There are two things that I'm struggling with.
First, is the fear. I don't listen to the radio very much at all. I only listen to it when I'm in the car, which is about 30 minutes every third week or so. But I was listening to my local oldies station last night, and an ad sponsored by the national organization for marriage came on, urging New Jersey citizens to write their representatives and urge them to protect the definition of marriage. I've asked this many times, and i haven't heard a single answer, let alone a good answer. By allowing Clark and me the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage, how does that jeopardize anybody else's marriage? Why do you fear so much, why do you hate so much? The ad pointed out that every popular vote that has come up across the country has resulted in denying equal rights (ok, they didn't phrase it like that, but that's what it means). Do people have such a short memory? Do people not realize that 43 years ago, when the supreme court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage, it wasn't by popular vote. It was a panel of highly educated people, analysing the law, and doing what was right. The ad said that they believed that gays and lesbians should be able to live their lives the way they want to, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry because that'll screw it up for everybody else. Why? Why? Why?!?
Second, who's fighting for me? I mean really fighting for me. The Human Rights Campaign? The American Civil Liberties Union? Maybe it's natural to dwell on the negative, but I'm much more familiar with the National Organization for Marriage and what they're doing. And why is the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund, which they describe as "The NOM Education Fund represents another aspect of NOM's overall effort to protect marriage, engaged solely in pro-marriage education and research, making information resources available to clergy, scholars, political leaders, and activists across the country", a 501(c)(3) organization - a tax deductible "charity". Lobbyists are not tax deductible. How can what they describe not be seen as a lobby? I guess it's a fine line, but I'm pretty sure they're still on the lobbyists side of that line.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Blood? No thanks.
As soon as I turned 17, I started giving blood. Annual school blood drives, church blood drives, work drives. The last time I gave was when I was interning at MetLife, summer of 1998. A few months later, I was no longer desirable. It was a few months later that I became, er, romantically involved with Clark.
Gay men who have ever been sexually active are not allowed to give blood, platelets, or marrow. We're lumped into the same category as those who have sold sex for money or drugs and people who share needles. I've been in a committed, monogamous relationship for over a decade. And I'm at an unreasonable risk for HIV/AIDS.
In response to the AIDS crisis of the 1980's the FDA banned any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood. This 1985 provision argued that men who have sex with other men are at higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and hepatitis, posing a health risk to potential recipients. Thus, even with a needed rare blood type, gay men are prohibited from donating blood. What if a terminally ill patient is in need of a specific blood type and there is a gay man willing to be a donor? Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. The patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the "health risk". How archaic.
Tonight, I went with Jen to Long Island. A friend of ours has a cousin who is in very bad need of marrow. I'll spare the details because frankly, I don't know many of them. But this is a 15 year old kid who is in pretty bad shape. Jen and I went to a blood / marrow drive in Long Island, an hour each way, to register as marrow donors. Jen did, I didn't. I was willing to help, but not given the chance. I suspected that it might be the case, but I thought I'd try anyway. Sure, there's like a 1 in 100,000 chance that i would be a match, but I could help save somebody's life, if not him, then someone else. But I'm too much of an HIV risk.
Now, it presents me with a bit of a moral quandary. I can lie. I can tell them that I've never had sex with a man and give blood or register to donate marrow. I can help save lives. Or I can make a stink about, and make this rule more known. Even though it's clearly printed on the application forms, very few people realize this, that gay men cannot donate. I can make a stink and try and get people to rise up and get the rules changed. But that doesn't help people in the now. What did I do? I returned my application to the volunteers at the front desk and said that I didn't qualify. When asked why, I told why. They were disappointed.
Blood banks in other developed nations have realized that this is really not a wise thing to do, to limit the pool of donors. These regulations were quick to be put into place, but have been slow to be challenged, and will be even slower to be reversed. I wonder when the rules will change in the US and Canada.
Gay men who have ever been sexually active are not allowed to give blood, platelets, or marrow. We're lumped into the same category as those who have sold sex for money or drugs and people who share needles. I've been in a committed, monogamous relationship for over a decade. And I'm at an unreasonable risk for HIV/AIDS.
In response to the AIDS crisis of the 1980's the FDA banned any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood. This 1985 provision argued that men who have sex with other men are at higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and hepatitis, posing a health risk to potential recipients. Thus, even with a needed rare blood type, gay men are prohibited from donating blood. What if a terminally ill patient is in need of a specific blood type and there is a gay man willing to be a donor? Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. The patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the "health risk". How archaic.
Tonight, I went with Jen to Long Island. A friend of ours has a cousin who is in very bad need of marrow. I'll spare the details because frankly, I don't know many of them. But this is a 15 year old kid who is in pretty bad shape. Jen and I went to a blood / marrow drive in Long Island, an hour each way, to register as marrow donors. Jen did, I didn't. I was willing to help, but not given the chance. I suspected that it might be the case, but I thought I'd try anyway. Sure, there's like a 1 in 100,000 chance that i would be a match, but I could help save somebody's life, if not him, then someone else. But I'm too much of an HIV risk.
Now, it presents me with a bit of a moral quandary. I can lie. I can tell them that I've never had sex with a man and give blood or register to donate marrow. I can help save lives. Or I can make a stink about, and make this rule more known. Even though it's clearly printed on the application forms, very few people realize this, that gay men cannot donate. I can make a stink and try and get people to rise up and get the rules changed. But that doesn't help people in the now. What did I do? I returned my application to the volunteers at the front desk and said that I didn't qualify. When asked why, I told why. They were disappointed.
Blood banks in other developed nations have realized that this is really not a wise thing to do, to limit the pool of donors. These regulations were quick to be put into place, but have been slow to be challenged, and will be even slower to be reversed. I wonder when the rules will change in the US and Canada.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
single minded
I appreciate how the economy is very important. I do. But how many congressmen/women do we have? At the federal and state level?
Vermont's Senate has just overwhelmingly passed a bill that will allow same sex marriage in the state of Vermont. From here, it goes to the house, where the judiciary committee has a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It's expected to pass there as well. This is significant because it's the first time that same sex marriage has been granted from a legislative body and not "legislated from the bench by activist judges."
I know, Vermont's (republican) governor doesn't support same sex marriage, he's said that before. He officially announced today that he will veto this bill. He made the announcement today to stop speculation and to focus attention on the economy.
Can't we do two things at once? Vermont has 30 senators (26 of whom voted for this bill). Do all 30 of them have to spend all of their time fixing the economy? I'm a software developer by trade, and if my application has a critical, all 100 developers don't stop what they're doing to fix the problem. People still have progress to make in other parts of the application. Similarly, just because the economy stinks doesn't mean that we can ignore human dignity and civil rights, it doesn't mean we can ignore the environment, it doesn't mean that no other progress can be made until the recession is over. Does it?
And even so, how does vetoing a bill that has already been debated and already passed both houses of congress help to focus on the economy? Seems to me that it detracts from the economy, because now the bill has to go back to the house and senate and get the two thirds majority to override your veto (a majority that it currently already has).
Vermont's Senate has just overwhelmingly passed a bill that will allow same sex marriage in the state of Vermont. From here, it goes to the house, where the judiciary committee has a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It's expected to pass there as well. This is significant because it's the first time that same sex marriage has been granted from a legislative body and not "legislated from the bench by activist judges."
I know, Vermont's (republican) governor doesn't support same sex marriage, he's said that before. He officially announced today that he will veto this bill. He made the announcement today to stop speculation and to focus attention on the economy.
Can't we do two things at once? Vermont has 30 senators (26 of whom voted for this bill). Do all 30 of them have to spend all of their time fixing the economy? I'm a software developer by trade, and if my application has a critical, all 100 developers don't stop what they're doing to fix the problem. People still have progress to make in other parts of the application. Similarly, just because the economy stinks doesn't mean that we can ignore human dignity and civil rights, it doesn't mean we can ignore the environment, it doesn't mean that no other progress can be made until the recession is over. Does it?
And even so, how does vetoing a bill that has already been debated and already passed both houses of congress help to focus on the economy? Seems to me that it detracts from the economy, because now the bill has to go back to the house and senate and get the two thirds majority to override your veto (a majority that it currently already has).
Welcome
So I was trying to write a note on facebook today, but I couldn't find where to do that in the new facebook. I did, however, see a feature that lets you import posts from a blog to your facebook notes! Given that when I started posting facebook notes, it was because I was looking for a blogging feature within facebook (I thought it had one) and didn't find one, I thought I'd give this a go. So here it is. My first blog entry. Thrilling. I know. There will be more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
