Blame the gays...

I've heard this argument so many times. That gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage. I wonder if this is what they meant.

Thanks to Colette for passing this along.

Hats off to Kyle XY

Bobby and I just got done watching this week's episode of Kyle XY. I'll admit - we've both been big fans since the show premiered last summer. It's fun to watch and always leaves you wanting to come back for more. Plus let's face it...Matt Dallas is very attractive.

We were both pleasantly surprised that this week's episode featured a GLBT positive sub-plot. The episode - "Free to Be You and Me" - addressed the issue of banning same-sex couples at high school dances.

The folks at AfterEllen.com did a nice job summarizing:

It starts off with everyone hustling to get their Spring Fling Dance tickets. Lori and Hilary, best friends who have recently had bad experiences with guys they've dated, decide to buy couple tickets. The problem is that the school doesn't allow same-sex couples to buy couple tickets. But the characters aren't deterred; one of the characters Andy (who is probably most open and intelligent) takes it upon herself to set up an alternative dance where orientation doesn't matter.

Adding to all this positive attitude towards different orientations, Lori and Hilary share a kiss!

I'm pleased at how well the producers presented and handled an issue that remains a serious challenge for GLBT youth across the country. The show has handled other issues - such as marijuana, sex and drinking - in a very realistic manner. A departure from the Leave it to Beaver and Growing Pains "after school special" approach. Given that the show airs on ABC Family and not say, HBO or Fox, it has the added bonus of being considered "family friendly" and not relegated to rebel or "kid unfriendly" status.

Not so long ago I was impressed with how another teen/young adult drama - Everwood - handled a GLBT youth related multi-episode story arc involving a young person coming to terms with his sexuality. Everwood, much to my dismay, was brought to a premature end when WB and UPN merged to create The CW (something I have not yet been able to forgive the infant network for).

It was also revealed in this week's Kyle XY episode that one of the aforementioned characters, Andy, has lesbian Moms raising her. They didn't go into details on this yet - something I hope that they will do.

Hats off to Kyle XY for their realistic and appropriate handling of this sensitive, and often poorly handled by TV Execs, issue. I hope that we continue to see important issues facing GLBT youth and children of GLBT families brought forward in a medium still treated as a babysitter and opinion maker.

Ironically...Triangle Foundation's Annual Dinner on September 29th will be, in a way, highlighting the issue of GLBT youth at dances. More details coming soon...

My Gadgets

One of the things that I've been asked by people to blog about (which, by the way, the fact that people have made requests already is surprising to me) is some of my takes on technology and how it impacts both our movement and non-profits in general.

So I'll be trying to address that request as well over time. I'll start by responding to the easiest question to answer that I've received thus far (what can I say...it's a weekend post...I'm being lazy). That question was: "What techno gadgets do you use at work and home?" I have no idea why anyone would be interested...but it was asked and far be it from me to refuse to answer...

My answer comes in the form of this list of gadgets you'll find in my office, in my messenger bag, in my car and in my house...


@ Work

• Dell Optiplex 745 - Intel Core 2 Duo - Mini-Tower - dual monitor - Windows Vista Enterprise - Office 2007
• Dell 1710 printer
• HP Scanjet 4670
• DiskGo! external hard drive

On The Road

• Microsoft Zune 30GB - Black
• Mio DigiWalker C310x
• Palm Treo 700w
• Dell Latitude D420 - Intel Core Duo - Windows Vista Enterprise - Office 2007
• Canon Digital Rebel XT

@ Home

• Dell Dimension 9200 - Intel Core 2 Duo - Windows Vista - Office 2007
• Dell All-In-One 964
• DIRECTV Plus DVR

I should note that most of the my gadgets at home and on the road belong to both my partner and me. Okay - now that I've proven my status as a geek...I'm going to move on...

West Wing takes on Dr. Laura

Oh how I miss The West Wing...

Supremely Bad Court

I propose that we rename both the US and Michigan Supreme Courts to a name that better describes what their recent decisions indicate they are - Supremely Bad Courts.

There are four cases which I find particularly disturbing...


Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Alright, I know it's not exactly popular right now in Michigan to take a stance on Affirmative Action - but what can I say? I've been a big fan of it for years and just because a group from California was able to trick Michigan voters into getting rid of it doesn't mean I've changed my mind. Maybe I'll write about why I think it's a good idea - but that's for another blog entry.

For now I'd like to focus on why this particular ruling was a bad idea. My argument for this is rather simple... I don't think the source of the problem was addressed by the court and I don't think they can address the source of the problem, this ruling was a poor attempt at a bad compromise. These practices were essentially created in response to desegregation and from what I've seen in many schools, we haven't finished solving that problem. While we may not have segregation by policy anymore, we still have it in practice.

I've heard many of the arguments presented by the parents in how this was creating an educational divide and unfair assignments. However, the source of their problems isn't assignments based on race, it's an education system that's failing their children. If the Supreme Court really wanted to solve the problem, they shouldn't have attacked efforts at creating more diverse schools. They should have ruled that our Government is not meeting its obligations to its citizens and therefore our spending budgets should be thrown out. However, given that the Supreme Court doesn't get involved in creating budgets, that is why I believe the real source of the problem presented in this case isn't something the courts can fix. The compromise they presented will do more damage than good.


Morse v. Frederick
Okay really, do you need to ask why a case involving a student's freedom of speech is something I'd be concerned about? Maybe it's just a sign of the times or evidence of the generational divide...but if the courts believe a banner that says "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" encourages drug use...then there are A LOT of other banners, shirts, magazines, etc. that are brought into our schools which they're going to have to get rid of as well.

Plus, I like to think that the student was voicing his stance on the political topic of legalizing marijuana (which I am not indicating my support of one way or another). Perhaps an Olympic Torch event, which was held off school property by the way, isn't the best place to do that, but hey, you've got to start somewhere right? I know he was there on a sort of school sponsored event, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

To be honest, even if he made the statement in his school, I would have supported his right to do so. Why can't he express how he feels about something being legal or illegal while he's in school? Saying that the banner is going to convince someone to run out and buy an illegal drug isn't giving young people enough credit. If we have to accept that someone proclaiming their general, but nonviolent, dislike of GLBT people in written word is protected by freedom of speech, I think we can accept "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" is protected as well.


Michigan Voter ID Law Upheld
The Michigan Supreme Court has decided that in the future, voters in Michigan must present photo identification in order to vote or sign an affidavit swearing to their identity. I'm not 100% sure what they think this will accomplish aside from confusing voters or discouraging them.

If a person is going to commit fraud, why wouldn't they just continue to do so by just signing the affidavit? They were going to be dishonest and vote illegally...but now that they have to sign an affidavit...well forget it. I don't think it's going to stop anyone.

What I do think it will do is deter people who don't understand the whole thing from voting. If people are told they need an ID and they don't have one for whatever reason, they may just decide not to vote. If they show up and forgot their ID, they may just turn around.

Given that voter fraud hasn't been a huge problem in Michigan, but decreasing voter turnout has been a huge problem in Michigan - I think this is the wrong kind of law. Regarding the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling...any barrier to legal voting - such as having a $10 piece of ID - should be struck down by the Court. It's unfortunate that this particular barrier is seen as beneficial to the political party currently favored by a majority of the Michigan Supreme Court Justices.


The bad news about the US Supreme Court is that we're stuck with them for awhile. However, the 2008 election may give us a chance to improve the chances that we won't be stuck with them for too long. The good news about the Michigan Supreme Court is that we elect them! Sadly, many people in Michigan don't seem to realize it, but we are one of the few states that actually does elect our Justices.

The top of the ticket isn't the only place that deserves our attention. So I encourage...no...I beg you to please read up on all of the candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court and keep in mind the impact that they have on our state.