I support Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee and as the next President of the United States for reasons which I've expressed over the last 6 months. So, most of you here on MyDD know that I'm an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton. But, you don't know that I'm like 1 in 10 Americans who many still refer to as a sinner, a sexual deviant, or as an abomination. So, today, in honor of Gay Pride month, I'm coming out of the closet on MyDD to share my very personal story why I will continue to support and stand by Hillary Clinton.

I grew up in a small town in central Virginia in the 1980's. Luckily, I passed. Passed? Passed as a heterosexual. It helped that I was popular and my quirkiness wasn't questioned. I wasn't subjected to the harassment, bullying, and teasing of which other tomboys or sissies became targets. But what happened to me was just as harmful. I hid. I hid from my family, my friends, and my community. In my last two years of high school, I was confused, alone, and becoming increasingly more depressed to the point of suicidal. By sheer will (and maybe a touch of grace), I made it to college. I started meeting people who were different, men and women who weren't afraid to express themselves outside of the norm, outside of social expectation, outside of heterosexuality. They didn't conform.

[continue over the fold]

By 9 a.m. the Senate gallery was full of up to 250 supporters and opponents of HB9, the Bill that would allow civil unions in New Mexico.  As usual, supporters far outnumbered opponents.

Bill Richardson has the opportunity to prove his negotiatin skills and push through legislation to provide civil unions in New Mexico

We often criticize the Republican Party for being stuck in the 19th Century, while we Democrats are moving forward through the 21st.  On some issues, this is apparently a much too generous assessment of the GOP.  On the issue of sanctioning same-sex unions (most Republicans oppose even the most basic domestic partnership arrangements), it appears the Republicans may be up to 600 years behind the times.

I found this interesting article on Yahoo and though it was interesting enough to post, especially as it was published on the same day as the Larry Craig outing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2007 0827/sc_livescience/gayunionssanctionedi nmedievaleurope

Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe
Mon Aug 27, 12:00 PM ET

"Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania ...

"Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures." ...

The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.

But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships." ...

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that."

There is plenty of commentary as the country's earliest presidential campaign roars ahead on race and gender and whether they stand in the way of getting elected. Despite all of this Hillary and Barack appear to be generating both support and money and are likely, one or the other, to be the next President of the United States.

That, to me, is a wonderful change in American thought. That race and gender should no longer matter and merit can be the deciding factor is a great step forward in civilization.

Then, last night while listening to the LoGo.com Gay and Lesbian Presidential Forum, it dawned on me that the real wall which stands in the way of an intelligent civilization is religion. The question on "gay marriage" was raised with each of the six challengers (Dodd and Biden were not there due to "scheduling conflicts" -- yeah, right!) and the responses we got have to be weighed against the state-by-state arguments currently going on.

[Crossposted at Loaded Orygun, the Oregon journal of politics and culture...]

From the delighfully archaic Rep. Dennis Richardson (HD04), file his latest constituent newsletter under Most Shameless Use of Whiny Hyperbole Ever in History, In Any Universe:

A Tragic Week in Review
This past week has been like no other. On Monday the world witnessed the tragedy at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. On Tuesday Oregon witnessed the passage of Domestic Benefits for same-sex couples (HB 2007) and Civil Rights based on sexual orientation.

!!!!
{jump if you're done retching...}

The new Democratic government in New Hampshire has got its act together and passed a civil unions bill.  While I find the whole notion of "civil unions" to be a scam designed in part to quell demands for actual marriage equality, it's still an important step.

I'm curious what effect people think this will have on the presidential campaign.  Is gay marriage going to be a wedge issue used against the Democrats?  Will any Democratic candidate get a backbone and call out those against civil unions for their bigotry?  And how do the various Democratic candidates feel about civil unions?  How long will it be before a serious presidential candidate decries the whole enterprise and makes the very simple point that being gay doesn't make you any less a person than someone else, meaning if anyone is allowed to get married, gay people should, too?

They mean nothing.

Unless you are willing to move your life, your job, and your home to New Jersey, there is no such thing as protection for you and your partner in Pennsylvania. That would be one of the key reasons Civil Unions at the state level mean little or nothing to me. While they are fine within the home state lines, how do they help me if one or both of us has to travel for work, for vacation, or just because we want to? They don't. They aren't fully portable. Marriages are, and that is why anything else doesn't even qualify as "marriage light" to me.