A light at the end of the (job) tunnel?  I posted this message to my Facebook friends this past Thursday:

"I sent my resume online to the Cancer Institute of NJ Foundation, responding to a job posting, about a week or so ago. Yesterday, I got an e-mail from CINJF asking if I would be willing to do a phone interview, either Monday or Tuesday, for the position. My response was that I was available both days, and which day/time would be best for them?

Crossed fingers, prayers, good wishes, etc. will be gratefully accepted..."

And followed it up with this wall post the next day:

"The phone interview is 11:00 Monday morning. The job title, which I forgot to mention before, is Development Services Associate ("development" equating to "fund-raising")."


I am amazed at the number of people who are just pouring good things at me -- wishes, crossed body parts, light, love, prayer, and magic.  I've heard of people being doubly-blessed, but I think my multiple of blessedness is more than that right now.  My heart is grateful, and humble, and oh, so full.

So I'm taking a little time this morning to list - in no particular order - the names of those friends and family who have to date written to let me know they're rooting for me.

The very first person to respond was my sister, Penny Yanacheck.  I can't ever tell which title suits her more, "sister" or "truest friend".  I've loved her ever since my parents brought her back from the hospital.

Then there are my classmates from South River High School's class of 1969:  Nancy Whitehouse Sickles; Denise Bennett; Joy Delnecky; Tony Alexander; Gary Corbett; Tom Schuler; Chris Sturm; and David Petruska.

My friends from Mensa:  Sylvia Herbert; Paul Mailman and Lynn MacDonald; Naomi Rose; Russ Bakke; Mel Dahl; Keith Proud; Guy and Kate MacEwen Conti; Barb Holstein; Gregg Wiggins; Edward Gordon; Nancy Vogel; Anthony Jackowski; Joyce Lundeen; Donna Jadis and Gerry Riley; Bob Hibbert; and Julie Baxter.

The very talented friends made thru Outmusic:  Toshio Alan Mana; Jay Spears; Roger Anthony Tony Mapes; and Ron Morris.

My friends from GAAMC:  Dick Reid and Jim Hohman; Ward Saxton; Douglas Oxenhorn; Sherri Rase; Bob Thayer; Jen Dugan; Kerry Dinkin; and Anson Boory.

And those dear to me that fit into no category but "caring friends":  Richard Harrison; Karen Carroll; Anthony Agabatt; David Birdsong; Steven Crespo; and J. Levi Knapp.

Finally, the one who almost goes without saying, since he's a part of everything I do, whose love surrounds and supports me -- my honeybear, Bill Realman Stella.

Anyway...the next moment of truth will be late Monday morning.  I'll be rehearsing with Bill over the weekend so, hopefully, I won't sound like a babbling idiot over the phone.

Wish me luck.

And these are the people who want to run the government?  I read a post yesterday about Newt Gingrich - former Speaker of the House of Representatives, prospective 2012 GOP presidential candidate - calling for Congress to force President Obama to continue defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Section 3 is the one that says, essentially, that even if a same-sex couple is legally married in the state where they reside, they are not considered as married for purposes of federal law.  (And forget about civil unions and domestic partnerships - everyone knows they're not really marriages.)

As you may have heard, the President, with the concurrence of Attorney General Eric Holder, issued a statement saying:  (1) that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be examined using heightened scrutiny; (2) that under such scrutiny, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional based on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment; and therefore (3) the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in court.  

(The President also tossed a little bomb in the laps of the House of Representatives, saying in effect, "If you want to defend Section 3 in court, go right ahead.  We won't stop you."  How many Representatives do you think want to take an active role in defending Section 3?  As one online commentator put it, "Just wait until the first surviving same-sex spouse of a serviceperson killed in the line of duty files for survivor benefits, after 'don't ask, don't tell' is repealed.")

So Mr. Gingrich opened his yap yesterday and said the following:  "I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.  His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent."

According to the Constitution, the Presidential oath of office reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Only two tasks mentioned there: faithfully execute the office of President; and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

The Constitution also states that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Well, since section 3 of DOMA has not been repealed by Congress nor declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, same-sex couples are still not considered married for purposes of Federal law. That has not changed, and it is still being "faithfully executed". But NOTHING says the President has to spend money and manpower to defend a law, or part of a law, in court.

So one can argue that the President, considering section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, is fulfilling his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by declaring his opinion that a section of a law is unconstitutional, and by not taking part in defending that which he deems to be unconstitutional.

And any Senator or Representative, current or former, who says that this is an impeachable offense has no understanding of what the Constitution says, much less what it means.