Black Listed

Those of you who know me probably know that I am involved in several organizations in support of gay rights. The most recent being Marriage Equality Utah which has been involved in Equality Utah to launch the Common Ground's Initiative in Utah. The goal of the initiative is to give gay couples medical and housing rights. The first leg of the initiative got shot down at the legislature. It would have allowed a gay partner already on the will to sue in wrongful death cases.

What is this diatribe of mine coming down to? The Sutherland Institute (a right wing think tank) and the Eagle Forum have banned together to start their own campaign against the Common Ground Initiative. They claim that it is a ploy to eventually fight for gay marriage to be legalized in Utah or at least will pave a path in which it is possible. The Sutherland Institute was holding a press conference/meeting to launch its campaign. It was set to be open to the public as long as you reserved a seat. Casandra and I did so in hopes of listening to what they had to say. Granted it would not change our minds but we were still interested. We showed up only to be escorted out by security!!! We didn't even make it in the doors. Apparently they connected our names to the organizations we are involved in and black listed us from attending the event. To add to the humorous and slightly offensive action, the person at the door is someone I work with!

I am a little proud that I am involved in a group that is so well known that we can't attend our oppositions events. I am a little annoyed by their tactics. I could understand if we were to be disruptive and rude inside the event, but to not even let us in and claim it is a public event is a bit absurd. It only makes me strengthen my beliefs. It is clear that these people don't want anything to do with civil communication or even understanding where others are coming from. It was my hope to understand them a bit more but I leave with more of a biased opinion against them and their goals.

Costa Rica

After having been back from Costa Rica for over a month now, I have decided to post a blog about the trip. I recently realized that I post much less frequently than I used to. The primary reason for this is that now that I am not living abroad I have much less interesting experiences. If I post they are usually rants of mine which likely very few people even care about. For those of you who bug me to update my blog (Casandra) here you go. By the way, Casandra almost died following our trip because she caught a disease. The entire time we were in Costa Rica she kept having medical mishaps (mosquito bites and faulty ankle). We joked that she would catch something more serious…and low and behold she did. It was not really funny when it happened though!





Casandra and I started off on our adventure by arriving in San Jose. San Jose was not that exciting aside from some of the clubbing and people we met. I am not going to go into lots of detail about the trip because people seem to respond better to pictures. I will say that while in San Jose we met Michelle from New York whom ended up backpacking with us for at least half of the trip. I had a random Rasta take a picture of me while I was sleeping on a hammock. I woke up and yelled at him. This was after he had made the rounds of hitting on Casandra, Michelle, and I. Casandra hooked me up with some guy (in a not so conscience state) whom followed me the entire evening we were clubbing. We went to the Arenal Volcano in which we didn’t actually see it because clouds covered the WHOLE things. Casandra was upset because we chose Costa Rica primarily because she has always wanted to see it. In that same day I discovered I get car sick, or rather bus sick. We also went on a canopy zip line tour through the jungle in which was a blast! We met a few friends from San Jose as well.

After leaving San Jose we met up with another backpacker Charlie. He traveled with us to Manuel Antonio Park. We stayed at a hostel with a spectacular view. We went on a hike through the park and saw a whole slew of wild life. Casandra had a run in with two coconut guys. We went white water rafting and hiked through a spice garden in the jungle. The river rafting was fun, but nothing compared to the Nile. I found myself a little nervous every time I went through the rapids because of my experience on the Nile. We had a bonfire and party on the beach in which we went night swimming. Casandra lost her first pair of flip flops there. Her second pair of shoes (along with mine and Charlie’s) mysteriously disappeared from the balcony of our hostel. We hypothesis it was monkey’s because who would want soaking wet shoes? Casandra and I split up for a couple of days. She went to Mal Pais while I stayed with Michelle and lounged on the beach.

The next day Charlie, Babtist (another hostel friend) Michelle and I took two buses, a taxi, a speedboat, and two more buses to Mal Pais. When we arrived it was a little surfing town and no one seemed to know where the hostel in which Casandra was staying was. We spent at least an hour wandering on the dirt road looking for it. When we saw her she and this Austrian guy were walking bear foot up from the beach. This is where she had her third pair of shoes stolen!!! Oh yea, we also met a couple of Swedish guys that traveled with us there. Michelle and I left Charlie and Babtist in another town. Mal Pais was great. We spent most of our time surfing. I really love surfing now!! Casandra and I rented bikes one day and rode a couple of miles to find a hidden beach. We almost got stuck on it because the tide came in. The guy whom owned the hostel we stayed on was a German Rasta. He was very cool and had a pit bull named Lilly whom did not like Michelle. Mal Pais is where we hypothesize Casandra caught her disease that hospitalized her for several days.

When we flew home we almost missed our last leg of the flight in Vegas because we were drinking in the airport. We were both very depressed to be coming home to snow. Plus, I only had my flip flops because my other pair of shoes got stolen! Over all it was a great trip and I would love to go live in Mal Pais for a summer and surf!

This Red Book (Pinback)

Recently I discovered my friend Kathy's blog. Being the internet stalker I am i was browsing through her blog. One of her posts I thought would be a fun game to play at work while I was bored. I have to admit that it was pretty entertaining to play. My answers however makes me seem like a bit of a emo kid. Maybe I should evaluate my music choice! Here are the results.

1. Put your music listening device on shuffle.
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. You must write that song name down no matter how silly it makes you sound.
4. Title this post what the answer to your last question is.

* If someone says 'Is this Okay' you say
You May Know Him (Moon Pix)

* What do you like in a guy/girl?
Fucking Boyfriend (Bird and Bee)

*How do you feel today?
You Know I'm No Good (Amy Winehouse)

*What is your life's purpose?
Minus (Beck)

*What do your friends think of you?
Good to know that if I ever need attention all I have to do is die (Brand New)

What do your parents think of you?
Nickel Bags (Digable Planets)

*What do you often think about?
When you say nothing at all (Alison Krauss)

*What do you think of the person you love?
Crosses (Zero 7)

*What is your life story?
Heaven and Hell (Opium Jukebox)

*What do you want to be when you grow up?
CMYK (Ladytron)

*What do you think when you see the person you love?
Left and Leaving (the weakerthons)
*What will they play at your funeral?
Slow Company (American Analog Set)

*What is your biggest fear?
Lonesome Tears (Beck)

*What is your biggest secret?
Astronaut (Shy Child)

*What do you think of your friends?
Friendly Ghost (Unknown)

*What are you going to name this post?
This Red Book (Pinback)

Coffee and Cheese; two of the small delights in life.

I was chatting with a friend today. Amongst the discussion was her utter disappointment in mankind. I have to admit I agree with her. With the mass amounts of hate and sheer disregard for our fellow human beings that exist it is hard not to become disenfranchised from wanting to be a part of the world. It is hard enough to reconcile the fact that people actually believe and think some of the things they do. It is out right shocking at times that people have the audacity to say and act on those things and are not embarrassed by their disregard for their fellow human being. Yes, I say human being specifically leaving out “American”. The United States so often put itself on a pedestal of moral superiority, however rarely exhibits any of the traits in which I would deem as moral or even decent. It seems that we forget that we are a human race, not an American race. Even within the “American” context, we divide ourselves from each other using our moral complex as justification. Ultimately we are going to destroy ourselves however. Not in the milieu that is often thrown about (due to our straying from morals and traditional beliefs). No, it will be in our lack of respect for each other. It will ultimately end in blowing each other up over some fairy tale stated in the bible, Koran, or any other book.

I find it hard to understand or even relate to thinking it is ok or somehow right to treat people with so much contempt. As a kid I always clung to treating people well and loving them because they are a person. Walking past someone that is homeless and thinking “that bum should get a job” never even crossed my mind. Being able to reach out and help someone in need was just what you did. Having respect for the life and rights of someone else was expected. I take a look at the world around me now, some people I know, things being published in the media and it brings a great sadness to me. When did people become so mean and hurtful towards each other? I guess people have always been this way, I just chose to stay in my oblivious bubble that people are generally good. I find it an absolutely offending concept that people excuse their actions though “god” or religion. I refuse to live a life of excuses.

With that being said, I refuse to believe that the human race as completely disappeared. I believe there is good in the world if only for my own selfish reasons of having a purpose to get up in the morning. A friend of mine once said something to me that struck a chord in my being. She had eluded to the fact that for a long time she was trying to figure me out because there was no way anyone would be so nice with out having some ulterior motive. This was a person that had lived a fairly dismal existence in drugs. Her surroundings were drug users and people that always wanted something. She said it dawned on her that maybe there were people out there that just cared and were actually good people. I have thought about that conversation a lot, especially recently with the mass amounts of disheartening things that seem to be coming to a forefront. My conclusion is that yes, there are good people and good things. The media has a tendency to throw about all of the bad things going on in the world, and the good things and people are often overlooked and overpowered by the bad. With that being said, a few of the things I am going to list are what I see as being good and give me hope.

1.) Recently I have been involved in protests urging for marriage equality for our fellow human beings. Shortly after the disappointing passage of proposition 8 in California there was a rally in SLC. I was not expecting many people to show up. When I arrived there were over 3,000 people at the rally fighting for humanity. It was an amazing thing to be apart of.

2.) When I was in Uganda there were so many sights of sad things. The people there however, were happy, friendly, welcoming, and surprisingly uplifting. There were people from all over the world giving their time to help whether it is volunteering in an orphanage, teaching school children, or giving money. There are people all over the world sacrificing to help others.

3.) I worked in drug and alcohol treatment and foster care for a while. While there were a lot of hard things to see, I found there to be even more inspirational things than bad. There were people accomplishing things (being clean, caring for their kids, graduating high school, coming to terms with abuse) that they never thought they would, and frankly not many people believed they would either. I saw amazing strength in kids whom had experienced things no adult should and not only survive, but thrive.

4.) Aside from witnessing some amazing things, there are also amazing little things in life that many of us take for granted. Things that I love doing or seeing that often times seem trivial. Coffee, cheese, fall leaves, warm fires, good friends and good conversation, guitar, reading, having a job, red wine, the ability to travel, and generally good times.

Rather than focus entirely on the bad, I am going to try my best and focus on the good. This is not to say that I will not be furious and disappointed with many of my fellow human beings. It is saying rather that I will continue to look for the inevitable good in people and things that I truly believe exist. I will continue to fight for a world in which I am not disheartened and that I can be proud to call my neighbor my friend and not foe. I will ultimately cling to my childish/naïve belief that the world is indeed a hopeful bright place and continue to turn over the rocks that seem to be burying much of its beauty.

F.Y.I

In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled on Love v. Virginia overturning a law prohibiting marriage of different races. The following is an excerpt from the ruling. This excerpt is why I believe that Proposition 8 should be overturned and that it is unconstitutional to prohibit anyone from marrying.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by state government institutions. The clause grants all people equal protection of the laws, which means that states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one class of persons over another.

With this being said I find it odd that proposition 8 does this exactly. It is applying laws to only one class of persons and refusing to apply the same laws to another (gay and lesbians). Regardless of how one feels about the "morality" of homosexuality the constitution states that these basic rights cannot be taken away. How is it that 52% of Californian's (in the most recent election) and many other states have chosen to ignore this factor? Even more disturbing, how is it that it has been allowed?

Does Ideology belong in our Justice System?

In response to some of the feedback I received after posting my last blog, I have written a few more things on the subject matter. One response in particular sited sources of people or institutions being sued due to their choices in association or rather choosing not to associate with individuals that are gay and lesbian


Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

The examples listed above are just a few that were cited but reflect the general purpose of the point. Other points brought up were freedom of association, the role of government, and imposing values. My reaction to these points brought up is as follows.


First off, I would like to address the myriad of examples cited as being unintended consequences stemming from this matter. I would argue that these “consequences” are actually intended. These consequences stem not from the proposition but rather laws already on the book. The avenues in which all of the subjects in the examples were allowed to sue were not due to proposition 8, rather anti-discriminatory laws in one form or another. These laws have been in place for a long time and are not set for the sheer purpose of gay and lesbian people. Rather they are set to protect discrimination in all faucets (sex, race, religion, and yes sexual orientation). Whether or not these people win is a different story and reflects the justice system but not the actual law that allows them to sue. I would argue to remove that law would be detrimental to society as a whole.

I would ask you to consider why these laws were placed in the first place and whether you think it a good idea to remove them? If this be the case, think of the unintended consequences here. The intended I imagine would be to allow personal freedom in “association.” The unintended would be the blatant discrimination of people in all walks of life. I would certainly like to think that we have moved pass discrimination in our society but the truth of the matter is we have not. Whether it is race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, people face discrimination everyday and I would ask what your solution would be to the matter if these laws were not on the book? I would also ask you to consider the event that you were turned down for a position because of your Religious leaning. Should you have the right to sue the company? If so, how does this differ from the subjects in the examples right to sue?

Second is the matter of ideology and whether ideology should have a place in our laws and constitution. Laws are meant to be objective and neutral and when specific ideologies (values) are placed in the construction of laws they swiftly become un-objective. Our entire justice system is based on the concept of ruling on not opinions rather evidence of the effect on society as a whole. Regardless of a personal value, our laws and regulations should be based on what is best for society. Unfortunately everyone’s ideas based on their own morals and values differ, thus decisions should be based on not personal ideology and antidotal evidence but rather carfully studied facts and statistics.

I would ask everyone to consider what are the ramifications to our government, justice system, and foundation of this country if we are to begin making judgments based on our own ideologies? I would argue that passing proposition 8 is a terrifying step based what it begins to say on the role of government and people’s basic assess to fundamental rights. My last question is, if we do not protect fundamental rights of people, whom will protect mine or yours when it is attacked? If we begin to erode making sound logical decisions based on facts and statistics for decisions based on “morals and values” then none of us are really protected are we?

Marriage...is it really religious anyway?

In light of the upcoming initiative to make marriage defined as a man and a woman in California, I felt it my duty and obligation to post the following. Although I did not write it I believe it to be completely true. My friend Casandra posted this on facebook and I could not have expressed my own sentiment about the issue any better. So rather that write my own I have posted hers. I encourage all those who read this to take it in to consideration and welcome any comments as it is an important issue that will likely effect society any way that it turns out this upcoming election.



I think it is an important question to ask whether this means that marriage is an open institution. First of all, I'd like to say that I believe that "civil unions" (the legal unions of people) should be a government contract and that "marriage" should be a religious contract. I think that would really solve much of the problem. But my ideas are neither here nor there 'cause nobody is ever going to get rid of marriage as a government institution. I think that regardless of how we try as a society to keep things the same, marriage will continue to change. It was only 40 years ago that interracial marriage was illegal (see Love v. Commonwealth of Virginia), and I would argue that very few people today consider interracial marriages a problem. Furthermore, I would argue that interfaith marriages are a pretty recent phenomenon. So, does opening marriage to same-sex couples open a can of worms? I would argue that it is the worm of a previous can.

Unfortunately, I think there's little anybody can do about being called a homophobe or a bigot if they support Proposition 8. Again, I refer back to the civil rights plight of African-Americans. It was commonplace only a few decades ago to view blacks as inferior in every way, but that idea is now shunned and those who support it are ostracized as racists. Less than 40 years ago, it was uncommon to see women in "the workplace" and they were not welcome there, but people who feel that way today are considered sexists. So, I would say that there isn't really anything anyone can do. Society changes (for better or worse) and those who don't change with it are rejected.

I would argue that the "institution of marriage" has already lost all of it's reverence. I think that the divorce rate is a clear indicator that our society's reverence for marriage has been lost. I would argue that gay couples are no less fit to be married and raise families. I think about my family (and the large number of degenerates within it), and then I consider my gay friends, which makes me realize that my degenerate family is far less qualified to (or deserving of) being married and raising a family. If there are going to be qualifications on who can be married, I think there are better benchmarks than gender. This, of course, segues into a much larger discussion about the change in the nuclear family and whether it's been better or worse for society =D.

For those that support Proposition 8, I would invite you to consider how much (or how little) your concerns about gay marriage mirror concerns about interracial marriage. I would invite you to consider the implications of the similarities and whether the concerns are something with which the government should intervene. And I would invite you to consider the role the religion in marriage versus the role of the state in marriage and whether the state can allow something that a religion does not. Please consider where "the church" stands on interracial marriage:

As evidenced by the ever-increasing divorce rate, marriage is simply a difficult process in the best of circumstances. When the complexities and stresses of race differences are added to the situation, it is far more likely that divorce will occur. Therefore, interracial marriages are discouraged by [the Church]. -Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.527) and contemplate how similar or different it is from same-sex marriage.

I would also invite you to consider the implications of not legally protecting same-sex families. For example, what happens to the children if the biological parent dies—is it really fair to not allow their other "parent" to raise them. Or, if a same-sex couple splits, it is really fair to not protect the visitation rights of one of the "parents." If a same-sex couple is raising a family where one "parent" is a home-maker, is it fair that because they are making the sacrifice to care for their family, they should be denied health insurance coverage through their "spouse." The government has placed so much on the marriage contract, that the legal protections and economic benefits are huge. Is is really fair to deny those benefits based on gender?

To those who say, "I believe in equal rights. Just don't call it marriage," I would ask if you would say the same thing in reference to race. Would you feel okay allowing black people to marry, but classify it as "black marriage?" My guess is that most people would find this notion offensive, if not just a little bit silly. I contend that to make this distinction for gay people is no less silly or offensive.