grateful they have made this step towards "Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people".

"The Divine Institution of Marriage"

There's not much to say about the supernatural points, save that we all have different knowledge about the supernatural and it should not be used to impose law on others and limit the rights of those to practice their faith, or lack thereof. We may as well argue about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

In that section though, I would find it interesting to know how they choose their research. Out of all the research on families out there, much of it on children of same-sex parents, they have 4 (!) references, and make the logically fallacious comparisons to single mothers, quoting from what seem to be the weakest and most biased sections of any research, the discussion. This is a total misrepresentation of what's out there and I'd love to know how such was defended (or if it needed to be).

"Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom"

"Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples."

This is a case of you just not listening, or putting up straw men.

Search my blog, or isocrat.org for "tolerance." This isn't about "tolerance" or your love; this is about men and women trying to protect their families from your real world attacks. I get that when you feel you are God's representatives, it can color your vision. There are many other Gods with representatives on this earth though. I'm sure you're fine people, but you are strangers. I don't care how you feel about me, if you can tolerate me, if you "condone" my family, or how good you feel in still loving me despite my "sin". This whole "gay marriage is all about getting my approval" angle is really weird. I do care, though, about how you concretely affect my children and my husband, and the many other families I know you are advocating harm towards with your political actions.

Aside: Isn't quoting Jesus a bit problematic when you're tying to mobilize a huge group against equal treatment of our families? You think same-sex relations are evil, right? Even assuming you're right, yes, Jesus did say "go and sin no more"; he also said "resist not evil." I don't agree with Him here either, but trying to put Jesus' seal of approval on a huge political action campaign against a large group of people who just want equal treatment from their government, well, even if that could possibly be a posed as a fight against evil, it strains the imagination. WWJD, indeed.

"We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage. "

I'm glad you can, really. But surely you can see that, while it means something, it's not much to know a stranger out to legally diminish my family feels love. There are historical accounts of the love felt for the sinner when they were being tortured and burned to death for "sodomy". Simply, your love doesn't mean much when your actions might annul my marriage. I really want to know if you can you see that. (as if anyone is listening :-))

As for religious freedom, I'm right with you. But your beef is with anti-discrimination laws, not marriage. No one, for example, is forcing the catholics to marry divorced couples. If a church isn't taking public money, they should even be able to discriminate against mixed race marriages, and I don't want the government in religion any more than you do. But look, you pulled this pendulum, over the decades, strongly towards your end and hurt a lot of gay people in the past, and I get that you may be afraid if you let go it may swing too far in the other direction. I want it to stop where I have my family with equal treatment and you have your religious freedom, no more and no less. We could work together to that end, instead of trying to pull each other off our footing.

"Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions."

So? Let them suggest; you know people suggest all sorts of crazy things. I can't hold it against you that people suggest the Levitical death penalty be put in place for homosexuals, right? Again, this is not about marriage, but anti-discrimination laws.

"Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished."

What I don't get is this. Two churches perform a wedding, and the government looks into the sexual anatomy of those involved and decides to recognize only one church's union but not another's. You don't see that as religious discrimination? Is it because you think they aren't "true" churches? What if the government did that to your weddings? You are free to perform your weddings how you like. No church synagogue or mosque has been forced into same-sex unions. It is fear mongering to suggest otherwise.

"How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?"

"“It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain."

Really, it is?

"The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally."

FULL STOP. Why no reference here? Why no data? It seems very suspicious, as though you know what's there and didn't want to share anything but innuendo. Look at the data right from their censuses and try to tell us this again. I have to hope you aren't simply counting on the average person not looking further into this, because that above statement is fiction, to put it kindly, and if you honestly are studying the issue, carefully, as you say, you should know that.

"there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. "

I'm all ears, to read about what my concerns as a parent should be.

"When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children."

Great, you've given one way in which man-women marriages are just like man-man marriages. Of course, you don't mean to insinuate otherwise, and demean our families, right? Gosh I hate PC language.

"Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment."

Sadly, you are either not listening to us, or misrepresenting us, and in a piece meant to "reduce misunderstanding".

"By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring."

So? If you think raising, loving, and nurturing children who aren't similar to you in their genetic code is some sort of weakness, I guess we truly do differ in our moral codes.

" It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children"

Some? In Utah, of cohabitating same-sex couples, we're talk about 40% and that number has certainly grown since the 2000 census. Only 49% of all marriages are currently raising children. Let me put that in other terms; Utah, with our anti-adoption for gay couples and anti-marriage equality laws is 3rd in the nations when it comes to the percentage of cohabitating same-sex couples raising children. You are trying to minimize and misrepresent our families. You are, ironically, treating the fact that we have children and will keep becoming parents in greater numbers as a minor consideration here.

"Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation."

Then you should be advocating legal marriage for the parents in our families too.

"By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children."

At least you admit you don't know. You do know, though, you start out talking all nice, and then you go and insult the moral character of a man's child. Do you think we're somehow a wildly different sort of humans than you? That we wouldn't notice? You didn't mean it like that? Are you going to retreat and go back to "there's just something missing, neither good nor bad"? Spin it as carefully as you like but you can't both be the good guy and the bad guy here; these children and their parents hear you loud and clear, even if you're counting on others to make excuses for and ignore such tangled messages.

As to your other concerns about our children. Much, and I mean a lot, of research has shown no difference in their "gender development". You found some research to quote above; why not here? And what do you mean by "social identity"? Do you mean they may correctly identify they are children of same-sex parents, just as other children correctly identify they are children of LDS parents? Such words, not defined, come off in the imaginations of your followers as all sorts of crazy things; they teach their children such things and those children go to school with my children. Do you see that? When you're vague most followers fill in the voids in a way that most demeans our children.

Oddly, I both hope you know and don't know that.

"As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula."

You mean not only may gay people have equal treatment, but their children in our schools may be given consideration too? Come on. My kids' class read and Tango Makes Three (without us asking) last year as one of many books. Yes, right here in Utah. It was one book in hundreds, and such inclusion has nothing to do with legal marriage and everything to do with humane treatment of all children, and creating an environment where all children can feel comfortable enough to learn reading writing and arithmetic without bigotry getting in the way. Is the LDS church against that? What, in schools are they actually against? You have to be specific. True, if you're not, there's less room to change doctrine when you need to, but your followers will often assume the worst otherwise.

People, even gay couples, will simply have children regardless of the government's okay. Those children should be able to talk about their family at school too. There is only one way to make them and your growing problem here disappear, but if you want to know what an actual society's erosion and collapse looks like, you just try to take our children from their homes.

" Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty."

Well... Eh, the irony and de-family-ing of our families just gets too thick towards the end there to go on.

Anyway, the sad part is I'm sure the author of this felt, deep in the cockles of their heart, they were showing "love, kindness and humanity toward all people." They felt such white-on-white warmth even when insulting other's children, and cherry picking and misrepresenting the research, of which they choose a very tiny amount (though enough to fool the casual reader that science was on their side).

I know I went off half-cocked here and may regret pressing publish in an hour or two. But, eh, I've got to go and want to stop feeling distracted by this, I'll feel better doing something too :-).

At least they are moving their position a step towards civil unions. It's just frustrating. Frustrating and sad.

Voyeur

Last night we attended a fund raiser for the Guy running against Senator Buttars, arguably the most anti-gay, anti-equal rights legislator up on our capital hill. Okay, it's true, we might have donated to his opponent even if his opponent was a narcoleptic lemur, with fleas. But this guy, John Rendell, is far better than not-Buttars. I wish him the luck he needs being a Democrat in West Jordan, Utah.

The fund raiser was put on by Salt Lake Acting Company, at their performance of this year's Saturday's Voyeur. It's basically a yearly parody of Utah's current events and foibles, and we often make the job of parody easy. They had Marie Osmond Dancing with the Stars, IM1RU Ring Tones, Mr. Becker's Neighborhood, Tap Dancing Queer Missionaries, and Buttars Refusing to go to racial sensitivity rehab, Amy Winehouse style.

They even did the bit they're best known for for this, their 30th anniversary: No Erection in the Resurrection, where they basically read straight from a 1970's LDS pamphlet about masturbation; not much commentary or ad libbing was needed on that. Suffice it to say, the "little factory" should not be rushed; it will send out it's excess product at night when it needs to. If you can't resist altering the, umm, production schedule of the "little factory" you can do stuff like keep a factory calendar and black out all the early, uh, shipments (?), or "think of having to bathe in a tub of worms, and eat several of them as you do the act", or even tie your hand to the bed. Good advice, that.

It's telling of both the time and subject that the funniest bit SLAC did wasn't something they wrote. If someone in my ward gave me the bruised banana example about women, I bet I'd be twice as gay as I am today; no wonder there's so many mohos ;-).

Anyway, it was a fun evening and you have about 3 weeks to see it, if you're so inclined.

Sell Out

Our first dip into activism came just before the push in the Utah legislature to put a constitutional amendment to forbid our legal marriage on the ballot. I was speaking out against a bill aiming to do the same in regular law up on capitol hill.

After that and once the push to make that bill into an amendment began, I was asked by a representative to give the opening prayer for the legislative day, as an open gay man and father. She wanted them to have to see me.

To put this in context, not many legislators came to hear my testimony... Okay, hardly any came; they didn't want to hear what they were doing to people and were seemingly content with the assessment Senator Buttars provided of gay families (or what's the term he prefers? Child abuse collectives?). He gave them all some pamphlet about what the gays do in bed. He knows, see.

I'm sure none of them wanted to be near enough to a gay man that hand shaking might become a possibility after reading that, let alone to have to consider his family in their legislation.

Anyway, so here was a chance for me to have a captive audience. They'd have to see a gay father, without warning. They'd have to know they were going to hurt someone real. They'd have to know more about our lives and concerns than they got from the paper or the news the day after they didn't show up to hear what we had to say. They'd have to see we shared some common ground.

Sure, that may be very little, but it's something. Consider that the bill passed by one vote.

I'm ashamed to admit I was tempted. I was. I thought out some justifications: "I'm not an atheist; I can say a prayer as an agnostic, can't I?" "It's no big deal. I at least know what faith feels like..." "This could soften some hearts; a prayer without faith is the lesser of two evils."

I came close, so close that that episode is something I'll keep as a constant reminder of how weak I can be. It's something to weigh me down when I start to float.

Nevertheless, I didn't do it. I called the representative and told her I couldn't do it, that it would be improper. She ended up using her turn to select an Episcopal for the person giving the prayer, straight man though.

I didn't do it because, as an agnostic pretending to speak to anyone in prayer, I would have been selling out one of my core principles, my respect for democracy and science in epistemology. I would be doing that for possible political gain. Equal treatment, sure, is another of my core principles, but I don't want it reached that way. Some sins can spoil the best blessings.

Still, I wonder to this day, what if there was just that one legislator on the brink, thinking of gay men as shallow club hoppers with no more need of marriage rights and responsibilities than the average fraternity brother. What if they never thought gay men were men of family, and dedication, that they weren't parents, parents terrified of how their government is treating their home. Could a sliver have made a difference? Probably not, but...

That brings me to yesterday. I opened the mail and found a thank you card from my representative, now running for senate. I donated to their campaign last month, just a couple years after refusing to even put up a lawn sign for them because they voted for Amendment 3. I donated not because I now like this person; I donated because I want to break the super majority the republicans have in the senate. In short, the thank you made me feel a bit dirty, unexpectedly; it made me feel like I feel when I think back to considering that prayer.

One must be careful. I have to be careful. It seems there's no greater a population, per capita, of lesser evils than in politics.

Of course I can't support the republican here, she's worse on most of the issues I care about. And at least this representative knows my disappointment, we've talked numerous times and even their campaign staff knows me by face and name (they must have some sort of malcontent constituent file?). I'm sure she can easily guess why we've donated now, and knows we're not now anti-gay rights...

Still, for some reason, I'd rather have not been told thank you; that thank you lowered my opinion of my self, just enough to sting.

Training

Imagine you are a police officer. You're a stout intimidating guy, who works with violent criminals in a place most folks don't like to even imagine. You are as manly as all get out. Now imagine the county, la-de-da, wants you to take "cultural sensitivity training." Why? Maybe they think you're an ignorant cretin, right? You're not coddling the criminals enough? You're an evil white guy holding down everyone else, and you need "training"...

To be honest, I might think "f*beep*k that!", and show up with a chip on my shoulder, in no mood to become "sensitive."

I attended such training a couple days ago for my county's Sheriff's Department as a representative of the broader county government. There were about 50 officers and administration personnel in the session.

I entered and sat down next to three men, and broke in with some small talk. I could tell there was some resentment to having to be there, as one should anticipate. Thankfully, only the people in charge knew why I was there, and the training offered by the sheriff's office was conducted in a very diplomatic and respectful manner right from the start; no finger pointing.

Of course, the very first exercise, I was outed by my friend. She comes in her headscarf and it's clear which minority group she represents, but I, admittedly, was kind of hoping to be as unnoticeable as possible, just observe. That's why I left my hot pants at home, after all. Eh, but I love her for her openness.

It didn't seem to be an issue, though. You know how when you're outed in a crowd you'll always get a couple people who'll immediately come up to you and just say something, any little bit of small talk, to convey they are still okay with you? I do very much appreciate that friendly gesture, straight people of the world, and a couple officers did so.

I'll not go into the whole 4 hours of it. One funny thing though. In one part of the training we split into groups and were given a paper with a group name on it (e.g. Hispanics, Asians, etc.) and we were to list all the positive and negative traits of that group, stereotype or no. I was in the "Females" group with about 8 male officers. On our list, women were good because of, well, a slang word for mammary glands, and bad for often faking headaches... It was clear, I assume after being outed :-), that those weren't my contributions to the list. The whole session was conducted with light mood and focussed on building camaraderie between different groups, and I think those conducting it (who were also officer) did a great job.

A little lesson I've learned from the last couple years of politicking: the most important stuff happens after the event; never leave early. If you, say, catch your representative in the elevator after the convention, you can get more done than you would with hours at their booth during. Same goes with this event. Afterward we stayed and talked to a bunch of officers and got some good contacts and useful information.

Importantly we cleared up some misconceptions. It seems we were viewed with some suspicion when we got permission to attend. You know, we were the ultra-liberal culturally sensitive representatives of the county, there to judge their programs. And I can see why they'd think that and why that would be far from productive; I think this arena is best for those out of their element and more politically neutral. A lot more can get done when you're there to humbly help, to be a resource for them, not a bureaucratic annoyance. I made clear our purpose. They made clear that a gay inmate is just as dangerous as any other, and I agreed. I wasn't there to get special treatment for my clan; I'm aiming here for equal treatment and beyond that to help the officers better deal with inmates and their families, when those inmates fall into categories on which I may have some insight.

I did, though, find out the county is not where the problem first relayed to me is the greatest. I guess the average stay in their jail is about a month; the long terms being lived out in the state prison. So, in the county, there's not much time for relationships and pecking orders to develop. (Never thought I'd ever be learning about incarcerated culture...) It seems the state prison is where I most need to go.

Nevertheless, we will be getting more involved with the county on this issue. Though it's not a huge area for the glbt community, there are still things to be tackled. What's more, there's a lot to be done to improve relations with other groups, such as the Muslim and refugee communities. There should be a comfortable line between community leaders and the sheriff's office, to the benefit of both sides, and this administration is thankfully open to do what it can to make those connections.

I should soon take a tour of the county jail and we'll go from there. Now though, the state... Politics being what they are here, I've not a lot of pull in the state, but I'll find a way :-).

Anyway, a couple other miscellaneous things I learned:

-In Utah, state or counties, there are no conjugal visits allowed for anyone, married or no. And I thought that was standard in any prison. Curse your misinformation, television.

-Policy is, in fact, no sex should occur in prison at all. I can certainly see the reason behind that and have no problem supporting that policy. Nevertheless, sex does happen while incarcerated and I've yet to find out how far they go to try to make it as safe as possible.

-A step that is taken in the county, though, is a rape prevention task force. It's unfortunate that it's a problem in need of a task force, but I'm glad to know it's being taken very seriously. I hope to get in touch with them to learn more on the measures being implemented.

-Finally, police officers are much less intimidating when they aren't pulling you over for speeding (for the record, last time I got a ticket, I was a teen). They were a nice group to spend a morning with.