Class Warfare

So, again, last Tuesday we spoke to a class about the family up at the U. We've done this a number of times, about once a year since our boys were born.

Gayle Ruzicka of Utah's Eagle Forum, Paul Mero of the Sutherlan Institute, and a couple other anti-marriage equality activists had already spoken to the same class. We were there to make the case for marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

I don't think there's much point in going over the arguments. I've got all my arguments for marriage up in detail and with many referees here and here, and my counter arguments to people like Mrs. Ruzicka and Mr. Mero here. So I'll just go over what stuck out to my mind then:

--I thought Senator McCoy made a good closing remark. Something to the tune of "If you pay attention to their arguments, you'll see all they have is fear. Don't buy into their fear." They have predictions of the family crumbling, church's being forced to close, and such, and those do sell. They have scared a lot of people (Look at Beck's experience, with a S.I. follower for a great example). No, we can't in good concious make similar threats, even if they work. But I have to think, especially when their predictions are so demonstrably false is places with equal rights, that hope for equality and facts will win the day.

--We were talking about how legal marriage helps give gay men and women a path and structure on which to build strong relationships, as it does for many heterosexuals. The topic of gay promiscuity came up and was related to the fact that most all gay men are not guided into dating or responsible relationships, like straight men often are, by their parents, church, or society. I brought up the fact that, when I came out, my parents expected nothing different of me, and I feel that's one of the biggest reasons I've only ever had one sexual partner. Out of the audience then came the observation that Gayle Ruzicka has had more sexual partners than I have, that she's been divorced! If true, I wish, the next time we're in the same room, I could muster the sort of "I love you all but you're so-called family is a civilization-destroying abomination" thing she puts off. Ah, but who am I kidding? I may have thought that way about divorce when I was a young Chrstian and took the Bible's word on it (That's Mat 5:32, and Mal 2:16, Gayle ;-)), but, even if divorced, I'm sure she has a good reason for her family choices, reasons for which I'll even want to give her the sort of rights and responcibilities she'd not return.

--That other team must be losing it. They must see that long arc of history doesn't have much further to go for the gay community (For example, Iowa!). It came up a couple times how the students felt the anti-marriage equality group came there ranting, angry, and were even belligerent on some questions. They were relieved we weren't the same way. Heck, I always go to these things and encourage the students to ask the tough questions, those they're afraid to ask right up front; I told them to feel free to "rough us up a bit". One student observed that the other side really didn't even present anything like a cogent argument as much as fear mongering, which made me feel good to be there with the research under my belt collected for isocrat.org.

--Lastly, we've got some great folks in our local gay community; there were about 4 other people on the pannel with me and they all brought something unique and important to the table. Thank goodness, because they don't teach us scientists how to do speaking or politics particularly well :-).

Graphs

I recently updated the isocrat.org page on the marriage stats in jurisdictions offering same-sex union rights, here.

For some reason, I get a lot of folks linking to this blog on posts where I have the old versions of these images (if you're one of them, I'd recommend using the isocrat.org images as they get updated). Here I'll just put up the new figures, for anyone wanting to use them, but they are described and analyzed and updated on that page. References to the sources of the data are there too.






Finally a couple more on public opinion, discussed here.

You gotta love graphs, right? Any suggestions as to how to make them more visually friendly/informative?

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.

It Happened in Sun Valley...

We just got home from our big family reunion. We've gone to Sun Valley, Idaho for every year of my remembered life for this reunion. It's a great place for a family vacation.

Number one on the list of most kids (and parents wanting to occupy their children and have no filth-phobias) has to be the streams. Little streams cross the grounds making for hours of boat races and mud cultivation:

That picture of a muddy Allen was taken literally 5 minutes after arriving; he can be very efficient.

Number two is the bike riding. There are miles of bike paths and we all bring our bikes:

Okay, that's not my bike. We use the tag-alongs with the boys:


We typically bike half way between Hailey and Ketchum and then stop on the way back to play in the Wood River:
Now you may think the dads do all the work, but our boys can be little motors. They were exhausted by the time we got back to town:
There's also the ice skating. Though, Brian spent most of his time like this:
On Labor Day weekend there's also Wagon Days:
Eh, it's more fun than that parade picture makes it look.

Finally, My parents put on a big competition for all their 32 grandkids (and now, let me count.... about 6 great grandkids). We have relay races:
And a written test on how well you know your family, the first prize being a trip with the grandparents.
Our boys, being among the youngest, didn't stand a chance this year--at least they got their questions right :-)--but they see their grandparents almost every day anyway.

Finally, we do a family picture:

How LDS are we? As we were crowding in to take the picture one of my brother-in-laws quipped that he was glad he didn't bring his other wives.

And yeah, I'm sad to say there was that Proposition 8 issue looming over the whole thing. During the family quiz, one of the questions was which of your family there was married. I heard debate, and some asked their parents about my family. When the topic of the election came up Rob expressed his dislike for McCain for his support for Proposition 8 and the room turned from jovial to cold to another topic. In the midst of idle chit chat we were talking to one of my sisters about our August month of many trips and our San Diego trip came up along with our reasons for going there. There was a surprised and quiet moment of mental processing between us then where I'm sure she was feeling the same thing I was: how sad it is that I, her brother, didn't feel I should tell her we got married, even if again. It had to come up in a round about way, because I, right or wrong, thought it'd just cause trouble between us. And I may have been right. I mean, how sad is it that she couldn't say congratulations? To her brother, who's marriage she and many others in our family are paying their church to fight to annul.

I don't want to end on that note.

It was a great trip. I love my family, from the sinners, to the saints, to the sinning saints, and the sainted sinners. We enjoy all their company, when the walls of faith and politics are down. It can just be bitter sweet, at times.

[Commercial] When you're headed to Sun Valley from Salt Lake, take the Burley/Paul exit and head north. Not only is it my favorite exit, you'll take 20 minuets off your trip headed to Shoshone that way. Best of all you can stop right there at Connor's Cafe. Great home style cooking, and superb pie. We used to go there all the time during the pheasant hunt and it holds a lot of good memories for my family. It's Utahcog approved.

Different Century, Same Tools

I was up at the library looking for editorials on race and came across a 1954 speech given at BYU by Mark Edward Petersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS church. I found an online copy, here. I recommend those interested in the LDS leadership's thinking on gay civil rights issues take a look. The reasoning used today, if not the category by which discrimination is made, is strikingly familiar and telling.

To warn his audience, Elder Peterson starts out by quoting a black politician who indicates that there should be no law against interracial marriage, and even states they're prevalent in... any guesses?

That's right. Europe, a region, according to the last LDS press release supporting Prop 8, now being troubled by the anti-family effects of gay marriage (pff, as if).

After he's done with the quote he goes on:

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the oppor[t]unity of sitting down in a cafe where white people sit. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. From this and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that, we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that they used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace."

Isn't it striking how the issues change, doctrine changes, but 50 years later the tools of justification remain the same? Today, gay people don't want equal rights; they want special rights, and they want to marry right along with us and for us to embrace them and their sin. By tolerance and love they mean for us to embrace sin.

You can see the modern conservative LDS reaction to people like Carol Lynn Pearson at the end there. It takes such tactics to get people to excuse away the Golden Rule, harden their hearts, and do wrong to their neighbors--family even--against their conscience. Every abrahamic faith doing harm, from the inquisitions to modern killings of gays by Islamic governments, has ironically used something like Isa 5:20 to justify their cruelty, and we see such used here to justify racial segregation and anti-miscegenation ideas.

The same old message is that you can hurt those others, and their families; it's okay, good even. God approves. Elder Petersen even goes on to say it's for the children, as they do today with gay marriage. Oppose marriage for the children cursed, literally in this case, by living under their parent's union.

Elder Petersen then talks about the Chinese and how good they are for not wanting to marry white people, unlike black people. A similar tactic is used when people argue it's okay to hurt gay and lesbian headed families because they've convinced some LDS gays to be celibate or single. Why can't you be good, like them? Like the Chinese, they obey supernatural law, and that means you should too.

In this speech we, of course, see a lot of declarations about how the supernatural works, the plan of salvation, and the use of eternity to justify injustice. God segregated the races and His law "is eternal" and He is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" and He is "fair to all" and "will meet us according to what we deserve". Familiar, right? Just do what we men teach you; it's the only right way; it'll work out.

Elder Petersen quotes Joseph Smith to prove some races, like those coming from Africa, were sinners in the preexistence (we know this because we treated them as slaves) and thus our cruelty and laws of segregation are justified. God made people with certain attributes, based on the indelible quality of their spirit, and placed those spirits in certain races (or sexes), justifying our poor treatment of those who'd violate His segregation in interracial union (or not violate his segregation in same-sex unions).

The best thing about claiming and believing you have evidence from the supernatural or know what God really means has to be that you can justify about anything with magical thinking. Some people, including yours truly, can trigger that special spiritual feeling for just about anything in the freedom of their own mind. You can pose laws and use complicated worldviews that rival any book by Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. Black people can be segregated because of some great ethereal war, spirits are either boys or girls, and Xenu killed a bunch of people in a volcano making some feel depressed and others feel same-sex attraction (if you're a Scientologist :-)). Opponents who value skepticism and evidence are powerless against your authority and faith. How frustrating it must have been to be a black man in Utah back then.

Elder Petersen even goes on to say black people should be grateful and thankful. "In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life" God still lets the black man have some chance, even though they are "cursed as to the priesthood". "He will go there as a servant, but he will get a Celestial resurrection".

Similarly, gay men should feel grateful, not sad or upset with church leaders. Gays are bound by the same rules as everyone else. Black men are too and are facing the consequences for their pre-existent sins in Petersen's day, sins for which white men would be equally punished. Gay men can have a celibate life, and get their reward by marrying a girl with whom they'll have that sort of purposeful intimacy afforded by orientation, later, in heaven. Be grateful for what the leaders offers you in this life, and for what they promise in eternity. And, really, who can beat eternity? It's the infinite trump card and there's no doubt why most every faith picks it up and promotes it, and why most every skeptic of most every faiths is at a disadvantage for their epistemological restraint.

To top it off Elder Petersen uses the old "some of my best friends" tactic. He isn't hateful to black people; he feels love for them; he feels good about how he treats them and that matters (if only to him). He would even "be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it", just as you'll hear some express their generosity for letting gays even have freedom from incarceration, or capitol punishment (I last heard that one from a local LDS radio host). We should be grateful for such love, right? Elder Petersen even has a black friend, brother Hope. Just like LDS author, Orson Scott Card, who, because he works in the arts (of course...), has a lot of gay friends, friends he regards as defective and fights to keep their families from equal rights.

I'm sure, though, Elder Petersen may have had such a friend, and maybe Mr. Card does too. I'm sure some black friends back then meekly forgave such men; they, after all, had faith they and others like them deserved it. Personally I'd not choose even "to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car" with such a friend, but to each his own.

He Concludes:

Now what is our policy in regard to intermarriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro.

On the upside, magical thinking is not based in the stark facts of an outside world; only the mind needs be changed. Nevertheless, a supernatural worldview does best when it feels like an assuring, comforting, and immovable foundation, and so they are notoriously difficult to change on a scale smaller than a generation. But it doesn't have to actually be immovable. In fact, it can't be immovable or the worldview will fade away with all the thousands of other dead faiths of human history, as the LDS faith would likely have if it did not change with regards to race (or maybe even polygamy). They can change by generations and do; adherents will forgive and membership will grow.

Today, it seems the LDS church only advises against interracial marriage, here:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred)...”

(Though, "some of those are not an absolute necessity"? If only some aren't then which ones are necessity? Is there still an "absolute necessity" to keep from marrying some races, as Petersen claims, or is it class?)

But now look at how long that change from absolutely against to advising against and granting the priesthood took on race, and then consider how quickly the LDS church is moving on same-sex marriage in comparison. Just 4 years ago they were against any legal recognition of same-sex unions. Today they are still against "marriage" but now "The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights..." That's not yet equal rights for our families, but I couldn't have imagined the LDS church of my youth ever taking such a liberal stance on gay rights and so quickly.

Still, sure, there's a good ways to go and a lot in the way. I've mixed feelings to find the same tools repeatedly used to block that path to equal rights. It's annoying that such tactics still live on to have any effectiveness in the hearts and minds of people today, but, to the credit of the LDS people, it's comforting to know such tools have eventually failed, as they should.

The Catholic Charities of Boston Case

One argument the LDS church used in its last news release regarding it's opposition to marriage for gay couples was that:

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

So I took some time to look into the facts of this case, as, apparently, the author of this press release should have.

Catholic Charities of Boston (CCB) was established over a century ago to take care of "poor Catholic children" and to assure orphaned Catholic children were not placed in protestant homes (1). For about two decades, though, CCB had been placing children with same-sex couples (2, 3), which means they were doing so even before the Ma anti-discrimination law included sexual orientation, and well before there was gay marriage in Massachusetts. Of the minority placed "The children placed with the gay couples [were] among those most difficult to place, either because they have physical or emotional problems or they are older". The Catholic Church claims it was made aware of this decades old fact by a Boston Globe article in 2005, which made this practice public (3).

Without any government official taking action to shut them down, the church leadership decided to halt finalizing all adoptions in Boston. They could have continued their adoption work while attempting to clear up the non-discrimination law in the courts, but they chose to shut themselves down. They did this even though Catholic Charities in a couple other areas of Massachusetts were (and by all accounts I've found are still) operating while refusing to adopt to same-sex couples, and after being told by the state's legal representative "We're going to wait and see how the legislation plays out".

At this decision by the Bishops, 8 board members of CCB resigned in protest of the church's move, not the state's. Furthermore, the board had voted unanimously to continue offering such adoptions "saying many gays and lesbians have proven to be exemplary parents who took in some of the toughest foster children" (4). Now, ironically, many, including the LDS church, are using the Catholic church's actions here to claim they were "forced" to make such a move when it did, and using this sad event as an effective tool of propaganda against marriage equality, as though this whole event was a PR stunt.

Marriage equality opponents tend to make two main claims with this event.

The first is that religious freedom was compromised by gay marriage. In fact, Massachusetts' non-discrimination law was the law in question here and the church doctrine was not even asked by the state to be changed, let alone insisted upon. To say this is a case about gay marriage is misleading, and to say this is a case about religious freedom would be akin to claiming, for example, Scientologists have the right to promote their faith in state funded drug rehab programs.

Simply, where the state is involved it cannot act favoring any particular faith's doctrine over equal treatment and rights of its citizens, both the prospective parents and adoptive children in need of homes in this case. If the Catholic church cannot work with the state because of such state responsibilities, they can always keep their doctrine and others will work with the state. For example, the Lutheran Social Service spokes person in Boston commented on their continued desire to aid in adoptions, saying "We're one social service agency, not one church body. We know our parent bodies have firm positions not to ordain practicing gay persons, but on this issue, that's got nothing to do with the welfare of children" (1) .

The second claim is typically that, even if the Church was wrong, this event still harmed Boston children as a side effect and therefore gay marriage should not be allowed. First and again, this was the result of anti-discrimination law, not marriage. Next, disallowing gay couples to adopt harms children by only allowing them to have one legal parent when being raised by gay couples. Also, CCB did not end all of its adoption services (see here), only those in need of a state contract. CCB still assists in adoptions, all those Catholics interested in adoption may do so through the state, or organizations such as the Lutherans that do not violate non-discrimination laws, against gays or Catholics. There is clearly more harm to children done when adoptions are conducted without their best interest primary in the mind.

Lastly, no harm is seen in the available data. We only have half a year's worth of adoption data after CCB stopped finalizing adoptions, but from 2005 to 2006 the number of adoptions increased from 833 to 858. Furthermore, the average time between termination of parental rights and finalization of an adoption decreased from 15.34 to 15.16 months. There were more adoptions and they were processed more quickly in the year during half of which CCB stopped some of their adoption work (5).

Forgetting marriage and regarding the non-discrimination law and adoption alone, though, the state has a solemn responsibility to children without parents in its care to find the best home available as quickly as possible. As the state cannot rely on, say, a particular Muslim faith that gay parents (or even Jewish parents) are evil, or an Episcopal faith that such parents are fine in the eyes of God, the state must use research and the opinions of professionals. Research on families headed by same-sex couples has shown over and over again that there is no significant deficit found in these children (Related isocrat.org article). Regardless of how anyone feels about them, and given the fact that willing and qualified adoptive parents are always in need, sometimes the objectively best option for a child will be a same-sex couple, over a single person, gay or straight, or even over some heterosexual couples. The state would be ignoring its responsibility to these children to delay their journey to a loving home and to discriminate for a prospective parent's sex.

Besides all that, isn't it clear a church's threat to stop helping children if they cannot keep on discriminating, to be blunt, ethically problematic from the start?

1. Paulson, M.. Church's rift with Beacon Hill grows. www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/. (2006).

2. Wen, P.. Bishops to oppose adoption by gays, Exemption bid seen from antibias laws.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/16/bishops_to_oppose_adoption_by_gays/. (2006).

3. Pink News. State allows gay adoption discrimination. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1166.html. (2006).

4. Wen, P.. Bishops' gay ban may cost millions, Private donors wary of adoption policy .http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/05/bishops_gay_ban_may_cost_millions/. (2006).

5. US Federal Goverment. FedStats. http://www.fedstats.gov/.

Paper

We, just yesterday, received our certificate of marriage in the mail from the state of California.

Now we have three such certificates (or four depending upon how you count them), and, while I do enjoy weddings, I hope this will be the end of our collection.

The first one is our certificate of Holy Union from the Unitarian church that conducted our wedding. It's not nearly a legal document. It's smaller than the rest, and a bit sun bleached. Nevertheless, it's the one I'd grab if the house was on fire (and the kids, Rob, and my hard drive with all our photographs on it were already safe... and the dog too).

After that there's the License and Certificate of Marriage from the city and country of San Francisco. In this one, the printing goes off into the embossed border. In the Mayor of San Francisco's haste of political disobedience in the service of justice (or socially eroding act of anarchy, depending on your politics) they were printing the official certificates on the spot, as there was the feeling they would be shut down at any moment. I like this one for the memories of the time more than it's effect; I knew it had a good chance of not lasting in legality. We left the boys with their grandparents and that ended up being one romantic day-long date, before we hurried home.

Now we have this new 8.5 X 11 piece of paper, a Certificate of Marriage from the country of San Diego. It's printed correctly, and it's legal. Our names are there, along with our parent's names and it's signed by the county clerk. With it, we could move to California again, and have our family treated justly, as family. Rob could get on my health insurance. We could stop shuttling money in the small legal increments between us so as to eventually get our boys the same inheritance rights other kids would get. We could live without legal threat in our home zoned for "single families". All this could be fixed (with regard to state law, if not federal), if only we left Utah... and our extended family and all the familiarity and what we love about this state. That's what this paper represents, and I guess it's a bit bitter sweet now that I'm thinking on it. It's far more sweet than bitter though; it's far more of an option than we had and one we could use in a prolonged medical emergency. We just have to do all we can to keep Proposition 8 from annulling us again.

It's funny how that series of letters, "Marriage", that appears only once in this document, causes so many people such grief and righteous indignation. By most all evidence, the weather of vocabulary has already pushed the front lines here well past those aiming to demean same-sex unions. Most Americans know familial sacrifice, dedication, mutual care and love define the best aspects meant in the syllables of "marriage". The rest of the fighting is merely insults about who's ideal, and who's children deserve different parents, and whose God disapproves of whose family. They're seemingly entrenched to keep same-sex couples from reaching the actuality of the word, not to keep a word from changing meaning, as all words do and with no conscious control.

It's funny also how bureaucratically important these little flammable records of the inflammable bonds of family are. Something could even happen to Rob or me, but the past is still the past, and a union of human souls and human families is still a union. It's one of the most indelible and echoing connections engraved in that metal of the past. Still, I suppose the government needs their papers and the people their politics.

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.

Ringing Those Wedding Bells, But Quietly

The house sitter has sat, the bags are packed, and we will, within a day, be off to California to get married, once again.

Everyone in our lives has been congratulating us and making a big deal out of this. We very much appreciate it, and it is a big deal to us too. But I have an emotional reflex to keep it low key. We had our wedding, 13 years ago. We forged our vows in front of all those friends and family. We felt that overwhelming emotion and celebrated with our loved ones, some of whom, like my grandpa and uncle, aren't here to celebrate with us today. We rented the tuxedos, ate the cake and had our honeymoon too.

That specific August day is so important to us, so much so that I recoil from making a big deal of geting married again. We are doing this because we have to, because the law and equity should have been there on our wedding day but it was not. We are doing this for the right for my family to be treated as equal if something bad happens, even though that would mean I'd have to see death coming and move them to Ca or Ma. We are doing this before those fighting for Proposition 8 snatch it away from us. We will just hope they don't find a way to retroactively take rights away.

These are kind of mood killing considerations, you know? And we really wouldn't want this coming day to be as special as that first day anyway; it shouldn't be.

So it will be a simple, pleasant affair at the courthouse, the morning before we head off to Lego Land. We don't want to give our boys the impression that we are getting married in a better way than we did before, or even that we are "renewing" our vows, as that may give their young minds the impression their parent's promises, what they rely on, have a problem to fix. I've been trying to make it clear that this is about getting more legal protection for their family from the law because we couldn't get it when their daddy and papa were first married. Still, these aren't easy ideas to get across to a 6-year-old.

Nevertheless, this morning the very first thing Alan said to me was, "Papa, are you excited? One more day!" They get it, some of it at least. Yep, I am excited... and worried this will be for naught, but I didn't tell him that second part.

I'll try to post while there. It may be my only post while legally married, who knows? The last poll I saw looked good but there is some fervent and well-funded opposition lining up to convince the people of CA that my family and the equal legal treatment of my family are somehow the biggest threats to children and families in existence. They may succeed. But heck, they may not. I'm going to try to not think too far ahead in the next couple days and just enjoy the beach, the amusement park, and the legal right for my family to be treated as family, until we land back here in Utah.

Anti Marriage

How do you spell the tired sound? Is it Pfew?

Anyway, the big arguments-against-marriage-equality-page(-draft) is finished at isocrat.org.

http://isocrat.org/politics/marriage/anti_marriage.php

I've very much appreciated the editing many of you have offered in the past and am begging for more.

Aside from spelling and grammar, have we missed anything, any big argument? Is there anything that should be removed, cut down, or even expanded upon? And tone, too grumpy, or too weak in places?

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.

I'm Going to Prision

You ever find yourself in a situation where you realize the smallest accidental push on a domino of conversation has set you on a course to something large and complicated, something you're not sure you want to, or have time to start in on? That's often me in my volunteer life.

I've become involved in minority issues in Utah over the last four years by such happy, if not intimidating, accidents. Near all of my work in this area has nothing to do with the GLBT community, but I'm sure what pulls me to it comes from my experiences as a gay man, an outsider in my community. In all, through there's been some difficulty and sadness for it, it's been a wonderful experience with people from everything from our refugee to our Latino community.

What has me feeling some trepidation is now focusing on my community. In a meeting with a representative from the state department of human services regarding primarily ethnic diversity issues, the guy just casually mentioned they are having trouble figuring out how to deal with gays and lesbians in prison. He said they are seeing an increase in out gays in prison, and there are issues of harassment, abuse, and, well, sex. Both the state and county are looking for help in finding ways to better deal with incarcerated gays.

So, I'm no expert in any of that, but here I am, in a unqualified place and at an unqualified time, and I'm taking up the issue. Next week I'll be taking the diversity training they give each year in the sheriff's department. I'll be doing this with a lesbian and a Muslim friend, along with a large group of your traditional Utah police officers... sit-com hilarity may ensue.

This part of the consequences of that conversation is fine by me. I want to make sure that, say, if officers come to a home like ours, after one parent is killed or made unconscious by an intruder, they know not to take the kids from their remaining dad because "children can't have two dads." I'm happy to help officers know we're out there and am glad to have the opportunity to make suggestions on their training in that regard. Still, it'll certainly be an interesting day.

Where I pause is prison. What do I say on this topic, when we give our recommendations? I'll admit I've a hard time caring about the rights of some people, particularly after some crimes. Maybe I even feel harsher for "my people" who act criminally, because I know how they hurt, along with their victims, my family in the minds of others by association.

Still, I think I've come to some conclusions, but I'm wondering what you all think.

What should be the treatment of gay people in prison? Straight inmates get conjugal visits from spouses. What should gay couples get, when one is incarcerated and the other not? Do they get to couple up with other inmates? Select their lover as a cell mate? Are they allowed to have sex at all? Even if they are disallowed, and rightly, the most basic freedoms of self-determination?

If they can have sex, how do STD's factor in? I mean, these are already men who've prooven themselves to be selfish and amoral in some blatant manner; what does the state do to be sure they are responsible with sex?

Finally, what about harassment? Gay men are being beaten in prison for being gay. Oddly, some gay men will even get raped by the straight inmates. Go figure. How to combat that? I doubt many people would near suggest a gay guy in for tax evasion should have something like rape or beatings added to their punishment, right? If this is such a large problem, should there be, say, a separate gay cell block? (And will Ang Lee have rights to the script?).

Wish I Could Celebrate

As we all now know by now, California has allowed marriage rights for families headed by same-sex couples, or, more accurately, is scheduled to in 30 days.

I'm waiting for the counter attack, rather than celebrating. A couple things on the mind:

1. In November CA will vote on amending their constitution to take away the equal rights protection that caused this ruling. IIRC, the amendment would also take away domestic partner benefits, something gays in Ca already have. This could be one step forward, two steps back.

2. If only the Governator had signed the bill passed by the majority of the legislator allowing marriage... That way it would more have the people's stamp of approval, than a court ruling. You want people to do right, but you also want people to want to do right. Darn you Arnold. I'm happy you support it now, but you had an historic opportunity.

3. And the court, and it's close decision... I can hear the cackle of "activist judges," rallying the opposition to the polls. In the Ca Constitution it says you must treat people equally, and that means you can't take or keep rights and responsibilities from me, my husband, or our children, just because one of us has a particular anatomy. The judges don't just make this stuff up. It's there in law; put there by the people, even if they didn't understand the, IMHO laudable, ramifications of the ideal of equal treatment under the law.

4. Time is of the essence. In the paper an opponent says, arguing to wait until the voters vote, it does no one good "for anyone" to have legal marriage for our families for a couple months, when the whole thing could be overturned. Liar. They know. They know as soon as the first gay couple takes their family to the court house and finally gets legal equality for the people in their home, and people see the sky didn't fall over Hollywood, they know that will take away a lot of their anti-gay numbers. They don't want the people to vote after they see what they are voting on. They want them to vote on fear, knowing their issue will slowly die as it did with the Ma drive to amend their constitution after equal rights were given.

Anyway, a couple random thoughts.

Maybe I can celebrate in December. That's all I'll ask for from Santa.

Convention

I’ve a bad cold, one Rob brought me home from Moab, but I got out today to attend the county convention. There, simply the party votes for whom the rest of the population will vote in the next election.

This is my 5th year as a delegate and I’m beginning to feel much more comfortable with the process, as ugly as it may sometimes seem. I vet my candidates early, wade through all their political non-answers, and push when I can. How does even a state rep candidate learn all those rhetorical tricks so early… “I can’t say until I see the bill” (translation: I will vote against you.) “I would not oppose such a bill” (translation: I would not support such a bill) “I think everyone should have equal rights” (translation: I think you want special rights)… I’m exhausted :-).

Anyway, I won’t have this person as my representative again, but might as my senator… and to boot, I’ve decided to get involved in their campaign, though there is still that bad blood between us. Utah needs to at least have some balance of power in a minority in the senate able to filibuster. On the up side, the person I wanted for my representative won. She’ll not be too supportive of our issues, but she’s right on many others, was the most organized, and there’s still time to try to convince her when she’ll in need of help and willing to listen ;-), which is more than we have now.

Being gay in this state, in this district is politically complicated. If they aren’t the type to full on say they think you’re the devil’s bff, out to make Salt Lake into Sodom’s sister city, they’re often very hard to pin down on gay issues. It’s about reading people, divining out the real answers muffled behind the pc language. I hope/think I’m getting good at reading the face of a candidate while I explain our family and our issues. Sometimes it’s been as blatant as a hand in my face while backing away; other times I was sure I had a friend and ally with all those handshakes and assurances, only to be proven wrong. We’ll see.

Eh, if any of them lied to me today, may they get this cold from all that glad-handing.

Tainted Love

Today, we are at sea (or were by the time I post this :-)). These days are a good deal of fun too, even without a port. There are many seminars and such.

I’ve been to a couple seminars on parenting, and realized we’ve maybe have got to let our boys go a bit, not hover about them so much, and give them more responsibility now. As our Aunt Beanie says, maybe we do “mother them too much.” In our situation, it’s tough to not be over protective and it’s something I’m going to work on and am putting out there so it’s been said on record :-).

Then there was the teen panel, which I commented on last year. I think I’ll save that for a post of its own.

Here Ill talk about a seminar on “Love Won Out;” it left an impression. The new tactics of our opponents are smart and a bit frightening, for their reformulated and yet all too historically familiar packaging. It’s all about love now, wrapping hostile anti-golden-rule action in the feelings of love. Pull your gay kids close, but never accept their orientation or relationships. Sneak into pride events as a “gay-welcoming” church and then show those you trick into attending love as you try to cure them of their curse akin to alcoholism. Get involved in AIDS charities, so you can get sick and desperate people to fight with their orientation. Even try to get to the children of gays and lesbians and get them to turn on their families through kid-friendly internet tools.

Hurt people, basically, but do it in such a way that you look PC and feel good about yourself for it.

It’s a common enough theme in humanity that it was on my derailed list of aphorisms :-):

Hate may harden a heart; to completely solidify a heart a person must pretend love.

It’s true, even in the most sever examples. The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t conducted solely by hateful people; there was a set of intellectual word play and twisted logic to get others on board. They caught the gay man to stop imagined supernatural calamities, for the good of all. They tortured him to get a confession and therefore a chance at heaven, avoiding eternal torture. They “relaxed” him into the custody of the executioner, and they burned him to protect the public and set the now-repentant gay man into eternal paradise. Great motives, right?

Hate does a lot of harm, but it’s love and good intentions used to move the mass of people to do what the worst of us never could.

To know such large groups are formally implementing these tactics is disturbing. This is not just the love which the G*d Hates Fags folks feel in their horrible actions, and if you do listen to their interviews, I think you will also agree they do, as they claim, feel a mind-settling, self affirming love for gay people, and think they’re doing right. But this packaged much more insidiously, as it doesn’t have the shocking book-cover image of picketers in front of a soldier’s funeral. People don’t shy away from Love Won Out; they pack mega-churches for it.

One thing about Love Won Out really stuck with me. The people giving the seminar had personally been to the event. At lunch they ate with a woman who told them she had a gay son. They asked if he was gay or ex-gay or struggling and the woman told them to wait until her husband spoke later in the day; she said she wanted it to be a surprise.

For us, they later played the audio of that portion of the husband’s speech. In short, their son came out to them, they rejected him, and then, after attending Love Won Out they tried to get close to him again, now with the motive of changing him. They tried, though lovingly, to get him to change his “identity” and leave his partner, and the son could apparently see right through it. Eventually the son told them he didn’t want parents in his life who’d not accept him and his partner for who they are. So the parents are the victims now, right? Still, who wants parents constantly trying to undermine your home and not-so-subtly thinking one of the best things about yourself, your path to love, is sin and rightly punished by death in the times of Moses? Right? Even lovingly?

The recording ends with the father describing how their son was killed in a car accident soon after. He said, and I wrote it down for the shocking force with which it hit me, “Our prayers were answered. Our son was healed.” Then there was clapping. Clapping!

Love.

Love won out; even the name implies love’s use as a tool in some sort of competition.

Is that the sort of familial love the “pro-family” side of this debate is becoming about, then? Love that turns parents into that? Love that makes you feel good, that you’re doing God’s work to hurt your children in such ways? That makes you pray for them to be changed or take up life-long celibacy? Change even if it means their death, and feeling grateful if it does? Love that keeps you constantly trying to split up your family’s or friend’s home, even if it’s the home of the happiest family on the continent?

In some instances, the feeling of love really can be one of the crueler, more insidious weapons. In some instances, I’d prefer an enemy fueled by honest and open hate, free from feel-good self-deception. At least that opponent is willing to feel and show the emotional consequences of the harm they choose to inflict on others.

My Mother Said to Pick the Very Best One...

After the first day of elementary school Brian got home and a while later I heard him saying “Mommy mommy,” for the first time. He was playing in the kitchen and I went in and casually asked why he was saying that. I wondered if a teacher confronted him about not having a mom? A child, or a parent?

No, nothing like that. Turns out one traumatized classmate was crying for his mother after being left for the first day and Brian was just mimicking him. As any parent knows, unless you keep them locked home, kids will sponge up whatever their classmates bring to school. We’ve gained everything from Alan’s threat of “Why I otta,” to Brian's asking us last week what sticking up the middle finger means.

None of this should be surprising, and it isn’t to the gay parents I know. No gay or lesbian parent I know wants to keep their child from the concept of different families. On the contrary, we spend probably more time than most talking to our children about the different family types in which their friends are growing up. They have everything from friends with two moms to those adopted by a single dad, though most in mom-dad households.

In the face of differences, we try to teach our boys to be considerate and respectful. When they’ve expressed sadness for friends that have a dad but not a papa, we’ve told them that while their friend may not have a papa, by name, they do have other people from mothers to grandparents doing the parenting they’ve come to associate with “papas.” From personal experience I know if there’s anything more insulting than an insult, it’s biased pity and I don’t want our boys to harbor it. Just as our boys don't need different parents, neither do their friends. And they seem to understand now, that their friends are not lacking and the parenting they receive isn’t really different; it’s just the labels and surface appearances.

We also tell them that most men likely fall in love with women, and most people they’ll meet have a mom and a dad. Civility aside, we want them to be fully cognizant of families different from ours because they’ll likely create one themselves. My parents were not a gay couple, but they did show me that being a father and husband was an option for me with a man or a woman. They also gave me a great model on which any healthy family could be structured. I’m eternally grateful and hope to do at least as much for our boys.

This brings me to the issue of what has happened in California. A bill was passed and signed which forbade discrimination against gay children and the children of gays and lesbians in schools. Clearly, with this anti-gay bigotry-fuled murder of an 8th grader in California such a law aimed at changing anti-gay atmosphere in some schools is needed. Nevertheless, the bill upset many people, and they seemingly weren't slowed by that murder. They created a movement to repeal the law, and urged parents to take their children out of public school lest they become “indoctrinated” by the great communist plot to treat gay people and their children with civility and equality.

I’ve been following it for a while, but there was an editorial on the topic in today’s tribune, here, which brought it back to mind.

So what’s their big rallying cry? It’s that the gays are trying to take the words "mom" and "dad" out of the classroom. These people have so twisted it in their mind that to merely use those words is somehow to discriminate against gays or our children. How queerly hysterical is that? How deceptive? There is not a household headed by a gay or lesbian couple that doesn’t have a mom or dad in it, and they think we want to ban the words?

What we want is for our children to be as included in their school as other children, for them to be as protected from classmates as any other child is protected. We have nothing against talking about mothers or celebrating a mother’s day at school; we just expect to be allowed to have a family member there too. If each kid gets a day to talk about their family, we expect our kids to have the same time. If someone harasses our children, we certainly want action.

What we don’t want is to fall into the same trap that apparently has our opponents ensnared, that idea that it has to be hysterical, that we have to make a big deal of it if a different family is discussed and treated civilly in the classroom. We know we’re a minority and right now our boys think nothing more than “so what?” about it, and use the notion casually, almost too casually. We don’t want to be the ones to make a big deal of labels for them. And I hope we are not.

It’s funny, on this topic, one of our favorite books is The Runaway Bunny. When our boys are snuggled in my lap, they know that book is about a mother and her son. They can read. I've explained that I substitute Papa in there for Mother, and they love the book all the same (if not more for the idea of me in a girl’s circus outfit). But they don’t ultimately care about any of that. They care that I’ll search for them when they are hidden, that I’ll walk a tight rope or climb a mountain for them. They care that I’ll be the tree to which they may always come home, that I’ll be the wind to take them there, and that there I’ll be waiting for them with arms wide and welcoming, no matter where they go or what they do or who they are, or even if I’m not physically present anymore.

Why? Sometimes they ask why; I tell them “because you are my little bunny, and I am your papa and that’s what I do, that’s what I’m here for.”

Best stop. I’m getting weepy :-).

In short, if this bill really meant taking books such as the Runaway Bunny out of the schools, I’d be fighting it along side my opposition. We know the warmth of the ideas in such books easily eclipse the m or f on a birth certificate. But we also think another of our boy’s favorite books, And Tango Makes Three, should be shelved at their school too.