There are times when I want to knock people's heads together.  I saw a post on Facebook this morning from a friend of mine who is politically active and involved with both GLBT rights and the Democratic party.  She had posted a video of a "rant" aired on MSNBC, in which the ranter's message to GLBT people was "What don't you understand?  The GOP just isn't that into you!"  Her comment on the video was, "A 'straight' man tells it like it is...Can anyone make it clearer?  Why do so many just 'fail' to get it?"


The following was my comment on her post:

Perhaps because some appreciate the Log Cabin Republicans for bringing - and winning, in the first round - a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DADT?

Perhaps because some are wondering why the Democrats, when in power, seem to be unable to achieve their policy goals and/or unwilling to fight the tough battles -- and, if that's not the truth, why the Democrats haven't been able to change public perception?

Perhaps because some prefer to work for change from within the GOP?  Perhaps because some are tired of hearing GLBT leaders tar all Republicans with the same brush?

Perhaps because some know people like the 64% of Republicans surveyed who favor DADT repeal, or the Republican Secretary of Defense (held over from the prior administration) who favors DADT repeal, or the 60% of Marines surveyed or 70% of all military personnel surveyed (including Republicans) who say DADT repeal will not cause damage to the military?

Perhaps because some dislike being solicited for money and time, only to see their concerns and needs relegated to the back of the legislative priority bus, even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?  And find that the leaders of many GLBT organizations are abject failures when it comes to getting pro-equality legislation passed?

Perhaps because not everyone, and certainly not every GLBT person, agrees with the Democratic party's policies outside of GLBT civil rights?

Can anyone make *that* clearer?  Why do so many just "fail" to get *that*?

November 2, 2010.  I know I shouldn't need to say this. But if I don't
say it, who will?

Today is Election Day.

The entire House of Representatives is up for grabs. So are 1/3 of the Senate seats.

Pollsters (those highly-accurate people who can predict election results weeks and months in advance) are saying that control of the House will likely return to the Republican party. They're also saying there's a chance that the Senate
might do the same.

My point?

If you want to prove them right, vote.  If you want to prove them wrong, vote.  But vote, dammit.

Get your butt out the door. Go to the polling place. Make a choice -- informed or otherwise -- but *do it*. It's the simplest yet most powerful bit of political activism you could do.

Really want to get active? Call your friends. Call your family members. Tell them to vote, too. Actually, bug the hell out of them until they vote just to get you to shut up.

All the rallies, all the ads, all the talking and campaigning -- it all comes down to today, and millions of people saying, "This one. Not that one."  Including you.

This is it. Showtime. Center stage, spotlight.

You're on.

Thoughts on alternate histories and "don't ask, don't tell":  In 1948, President Harry Truman issued executive order 9981, calling for an end to racial discrimination in the armed services.  It took nearly four years for integration to become a reality.  Of the three major branches of the armed forces at that time (Air Force, Navy, and Army), the Air Force complied most quickly; the Navy took only slightly longer to comply; and the Army dragged its feet, creating "integration" plans that would maintain segregated units and keep in place a 10% quota on African-American enlistments, arguing for "tests" of integrated units with gradual implementation elsewhere, and even stating (through the Secretary of the Army, Kenneth Royall) that the Army was not "an instrument for social evolution."  By the time the Korean War was in full swing, most Army units were desegregated, more out of necessity for combat troops than for enlightened thinking on racial issues.

Truman chose, instead of seeking legislation from Congress, to issue an executive order in his role as Commander-in-Chief.  Either way would have been constitutionally permissible; but Truman, a son of Missouri, knew full well that Congress would never prove amenable to eliminating racial discrimination in the armed services via legislation.  Truman, a man of considerable determination and a certain amount of pugnacity when it came to presidential powers, chose the boldest and most direct path to achieving what he wanted.

President Bill Clinton faced a similar issue in 1993 with regard to gay and lesbian service members.  The outcome of that was legislation enshrining the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell".  The goal was to reduce the number of service members being discharged based on their sexuality.  The reality is that more service members were discharged once the policy began than were discharged before the policy was begun.

President Barack Obama has inherited both the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the campaign promises made to end the policy from President Clinton.  To date, repeal legislation has stalled in the Senate, and while it may be reconsidered after the November elections, the likelihood is that repeal will not seriously be taken up until 2011 or later.

It's fun to play "what if?" with history, to spin out scenarios based on what might have happened if only so-and-so had done thus-and-such.  Let's look at a couple...

1.  Clinton issues an executive order.  Bill Clinton could have issued his own executive order, similar to Truman's in 1948, mandating an end to sexual orientation discrimination in the services.  As with racial desegregation, the heads of the various service branches probably would have grumbled but ultimately have complied with the order.  For Congress to interfere by passing legislation countering that order could be seen as an infringement on the President's constitutionally-mandated powers as Commander-in-Chief -- and as usual in such cases, absolutely no one could predict what decision the Supreme Court would have reached when the case inevitably arrived at its doorstep.

2.  Clinton issues a stop-loss order.  Federal law states, in part:  the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States. Practically speaking, no matter what Congress might say about who can and can't serve, the President can override it by finding some reason - individual or blanket - to say they can serve.  In fact, the old phrase "don't you know there's a war on?" is probably the best blanket reason of all; it served for Vietnam, Korea, and World War II, after all.  And Congress would have to risk looking foolish enough to turn its attention away from other pressing issues to take on the President who is, after all, just doing his duty under existing law.

So what can our current President do to end a policy on whose repeal he campaigned?  Plenty.

He can refuse to appeal cases striking down "don't ask, don't tell".  As Commander-in-Chief, the President can order the Pentagon not to have its lawyers appeal.  As head of the Executive Branch, the President can set priorities on which cases the Justice Department should pursue aggressively - and which to leave alone.  It costs money and time to prosecute a case, much less to appeal it.  In a recession, is this really the best place to spend scarce resources?

He can issue a stop-loss order.  And for all the same reasons as #2 above.

Or he can grow a pair.  In a case decided by the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson was reported to have said, "The Court has issued their opinion.  Let them enforce it."  The Senate is refusing to let a defense appropriation bill come to the floor because it contains language that would end "don't ask, don't tell" conditioned on a report to be issued by the Pentagon in December.  Screw 'em, especially that great friend of the serviceman John "did you know I was a POW in Hanoi?" McCain.  Issue the stop-loss order, let the decisions declaring "don't ask, don't tell" unconstitutional stand without appealing them, strip the amendment from the appropriation bill, and dare the Senate not to pass it this time.  Give at least one of your constituent groups a good reason to come out and vote for the Democrats next month.

Hell, give me a good reason to come out and vote for the Democrats next month.

You've all heard about it by now.  An 18-year-old Rutgers freshman jumped off the George Washington Bridge yesterday.  A gifted violinist, loved by his friends and family, decided it was better to take his own life than live with the humiliation of having a video of his gay sexual encounter - in his own dorm room - plastered all over the Internet.  And to have another encounter broadcast live.

His dorm roommate hid cameras all over their rooms, secretly.  His dorm roommate went to a female friend's dorm room, activated the cameras, and recorded and broadcast what the cameras showed.  His dorm roommate boasted of what he had done on a social network.

And isn't it fun?  Isn't it fun to decide that privacy is something your dorm roommate doesn't deserve?  Isn't is fun to dare people to come, come see your roommate have sex with another dude, live?  All good clean fun, isn't it?  It's just a joke, right?  No harm, no foul, right?  Right?

Wrong.  Wrong because someone else's privacy isn't yours to take away at your whim.  Wrong because it's not a joke, it's not good clean fun; it's death, and indescribable sorrow for the survivors.  Wrong because a life full of promise has ended because of you.

Yes, you.  Nobody else can be blamed.  You set up the cameras.  You didn't tell your roommate they were there.  You broadcast the camera feed on the Internet.  You bragged about it.  You took the "credit", if one can even call it that.

And what kind of punishment even comes close to being appropriate?  This isn't murder, technically.  You didn't plan on having your roommate kill himself -- at least, society would like to think so; but maybe, just maybe, you did.

And now he's dead.  Because of you and your accomplice.

God help me, I would like nothing better than to have you and your female accomplice tossed off the George Washington Bridge.  To feel the rush of air as you fall hundreds of feet toward the Hudson River.  To know the feelings of panic and helplessness and hopelessness your victim felt.  To feel the hard, hard water destroying your body, ending your life, taking away all the promise that was within you.

But it won't bring back the man you both killed.

I remember Matthew Shepard's parents in court, saying they didn't want their son's killers put to death.  They wanted them to live and to be reminded every single day of the person whose life they took.

And so should both of you.

It should be made that both of your social networks are demolished.  That when you log on and try to tweet or use Facebook or Myspace or any of the others, all you see is the face of the man you forced to kill himself.  His face, smiling, looking out at you.

And when you both go to jail as you both so richly deserve, I'd like you to know on the most primal levels just what it feels like when you have no privacy.  At all.  From anyone.  At any time.  Ever.

Talking back to my Representative.  The following is an e-mail I sent to Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th District, NJ) in response to his "e-news" sent to his constituents.  For those of you who are not in New Jersey, or not in the 11th District, you might find yourself in agreement with some of the things I say to him.
=======
Dear Congressman Frelinghuysen:

I have read your recent e-News and feel I must tell you, as a Republican and as a constituent, where I think you're wrong.

In the matter of tax hikes:  President G.W. Bush managed to take a surplus left to him by President Clinton and, through what I can only think of as gross incompetence, turn it into a massive deficit that will need to be paid off by our children and grandchildren.  An incompetently-run war in Afghanistan, a completely unnecessary war in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, the Medicaid prescription program, and the massive financial collapse of this country's largest institutions because of the relaxing of  fiscal regulations -- all contributed to the state in which we find ourselves today.  For you to say the Obama Administration is "addicted to spending", when there was not so much as a murmur from you about the disastrous spending policies of the Bush Administration, is frankly ludicrous.

We have a debt to pay.  In the real world -- not the insulated dream world of Congress -- if you have a debt to pay, you have two options:  make more money, or spend less.  The United States has been acting as though this basic rule does not apply to itself.

I am no fan of higher taxes.  However, since Congress, and especially Congressional Republicans in their "Pledge to America", fail to give specifics on where spending will be cut, the only other option is making more money.  You and I both know that will include raising taxes.

The American people may grumble.  But they won't retaliate if you and your fellow Representatives and Senators of both parties take the time to educate them on both the "why" and the "what" of what your actions.  Without that education, then yes, if you start belt-tightening then you'll lose your job -- and you'll deserve it.

Every President, every Congress, has faced hard decisions and made some unpopular ones.  Those who made the effort to convince the citizenry of the rightness of their cause -- and did so without recourse solely to fantasies of what might happen if the "other side" got its way -- found their efforts rewarded come election time.  (Consider FDR and his Fireside Chats, especially the ones explaining bank holidays and Lend-Lease.)

Regarding so-called "ObamaCare":  I have been unemployed for over two years now.  I do not have a chance in hell of getting private health insurance.  With ObamaCare, there is the opportunity to end my worries of having something catastrophically expensive happen to me.  The day you vote to repeal "ObamaCare" is the day I start working for your Democratic opponent.

Finally, comparing pensions for union members, negotiated with auto makers over the years at contract time, with general benefits of salaried non-union employees (or as they're otherwise known, "management") is the most colossal red herring I have seen in ages.  Non-union employees' benefits are not guaranteed by contract (except at the very highest levels) and are subject to the whim of top executives and the board of directors.  From where I stand, in order to make up for this "inequality", salaried non-union employees should be encouraged to, and allowed to, unionize to give them the right to bargain collectively for contractually-guaranteed benefits.

I leave you with this final request:  If you or one of your aides is going to send me the standard "thank you for writing" letters, save the paper (or the e-mail).  If, however, you want to discuss what I've written, then by all means contact me.

Yours, 

Allen Neuner

The ends justify the means...  I've been over at Facebook reading various friends' comments on the failure of the so-called Democratically-controlled Senate to gather 60 votes to allow the defense policy bill -- containing a conditional repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- to proceed to a vote on the floor of the Senate.  Every Republican Senator except one voted against the vote.  (The one was Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who didn't vote at all.)  And three Democratic Senators voted against the vote:  both Senators from Arkansas, including Blanche Lincoln, who faced a stiff challenge in the primaries and looks set to be in a brutal fight against her Republican opponent.  And Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, who brought the bill to the floor expecting a vote to proceed.

Reid can be excused for his vote.  He wants to bring the bill back during the lame duck session of Congress post-elections, and can do so only if he voted with the majority when the bill was defeated.  It's a political maneuver only, based on the Senate's own rules, to keep the bill alive until the new Congress can be sworn in.

The Democrats -- the original gang that couldn't shoot straight -- went down by four votes.  Three were from their own party, which shows that party discipline is a joke among this particular party.  But they needed just one Republican to go along with all the Democrats, and they couldn't convince any of them.  This in a country where a majority of its citizens, from all parts of the political spectrum, support repeal of this policy.  The Democrats just couldn't get their act together.

Well, you may ask, what about all those nasty, vote-in-lock-step Republicans?  Quite a few of them have supported repeal in the past; why didn't they vote to allow this bill to go to the floor?  Judging from the reported comments, there were two big complaint.  One is that this bill -- which hasn't been prevented from going to a vote in over 40 years -- contained too many non-financial provisions.  Like the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".  And the REACH program, designed to get fast-track citizenship for certain illegal aliens who meet specific criteria.

And the other big complaint?  That the bill was being rammed through, with the Republicans not being given sufficient chance to add amendments of their own before any vote would be taken.

I don't know how true or accurate either of these complaints are.  But the fact is that Republican supporters of repeal, who are not ones to give much heed to the more reactionary members of their party on this issue, voted against letting the bill come to a floor vote.  And they are the ones using these complaints as reasons.

So:  bad enough the Democrats have, once again where GLBT rights are concerned, shown weakness and cowardice in place of strength and boldness.  Bad enough the Republicans have felt, rightly or wrongly, that they're being railroaded into voting for something of which they do not approve, and about which they feel they've had no hand in crafting.

But I've got to point my finger, also, at all those who believed two things.

First, that the best way to get social legislation passed is to tack it onto a bill, any bill, used to fund any major part of government -- whether the legislation is related to the bill's main purpose or not.  This time, it was a bill giving (among other things) long-needed pay raises to servicemen and servicewomen.  And at least it was a military policy change tacked onto a military funding bill.  This is, boiled down to its essence, the old policy that "the end justifies the means".  Doesn't matter how you get something done, as long as that something is "for the greater good".  But really, people -- didn't your mothers teach you better?

Second, that you could get away with number one above by tacking it to a bill involved with funding a vital governmental function.  Because no one in their right mind would vote against a funding bill, would they?  No one would vote against pay raised for enlisted men and women, right?  Against funding the continuing operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan?  Against keeping the search for Osama Bin Laden alive and active, right?

Well, the bluff has been called.   And now there is no Plan B; and the sounds of  the weeping and the gnashing of teeth are heard throughout the land.

Forgive me if I don't join in.

Some more partly baked ideas for a Friday morning:  Last time, it was amending the Constitution.  This time, it's adding and subtracting states.  I mean, let's face it -- aren't you as bored as I am with the arrangement of stars on the flag already?  The only way that'll change is if the number of states changes.  So, here goes...

Enough already with territories and commonwealths.  Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia all become states.  Guam is a big boy now and can stand on its own as an independent country -- let's face it, there are enough Pacific island countries smaller than Guam already.  Same with whatever small island groups we have left over from World War II.

Do we really need north, south, and west states?  I don't think so.  Combine North Dakota and South Dakota into one state.  Same with Virginia and West Virginia, which were all one state until the Civil War. I'd make one exception, though:  the Carolinas.  Because I think the original 13 states shouldn't be turned into the not-so-original 12.  (All right, so I'm a sentimental historical softie.  It's my blog, so deal with it.)

Break up a couple of the biggies.  Did you know that when Texas joined the United States, they had the right (still do, actually) to split into up to five smaller states?  Maybe five is a little much, but good God, that's one ugly blotch of a state.  Slightly schizophrenic, too; I just don't see the resemblances between the Gulf Coast and the Panhandle, or the Dallas area and the Houston area.  I can see giving the Panhandle to Oklahoma and splitting the remainder in roughly equal parts, and the Texans probably have a better notion of just how to split than anyone else (certainly, better than I).

And speaking of schizophrenic states, ladies and gentlemen, I give you California.  Has there ever been such a mental split as the mindsets of San Francisco and Los Angeles?  Cut it in half, I say, and they'd both sleep easier.

Of course, the real fun comes in giving names to all these new Texas and California states.  I'll leave that to you.  (Who says I can't share?)

How I entertain myself on dull evenings:  I remake government.  Oh, not in the "first, we surround Congress with troops; then, we break into the White House, overpower the Secret Service, and take the President hostage" way of which action movies are so very fond.  No, my thoughts run more to amending the Constitution and making government better.  At least, as I concieve "better government" to be.

To that end, recently I dusted off my notes on new amendments -- six of them, to be exact -- and hereby display them to you, my loyal readers, as the partly baked ideas they are.

28th Amendment:  This one provides for the direct election of the President and Vice-President.  No more of this Electoral College bullshit where states with large populations (and therefore more electoral votes) are wined and dined to a fare-thee-well while the rest of the states get leftovers.  High time for the candidates, and the political parties, to have to figure out how to appeal to the majority of people who are likely to come out and vote on Election Day instead of the 537 people who vote on a day in mid-December.

The first thing this does is repeal the last amendment about voting for the President and VP (that's the 12th Amendment, if you care to look it up).  And while the new 28th Amendment retains a lot of the language from the 12th, there are certain major differences.

For example, electors are not tied to representation in the House and Senate.  A state can appoint as many electors as it wants.  But, the sole duty of the electors is to verify the vote counts for the Prez and the Veep from their state and pass them along, in writing, to the Senate President.  And it's the people with the majority of the popular votes cast who win, not the people with the majority of the electoral votes.

And the process of what to do when nobody has a majority of the votes cast stays the same.

Isn't it time we elected our Chief Executive and his number two person directly?  Yeah, I think so too.

29th Amendment:  This one eliminates four existing amendments and puts them all (plus a little bit more) in one handy spot.

The amendments that go away are the 15th, 19th, 26th, and 24th.  For those of you who don't have them memorized, respectively that's the right to vote for former Negro slaves, women, and 18-year-olds, and the one that says you can't be blocked from voting because you can't pay a poll tax.

The new one is a tad more comprehensive.  It starts out by saying that the rights of US citizens cannot be denied or abridged based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, or country of origin.  (And in case you didn't notice, that "sex" part means that the old Equal Rights Amendment is tucked right in here.)

"Wait," I hear you saying, "where's the part about voting?"  That comes next.  The wording of the 15th 19th, and 26th Amendments is combined into one statement.  And that's followed by the wording about poll taxes from the 24th Amendment.  It's all there.  Nothing's been left out, and in a couple of places it's been expanded a bit.

30th Amendment:  Did you know the Constitution originally forbid any direct taxes unless they were proportionally based on the Census?  The federal government ran along just fine until 1913 without an income tax (a direct tax not proportionally based on population figures).  Granted, the government didn't do as much in 1913 as it does in 2010, but still the founders knew the temptation to go spending money and pay for it by taking it away from people based on, oh, any formula or theory you could think up.  And unlike things like, say, tariffs on imports, when you can run an income tax you don't have to worry about the consequences on things like manufacturing or wages or costs.

So we grumble, and we fill out forms every April.  Why?  Because Woodrow Wilson could see the war clouds gathering over Europe (and they broke in 1914), knew the US would most likely be drawn into it sooner or later, and also knew he'd need money to build up the armed forces, with both men and materiel.  And what a coincidence!  The 16th Amendment was passed in 1913 to allow a fast and easy way to raise large amounts of money!  Well, World War I ended in 1918, World War II ended some 30 years later, and after lovely tours of such places as Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I think we don't need an income tax to help fight a world war.  Who knows?  Maybe politicians, deprived of their fix, will actually sit down and give serious consideration to what the federal government needs to spend money on, what it really doesn't need to spend money on, will finally cut the size of the bureaucracy.

To sum up:  Repeal the 16th Amendment by passing the 30th Amendment.

31st Amendment:  Ever hear of the New Jersey Compromise?  This goes back to the writing of the Constitution, where large states wanted a legislature whose membership was based on population, while small states wanted a legislature whose membership would give each state an equal number of votes.  New Jersey came up with the solution:  one house based on population (the House of Representatives), and one where each state had the same number of votes (the Senate).  The House represented the people, while the Senate represented the states.  State legislatures appointed Senators; the people voted for Representatives; and everyone was sort of fine with that.

Until 1913.  Then it was thought shameful that Senators were appointed by state legislatures (whose members were, after all, voted into office by the people).  Thus came the process whereby Senators were elected by the people, too.  So, instead of having a great deliberative body, able to coolly assess legislation created by the House (whose members were subject to the shifting political opinions of their constituents) because they were appointed and not elected, you now have two houses both subject to those shifting political opinions.

I say, time to bring that nonsense to a halt.  Repeal the 17th Amendment, which called for the direct election of Senators, by means of passing the 31st Amendment.

(By the way:  Do you get the feeling that amendments passed in 1913 were, by and large, not really thought through?  Me too.)

32nd Amendment:  There's two ways to go with this one, which limits Presidents to two consecutive terms and no more.  The Republican Congress, unhappy with watching FDR win third and fourth terms, decided to put a stop to it, and so we got the 22nd Amendment.

One way to go is to repeal the 22nd Amendment.  This would allow more than two terms (like FDR) for any one person, or multiple non-consecutive terms (like Grover Cleveland).

The other way to go is to keep the presidential term limits, but add limits for Senators and Representatives.  I'm suggesting two consecutive terms (or twelve years) for Senators and three consecutive terms (or six years) for Representatives, while keeping the two consecutive term rule (eight years) for Presidents.  But I would remove the ban against non-consecutive terms.

Because if it's necessary and proper for the President to have term limits, it's only fair that Senators and Representatives have term limits as well.  One thing it's safe to say about the Founding Fathers is that they never envisioned the day when there would be a professional class office-holders in the Executive and Legislative branches.

33rd Amendment:  This is not original with me (probably none of these Amendment proposals is totally original with me, but especially this one).  It stems in part from the fact that Congress is exempt from laws in regard of its members as employers.  So it's pretty simple:  Ban Congress from making any law from which its members are exempt; and ban Congress from making any laws that apply to its members alone.  Again, it's only fair.  And maybe Congress will think twice about some regulatory legislation if they realize that they'd be subject to it themselves.

Revenge of the Unemployed, sort of:  As many of you know, I've been looking for full time work for the past few years.  To that end, I'm on a number of job search lists online -- CareerBuilder.com, Idealist.org, and Monster.com, to name a few.  Two weeks ago, I sent a resume and cover letter to an employer on CareerBuilder.com who was offering a job I was ideally suited for.  I got back CareerBuilder's usual acknowledgement e-mail, saying my resume had been sent to the potential employer.  And nothing else, neither from CareerBuilder or the employer.

Yesterday I got an e-mail from CareerBuilder listing job openings.  And guess what job appeared again?  Yup.  Same employer, same job.  So I sent them my resume -- again -- but instead of a cover letter, I sent the letter that follows.  Hope you enjoy the read...

This is not a cover letter -- at least, it's not a traditional cover letter; but this is the first opportunity I've had to say this to someone for whom it might matter.

Roughly two weeks ago, I sent you my resume for the Event Assistant position with a "standard" cover letter, via CareerBuilder.com.  I got the usual e-mail response from CareerBuilder -- that my resume had been sent to you and that, if I met your requirements, I would be hearing from you.  I heard nothing else about this job until yesterday, when I received another notice from CareerBuilder of jobs available, showing the Event Assistant job still posted.

This way of getting people to apply for available jobs just isn't good enough anymore.

It used to be that, if a resume did not match what the employer wanted, an applicant would get a polite message saying so, usually also saying that the resume would be kept on file "just in case."  Companies with slightly better manners would mention specific things that made the resume a near-miss.  And in any event, there would be a name and address, or a phone number, so that the applicant could thank the employer and touch base to check on future job openings.

These days, resumes are sent into an e-mail black hole.  They are never responded to, and companies refuse to give contact numbers -- or, in most cases, names -- for applicants to check back.

This is, to put it bluntly, rude and officious, cold and discourteous on the part of employers.  And, given the ongoing state of the economy, few job applicants would dare make a complaint about this, even if there were a way to do so.

So, I take this opportunity to lodge my complaint about this practice.  To have one's resume -- the record of one's professional life -- be received without even an acknowledgment *from the employer* is a crushing blow to one's self-confidence, especially if one has been looking a long time for another job.

I want this job because I have done it in the past, and I know I can do it to your satisfaction.  I think I can do it well enough that, when the time comes, you would be willing to hire me on a full-time basis.  I see it as part of the communication skills that every employer wants in an applicant that, when there is a problem that needs addressing, the employer will get the message -- effectively and honestly -- from their employees.  

Which is why I say to you now:  Have the courage and the grace to respond to those who have the courage to put their resumes, their records of their business lives, out there for you.  Because this is a time when we all need to be a bit more humane.  We owe that to each other.

Thank you.

A Tale of Two Cases.  Just last month, we were celebrating a federal judge's ruling in Massachusetts that, in effect, declared major sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.  Today, we celebrate a federal judge's ruling in California that Proposition 8 -- a hateful piece of prejudice used to remove rights to marry already granted to gay and lesbian couples in that state -- is unconstitutional.  Of course, both decisions have been appealed, and so they work their way up the federal judicial chain, possibly ending in the Supreme Court.

Just to state the obvious, these are two separate cases about two separate issues.  Yesterday's ruling in California stated that the attempt to bar same-sex couples from legal civil marriage was discriminatory on its face and served no compelling purpose of the state government.  This violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, making Proposition 8 unconstitutional.  The judge made it clear in his decision that if a law is unconstitutional it makes no difference how many people voted in favor of it, it's still null and void.

Last month's ruling in Massachusetts stated that DOMA, in stating that for federal purposes marriage was between one man and one woman, put the federal government in the business of deciding which state-sanctioned marriages were federally legal and which were not.  This not only violated the 14th Amendment (again, the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses), it violated the little-known 10th Amendment.  The 10th Amendment states that... oh, hell, I'm not going to paraphrase it.  Here's the full text (don't worry, it's brief):

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Got it?  If the feds haven't been given the power by the Constitution, and the states aren't barred from doing it by the Constitution, then the power belongs to the states (cause the feds don't have it), or to the people (cause the states are barred from doing it).  The Constitution doesn't give the feds power to decide which marriages are legal and which aren't, so that power belongs to the states (since the Constitution doesn't say the states can't decide that).  Massachusetts has decided that same-sex marriages are legal.  Thus the feds can't say they're not legal, which is what DOMA does by defining what a legal marriage is at the federal level.  (This would also apply in all other states where same-sex marriage is legal, as well.)


The decisions of the federal District Courts having been appealed, the cases next head for their respective Circuit Courts of Appeal (the 1st in Massachusetts, the 9th in California).  The cases will most likely be heard by a three-judge panel, chosen from a pool of available circuit court judges.  They may be heard en banc, meaning that all active circuit court judges hear the case.  It is most likely that whatever decisions are reached by the Circuit Courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court will hear a case if four Justices vote to hear it.  Otherwise, the appeal will be refused and the lower court decision will stand.  In regards to the California case, if it reaches the Supreme Court, a decision could be rendered in 2011 or 2012.


So, does this mean gay couples can get married in California again?  Well, no.  The defendants in this case (the people supporting Prop 8) not only appealed to the Circuit Court, they also asked for a stay -- a delay until an appeal is heard -- in executing the judge's decision.  Reports conflict (as of this writing), but it seems like the judge granted a temporary stay for a fixed number of days.  If the stay is not made more permanent, wedding bells get to ring out for same-sex couples again.  But if it is, things stay just as they are until the Circuit Court makes its ruling.


And what do we do now?  For today, celebrate.  Yesterday's ruling was a victory, historic in its potential scope, and we should take time to revel and be glad.  Tomorrow is time enough to get back to work and ensure that wins in Massachusetts and California get turned into wins for all gay men and lesbians, in all states.

How I'd Like to Be Remembered:  I was at a memorial service yesterday for someone I'd known for many years. He was an activist for GLBT rights back when it wasn't cool. He was remembered for his activism, for his personal quirks, and above all for his service to not just the GLBT communities but the state as a whole. Those who spoke told of him as a brother, an uncle, an activist, and a friend. There were people there I hadn't seen in many years. It was moving and solemn. It made me think of how I'd like my own memorial service to be.

Top of the list: Not like his.

I want raucous. I want dirty jokes and embarrassing anecdotes. I want food that is definitely Not Good For You, in large quantities. I want people shattering diets and ignoring all the good advice their doctors gave them. I want beer flowing like wine, wine flowing like water, and water flowing only to wash your hands before the next course. And a private keg of Guinness just for my honeybear.

I want music. I want to be sung into heaven, and I want all of it to be show tunes --Broadway good, off-Broadway OK, movies if you must -- but if I hear "Ave Maria" or "Amazing Grace" or anything like that, I will come back to earth and kick the singer's ass off the stage. I want "Comedy Tonight" to start it off (the whole damn thing), and "Walk Him Up the Stairs" to end with. I want Sondheim and Jerry Herman and the Gershwin brothers and Richard Rodgers (with all his lyricists). I want Frank Loesser and Cole Porter and Irving Berlin and Jerome Kern. I want Kander and Ebb, Ahrens and Flaherty, Lopez and Marx, Comden and Green, Jule Styne, Cy Coleman, Leonard Bernstein, Marvin Hamlisch, Adams and Strouse, even Mel Brooks. I want people who sing, singing. I want people who *don't* sing, singing.

I want my life celebrated, not memorialized. I want everyone still living who knew me to be there. I want it in the late spring or the early fall, my favorite times of the year. I want the only tears to be from laughing too much. I want it to be the party they'll talk about for years to come.

I don't think I'm asking too much. And it's not like I'll need it tomorrow. But this is What I Want, and What I Need, and I don't express those things all that much.

So, when the time comes, do this for me. Thanks.

It seems I'm spending today posting essays and notes I put on my Facebook page over the last year or so.  Here's another one, from May 2009.

Things I've Learned


1. I learned long ago that I wasn't put here to validate anyone else's belief system. So if you tell me "I can't believe you (did X)", you'd better start believing it because I did it. Otherwise you're denying reality, and that's not healthy.

2. I give my best performance at the last rehearsal, probably because I'm proving myself for the only audience that truly counts -- my fellow players.

3. Over the years I have struggled to master my emotions. Don't tell me I should get in touch with them -- I know exactly where they are, and I'm not having them over for dinner.

4. On the other hand, if you see me let go, especially with the more violent emotions, then you've pushed me past my endurance limit. At that point, neither running and hiding nor abject apology are viable options for you.

5. Your acquaintances will always try to change something about you, and it will always be something that you do not share in common. Your friends will always widen and deepen what you have in common and respect the differences.

6. Magic exists, but its true practitioners never know they're wielding it.

7. The best gift you can craft for someone is a memory.

8. No holiday should last beyond its date. A world full of extended holidays is as oppressive as a world with no holidays.

9. For every birthday, there is an equal but opposite un-birthday. Celebrate them both.

10. I made a deal with God when I was young: If He would take care of the major problems, I wouldn't bother Him with the small stuff. We've both kept our ends of the bargain.

11. Everyone should have a day every so often when they are told by everyone in their lives how much they are appreciated or cared for or loved. The recipient is obligated to believe wholeheartedly what they are told.

12. There can be too much of a good thing, but you never realize it at the time.

13. In physics, God does not play dice with the universe. In genetics, however, He does play roulette.

I created the following shortly after the death of my father, George Neuner Jr., in November of 2003.  I originally wrote it for myself, then read it at one of Pandora Scooter's "Out of the Box" open mic shows.  This year, around Father's Day, I posted it to Facebook, where it kindled responses from many of my friends, several of whom were inspired to go back and dig out old photo albums with pictures of their fathers.  I post it for you here, now.

For My Father:  November 2003

As I write this, Thanksgiving is only a week away. It’s traditionally a holiday where families gather together, although since my family moved to Florida it hasn’t been that for me in a long time. But this year, I’m thinking about family, and especially my dad.

For most of my life, Dad was a driver for a succession of trucking companies. For many of those years, he was also the union shop steward. His last years in trucking were spent in management. He worked hard and he made a good life for his family.

Dad loved Florida. He and Mom would take as many vacations there as they could. When his older sister moved down there, it started the wheels turning, and pretty soon he was buying property and arranging to have a home built. When the time came, he and Mom said good-bye to New Jersey forever without a backward glance. I don’t remember any other home they were so happy in, or any other place they’d rather have lived.

Dad spent the first year of his retirement puttering around, but he learned from his father what not to do in retirement. Dad went back to work at a Publix supermarket, and I used to tease him that after all these years my father had become a bag boy. He also made time to get involved with town and county politics, with the same pleasure doing civic work that he had in any of his jobs.

I was very lucky that my family was very matter-of-fact about my gayness. It wasn’t discussed or debated; it was just there, and it suited me, and so what? There were times when I thought I wasn’t the son my dad might have wanted, but I knew he loved and was proud of the son he had.

My dad was 74 years old when he died in the early hours of November 14. He was where he wanted to be, at home, in Florida; he was with my mother, his high school sweetheart, married for 53 years; and he went quickly, the way he wanted. One day, when she’s ready, Mom will scatter his ashes during one of the Florida sunsets he loved so much.

I have his eyes and his nose. I have the star sapphire ring my mother gave him so long ago. I have pictures and memories and a thousand unspoken lessons on what it is to be a man. But I’ll never hear him laugh again at one of my smart-ass remarks. I’ll never again hear him call me Buddy – his private nickname for me, one that no one else used. I’ll never have my Dad again.

And I’ll always carry him with me.

A postscript:  My mother died two months after my father.  My sister Penny and I scattered their ashes in Florida, at a location they both loved.

The State of Columbia.  No, I'm not talking about the South American country (which is Colombia, anyway, and they're really picky about the spelling). I'm talking about that little patch of land which used to be made up of part of Maryland and part of Virginia. You know, the one where all those government buildings are located, and all those monuments and stuff, and the Smithsonian. That one.

Well, if you live there, you get screwed by the feds, and in the same way that the 13 colonies were being screwed by George III all those centuries ago. They get taxed at the federal level, but they don't have voting representation in either house of Congress. Taxation without representation -- sound familiar?

Now, many have said that it would be only fair to make the District of Columbia a state, giving its residents voting Representatives and Senators. It does sound fair, and I'd be all in favor of it -- with just one little string attached.

Remember up top where I said that the D of C used to be made up of part of Maryland and part of Virginia? Well, back in the 1840's, Virginia got their piece given back to them by Congress. Now that's all mixed up with the slavery debates of the time, and I'm not going to go into the details here. Suffice it to say, the part that Virginia gave was given back.

But the part that Maryland gave? That's what's known as the D of C today.

I'm sure that Maryland's a very nice state. I've only ever stayed there four times, and all of those were spent in and around Baltimore. And I've seen the Chesapeake Bay while driving south to other destinations, and it's a magnificent body of water. But Maryland's the only state that has lost every court case involving land that it laid claim to. That's why, when you look at it on a map, it's got that funny piece out west, and that peninsula in the east has its bottom part chopped off and given to Virginia.

And there's all that land they gave to make the D of C way back when. In fact, they gave 69 square miles while Virginia only gave 31. Screwed again, land-wise.

So what I say is this: Let the District of Columbia become the state of Columbia. Let its citizens have the right to be represented fully in Congress.

And let it happen the minute Virginia gives its 31 square miles of land back. That means that all of Arlington county, including the city of Alexandria and Arlington National Cemetery and Reagan Airport, becomes part of the new state.

Columbia should be restored to its original size and shape before it becomes a state. It's only fair.

Work update:  I start training on April 26, not April 27.  And as this is Challenge week, and Challenge has to get to the printer by about 8 on Monday morning, and training starts at 8:30 on Monday morning, juggling it all is going to be...um...a challenge.  Bill has volunteered to pick up Challenge from the printer Monday afternoon and transport it to GAAMC for stuffing, and I've got the mailing labels and stamps ready.

As for Bill hearing about continuing work from the Census Bureau...silence.

The wrong question; or, how the federal government works.  I got an e-mail from Garden State Equality today.  They want me (and everyone else they sent the e-mail to) to go to their site and answer a one-question poll.  The one question?  "How would you assess the progress President Obama is making on LGBT civil rights?"  Since this is really too complex a question to be answered by a simple "good/bad" choice, you'd expect some sort of space for an open-ended answer.  However, what you're presented with are these two choices:

"He's doing well, given how hard it is to move things in Washington and especially compared to past Presidents."

"He's not fast and bold enough, and I worry that as time goes on, he'll have missed his best opportunity for change."

Now, back in February, I gave my own report card on how I thought the President had done in four major areas.  (The post is still there; I'll wait here if you want to go read it.)  I gave him a good grade in one area (immigration reform), a middling grade in two others (ENDA and "don't ask, don't tell") and a failing grade in one more (DOMA repeal).  So how could I choose between the two answers given in this poll?

And then it struck me.  Of the four areas, only one could be handled by Presidential action alone, and that one was immigration reform.  This was the lifting of the ban on immigration -- even on entering the country to visit -- for anyone who was HIV-positive.  This was one of Jesse Helms' brainchildren, and it couldn't die until the old fart himself kicked the bucket.  Once he did, the ban's days were numbered.

Of course, it took the President roughly a year to get his own Department of Homeland Security to dismantle the remaining pieces of the policy.  (And it took former President Bush roughly a year before that to get the ball rolling.)  But he did get it finished, and for that he deserves praise.

But the other three?  They're all up to Congress, not the President.

Yes, you heard me right.  The other three areas are all related to legislature passed by previous Congresses, so to fix or end them, Congress has to pass another law doing so.

Now, the Senate has had hearings on repealing "don't ask, don't tell", with common-sense testimony from the Secretary of Defense (a Republican holdover from the Bush Cabinet), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and decorated gay veterans of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And the House looks set to start committee hearings on ENDA, now that both sides have agreed on the language of the proposed legislation.  So they're moving right along -- at least, as fast as either house of Congress is used to moving.

And the President is doing what he should be doing -- sitting back and letting the legislative branch of the government do its job.  With, of course, an occasional supportive comment.

So, back to GSE's poll.  For that stuff that the President can do, he's doing pretty well.  I'd like him to speak out more often in favor of ENDA, and repealing DOMA and DADT, and so would many more people, both gay and straight.  A little more use of the "bully pulpit" couldn't hurt, although the President can't rely on a solid base of supportive Democratic legislators in both houses, and his speaking out might not do as much good as it could, and might even hurt a little.  But all things considered, on this score I'd say he's doing well.

And for that stuff that only Congress can do?  They're coming along, but they're not fast and bold enough.  (Then again, Congress is rarely fast or bold, let alone both together.)  So if the question were also being asked about Congress, I'd go with option B (not fast or bold enough).

The results of both those polls would make for some interesting reading by our political leaders in Washington.

Work.  I got a call from the Census Bureau on Monday.  I took their application test about two weeks ago in Bound Brook (I scored 100%, by the way), and now they were calling to offer me a job, if I wanted it.

The job title is "enumerator".  That's the fancy (and short) way of saying "guy who goes from door to door gathering information because people didn't send back their Census forms".  It's a 40-hour week, from 8:30 to 4:30; it pays $18/hour plus $.50/mile for any driving I have to do; and it can be for up to eight weeks.  (There's no guarantee that I'll actually work eight weeks; if they run out of work for me to do, the job is over.)  And I have to show up for four days of training.

Reader, I said yes.

Training starts April 27th.

In the meantime, Bill-the-honeybear is working for the Census this week as an interviewer, after working as an enumerator and as a canvasser (one of the people who checks the Census rolls against actual buildings where people might live).  And he's been asked if he would like to continue, with yet again another job.  Stay tuned.

Of Property Taxes and Education:  If you live in New Jersey, there's always one thing with which your fellow Jerseyans agree with you:  your property taxes are too high.  And, come election time, there's always one thing every politician will agree with:  property taxes are too high, and if you elect them, something will be done about it.

Well, bullshit.

Property taxes are set by, and are collected at, the local level.  Don't believe me?  Just look at your tax bill next time and see to whom the check is being written.  Bet'cha a nickel it ain't the State of New Jersey.  So any state politician who says they're going to reduce property taxes?  They can't.  Not unless the state legislature and the Governor find the political will to tell the 600+ separate localities in New Jersey that from now on all the property taxes will be set by and collected by the state.  Think that'll happen?  If you do, I'll save you a seat at the first snowball fight in Hell.

Property taxes are set by the local municipalities, with input from you.  Don't believe me?  OK.  Look at your tax bill and find how much is set aside for education, how much for running the town, etc.  Now look at the next sample ballot you recieve -- you should be getting one every year -- and look to see if there are any public questions about raising money for any of those categories from the tax bill.  Usually those questions are about giving more money, not about giving less (or even standing still, for that matter).  So:  if you vote "yes" on the public question, then you are automatically giving the municipality permission to raise your tax bill to pay for it.

Oh, and by the way, education -- your public school system -- takes the lion's share of just about every town budget in the state.

Now here's the fun part.  The state constitution gives the state the responsibility for providing a "thorough and efficient education" to every school-age child in the state.  The state Supreme Court ruled that, because property taxes were inherently unequal between and among the towns, they couldn't be used to fund education.  So the state Legislature and the Governor have had to find ways to fund education that weren't unequal and illegal.  Thus was born, in part, the Property Tax Rebate.  Not that your taxes get any smaller, oh, no.  But some of that money you gave the town comes back to you from the state.  And where does the state get its money?  Why, from you, of course.

Me, I'd rather see a smaller property tax bill and let the state make up the difference to the towns.  Actually, I'd rather see more school district consolidation in order to effect economies of scale and thus lower some of the costs of that thorough and efficient education.

Anyway, the state, as we're told, is fiscally in the crapper.  Money for education just isn't in the state's purse right now, so aid to municipalities is being cut.  And because aid is being cut, and this being a recession and all, people are losing their jobs.  And some of those people are teachers.

Don't get me wrong.  I've had mostly good experiences with New Jersey teachers my entire life, and while I didn't get along with all of them, they all had a hand in making me the man I am today.  I also have friends who are teachers, so I know from them just how hard teaching as a profession actually is these days.

But I've been listening to the arguments about education budget cuts.  And all too often, the argument I've heard most is, "Oh, no, teachers are going to be fired!  We can't let this happen!"

Y'know what?  I've been downsized out of two jobs, one after 20 years of service, the other after 7 1/2 years.  I don't recall anyone wailing about how my being let go just couldn't be allowed to happen.  And in a recession, I think one of the most obscene things of all is believing that any profession is too sacrosanct not to be affected by layoffs.

What I haven't been hearing -- because the discussion has been allowed to be about how awful it is that an educator should be let go -- is what adults would be talking about right now:  namely, just what does constitute "thorough and efficient education", and how can we fund that.  What's educationally important to us?  What kind of arguments can be made in favor of having classes in certain subjects and not in others?  What sacrifices am I being asked to make -- and what sacrifices are school employees being asked to make?  Most importantly, how we can stop being "the town vs. the school" and start being "the town and the school working together"?

And I guess, when it comes down to it, the basic question of all is:  when can we start helping our children by acting, at last, like adults?

That's entertainment!  Yes, Bill-the-Honeybear and I watched as much of the Oscars last night as we could.  Not that we fell asleep halfway through, no.  But our cable provider was having a spat with ABC over how much ABC should get paid for the cable provider to be allowed to transmit their offerings.  And the Oscars were being carried on ABC.  The upshot was - officially - that both sides decided to allow ABC to continue to be shown on Cablevision (that's my provider) while they were negotiating the payment amount.  So the Oscar broadcast started to be shown at just about the time the first award was being handed out.

My thoughts?  First, since ABC is available for free to anyone with a working roof antenna, why are they getting paid by Cablevision?  I learned long ago that broadcast networks make their money by selling ad time on the air.  It's not like the ads are being removed for cable customers.  And second, whose bright idea was it to pull ABC off a major cable company in the New York metropolitan market when ABC can use every rating point it can glom onto?  It's like NBC saying, "We're going to pull our station from your cable service - oh, yeah, and the Olympics start tomorrow!"  I'm thinking some too-clever network executive(s) are going to get a severe talking-to this morning.  Let's face it:  It's 8:00 Sunday night, it's Oscar night, you turn to ABC on Cablevision, and all you see is an announcement from Cablevision saying ABC pulled their station from the cable broadcast roster.  Even if they start broadcasting at 8:01, aren't you by that point going to be watching, oh, anything else you can find? 

Now, on to the awards ceremony.  Mostly I admired the class with which most of the winners accepted their awards.  And I appreciated how most of the presenters handled themselves - but please, can we keep Sean Penn away from the microphone?  He's a fine actor and a fine humanitarian, but lately put him on unscripted and he just, well, "babbles" isn't quite the word for it, but his mind goes fuzzy and his mouth doesn't help.  I've never seen Ben Stiller do anything as funny as his presenter's monologue in way, way too long.  But oddly enough, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were hit-or-miss all evening (although the two of them in snuggies watching backstage was precious).  I have to ask, do we really need hosts as well as presenters?  Especially when you have the faceless voice announcing who's coming on stage to present the next award, and giving us bits of trivia and statistics as winners are walking to the stage?  Put that salary money back into the production budget, thank you.

Who in God's name made the stupid, stupid choice to start the "in memoriam" section with a long shot, thus obscuring the names of the first three people being remembered?  Fire that director's ass.  Now.  Before he works on another awards show with an "in memoriam" section.

I did like the dance segment to the music nominated in the "best score" category.  But I have to ask, who forgot to turn off the under-stage-stored microphones?  When the dancers were being energetic in certain areas of the stage, you could hear every footfall.  Loudly.  Thud. Thud. Thud.

This was the first year that I didn't make any comments about the gowns, save one.  This year, the women in attendance managed to pick dresses that were beautiful and fitting to the occasion.  (The exception?  The actress shall remain nameless, but her dress had two panels that started over each breast and swept into the train, sort of a light rose against a darker rose dress.  The parts over the breasts looked for all the world like air bags just after deploying.  So where was everyone's attention drawn?  Right... )

Best part of the night?  Switching over to Turner Classic Movies (TCM) at 12:15 to see Show People, a 1928 silent comedy from MGM, starring Marion Davies, all about a young woman from Georgia who comes to Hollywood to become a dramatic actress.  It was filmed all over the Metro lot and on the streets of Hollywood, so it's a beautiful snapshot of one major studio (plus many of its stars and the film's director King Vidor) at the time when silents were making their final bow.  Davies was a splendid comedic talent, and was universally loved as one of the most open and generous people in Hollywood.  Her co-star was William Haines, an MGM star in both silents and talkies, usually cast as the all-American guy.  He quit the movies when he was forced to choose between his career and his male lover.  A bold stand to take, considering the times (the early 1930s).  But his story had a very happy ending:  thanks to Davies, Joan Crawford, and others in the industry, he forged a successful second career as a home decorator and antique dealer, living with his lover, James Shields, for nearly fifty years until his death from lung cancer in 1973.

Keeping myself busy.  Those of you who read two of my previous posts - the one about the history of marriage equality in New Jersey, and the one about not giving GLBT money to political parties - would guess that I was fairly active in the two-month-long struggle to achieve marriage equality.  Your guess would be correct.  And I am one of the many who felt doubly screwed:  first by our fair-weather supporters in the state Senate who, after incumbent Jon Corzine lost his bid to return to the governor's office, decided not to vote for equality under the law after all; and second, by those political "leaders" in the GLBT communities who agreed to hold off on pushing for marriage equality until the lame-duck legislative session following the November 2009 elections, thus practically ensuring defeat.

So what am I doing now?  Recently, there has been a challenge sent out mostly via e-mails by Tom Limoncelli of the New Jersey Lesbian & Gay Coalition.  The Coalition has been moribund for quite some time now; Tom's challenge, to all those in New Jersey looking to create strong leadership in the ongoing struggle for GLBT civil rights, is to meet to decide the fate of the Coalition.

Yes, that's the right word:  the fate of the Coalition.  The meeting will be held the afternoon of March 6th (that's this Saturday, folks) at 2 pm at the new home of the Pride Center in Highland Park.  Its purpose is simple:  to decide whether to revitalize the old Coalition - the oldest group of its kind in New Jersey - or to shut it down.

The original idea was to have the leaders of the Coalition's constituent groups, plus a selection of other state GLBT leaders, meet to discuss the situation.  However, it was quickly decided to throw the meeting open to all those in New Jersey's GLBT communities, because the results of this meeting would affect everyone in those communities.

To find out more, check out the Yahoo! group NJLCG_future or contact Tom Limoncelli via e-mail at tal@whatexit.org .  And if you're at all serious about the future of equality for GLBT people in New Jersey, attend Saturday's meeting.

A World War II love story...with a twist.  Yank! tells the story of Stu, an 18-year-old draftee who's never felt "that way" about women, and his best buddy Mitch.  Stu ends up becoming a photographer for Yank, the popular weekly magazine published during the war "for the GIs, by the GIs".  There's the other members of their squad -- the Professor, the glasses-wearing smart guy from Bahston; Tennessee, the redneck hick; Rotelli, the paisan with the thick accent; and Czechowski, the good-natured Brooklyn "polack".  There's also Artie, the Yank correspondent who takes Stu under his gay wing and teaches him how to get by in This Man's Army - and Navy, and Marine Corps - without getting caught for being a pervert; MacArthur's secretary, a tough lesbian looking to protect "her boys"; and the men of the steno pool - Scarlett, Melanie, and India - who are the queens of Camp Bliss.

How was it?  First off, the music is wonderful; bright and original, with beautiful harmonies and lyrics that can deliver a laugh or a sigh without calling attention to themselves.  The book takes a long time to get itself going; this could be because there's so much ground to cover in the show's first act, but there are some spots in the book that could stand some changing.  The show's framing device - a young man in San Francisco finds Stu's war journal in a second-hand store and starts reading to us from it (both the young man and Stu are played by the same actor) - makes sense, except that while we see the journal from time to time (and I won't be spoiling anything by saying that a recurring line is "Destroy that thing") we never see Stu writing in it.  We only see Stu, in a spotlight, looking out at the audience as he recites various entries.  Also, the show starts and ends with a beautiful ballad, "Remembering You", sung by Mitch.  The problem?  When it's sung at the start, we don't know who Mitch is; he's just a good-looking guy in a uniform.  We don't know why he would be singing the song, or what the song means to any of the characters.  In short, there's no reason for that song in that place.  Musically, the show gets going with the second song, the title tune, which gets us through the first weeks of basic training, and points out how uncomfortable the shy, scared Stu is with the enforced comradery of Army life - and lets us  glimpse his burgeoning sense of self.

The ensemble is a solid group, especially the squad members - who look like the "one of every kind" squads you'd see in every WWII war movie.  Bobby Steggert (Stu) and Jeffry Denman (Artie; also the show's choreographer) capture the essences of their characters - the shy boy unsure of his sexuality, and the experienced man who shows him the ropes - and show to us the kind of courage it took to be true to what you were.  In so doing, they both show a form of courage no less powerful than the kind needed to risk one's life on the front lines.  Denman is especially good in showing that Artie's no angel, and may be a tad too campy, but is probably the best mentor Stu will ever have.  Special credit goes to Nancy Anderson, who plays all the female roles in the show - mothers, girl friends, band singers, servicewomen - and gives each character her own personality.

The show's creators, Joseph and David Zellnik - two gay brothers - have stated in interviews that Yank! is both an homage to the patriotic entertainments of the WWII period and a tribute to the thousands of gay men and lesbians who served with honor during that campaign - and who managed to find each other in spite of impossible odds.  In both of these, I think they succeed.  But I have to say, while I liked Yank! a lot, I didn't love it - and I really wanted to love it.

My recommendations:  First, when they make the cast album (and I'm sure they will, the score is that good), buy it.  If you get the chance to see the show - especially if you can get tickets at a discount - by all means see it.  It may have its imperfections, but it's entertaining, touching, and relates to today's military without beating you over the head with its message.  You'll have a good time at Yank!


Yank! is playing until March 21st at the Theatre at St. Peter's Church, located in the Citicorp Center, Lexington Avenue at 54th Street.  Subway:  E, V, or 6 train to the 53rd Street/Lexington Avenue station (the E connects to Penn Station).  For more information, follow this link to the York Theatre Company.

What did you do in the snow yesterday?  Use the snowblower to get it out of the driveway and off the sidewalk, for one thing.  My guess is that we got eight inches of fluffy white stuff in terms of accumulation.  By the time Bill-the-Honeybear and I got outside to start clearing the snow, the sun came out and it stopped snowing.  Still, what with cleaning off the cars, sweeping the front porch and steps, and pounding snow off the trees (the ones that were bending under the weight, that is) it took about 90 minutes before we finished.

And then we took the train to New York.  We had theatre tickets for Friday night and didn't see a really good reason not to use them.  But we also didn't want to drive into NYC, for love or money.  So we did what we usually do - take the train - but a little differently this time.  Instead of taking the train from Somerville station, which is only a short walk from our house, we drove to New Brunswick and took the train from there.

I hear you asking "WHY?"  Two reasons, really.  First, financial:  Train fares have gone up, and a round trip from Somerville to New York costs $23 (up until recently, it cost $18.25).  Plus the Somerville ticket office, from where one can use credit cards to purchase tickets, was unstaffed yesterday (as in no one, nada, zip, buy your tickets on the train, cash only).  New Brunswick station has both staffers and ticket vending machines.  Second, schedule:  Trains from Somerville don't go directly to NYC - you have to change trains in Newark (same thing going back).  And there are more trains going into NYC from New Brunswick on any given day than there are from Somerville.

So we drive into New Brunswick - which, with the weather causing lots of closings, took only about 20 minutes of careful driving - park in the municipal deck, walk across the street to the station, buy our tickets, and hop on board.  An hour later, we're in Penn Station; 20 minutes after that and the subway has dropped us off near the theatre, and near where we ended up eating.

Goodburger lives up to its name.  Nicely done individual burgers, a variety of toppings, just-crisp-enough french fries - it's comfort food heaven, at least for me.  No mass-production or microwaving here; you can watch each burger get grilled from a nice pink patty to a juicy brown outside/pink inside delight.  And they're not humongo-burgers, either; they're just right, in every way.

Oh, the show we went to see?  A new off-Broadway musical, playing thru the end of March, called Yank! (yes, the exclamation point is part of the title).  More about that in my next post.

"How'm I doin'?"  That was the catchphrase used by Ed Koch back when he was Da Mayor of New Yawk.  I'm resurrecting it now, because of a post I made waaaaaaaaay back in November 2008, on what President Obama might reasonably be expected to do in return for the massive support he got from the gay and lesbian communities during the election.

In other words, it's report card time.  Here we go:

1.  Lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people.  This was started at the end of President Bush's second term in office, but left uncompleted.  It took nearly a year for President Obama to clear the final hurdles -- mainly, inaction on the part of the Department of Homeland Security -- but as of January 2010, people with HIV would no longer be turned back on arrival in this country.  This ban was a relic of the Jesse Helms era; with his death, lifting the ban was so politically inert even a staunch Republican could do it.  But...it really shouldn't have taken a full year to get this task completed.  It's one of those things where a memo from the President was all that was needed.  So I'll give Obama an A-minus/B-plus on this one.

2.  Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
3.  Repeal the military ban on open gay and lesbian servicemembers ("don't ask, don't tell" or DADT).  I'm taking these two at once, because there's substantial movement on both of them right now.

ENDA would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of conditions (like race, sex, religion, and national origin) that employers cannot use to refuse employment or terminate employment.  The importance of ENDA is not just that it would bar workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians; it would also bar workplace discrimination against transgendered people.  This latter is what is known as "an inclusive ENDA", and has been a major cause for the transgender community and their supporters.  As of right now, hearings in both the House and the Senate have been held, but the bill has not been voted out of committee.

DADT was the "compromise" accepted by President Clinton in an attempt to allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the armed forces.  The bill's biggest problem was that, in exchange for serving, gay and lesbian service members were forced to continue to closet themselves -- in effect, living a lie and keeping secrets from their comrades in arms.

The bill was also supposed to reduce the number of gay men and lesbians discharged from the service due to their homosexuality.  Unfortunately, from the beginning, the numbers of those discharged because of their sexuality increased, and remained high up until the September 11 attacks.  While this might not pose a problem in terms of combat readiness in peacetime, the country soon found itself fighting two wars -- in Iraq and in Afghanistan -- where not only numbers mattered, but also where having skilled Arabic-language speakers and translators also mattered.  Under DADT, the armed forces were losing such skilled linguists at precisely the time their services were needed most.

Senate hearings on ending the policy are currently being held, while House hearings have not currently been scheduled.  Growing public opinion in favor of allowing open gay men and lesbians serve in the military is being joined by opinions from both retired and active military officers, including the current head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the current Secretary of Defense.  It is considered extremely likely that DADT will be repealed as part of the next appropriations bill for the Defense Department.

So what grade does the President get on these?  He has voiced his support for both the passage of ENDA and the repeal of DADT.  His Defense Secretary and his Joint Chiefs head have been allowed to give testimony in favor of DADT repeal.  While his steps have not been bold ones, he has at least made them.  And at least both measures are on the Congressional radar.  I'll give Obama a C on this one.

4.  Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  All through his campaign, Obama said that while he personally favored civil unions, it should be left to the states to decide on legalizing same-sex marriage.  It's a wimpy response, to be sure, but not one that he is alone in making.  And while it's all well and good -- after all, defining what makes a legal marriage has always been a state power, not a federal one -- the big problem with DOMA is that it does define marriage on the federal level, as far as federal benefits are concerned.

I'm sure you've all heard the simplistic argument:  With a same-sex couple of 20 years' standing, should one partner die, the other is barred from Social Security survivor benefits, not to mention other federal pension benefits and tax breaks.  With an opposite-sex couple of one month's standing, in the same situation there is no question of the surviving partner receiving full benefits.

The logic is almost elegantly simple:  If your state says you are legally married, the federal government -- which does not have the power to define marriage -- has no right to say you are not.

This is, alas, not a priority item at any level right now.  Yet it's probably the most important item of them all -- repealing a gross federal overreach into the area of defining legal marriage, and assuring that all legally-married couples are treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Since there's no visible movement on this -- not even the hint of a rumor of a suggestion -- I have to give Obama an F on this one.