Thanks to everyone for the wonderful birthday wishes. Had I said that already? I got the prints that Deb got for me last night, and they're pretty damned cool. I'm trying to find a way to get some framed without breaking the bank. I asked for a ballpark price at the place downstairs that sends stuff away to Frameland. An 8x10 print with a 3-inch matt and a $1.89/inch frame would cost me over 100 bucks. I don't think so. I'll take a freaking framing class and do it myself first.

They're really cool pictures, though.

It's too bad that having black-and-white developed is such a pain. It's so fun to shoot with. And I love the feel you get with it. We're so inundated with color, B/W just seems more soothing and thoughtful.

And have I mentioned lately that I love my digital camera? It would've taken me 10 minutes just to scan those two 8x10s, not including the Photoshopping time I would have after. I took a photo of them instead, sized them down, desaturated the color, and saved them for the web in 3 minutes.

I love my family, too. Just look at them. I'm the luckiest damn butch in the world.

And on the occasion of the wedding of our friends Steve and Evie, I'd like to wish them many many happy years together ...

... and take this opportunity to rant.

There's a new group out there called the Alliance for Marriage that wants to add a consti-fucking-tutional amendment stating that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Wasn't DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by Bill "the best friend the gay community ever had" Clinton) enough? I think that made it pretty damn clear that redblooded Amerikans don't want gay people to be "married."

DOMA "amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship. Establishes a Federal definition of:
(1) 'marriage' as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and
(2) 'spouse' as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife."

I got it the first time. You don't want me to be a part of your club, and federal law states that I never will be. One man. One woman. GOT IT!

But no! Let's beat the dead queer marriage horse some more with a constitutional amendment. The good folks at the Alliance for Marriage haven't released the names of the congresspersons who have agreed to sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment. They're waiting until it's officially introduced.

The best part is that they and their supporters say they are doing this because they are trying to fight the horrific rise in incidence of fathers abandoning their out-of-wedlock children to be raised by their single mothers.

The Alliance for Marriage is a non-partisan research and education organization dedicated to promoting marriage and addressing the crisis of fatherless families in the United States.

The Alliance for Marriage exists to educate the public on the benefits of marriage for children, adults and society. We also exist to promote reforms designed to strengthen marriage and restore a culture of married fatherhood in American society.

We are a racially, culturally and religiously diverse coalition, whose membership reflects the fact that marriage is the most multi-cultural social institution in the world.

... [snip] we are soooooo multicultural and multireligional blah blah [snip] ...

We are Americans of every color and every creed who share a commitment to reducing the epidemic of fatherless families in the United States.

How in the hell does this relate to gay people? Apparently, if you let gay people get married, then even more fathers will abandon their children because ... um ... because then getting married would be something that gay people do, and no self-respecting straight man would stoop so low? I don't know.

And the Alliance for Marriage folks have secured the Rev. Walter Fauntroy, a Baptist minister and one-time lieutenant to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., to pull their bandwagon of freaky logic. He said (and this is one of the most sane things he did say) at a press conference last week, "I am by no means abandoning my life-long commitment to protecting the civil rights of all our citizens, gay or straight, and of every race, creed and color on this planet. I respect the right of any and every citizen to enter binding contracts with one another that are upheld by the courts of law in this country. Every gay or lesbian citizen has that right now but that right, in my view, does not extend to redefining the institution of marriage for the purpose of legalizing a lifestyle that one has chosen. Gay and lesbian couples have the right to enter contractual arrangements now and that right should be exercised without tampering with an institution, the breakdown of which is producing a myriad of serious problems in our nation: marriage as the union of male and female."

In a way, he's right in part. There are a lot of contracts that Deb and I could have drawn up that would give us some rights that straight people get automatically when they get married.

Like, if I'm critically injured, Deb would be allowed to visit me and make decisions about my health care if I had given her a power of attorney and made a living will designating her as the person who can make those decisions. Otherwise, because she's not family, she can't even see me.

If Deb dies, I can inherit her possessions if she has had a will written up naming me as the beneficiary (otherwise, I'm pretty sure it goes to the state). But a will benefitting me could be challenged by her abusive father with very good chances that he could win, depending on the judge who was hearing the case. If I die first, my family could contest any will I had made with good chances of winning. I don't think they would, but they could. And families do. Oh, and I think we would have to pay hefty inheritance taxes on anything we were willed because we're not married.

But there is no contract that I could sign to give Deb the Social Security survivor's benefits she would get if I were a man (even if we were divorced, she would get them if I was a man). So we have to save up more during our working lives to be sure that if something happens to me, she'll be okay.

And I couldn't get bereavement leave if Deb died, or take sick leave from my company if Deb needed me to take care of her at home for awhile. I can't put her on my health insurance policy. Even if I could afford for her to stop working and stay home and write and cook like she wants to, she would lose her health insurance.

Lucky for us, there aren't children to consider, because I can't begin to tell you how less-than-zero rights a same-sex-but-not-birth-mother parent has when it comes to the kids.

So we need to get our wills, and powers of attorney, and living wills drawn up. We haven't done that yet. We haven't gotten around to it. It's going to be a pain in the butt. It would be nice if that kind of thing was automatic.

Right now, there are 35 states that have passed specific anti-same-sex marriage laws (Hawaii among them for those of you who think that gays can get married there�we can't). We could get "unioned" in Vermont, but none of the benefits or legal recognition would follow us out of state. I think it would be cool to live in Vermont, but Deb doesn't like snow much. And I think the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would supersede Vermont's law and take those rights away.

I don't really think it will pass, but it's sad that we have to fight not to protect our rights, but to defeat legislation that would bar us from trying to attain them.

On the positive side, Deb and I don't have to pay the higher income taxes that married people filing jointly have to pay. But I think those are going to go away soon. We're not allowed to file jointly.

...

So is the institution of marriage really so weak? Would queers getting married destroy the whole matrimonial eco-system? Do we really hate the little fatherless children so badly?

Whatever.

The Alliance for Marriage folks can take their Federal Marriage Amendment, and their "one woman, one man" definition and shove it up their obviously-never-been-laid-as-good-as-I-have asses. I'll take my four women, no man life and enjoy the fucking hell out of it without the privilege of getting "married" to Deb in the legal sense of the word. Just don't get on a pulpit and tell me you're doing it for the children.

Moving on - 12:11 p.m. , 2007-08-14

Where the hell have I been? - 12:10 p.m. , 2007-02-19

Holy shit! - 2:24 p.m. , 2006-01-11

Stuffing recipe - 6:17 p.m. , 2005-12-13

Good Life Update - 10:22 a.m. , 2005-11-11