Thanks Walter

For Idle Eyes...

from The Full Monty (musical):

You Walk With Me

Malcolm
Is it the wind
Over my shoulder?
Is it the wind that I hear gently whispering
Are you alone there in the valley?
No, not alone for you walk, you walk with me

Is it the wind there over my shoulder?
Is it your voice calling quietly?
Over the hilltop, down in the valley
Never alone for you walk with me

When evening falls
And the air gets colder
When shadows cover the road I am following
Will I be along there in the darkness?
No, not alone, not alone
And I'll never be...

Ethan
Never alone, you are walking
You're walking with me

Malcolm & Ethan
Is it the wind there, over my shoulder?
Is it your voice calling quietly?
Over the hilltop, down in the valley
Never alone for you walk with me
Over the hilltop, down in the valley
Never alone for you walk with me

Malcolm
Never alone for you walk with me

Idle Eyes, I certainly haven't done a very good job of keep life's troubles away from you, but together, we will always find our way. As long as I live, you'll never be alone.

Mystery

"Pretty much everything that happens in life
is an absolute frigging mystery."

-- Joel Lovell

It's probably a Democrat

Since I was first eligible to vote, I have prized the opportunity to participate in government at all levels by supporting candidates and by voting. I have made a point of being well informed of each candidate's stated positions and, if any, voting records. As a gay man still seeking equality in the eyes of the law, and as a progressive seeking to make the country (and the world) a place where all have an opportunity to participate fully, I have been excited about being involved in the political and electoral process.

I have usually supported candidates affiliated with the Democratic Party, as it is they only major party in the United States that supports investment in the people, infrastructure, and institutions of our nation. As I'm sure you are aware, they have also been the only major party to even give lip service to the quest for equal rights for gay Americans. However, year after year, election after election, they disappoint. It seems to me that the Democratic Party does not want equal rights for gay Americans. Instead, it is my belief that they want to rake in scads of gay volunteers, donations, and votes at every election and so can't bring themselves to actually act on behalf of equality for fear of losing these gay contributions.

As a result of the continual betrayal of the Democratic Party to stand up for the people of this county, including but not limited to, gay Americans, I have decided that from here on I intend to support and vote for incumbent Democrats only if they have actually voted to extend equality. Further, I urge other Americans concerned with equality to help end the cycle of Democratic lies and betrayal by giving serious consideration to joining me in refusing to vote for any incumbent Democratic candidate unless they have actually voted to extend the rights of gay Americans further toward the goal of full equality.

For those incumbent Democrates who are local and feel they don't have any say in equality matters, I respond by saying they should use whatever influence they have to move their colleagues at the state and/or federal levels to act for equality. Until then, in my opinion they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

If it talks like a fierce advocate of equality, but walks like a bigot, it's probably a Democrat.

Marriage Equality

Bill Clinton No Supports Marriage Equality

By 365gay Newswire
07.14.2009 3:55pm EDT

(Washington, D.C.) Former president Bill Clinton has expressed his support for gay marriage, a stance he did not hold during his presidency. While speaking at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 8, the former president said he is “basically in support” of gay marriage.

Back in May at Toronto’s Convention Centre, Clinton said his position on same sex marriage was “evolving.” During his presidency, Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I personally support people doing what they want to do,” Clinton said on July 8. “I think it’s wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage].”

Clinton has said that he doesn’t view the issue as a federal one. When asked about the five states that have passed same sex marriage this past spring, Clinton said, “I think all these states that do it should do it.” He added again that it was not a “federal question.”

Other Democrats who have changed their positions recently about marriage equality include former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

“Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality,” said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s executive director Rea Carey. “We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship.”

Read the full article at the Nation.

Blossom

Idle Eyes posted this quote a few days ago.

And the day came
When the risk to remain
tight in the bud
was more painful
than the risk it took
to blossom

-- Anais Nin

1st state to sue feds over marriage law

Mass. is 1st state to sue feds over marriage law

By DENISE LAVOIE

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to challenge the federal law. Its lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

"They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they are gay or straight," Coakley said at a news conference.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa — have legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in Maine said Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures to put the state's pending law on the November ballot for a possible override.

The lawsuit focuses on the section of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the lawsuit states.

The defendants named in the suit include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the federal government.

Brian Camenker, leader of MassResistance, a group opposed to gay marriage, criticized Coakley for challenging the federal law.

"The federal government has a perfectly legal right to define marriage," he said.

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriages and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize them.

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law, although gay rights activists criticized the administration last month after Justice Department lawyers defended it in a court brief. White House aides said they were doing their jobs to support a law that is on the books.

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, declined comment on the lawsuit itself, saying the department plans to review it. He noted Obama "supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits."

Supporters of gay marriage predicted that other states where same-sex marriage is legal will also challenge the federal law.

"Every state has the right to determine who it will allow to marry, and the federal government always respects those decisions by states ... except in this case," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

"(Coakley) is going right for that vulnerability in the law," she said.

This is the second lawsuit filed in Massachusetts challenging the law.

In March, the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders claimed the law discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as health insurance and pensions.

In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.

The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether the law should stand.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Marriage Bill Takes Effect

Gay marriage bill takes effect in nation's capital

By GILLIAN GAYNAIR

WASHINGTON (AP) — A law recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries went into effect Tuesday in the nation's capital, and a D.C. councilman said he plans to follow up with a measure that would allow gay marriage ceremonies in the district.

The bill was approved in a 12-1 vote by the D.C. Council in May. Congress, which has the final say over the city's laws, had 30 days to review the legislation. Since it took no action, the bill automatically became law.

"I certainly believe that the fact that we got here is a great victory, that we survived the congressional layover period," said D.C. Council member David Catania, who is fine-tuning a bill that would allow gay marriages to be performed in Washington. He said he intends to introduce the measure between September and the end of the year.

For 29-year-old D.C. resident Julie Verratti, the city's new gay marriage recognition law marks an important transition for same-sex couples.

"It feels good," said Verratti, a law student who married her partner last year in California. "It's a step in the right direction."

Under the law, gay and lesbian couples married in other jurisdictions are afforded the same benefits and rights as other married people under D.C. law. The law recognizes legal, same-sex nuptials in other countries as well as an estimated 18,000 such marriages that took place in California — such as Verratti's — before voters there approved a gay marriage ban in November.

Six states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire — currently allow same-sex marriage. New York recognizes gay marriages performed in other states.

During the congressional review period, some opponents of the D.C. legislation sought a referendum on the matter. The effort was spearheaded by Bishop Harry Jackson, who leads a church in Beltsville, Md., and charged that the D.C. Council sneaked the bill through without any public input.

The D.C. elections board ultimately rejected the proposal, saying that a referendum could authorize discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is prohibited under D.C.'s Human Rights Act.

Jackson and other opponents later filed a lawsuit against the city challenging the elections board decision and seeking a stay on the bill's implementation. The suit was dismissed last month.

Jackson said the decision hasn't discouraged him and he plans to continue his fight against same-sex marriage in D.C. He said Tuesday that he and his supporters are seeking a voter initiative that would affirm marriage between a man and a woman in D.C.

"We're going to focus on getting the whole issue before the people," he said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.