The Republic of T.

It goes without saying that becoming a parent changes you in countless ways. I’ve heard it described as having your heart walking around outside of your body. I’ve heard it said that you learn to love in a way you never did before, and you learn to fear in a way you didn’t before. I know that becoming a husband and a father made me a lot more emotional than I’d ever been. I can access emotions now that seemed to be permanently walled off. I knew something was up the day I found myself crying while watching an episode of Oprah.

I’ve also developed a kind of “parent radar” or at least that’s what I call it. That is, I don’t just keep up with my own kid. When we’re out at a park, playground or social event. I keep an eye out for other kids too. It’s like I automatically scan the area and figure out which kids belong with which adults. (And which adults, at a playground or a park, aren’t there with a kid, a dog, or their jogging shoes.) And out of the corner of my eye I’ll spot a kid rushing headlong in to danger. Once I saw a toddler about to get hit by a bicycle—neither the bicyclist or his mother saw him in that moment—and pulled him out of the way just in time.

Maybe it’s because I see a little of my own children in every other child I see. Maybe I see that same vulnerability, and I’d want someone to look out for them if I wasn’t there. Maybe it’s not that unusual. No one wants to see a child hurt. Or at least most people don’t. Who wouldn’t try to save a child from harm, even if it’s not their own? After all, not being a parent doesn’t mean preclude anyone from loving or caring a child. And, unfortunately, being a parent—even to children they’ve conceived and birthed—doesn’t make some people any more inclined or equipped to deliver the love and care that comes after conception and deliver. Thus, this series.

child abuse, children, civil rights, courts, current events, family, gay rights, marriage, politics, same-sex marriage

(more…)

In many ways, when it comes to the presidential primaries, I feel like I “don’t have a dog in this fight.” But it’s interesting to me that some people are already declaring the Democratic primaries a two person race. And, apparently, to some gay voters the candidate’s differences on DOMA are “minor.”

As Georgia voters prepare to head to the polls on Feb. 5 to take part in what’s been dubbed Super Duper Tuesday, when more than 20 states hold their presidential primaries, many local gay leaders are speaking out with public endorsements.

With Hillary Clinton fresh off a crucial win in New Hampshire and Barack Obama still riding on his win in Iowa, local gay voters acknowledge they are torn between the two.

Both Democratic presidential candidates claim nearly the same stance on gay issues such as repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as providing legal protections for gay couples. But John Edwards, also a strong gay rights supporter, seems to have lost his footing in the race, according to University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock.

In a race where none of the “leading” candidates support marriage equality, and the candidates who do support marriage equality get almost no support in terms of contributions or votes, the matter of repealing DOMA becomes—or should become—more important.

current events, elections, family, gay rights, politics

(more…)

You gotta wonder how the folks at Lifeway Research—the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention felt about these survey results. Especially that last question.

(more…)

The last few months have been eventful ones for our family, as we were devastated by the loss of one baby and then blessed with the arrival of another; Dylan. When I look at Parker—the little boy he’s grown into, and the great big brother he’s already showing himself to be—and I look at Dylan—how vulnerable he is and how he’s changing and getting stronger every day—I’m amazed that some people like the Maryland Court of Appeals would deny my family equal rights and protections because the hubby and I did not and could not conceive either of the two children we will spend the next 18 years or so raising, and the rest of our lives loving.

“Looking beyond the fact that any inquiry into the ability or willingness of a couple actually to bear a child during marriage would violate the fundamental right to marital privacy recognized in Griswold, 381 U.S. at 484-86, 493, 85 S. Ct. at 1681, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation.”
-Judge Glenn Harrell, Jr.

Now, the court ruled that my family doesn’t have the right to marriage equality, but basically left it to the Maryland legislature. And even though the proposed gay marriage ban died in the legislature in 2006 and marriage equality legislation won has early support this year, it’s unlikely that anything will pass this year.

(more…)

The hubby and I are alternating our family leave time, so that we’re both at work a few days a week this month. It’s pretty much the way we handle all of our parenting duties, and it seems like second nature to us. But it’s interesting when we talk to people, because we’re almost invariably asked “How do you handle getting up at night?”, and individually, we’re asked “How many diapers have you changed?” The answer is that we take turns getting up at night when Dylan’s hungry because neither of us is nursing, and who changes diapers depends on either (a) which of us is taking care of Dylan at the moment or (b) has a free hand. Though often if I changed the last diaper then the hubby will take the current one, or vice versa.

Because there’s no gender-based division of labor in our house. Who takes care of Dylan and/or Parker, who changes diapers, who makes bottles, makes dinner, does laundry, loads the dishwasher, etc., has more to do with who prefers to do it or has time at the moment than which chromosome we were born with.

All the above was to say that today’s my day to be at home with Dylan, so between taking care of him and getting a little work done during his naps, I’m probably not going to be blogging much today. But it’s been a while since I’ve done a round up of what I’ve been reading lately. Now seems like as good a time as any.

(more…)

Matt has an interesting point, as he voices his frustration with the post Iowa chatter about “post-partisan” and “post-ideological” voters in the wake of Obama’s Iowa Victory. It’s one that I lamented the lack of support for the most progressive candidate in the race, but I don’t think I put it as succinctly as Matt did, after running down the numbers he says prove that liberals and progressives handed Obama his Iowa victory.

Obama’s self-identified liberal supporters aren’t even willing to claim what exit polls clearly show to be the case: Obama won because of liberals. Among moderates and conservatives in Iowa, Obama led Clinton by only a 31%-30% margin, while among liberals, Obama led 38%-25%. Without liberals, this Obama surge wouldn’t be happening.

This brings me to one of my major problem with Obama: if his campaign and his supporters can’t even credit liberals and progressives for a victory they quite obviously delivered to him, then what possible credit or influence will liberals and progressives ever receive in an Obama White House? Iowa progressives and liberals just handed the nomination the Barack Obama, and his campaign won’t even give them credit. In fact, Obama’s progressive supporters seem to, in large measure, have been convinced to not give themselves credit, either. If the campaign won’t promote progressivism now, and if it has the ability to convince progressives to shift credit for their victory to a false post-partisan and post-ideological narrative, how can we ever think that Barack Obama will promote progressivism? If you are interested in having an ideological progressive movement, that is a question that should worry you.

It does worry me. It’s worried me for a while.

(more…)

It’s been a while since I blogged about blogging or, more specifically, about the various tiers/levels/castes of blogging. In fact, it’s been since I blogged about the myth of the flat blogosphere. Not the first time, mind you, but now that that myth has been declared by folks with more authority than me there’s little need to write about it again. But also because of a realization I had, that came around the time of the Clinton blogger lunch controversy, and finally voiced when I wrote about blog amnesty day.

It’s been a long time since I’ve focused on the subject at length; that’s mostly because I’ve found it has little to no effect, and partly because I got the sense that people were tired off reading about it. Most of all, I finally realized a few things: the topics I blog about and the kind of blogging I do will never attract a huge audience, and if attracting a huge audience would most likely mean changing what I blog about and how I blog. I’ve decided against the latter.

I’m not one of those people, and I’ll never be one of those people, because I’m not willing to change what I’d need to change to be one of those people. I don’t hang with them, I don’t roll with them, and I’ve pretty much stop listening or participating in their conversations. Kos and Atrios don’t know me from Adam. And that’s fine.

And now I wonder if there aren’t some things that come with the territory of being “one of those people,” like blog-related stress and heart attacks.

(more…)

Or else. That’s what I thought when I read about John and Cynthia Burke, after someone linked to the article in a comment on my post at Pam’s.

After six years of childless marriage, John and Cynthia Burke of Newark decided to adopt a baby boy through a state agency. Since the Burkes were young, scandal-free and solvent, they had no trouble with the New Jersey Bureau of Children’s Services—until investigators came to the line on the application that asked for the couple’s religious affiliation.

John Burke, an atheist, and his wife, a pantheist, had left the line blank. As a result, the bureau denied the Burkes’ application. After the couple began court action, however, the bureau changed its regulations, and the couple was able to adopt a baby boy from the Children’s Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange.

(more…)

This is interesting. Isn’t it?

I grabbed that shot yesterday. It’s the results of an online poll at the Democratic Party of Virginia’s website. Granted, it’s an online poll, so it’s not anywhere near scientific.

But it’s still interesting that Dennis Kucinich beats out Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. What’s even more interesting is that the poll is still open.
(more…)

One video is worth another.

This is a voice you won’t hear during the upcoming presidential debate on ABC.
(more…)

I know I’m all kinds of late with this. (Gimme a break. I’ve got a newborn in the house. It’s either a miracle or a sign of serious addiction that I’m blogging at all.) And he’s not my first choice as a candidate. But, damn.

Even if he doesn’t win the nomination or the oval office, Thursday night Barack Obama stepped into history, and basically took the rest of the country with him.

Someone asked a co-worker of mine yesterday, “Did you ever think you’d live to see the day?” Well, I was pretty sure I would. (And will.) But last night was a pleasant surprise, not to mention inspiring.

Like I said, he’s not my first choice as a candidate, but I can see what draws people to support him.

Now that the Iowa caucuses are over, I’ve noticed posts on several of the blogs on my regular reading list with titles blaring “So-and-So for President” or “Why I’m Supporting Such-and-Such,” followed by reasons why candidate This-and-That deserves even more support. I guess it’s to be expected, now that the presidential campaign has begun in earnest.

However, I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon, for a couple of reasons. First, I’ve already declared who I’m supporting in the primaries. And, second, I already know my candidate isn’t going to get the nomination, because he doesn’t even have the support of progressives who hold the same positions he does.

I know, because a few weeks ago I sat around with some other progressives, talking about the election, the issues, and the candidates. Once we went through all the issues, someone asked the question that was hanging in the air, or at least it was in my mind. “So if he’s right on all of the issues, why isn’t Kucinich our guy?” The question got the typical response, but it left another question looming in my mind. If we aren’t voting for what we want, what are we voting for? More to the point, who are we voting for?

2008 election, current events, dennis kucinich, elections, family, gay marriage, gay rights, marriage, obama, politics, same-sex marriage

(more…)

No big surprise here. I stumbled on to GlassBooth.Org [via Living the Scientific Life] and took their quiz, which basically matches you up with three candidates from the current presidential field whose positions are most similar to your own. Here’s what I got.

Sure, these quizzes are often overly simplistic, and don’t ask enough questions. (This one was interesting in that it asked you weigh a list of issues according to their importance to you.) But for what it’s worth, the results for me are pretty accurate.

Just out of curiosity, I decided to see how well matched I am with the rest of the Democratic field.
(more…)

I’ve hinted at it a few times, but hesitated to say anything about it until. Given what happened last time, I’m somewhat reluctant to say much about it even now. But there’s a limit to how long one can keep quiet about major life events.

Over the past month, my blogging has noticeably slowed down. Granted, December is a pretty slow month for blogging in general. There’s the holidays. And then there’s family. In my case balancing family, work, and blogging in the past month has meant that blogging took a lower priority and family took a higher priority. That’s because a month ago today, our family was growing, and we didn’t even know it yet.

(more…)

I should have know better when, in a previous post, I let myself hope that the Pope’s reported focus on exorcisms would divert attention from his usual targerts.

Still I’m kind of hoping it’s true, and that Ratzenberger will go off on a “satanic panic” and leave gay folks and our families alone.

But the Vatican denied that they were taking on Satan in the New Year, so they have plenty of time to demonize families like mine.

(more…)