Loveless Maine = Godless Maine

Dear Jack,

It is bewildering to me; confounding me; degrading to me; disheartening and shameful to me for any fellow believer to do an action of hate in the name of faith.  We face so many who would proof-text their way into finding bigotry and hate in scriptures so as to justify and perpetuate their bigotry.

I am a Christian, and I do not hide this fact.  I stand firm with a multitude of others in the Christian faith who are aghast at what people are doing with Scripture to condemn and disenfranchise and justify a second level of humanity to people for any reason, but most especially because of sexual orientation in our current day.

There continues to be strong scholarship explaining the meanings of alleged anti-gay scriptural passages.  In general modern renderings of these ancient text reflect an editor's opinions rather than what the original Greek or Hebrew; many of these renderings ignore or modify cultural context and culturual relativity of these same passages; many of these interpretations ignore earlier interpretations that the Church or Judaism held on these same passages; and most egregiously most of this bigotry ignores the Greater Truth of God and the multitude of other Scripture condemning their judgment, hatred, and lack of respect for a persons dignity.

Not only do they ignore the passages that blatently speak against bigotry, they ignore passages that could be interpreted against their own sins and vices; thus also ignoring the parable Jesus spoke, "how can you regard the spec in someone else's eye when you have a log in your own?" or "Judge not, lest you be judged".

In reality, Scripture does talk about marriage.  It speaks about polygamy in the early scripture as being fine, and the contracts of Jesse with his father in law to "purchase" his wives through labor.  He even gets tricked by his father-in-law and given the wrong wife?!  Yet it is from this "marriage arrangement" that those of faith believe Judaism and Christianity flow.  Jesus spoke very strongly about marriage--not of it excluding gay people but of the problem of divorce and lust.

One passage that comes to mind is in Matthew, where Jesus even says there are people who are not intended for marriage.  He lists 3 types of Eunuchs.  Some are Eunuchs by choice, some are Eunuchs by function (snip snip), and then others are "Eunuchs from Birth".  To this day it is unclear what this meant.  Some say it meant interesexed people, or people who were born with damaged sexual glands, while others believe it may have been a 1st century interpretation of gay people.

A very interesting exploration of that theory is available here: Born Eunuchs.

Regardless, in not arguing semantics, let us consider one of my favorite passages of the New Testament--one that seems very sadly forgotten by most.

I John 4:7-13, 18-21:

Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.

I submit also the well-quoted passage from the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter 13.

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

NY Senate Coup

Dear Jack,

Today is the first day after the GOP coup in Albany with the Senate. There is so much going on with this that I don't even know where to begin.

So I gather, the minority party of Republicans made a motion to change leadership of the Senate, claiming a new majority caucus which included two democrats, Espada and Monserratte. In the middle of the coup, members of the Democratic majority called for the session to close, and it was hammered out. Most democratic senators left the chamber, after turning the lights out on the remaining senators. The republicans remained, claiming that one could not use the gavel to end the session in the middle of a vote. As a result, the republicans have claimed a coalition majority with Espada (D) as the President of the Senate and Skelos (R) as the Majority Leader. Gov. Patterson has said that he will recognize Smith as the Leader until the Senate can resolve the issue and confirm who the new Majority Leader is.

As a result, it looks like dealing with this power change will dominate the remaining part of the session. Now Espada has said that he will push to have the so-called "Gay Marriage" bill brought to a vote under this new coalition. It is unclear at this time of Skelos will do this or not. If Smith retains leadership, obviously there will need to be some time spent addressing this situation. Regardless, the sufferers are not the Senators, but the constitutnets and those who would be effected by the important bills still left to be resolved including DASA and GENDA, as well as Education and Landlord/Tenant rights.

It would also be unclear that if Smith retains power if he would bring the Gay Marriage bill to a vote. Many claim that Smith made a deal with Espada, Diaz, and Kruger to not bring it to a vote when they agreed to his leadership back in January. It is also unclear if Diaz, Kruger or other democrats will join the Republican-led coalition caucus. The NY Times reports that many have already been contacted about retaining their positions on committees and the stipends associated with them if they were to accept the new leadership.

There are several things that disgust me here:

• Billionaire Tom Golisano, formerly of Rocherster, now a Florida resident, claims to be a financial backer of this coup, and on NY1 said he would allocate as much of his personal funds as he deemned necessary to ensure the new coalition government takes charge. This type of wholesale purchase of a state government should be ILLEGAL. It is lobbying at its worst. It makes Golisano the leader of NY and the only constituent of the senators who are bought by him. Any senator who took funds from Mr. Golisano should be removed.
• It is very telling that the only two democrats who signed on with the Republicans were two facing criminal investigations. Espada already has been fined thousands of dollars for tax fraud related to his campaign financing, and for not disclosing his contributions. Additionally, he is under investigation for possible funds being funneled through a non-profit to his campaign. This is not to mention that he is being investigated for not living in his district! Monserratte of Jackson Heights is currently under investigation for a domestic violence case almost a year old. His girlfriend had charged him with slashing her in the face with glass. A few weeks later she recanted and said it was all an accident, and that she had fallen on the broken glass in his hand.
• It is not surprising that Espada and Monserratte would be shady enough to change their voting affiliation like this for political favors. It is more embarassing that the Republicans would utilize them to do so! What is worse, is that if this government is approved, Espada would act as govenor whenever Gov. Patterson left the state, or if he become incapacitated. If we wanted a criminal for a governor we could have just kept Spitzer and his prostitute.
  
• I also think of the many interns and office aids that may face unemployment as their jobs are changed because of this.

One wonders who exactly the Senators and Golisano were trying to help. Right now it feels like "themselves" is the answer. They should all be ashamed of themselves at least, voted out of office at best, and in a just world, charged legally for wasting the citizens of NY's tax dollars in this escapade.

Prop 8 Upheld

Dear Jack,

Today, it was announced that Prop 8 would be upheld. The only benefit is that the 18,000 marriages that were performed before Prop8 would also be upheld. I am following on several blogs the reactions of people in CA, specifically in San Francisco. It is exciting and scary at the same time. Today, in NYC we will be having our own rally at 6 with a march from Sheridan Sq to Union Sq. Michael will be in attendance, and I'll be at work. My hopes and prayers will be with them all.

Now is the time to stand up, and to make a difference. How long can we continue to go sidelined? We are liked if we are campy and funny, or turning straight people into metrosexuals. We are demonized if we ask for equal rights. Now is the time of Rosa Parks, where we sit down and refuse to move, despite the fear we possess, or the consequences of our civil disobedience. We must act now.

Leaving Chase

Dear Jack,

I am fed up with Chase. I signed in my online account and saw that I was going to be overdrawn when some items posted. I immediately transferred funds from my other account (at Chase too). Imagine my shock when the pending items posted, but my in-house transfer didn't for another day. This caused overdraft fees. Before the fees I had 189 bucks in the account. With the fees I ended up over drafting again JUST on the fees. The fees add to the fees that the fees caused despite the transfer.

I called the bank to see what I can do, and I was told, nothing. They can put in a request to waive 1 fee, but that's not guaranteed. I told them that it makes no sense that an in-house transfer gets posted a day later, and that I'd like some resolution.

They told me that I can close my account if I am upset with the customer service. "People close their accounts every day", I was told.

Well, if that's the case, then I will make mine be a statistic. Any suggestions on a new bank? TD? Capital One?

Health System

Dear Jack,

I am on day 5 of a lingering migraine headache. I have no insurance yet, as it will not be active till December, and so I sit in pain. I headed to the clinic down the street where I've been able to get looked at fairly cheap, despite no insurance, but today it is not going to happen. They are booked till next week with insurance paying patients, and the lobby is full of people who probably are in the same boat as me or worse.

I am hopeful that President Obama will be able to effectually fix the health care problem and provide us with a plan that allows all citizens with basic health coverage, and all children, regardless of immigration status, coverage. I can somewhat understand people's fears that this will be similar to socialism, but I have to point to the non-socialist countries in Europe where there is health care.

Children, at least, who have no ability to choose their immigration status, their financial status, or get their own health insurance, should be taken care of PERIOD.

Samhain Approaches

Dear Jack,

Today I have a migraine. I hate migraines. The light hurts, my eyes don't focus right, and the sound outside hurts. I eagerly await insurance so I can get more medication. This is a point of contention for me at work. I've been working since March, and still do not have insurance. The reason is two-fold: part process, and part management. I was supposed to be made non-contract in June, but it took until September. Policy then stipulates that I need to be employed non-contract for three months before I am to be eligible for insurance. This means December, and my guess it will be closer to January.

On some days it disgusts me, and on other days I just ignore it. It has caused me to not have faith in my employer, as every time I have a migraine hit, my whole body realizes how I need insurance. It is disgusting me today.

Friday is Halloween, and we'll probably join some friends for the parade, and then maybe a party in Brooklyn. I will be going as a generic Hogwarts professor. Mike will probably be a cop again. I hope it is fun.

Car Alarms

Dear Jack,

Please explain to me what the point of a car alarm is. It is obvious that it is not intended to protect the car. I mean, how can rattling a series of obnoxious noises at 7 am outside a residential area guarantee protection? It doesn't make me want to stop a hoodlum...in fact when I'm awakened by such an ostentatious alarm I hope someone takes a brick and bashes in the windshield.

Let me put into perspective my feelings. First of all, since 7am a car has been blaring its car alarm, unattended by the owner. The owner thought it prudent to buy the car alarm, set it on EXTRA sensitive, and then park on the corner of two busy streets. Thus as any car happens to stop at the stop light, it goes off. Do you realize how many cars drive along Steinway at 7 am???

If you're going to be so obnoxious as this person and purchase an alarm for your car that you intend to leave in the street, please park close enough that when it goes off to warn you of danger, you actually hear it and can react...or at least notice when it is going off because of traffic, and shut the darn thing off. Or do us all a favor and park somewhere on a different block where there are not people who sleep at 7 am.

Bad Day All Around.

Dear Jack,

Michael had a bad day today. I feel for him. I too haven't had a great day. My back has been hurting for a couple weeks, and today that coupled with a bad migraine. It has been pretty awful. I ended up staying home, unable to see clearly. I wish my insurance would kick in soon so I could go see a doctor about it all. Yetta keeps on saying she's going to submit the paperwork, but I'm going on 7+ months at the job, and still nothing. I am very frustrated with the whole situation. I notified her that I am going to look for another.

Our fridge has died, our dish washer has died, and tonight our DVD player has died. Something is just not going right. And I'm being underpaid so I can't even pay to get them fixed. I'm sorta depressed all around.

Gay Morals ... eh... Morals

Dear Jack,

Michael went to General Convention last month. It proved to be rather interesting on several accounts. Not only did we elect the first woman to be Primate of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, but we also acknowledged a feast day for you, Clive Staples Lewis (a.k.a Jack). Many other things were done, and others not done, including acknowledging Christ as the Name for Salvation.

But that's not what I want to talk about. Rather I am frustrated with the character of people that Michael ran across... and it got me bothered. On the trip, people were met who were workers in the Church, mostly gay, but some straight. The common bond with them seemed to be a blatant disregard of personal morals with regards to sexual relationships. One does not expect the whole populous to have the "traditional" morals of the Church, as not all are affiliated or care about the Church. Yet one would think that those who actually work for the Church as cleric or musician would have some inkling of what is appropriate behavior. Out right many divulged extreme promiscuity not limited to one-night stands, orgies, "f#ck" buddies, cheating, and competitions on who gets laid the most at the American Guild of Organists (just to name a few).

I am not a prude, and don't expect people to wait till marriage. Indeed many of my friends have chosen to have much more "casual" relationships than I would. Mind you, when they are in relationships they are monogamous. And I can even understand occasionally screwing around ... although I don't think it's healthy physically, spiritually, or mentally--often many after reflection think the same. What I don't understand is the expected acceptance of such behavior for someone in a leading role in the Church. As a leader of the Church one is automatically put in the public eye as an example. Now whether this is fair or not, it is what happens. And the behavior exhibited by these public figures is seen as acceptable behavior. Thus if one expresses themselves as ones who engage in orgies, and one-night stand casual sex, and that person is also a Leader in the Church-- I have a problem with it.

That takes me to my next ranting point. How can we as Gays expect any form of respect for our relationships--any right to "marriage" if we do not exhibit the ability to be faithful to those we are with, or if we screw around with whomever wants their rocks off? Put simply, we won't gain any leverage. Indeed the behavior exhibited fuels the fires of those who already have it in their mind to disapprove of us. One cannot hide behind "we have no recognized marriage" anymore. Church sanctioned or Government sanctioned--the relationship has to be FIRST sanctioned by the people in it.

It is unfortunate that the stereotype that has been projected about gay men is not similar to the stereotype of lesbians. The joke is: "What is the difference between what a Lesbian brings on her second date and a Gay man brings on his second date? Answer. Lesbian: A U-Haul; Gay man: A second date?"

It is more so unfortunate that the many fruitful long-enduring relationships of gay men is not the stereotype shown in America. I watched the Gay Pride Parade last month as a couple celebrated 40 years together--clapping and cheering followed them as they walked. THIS should be the stereotype and common expression among us.

We hurt ourselves in our sexual promiscuity... and indeed the promiscuous gay man hurts also the community by perpetuating such stereotypes.

And need we point to the Gay Community??? HECK NO.

Equally as rampant, and more so accepted, is the promiscuity among heterosexuals. Television portrays a date as always ending in Sex. The ever popular Sex and the City is a quintessential, well done (sadly), expression of heterosexual dating portrayed in the media. The difference between this expression and the gay expression... say of Queer as Folk, is that society accepts it as a norm.

One person pointed out to me that the Bible "admonishes" possible homosexual expressions 6 times, but "admonishes" blatant heterosexual expressions 360 some times. Yet, unfortunately if one turns on a "conservative" tv station or radio, and one finds very little discussing heterosexual promiscuity and sexual misconduct.

That is truly the saddest part of it all. And to top it all off the heterosexual Church leaders-- in their pomp and glory -- statistically are just as bad as the homosexual ones.

Ok... enough ranting.

Growing Frustrations

Dear Jack,

I am growing more and more frustrated with the current situation in the Church. As a gay man I am at odds with the majority of so-called "Conservative" or "Orthodox" Christians. Yet my belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior is becoming more and more of a problem to the so-called "Liberal" or "Progressive"Christians who are edging near Universalism and downplaying the role of Christ in our Salvation.

There feels to be no place for me. I do not know how much longer I can endure a Church that is unwilling to call in Jesus' name for Salvation solely because it sounds "exclusive" to Non-Christians. One would think that the radical freedom from and redemption of sin that comes with Christ would be sufficient to call upon His name. Rather it seems a fear that any proclamation is condemning rules the roost, and orthodoxy seems to be shoved aside so as to not offend. Christ Jesus' gift of Love and Salvation is not one of condemnation--it is one of reconciliation and freedom. Put as John so wisely did, Jesus came into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. The focus is not on the despairing outcast going to hell, but rather on the invitation to come into a certain relationship that saves from hell. Looking as John puts it, the focus is not on exclusion, but on inclusion...an invitation if you will. Paul speaks even more on this in saying that it is not God who condemns but the lack of belief already keeps people in death ("condemns"). Rather it is Christ Jesus who saves... who redeems... who's Truth sets free. He aletheia elethrusaia humas: The Truth shall set you free. Not Condemn.

I wrestle often with who is "saved" and not when it comes to other religions. I do not know. I get a good feeling that the Chosen people may be safe--not certain, but got a good feeling. In the end what I think is irrelevant. If I think they are saved and they are not...it is in God's hands. If I think they are not saved and yet they are... again it is in God's hands. Thus the necessity to speak about who is saved and who is not saved seems irrelevant on this mass sized scale.

The only answer I know of for certainty is Christ. Indeed I may get to heaven to find that the Universalists are right... but in the end anyone, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Conservative, Liberal, Undecidedly Agnostic or Atheist...if they are in heaven it is by the merit and grace of Christ Jesus saving them despite their disbelief in him. I do not know if that is how it will work in the end. Frankly I'd much rather let God worry about it and focus on making sure my relationship with God reflects my belief in God as Creator, Healer, Redeemer, Sanctifier, and Lover of All Souls.

Friendships Falling

Dear Jack,

Leaving all names aside, the issue must be mentioned:

A friend's friend was visiting and was hanging out with Michael. The friend was very blatantly hitting on Michael, commenting on all his features. This is not something totally new, as people hit on people all the time. There was a line crossed, however, in that the person then (having known Michael and I for less than 24 hours) said "You know you, the way he looks and the way you look...[Chap] and you don't belong together. I mean what's with that?". Had the comment been made by a stranger, Michael would have put that person in his place. However, the comment was made by a friend's friend, so Michael restrained reaction to "How could you know? You don't know us." Regardless, the person persisted with questions about Michael's dating experience history. The friend, recognizing the situation as bad even asked the guy to shut up.

Time goes on, and the guy flirts with Michael throughout the day, and into the night, in front of me even. Although I can get jealous easily, I recognize when there is not any chance of competition. This old dude was far from a being someone that would cause Michael to stray, even if straying were apart of Michael's personality.

Over the next few days, the comments made by the guy did bother me. Coupling the comment about Michael and I not belonging together were the comments on the beautiful physique of Michael. Very plainly the reason this guy felt I should not be with Michaelis because I do not look as traditionally "cute" as Michael. This really hurt and pissed me off. What was worse, was that the same guy, the friend, and our friend Bob were scheduled to join us for Easter Dinner.

At dinner, things went well. After dinner, the guy having left us to pursue a fling on Long Island, Michael inquired to our friend about the situation. Here is where things get odd. The friend, not recognizing the hurt I felt, nor agreeing in the inappropriateness of the comments, said that Michael should expect such comments because of the way he dresses. More was said against Michael regarding a proposed "naivety" and necessity of needing to "live in the real world".

Later the friend left. Bob left. Michael and I thought. The things said were very mean, and unrelated to the actual hurt the dude had incurred with his comments. Our friend did not seem to recognize that we were the victims of his dude, nor that his criticizing Michael rather than admonishing his friend played out that he agreed with the friend's comments.

Later that night I visited the friend, and rather than deal with the situation at hand, I was given a bag of red herrings. 1. That Michael and I are too judgmental of his friends, and that this necessitated him having to find a new place to live farther away from us, in addition to not introducing any more friends to us; 2. We bring up his friends to other friends of his and to our own friends, and he felt that was gossiping; and 3. That Michael  is the person at fault for not reacting at the time to his guy friend in a harsher manner, and for his style of dress provoking flirtation. He also mentioned not liking me mentioning him on my blog, thus the no name. (Regarding the story, this is my story, and I am going to write about it whether he likes it or not).

After much conversation, and several weeks of pussy footing around the situation, we finally all talked (not the dude). At first our friend admitted nothing wrong, and expected us to apologize. Michael and I did apologize for bringing up the comment in front of B4b, and for bringing up other friends in front of his friends, and for being "judgmental" (although we don't see it as such).

We got an apology that began with "I'm sorry you got hurt, but..." and then listed why we should not be upset. Mind you we were not holding him accountable for his friend, but for his reaction and his comments on Easter. Again the "naivety" of Michael was blamed for the situation, as well as his clothing. In addition we were told that the opinion expressed was only an "opinion" and is as prevalent as anuses.

Michael left the situation, and I was bombarded with how the two of them could not be friends because of Micahel's reaction to this friend's apology. I stood up for Michael. Michael came back and demanded an apology. Rather than brushing off the situation, the tearful red herring of "y'all are my only friends here" was brought up as a reason for moving on. Still no admittance that the comments were wrong and hurtful to us.

Finally we got a vague "I apologize for everything I've done". I am sure you have heard many people say that such a blanket apology is not really one at all, as it does not give any ownership to the actual deeds done.

We left that night with Michael needing time to think. I go back and forth from finding the apology suitable, to being insulted by it.

If indeed this person cares so much about us, than I would hope he would just swallow up his pride and apologize. Indeed also, if this person cares so much about us he should recognize our hurt.

Upon reflecting on the situation further, I began to question the depth of the friendship. As I looked throughout the time this friend has been near me, I find little white lies appearing that I let go or ignored. I found in the conversations I had with him a lack of understanding regarding the depth of the love Michael and I share with each other. Indeed if this friendship were so deep, he would be able to grasp the many "real world" experiences in just this past year that Michael and I have had to endure.

I just don't see this friendship going on...it is falling. And I don't see him trying to reconcile it at all.

Leftist Invaders

Dear Jack,

Expalin to me how my Church was invaded by people who make Hilary Clinton look moderate to right? Recently I've been upset at the prospect that the leaders of the Church want to allign the church with pro-choice organizations. In addition I'm finding more and more people afraid to proclaim that Jesus Christ and belief in him is essential to the Christian journey. So many seem so concerned about what the non-Christian is going to say when confronted with Christ--well that concer should be abated if the person in question has chosen to come to the Church to begin with. If one goes to a Mosque one expects to hear about Mohammed, and if one goes to a Synagogue, one expects to hear about Moses and the Torah. Thus one would think going to a Church would allow one to hear about Jesus.

In addition, since when does being Gay inclusive = being Baby killers? I am very sorry to all feminists etc, but I will not and cannot condone the innocent death of a child that is in the womb, that DOES feel pain, that (if in the case of rape) is also a victim. Life being endangered... that is more grey. I read rencently something that stands out. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the person is charged with murder and feticide. Yet a doctor is not charged with feticide...only because the woman didn't want to admit that the thing in her is a living entity. Life is indeed sacred, and in a world where people criticize the evils of war and poverty, of pain and rape, of murder and injustices... how can one then align oneself with the death of the innocent.

I want so bad to find a church that is Gay inclusive yet holds to some form of Biblical Christianity where there is belief in Christ and in the Trinity, in the Resurrection, and in the sacredness of life.

Church Sweet Church

Dear Jack,

Well yesterday, Michael and I were welcomed officially to the community at St. Bart's on Park Avenue. This came on a long day where St. Bart's Singers joined the Choiristers and St. Bart's Choir to sing a Missa Brevis by Mozart too. Bob and Dean came also. After the service Bob and one of our choir friends named Michael joined us for lunch. We ate at a mediocre diner on 2nd Ave.

After eating and having a good time talking, Michael and I went with Bob to a Barnes and Noble and hung out there for about two hours. I ended up purchasing an Are You Being Served DVD.

Dean had a friend (also named Michael) come into town. I didn't care for him, as he seemed to want to slut around. He asked me for some justification for his "lifestyle", apparently equating being gay with being a sleazy person. I told him to look at the Bible and see if it addresses Monogamous, Loving, relationships between men. I sort of avoided the answer he was looking for, because there is no way I can or would justify sleeping around as appropriate and condoned lifestyle for anyone, gay or straight. This Michael took Dean to a bathouse and to a private viewing section of a porno store and didn't understand why Dean did not want to do anything there. He did not get that Dean has standards and is not about sleeping around--he doesn't get that there are many other gay men who want to have a Real relationship--not just one-night stands and mindless casual sex with strangers. I'm proud of Dean, although I wouldn't expect any less from him. He has a good heart and a good head on his shoulders. This Michael also further disgusted me when we learned he has a boyfriend to boot. He says he wants to move here, but I hope he does not.

I tend to be a rather tolerant person, especially with regards to other people's misbehavior. I have no respect for infidelity, and a bankrupt stockpile of sympathy for the unfaithful. I do not think that sleeping around is safe, healthy (spiritually, emotionally, physically), or condonable. That being said, I do understand some of the many reasons that cause people to do it. Regardless, when in a relationship with someone one should be faithful--Gay or Straight.

In the end it hurts the movement for Gay Marriage with infidelity. The same is true of heterosexuals who are unfaithful--it is a mockery of marriage too. And indeed those who are the men and women slept with--what do you think you are going to get out of it? If the person could not be faithful with the one, what makes you think they will be faithful with you?

Not all relationships are meant to be. That does not justify infidelity--that justifies fixing or ending the relationship. Infidelity adds to the schism and emotional backlash between the people, and stretches thinly the soul of the one being unfaithful.

State of the Union

Dear Jack,

Last night was the State of the Union, given in its usual pomp and grandeur at the Capital building. I am not certain how I feel about all of it, as there was so much to digest. The imperialism doesn't exactly bother me, although many of my democrat friends probably did not like that. I found the initiatives for the decrease in fossil fuel from the Middle East very good--I only hope it works. I am uncertain what Bush meant by 'Activist Judges' with regards to 'Deigning Marriage', as it sounds like the usual crap regarding that. I wish they'd just let us gay people be normal rather than abstract "activists".

The Democratic Response was horribly delivered. I was more distracted by the Governor's lack of cohesive sentences and oddly raised eyebrow, that I could not take any thing he said seriously. It came across as "Democrats are Good, the Administration is bad, There is a Better Way, and it is doing what we did in Virginia". I don't want our government to be Virginia. That's not saying I am happy with the way things are run, but it's still better than a commonwealth state.

I was shocked that Caleb had not watched it, but he, like myself, does not like the clapping that continuously interrupts the speech. I wish they'd save their applause to the end.

JOB

Dear Jack,

Apparently some places hire you if you know someone in the upper management. Other places find your familiarity with employees intolerable and tell you "we cannot hire you because you are linked to So-And-So". I wish I could find the first scenario. Alas, I've been denied a job because it would be in the same department as Michael. It doesn't matter that they are desperate for help, or that I am more than qualified, nor that Michael and I are not yet partners. We are too close for comfort apparently. And thus I still have no decent job, and soon will be moved from this assignment.

Rantings on Phones

Dear Jack,

I am not wholly certain I understand the big deal people seem to be making regarding the government listening in on our conversations. Thinking back to the era of the 50s, 60s, and 70s sitcoms, I recall many shows in which the switch board operator would listen to the conversations of people. What was always the moral? Don't assume no one is listening. For all intensive purposes, I would guess people from our local phone companies could hear our conversations. They however are not given the charge by the people to protect the people.

So the government has to/has been/will be listening on to conversations...unless one has something to be hiding, what does it matter? I can't see President Bush eavesdropping on my phone conversations with Michael. Most likely those bugged, are those whom have some questionable character and for the safety of national security, probably should be watched.

In addition, people are so concerned about phones--yet on the internet it is very capable to see what websites and emails are accessed by an individual. So Mr. and Mrs. America, what are you fearing? What infringement on your liberties is there? Suggestion, don't talk about your plots to overthrow the government and establish a new world order on the telephone, and you'll have nothing to worry about. Seriously--people think that they must be the Hot Stuff to think anyone cares about their mundane conversations.

Anyway, enough of that rant.

Waiting Stinks

Dear Jack,

I hate this. I have been waiting and waiting for the bishop to contact me regarding my postulancy and what I should be doing, if anything. He has supposed to have been contacting me since before Thanksgiving, but I've heard nothing.

In addition I still have not heard back from General about my enrollment verification from them so I don't have huge fees to pay for my loans. Gladys was cold on the phone before Christmas when I last talked with her, saying she'd get it done in a week, but I've heard nothing since.

It feels as if the Church has turned against me, and I feel pissed... angry at Farwell and Porter for their alleged allegations against me. I feel very distanced and strained.

Moving Sucks Lemonheads

Dear Jack,

Today at 1 I was called and told that I am moving at 1:30. I was a bit surprised as I was scheduled to move out this coming Wednesday. They said it may rain and so they had to do it today. So... being wholly unpacked, I began packing. Luckily Marta gave me some boxes before she left. About 2:30 they showed up to start taking things. I was a little flustered by then, having nearly packed my entire apartment in two hours. They took a load to my new room. They came back (about 3:15) and said, "Well we need to know what is essential for tonight, cause we'll have to get the rest tomorrow...so what do you need us to take now?" Well I had no idea. I had packed in such a hurry that things were in various boxes throughout two residences now. I had them take my mini fridge and my futon, and my linens over to the new place. I started getting worried, as the reason for the move today was because they could not do it Wednesday because it is supposed to rain Tuesday and Wednesday. That got me wondering... how are they going to move me on a day when it is raining? When will I actually get moved? So getting frustrated I called the Chaplain to talk to her and see if she had any insight or way to relieve my stress.

She called the lady in charge of housing, and we learned that the people had misquoted her. She had asked them to move the "Non-Essential" but they moved the "Essentials". She understood my frustration. Yet there was nothing that could be done except to move everything back to my old room because there are women living on the hall where I am moving to who have not moved out yet. And they don't want to go to the bathroom and risk me seeing them in their nightgowns. It doesn't matter that the bathroom is a one-occupancy bathroom with a lock, or that I have no interest in them whatsoever. It's policy. And Policy is a demi-god apparently.

So here I sit now, in my old place on a beanbag chair. I have no idea when the rest of my stuff will be moved, as they do not move when it rains. I have decided that it is ok. I went over to my new place and unpacked all that was taken over there. It actually is working out over there--much more friendly and welcoming than this drab empty place.

Prayers:

Brandon - For healing and good spirits.

Bobbie - For healing and good spirits.

Wanda - For healing and good spirits.

George - For healing and good spirits.

Tommy - For healing and good spirits.

Joe - For curing of addictions.

Fidelis Fit

Dear Jack,

I miss the suburbs today. I miss my old doctor today. I am trying to get medically approved for CPE and volunteering, but it is literally taking forever. I hope I can do it. My insurance is Fidelis, and it has been a pain in the butt to schedule a simple physical. Indeed my primary doctor assigned me said she has no intention of meeting with me as she's not taking new patients (this after two weeks of waiting). I went to the Health Center at St. Vincents with an appointment, and they had all my info except the appointment when I got there. It is if someone is trying to make me go insane just getting a simple physical. Back home I could just walk into a doctor and poof... get the physical... and all is done. I so fear this not working out... it is so aggravating.

End.

Dear Jack

A friend of mine has notified me they can no longer be my friend due to the wishes of their parents. The reason being I am gay and I was finding the person charming. In addition, I am aware that this weblog is viewed by the same family. I am not sure I understand it all. But it is something I am used to, and I can live with that.

I do want to reiterate that my dealings with this friend have been upstanding and rooted in the discussion of God and of music. Among friends in New York City, it is hard to find those who are Christian and willing to accept a gay man's spiritual journey as just that... a spiritual journey. I myself share a different view of Christianity than you do, yet I am more than certain we agree on one thing--Christ came to save sinners.

I am an Episcopalian and it is not a common phrase for us to say "born again" or that we are "saved". Yet I am a former Southern Baptist, and I do know what is meant by those, and am BOTH. I acknowledge Christ as my personal Savior, that he is God, and that he came and died for our sins, and physically rose again from the dead, destroying death, and ascended into heaven. Indeed I believe Christ to reside in my heart, and I pray to God and walk with Christ daily in my journey.

I hold no ill feelings towards anyone in this. I understand your motives, and ask that you pray for me, that God will work God's will in my life. I will continue to thank God for having had the friendship with your son/brother. And I will pray that you will one day God will reveal to you that I am a Christian despite my sexuality.

Until then, feel free to read my journal if you want. It is directed towards all of my friends. It is open for all to read, for I've nothing to hide. I feel that hiding things from people often adds to an idea of scandal. I am not a person of scandals.

To all other readers, walk in love.