Month: March 2009

National Organization for Marriage – So Predictable

When I’d heard that the Vermont Senate had passed the marriage equality bill 26 to 4, I knew an email from Brian Brown or Maggie Gallagher wasn’t far behind. And of course my prediction was correct.

Here’s the email:

Dear Anthony,

If we don’t act now, by the end of the week, Vermont could become the first state to adopt same-sex marriage legislatively — without a court order hanging over their heads.

I need two things from you today. It’ll only take about 5 minutes, but your action could make the difference for marriage, not just in Vermont, but in the nation. Once the floodgates open in Vermont, it will be easier for other state legislatures to follow suit.

We need to remind these legislators that their constituents are watching, and that they will be held accountable for their votes. We can’t let them forget that 17 Vermont legislators lost their seats over civil unions in 2000. Urge them to adopt a proposed amendment sending the same-sex marriage bill to the people of Vermont for a vote. Tell them this is too important an issue to ramrod through in just a few days — with no real public debate.

Here’s where things stand: Despite our best efforts, the Vermont Senate passed Senate Bill 115 Monday night on a vote of 26-4. The vote sends the bill to the Vermont House, where the leadership is expected to try to push it through quickly — a committee vote is likely within the next day or two and a vote of the full House may come before the end of the week.

While the Democratic leadership claims to have enough support to pass the bill, our efforts this week are critical. Working together, we can stop this, and at the same time put Vermont legislators on notice that the nation is watching, and that their constituents care about marriage. Even if the leadership succeeds in ramming the bill through this week, the margin of passage is critical. Governor Douglas opposes same-sex marriage, and is considering a veto. The House vote is certain to be closer than the Senate vote, and we need to keep the pressure on.

One legislator told the Burlington Free Press yesterday that he’d received 300 calls and emails about the same-sex marriage bill (an unheard-of number in Vermont!)– and that supporters of same-sex marriage outnumbered opponents by a 2-1 margin! Let’s correct the record, and make sure that every pro-marriage Vermonter contacts his or her legislators today!

Here’s what I need you to do:

1. Contact the members of the Vermont House. If you live in Vermont, your action today is critical. Even if you’ve taken action before, please use this hyperlink to send a message to all 150 members of the Vermont House of Representatives, urging them to respect the voice of all Vermonters, and send this to the people for a vote — not rush it through in just a few days.

Even if you don’t live in Vermont, please send a message letting the Vermont House know that the nation is watching, and urging them to respect the voices of their constituents — let the people vote!

2. Forward this message to every person you know in Vermont! Click here to send this email to five friends! We have three days to get every pro-marriage person in Vermont to contact their legislators, and we need your help!

Thank you for all you’re doing to stand for marriage. The need is urgent, and we couldn’t do it without your help.
Brian Brown

God bless,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542

Be subversive, use NOM’s link to craft your message in support of marriage equality. I did a few minor edits on mine. I also emailed Brown and told him that NOM is now on the losing side.

When Brown says that they need to remind the legislators that their constituents care he’s being disingenuous since the constituents he speaks of HAVE TO BE BUSED IN FROM OTHER STATES!

Troppe Informazioni Martedì numero uno e settanta per cento Nove (TMI #179)

1. Ever Googled a date, a potential date or an ex?

My dating life ended before Google even came about. In fact I think it ended right around the time Alta Vista came into being. However I have googled past dates to see what they’re up to.

2. Do you gossip?

Not really. I’ll certainly listen to gossip but there is just too much real information out there to be discovered than to pass on gossip.

3. How many people do you completely trust?

Just two. Keyron is one of them, and my friend Ky the other.

4. Have you ever had sex in car?

Yes as a matter of fact I have. Non moving though. I don’t trust myself to drive when in ecstasy.

5. What is your best flirting technique: innuendo, telling a dirty joke, talking about sex life, or physical contact?

I’d have to say talking about my sex life. But then I’ve been told I’m naturally flirty so I really don’t know what my technique happens to be.

Bonus (as in optional): How many times is the most you have ever had sex in a 24 hour period?

Eleven. Yes I know, I was a freak of nature when I was younger. Are we talking total number of discrete incidents, or total number of orgasms?

I was known for marathon sessions when I was in my early to late 20’s. Probably has lots to do with that testosterone that surges through an Italian-American guy.

Now playing: G.Q. – Disco Nights (Rock Freak)
via FoxyTunes

Yet another Great Quote

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful”

– Roman philosopher Seneca – Science and Reason over Myth and Superstition.

I assume this is Seneca the Younger, born 6BCE and died 65CE. He pretty much sums up my view of religion. And would someone please explain to me why Obama has not yet dismantled the Office of Faith Based Initiatives? That’s a Bush era creation and has no place in the secular White House.

Now playing: IMC SOUL feat. Dawn Pemberton – Travelin
via FoxyTunes

Yet another Epiphany

The most recent epiphany is that the Providence Journal now allows you to register and comment on stories, letters, editorials and things of that nature.

Apparently there was a scuffle in which the Principal of a local middle school was punched and bitten by a parent.

Here are some of the more ignorant comments attached to the article:

dizgusted in pvd 6 minutes ago wrote:

Hey GRACE & JANU (Diaz & Pichardo) – WHY ARE YOU ALL CLAMMED UP NOW? YOUR ” COMMUNITY” SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED!! And if you don’t like being all lumped into one category of ungrateful, ignorant, lower-than-animal life forms, one of you so called “community leaders” better get your “people” to start behaving or else GET THE HE_L OUT! EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU D.R. PITA’s!

Or maybe this:

LUCIA88 43 minutes ago wrote:

OK MOSELEY HOW DOES IT FEEL. You didn’t give Perkins a chance, now I am glad you are getting a taste of your own medicine…….this will not stop until the illegals are stopped from going to our schools which are paid for by our taxes. WHEN WILL THIS STOP. WHERE IS ICE……ITS ENOUGH.

And for final effect:

Isthisajoke 56 minutes ago wrote:

Most of the gang violence is from illegals and the schools are out of control because of the illegals. Wise up and send them all back to their native and precious countries.

I need to remind these people of something. The immigrant issue started in RI in the mid to late 1970’s with refugees from Guatemala, Venezuela, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and so on.

Yes many of those initial immigrants probably started out as an illegal. But they’ve built lives here and more importantly they had children here.

Here’s an interesting part of U.S. Immigration law. You can be 8 months and three weeks pregnant, so long as your delivery happens here in this country, your child is a U.S. citizen.

I hate to keep reminding people of this but if you live in RI and your last name is Murphy, Smith, or tends to end in a vowel, you’re likely a child, grandchild great, or great-great grandchild of an immigrant.

It took nearly 70 years for the Italian enclave of Federal Hill to start doing business with the English speaking world. Same for the French Canadians in Woonsocket.

The Latino and Asian immigrants have only been here for about 30 years so far. I can see the changes happening because I’m here on the ground with it and even have some language skills in both Spanish and Italian. Io Sono Americano but of Italiano descent.

I remember coming to Federal Hill as a child, the language was Italian. But then the merchants started realizing that speaking English was the way to generate more business traffic.

The same is true of the Spanish speaking groups, their kids know both languages and the kids of those kids will more likely than not know only English.

Lets look beyond the language and cultural issues and look at the more sociological issues. Lets make sure that everyone can obtain a living wage job. Make sure that the safety net programs aren’t dismantled. Make sure they are values members of the society.

Federal Hill now is a little alien to me though, particularly restaurant row on Atwells Avenue. You see Bentley, Bugatti, etc. vehicles parked on the street. Yet on Broad St. in Providence you see numerous businesses, it very much reminds me of the way Federal Hill used to be.

So if you’re going to post a comment on a news story, at least have some background to your racist and anti-immigrant screed.

An exchange with NOM

I read on the Marriage Equality blog that the National Organization for Marriage is once again protesting against equality in Maine.

Here’s the text of the email from Brian Brown, whose position in NOM is in flux.

After watching the way things have developed over the past several weeks, I’m faced with a stark reality in the Northeast: If we don’t act now, one or more New England state legislatures is likely to adopt same-sex marriage this year.

The threat is urgent and immediate. A same-sex marriage bill in Maine now has 60 co-sponsors — 40% of the state house members. In New Hampshire and Vermont, gay marriage advocates have been gradually building support for years. A leading gay marriage group in the Northeast believes they will achieve same-sex marriage in all 6 New England states by 2012 — their “6 by 12” plan.

But I’m confident that with your help we can turn things around, and that’s why yesterday NOM launched its 2009 Northeast Action Plan.

With same-sex marriage legislation pending in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, the first phase of the plan kicked off with a round of radio ads airing throughout those three states, urging voters to contact their state legislators in opposition to the same-sex marriage bills. The ads are timed to coincide with a week of hearings on same-sex marriage in Vermont as well as upcoming committee votes in Maine and New Hampshire.

The ads are the first in what will be a series of targeted advertising buys throughout the Northeast throughout 2009 as legislatures consider measures to redefine marriage. The ads not only help to organize grassroots opposition, but also serve notice to state legislators that their support for gay marriage will not go unnoticed.Donate

Will you help fund our Northeast Action Plan? Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation of $35, $50, or $100 today!

The ads open with a child asking questions about same-sex marriage: “If my Dad married a man, who would be my Mom?” Listeners then hear an urgent marriage alert, asking them to contact their legislators in opposition to the same-sex marriage bills pending in the three states.

While California was the focus throughout 2008, the Northeast promises to be ground zero in the marriage debate throughout 2009 and 2010, as state legislatures in not only Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, but also in Rhode Island, New Jersey and New York, consider bills to legislative create same-sex marriage in those states.


If you live in one of the Northeast states, and haven’t yet contacted your legislators, please do so today! Visit to get started. In five minutes or less you can make your voice heard with an email to your own legislators, as well as the committee members considering the marriage bills.

But there’s work for all of us to do! Even if you don’t live in the Northeast, we need your help to stop one of these states from becoming the first state to legislatively adopt same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage affects all of us — already gay marriage advocates are using same-sex marriages from Massachusetts to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

We know that the American people don’t want gay marriage — they’ve rejected it now in 30 out of 30 states where they’ve had a chance to vote. But many elected officials, especially in New England, think that people just don’t care enough about same-sex marriage, and that they can vote for same-sex marriage to please a vocal minority without any real opposition from the majority that oppose it.

So tell your friends in New England to visit to send a letter to their elected officials.

And please make a generous donation to our Northeast Action Plan today! We were all able to stand together in California and succeed where few thought it possible. We need your help again today to stop same-sex marriage before it gets started in New England state legislatures. And unlike in California, gifts to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan are not publicly disclosed.

Will you please make your most generous contribution today? Your gift of $35, $50 or even more will go a long way to making sure that we have the resources to succeed in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and elsewhere. Perhaps you could afford $10 or $20 a month for the rest of 2009 — think one less meal out per month — in order to help save marriage! Please click on the button below to make your generous donation today!


We’re working to raise $1 million to finish funding our Northeast Action Plan for 2009. This will allow us to work with state groups on the ground in these critical states, providing the resources needed to help organize the grassroots, provide targeted online contact capability for reaching elected officials, and offer public messaging consultation based on research from California and elsewhere.

Will you stand with us again today?
Brian Brown

God bless,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542

I replied back to him and cc’d Magge Gallagher:

Of course NOM is active in this one. This part really struck me though:

“Opponents say gay marriage would undermine traditional male-female marriage, rendering men and women interchangeable and destroying the connection between children and marriage. They want the question put to voters in a referendum.”

I have questions and comments on that passage and I plan on emailing this to NOM to get their take on it, wait, I don’t need to do that since this has NOM’s fingerprints all over it.

Could someone please explain how same-sex marriage will undermine male-female marriage? Does my marrying my partner of the last 16 years dilute your marriage in any way? I think not.

The part about men and women being interchangeable, isn’t that what equal rights are all about? That you’re not treated differently whether gay, straight, man, woman, black, white, red, orange or what have you? Do women really want to be relegated to 2nd class citizenship again?

As far as destroying the connection between children and marriage, I think this group needs to step back and look at the divorce issue and allow we gay people the benefits of marriage. The benefit to bury our husband or wife when that day comes without waiting over a month, the right of power of attorney for medical decisions that automatically flows from marriage.

But most of all I want the right to have those rights and privileges assigned to me under my state constitution. And I have a little surprise for NOM should they decide to show up en masse at the House hearing in RI. You’ll see when you get there.

Maggie sent a response:

When you change the defintiion of marriage in law, you change it for everyone, not just for you.

The idea that marriage really matters because children need mothers and fathers–the great cross-cultural historic idea and ideal of marriage–will be repudiated by the law and the government.

You still won’t be married in my own view, because the union of husband and wife is not extrinsic–a qualificstion to entry–it is intrinsice–what marriage actually means.

But now my government will teach my children and grandchildren that my idea–the great historic publc purpose of marriage–is just bigotry and discrimination.

You will have privatized the only good reason for government to be involved in marriage in the first place.

You are free right now to have a marriage ceremony, and to get the equivalent rights and benefits. What’s at stake is whether third parties (like me) are going to be forced by law to change the meaning of marriage to accomodate your views about what it should mean.



Ok, now it’s time for me to pick apart the response. I just had to give you all the background to this.

We’re not advocating change of the definition of marriage. What we are advocating is changing the pre-requisites of marriage.

We are in no way denying that children should have parents, be they man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. For all the studies done by psychs on your side that support bigotry we’ve got twice as many from the psychiatrists and psychologists who don’t have such a religious bent to their worldview.

The government will do no such thing, society in general will. Face it Maggie, you’re fighting a losing battle and you are a bigot who doesn’t know how to use spell check.

I don’t understand the paragraph about privatizing. The only reason government is interested in marriage is because it maintains the social order, not the religious order.

The last paragraph gives it away. It isn’t about accommodation, it’s about my rights. You don’t have to recognize my marriage same as how I don’t have to recognize yours. But when it comes to the benefits derived through marriage I will not be denied any longer.

It will be interesting to see her response to mine.

And I’ve gotten a response:

No you are not. You are changing the public meaning of marriage. If you can’t acknowledge that, you can’t even understand (naturally! as you say you can’t) the point of view of people who disagree with you.

You’ve already redefined marriage so its opposite-sex nature is not extrinsic, not intrinsic, an entry requirement not part of its meaning.. I understand that. I think therefore you literally cannot understand what you are asking of those who disagree with you. Nobody can make you understand the disagreement if you refuse to. I don’t mean you have to agree with me on substance, but you literally cannot understand the disagreement if you cannot acknowledge that this changes for mamy many people what marriage means.

I alas cannot personally correspond at length with every person who writes to me. I hope you appreciate the courtesy of a personal reply.

Take care,


To which I responded:

It isn’t just me.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Quite frankly I’m asking those who disagree to stop trampling on my constitutional rights. Is that so hard to understand?


Another Baby Boom?!?

This is interesting. Apparently 2007 marked the beginning of yet another Baby Boom (or Boomlet).

Put it this way, just in the circle of my family and friends I have three nephews under 2 years old, a second cousin under 2, and my cousin and his wife are expecting another child.

But there are some interesting points in the article such as:

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. Some cited a growing trend among all adult women to have children regardless of their marital status.

How come the religious aren’t yammering about that little statistic? What, what, a one parent family? What?

The last paragraph of the quote is more telling. The first sentence, that they may be living together without being married. Why that’s a sin according to the religious nuts.

My theory is as an economy craters there is less money for entertainment. The only option left is to fuck. And if there is no money for entertainment then there is no money for contraception.

The bright side of this is that there will people to pay off the deficits left us by Bush & Co.

Troppe Informazioni Martedì numero Cento e Settanta Otto (TMI #178)

Didn’t I just do one of these? I’m time tripping a bit, as evidenced by the time stamp on this post.

1. Don’t tell us what it is, but do you have a sexual secret you have never told anyone?

Nope. No secrets here.

2. Do you have a nonsexual secret you have never told anyone?

You mean where did I bury the bodies? Nope.

3. Did you ever tell someone a secret only to have them spill it? What were the repercussions?

Nobody has ever done that. Sure my father had to tell the whole family I was gay but the reality of that was he actually did me a big favor by doing that.

But otherwise, nobody has ever ratted me out.

4. Did you ever spill a secret someone told you? What were the repercussions?

Never have, never will which makes answering the next question easy.

5. Tell us a secret someone told you, however along ago, that you’ve never told. (You can disguise name or details)

If I told you I’d have to shoot you.

Guess it means I’m the soul of discretion.

BTW, I note the TMI’s are hit or miss lately. I think it’s just running its course.

Why Marriage Equality is a Constitutional Issue

I’ve said again and again, the inability of gay people to marry or seek civil divorce violates our Constitutional rights. If truth be known, in RI it violates Article 1 Section 2, and it also violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

My cousin Tom sent me this article that analyzes the Connecticut courts reasoning and defines the Quasi Suspect Class argument.

Here’s a very relevant part of the article. It’s two paragraphs but here goes:

The opponents of same gender marriage argued that the legislature has a compelling interest in retaining the term ‘‘marriage’’ to describe only the legal union of a man and woman because ‘‘that is the definition of marriage that has always existed in Connecticut, and continues to represent the common understanding of marriage in almost all states in the country.’’ In addition, they argued that the authority to define marriage rests with the people and their elected representatives and not with the courts.

The Court disagreed, stating that “to say that the discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake’. Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination—no matter how entrenched—does not make the discrimination constitutional. Moreover, because gay persons meet all of the criteria of a quasi-suspect class they are entitled to heightened judicial protection from laws that discriminate against them. Even though the right to marry is not enumerated in our constitution, it long has been deemed a basic civil right.”

I’ll address the first paragraph, specifically the usual phrase that the “people and their elected representatives reserve the right”

But what does one do when you cannot get redress to grievance from a representative body? That’s the reason we have the courts. Put it this way, were we to be granted the right to marry by our legislative body you can be damned sure those bigots against us would be filing a court case to overturn the law. You’d have groups like the National Organization for Marriage (There’s the oxymoron again!) filing amicus briefs, you’d have the RC Church of RI probably initiate the suit or vice versa.

The second paragraph needs no explanation or expansion.

Odd what a few questions uncover

You Are the Philosopher

You love thinking things over and developing theories.
Learning is very important to you, and you pursue knowledge relentlessly.

You love to talk about the things you know, often in more detail than people would like to hear.
And you know a lot! You’re always taking on new subjects, interests, and hobbies.

You are at your best when you are left alone to ponder your newest ideas and experiments.
You tend to withdraw from environments that are loud, contentious, or passionate.

This one is scarily accurate. Well, actually the last paragraph is wrong.

I don’t withdraw from loud environments, and I love contentious and passionate things.

But the rest of it, pretty much right on.

Troppe Informazioni Martedì numero e un centinaio di settantasette (TMI #177)

1. Are you pro-marriage? Why or why not?

I’m a little confused on this. When it says pro marriage I automatically translate that to marriage equality meaning gay people can marry other gay people.

I fully support marriage equality.

2. Have you ever invented or thought you invented a sexual position?

No, I’m more one to re-write the Bible as evidenced by a prior post than to re-write the Karma-Sutra.

3. Do you like to be tied up? Always or sometimes?

Occasionally. The loss of control is quite interesting.

4. Do you consider online cybering adultery?

No I do not. Flying fingers aren’t adultery.

5. Do you prefer masturbation over real sex?

They’re about equal in my view of things. But then for guys the ultimate goal is to pop a nut so either/or.

6. Do you want sex more times a day than your partner?

Nope. It happens when it happens.

7. Do you get offended when you partner openly flirts with others or are you okay with it?

I’ve never seen Keyron actively flirt with someone. But then I have a filter for that sort of thing so I probably have but just didn’t pay attention to it at the time.

8. Do you think you’re flirty by nature?

I can be. It’s worse when I’m drunk and part of the reason I stopped smoking weed when I was a teen.