My Gay Week

I started off the week, on Saturday, stumbling into the middle of the Gay Pride Parade near the Public Library in Boston. My first reaction: “wow, there are a lot more gays and lesbians in Boston than I thought.” I think that’s part of the point.

I was actually on my way to Restoration Hardware, and while wandering around the store (mini-review: there much less there than meets the eye), a prim elderly woman started to ask me a question about whether “we” still carried a particular item. Then she saw that I was wearing a jacket wrapped around my waist, and that I wasn’t actually an employee. She didn’t apologize; she just mumbled and wandered away.

Joining me in Restoration Hardware were a lot of very nervous looking men in short pants and golf shirts looking like they’d just wandered onto the set of their worst nightmare. Thank goodness for a hardware store; they might have exploded if not for that refuge. I’m as repressed about my sexuality as the next guy, but I like to hope it never comes to that.

I returned to Canada to Prime Minister Jean Chretien telling us that “There is an evolution in society,” and that same-sex marriages will soon be recognized in here. This might be the first time that a head of state has publicly recognized that societies evolve and the rules need to keep up. Bravo. Chretien, leading an anti-war, pro-pot, pro-same sex marriage government is coming dangerously close to being a progressive.

If one examines this issue from a purely aesthetic point of view, I’m with the gays and lesbians hands down. Look at this story from Alberta vs. this story from Ontario. The gay couple in Ontario looks happy, content, and casual. The Alberta Justice Minister looks like the bunged up captain of a sinking cultural ship.

Besides, if we’re going to culturally sidle, why not move towards the Belgians and the Dutch rather than our “not yet at the party” American cousins? Who’s got the cooler society?

As a “not married, but living in a longterm relationship and co-parenting a child with a person of the opposite sex” man, I feel like a whole bunch of new people will be joining a club that I’ve choosen, with Catherine, not to become a member of. Nonetheless, equality, including the equality to marry, is good, and I laud the courts and the federal government for their actions.

I have every confidence that our local government here on PEI will take the high road, and not step back into the dark ages as Alberta has choosen to do. Shame on them.

More sexuality news as situations develop…


Alan's picture
Alan on June 18, 2003 - 17:23 Permalink

Well said. It was quite exciting participating in the review that day as a licence issuing body. The Province here pre-empted any choice which might have been considered by acting a herf=”…“>quickly and decisively. Sadly, others sat on their hands, as I discussed here. Maybe its the wallpaper they have to work within that leads to the deary unhappy look. Alberta’s wacky regressive sexual laws.

Alan's picture
Alan on June 18, 2003 - 17:23 Permalink

Yikes — sorry Peter — ugly HTML. I needs my preview page, buddy.

Dita's picture
Dita on June 18, 2003 - 18:18 Permalink

I love how Canada keeps making may more proud day by day to call this country my home. Whether it’s the strong opposition again war, or the fact that we do recognize that society is changing and there is not much we can do about it, Canada is one hell of a country.

To be honest, maybe I’m living a naive existence, but I’m shocked at the struggle is it taking for people just to have the right to love. Someone on the news said it best when they said the world has excepted gay sex, but not gay love. That’s it ok to have sex, but not to love. And in a world where love is something we so desperately need, my jaw is still on the floor on this one. It was a point so well made. I am a straight person with a lot of gay friends so I often see the struggle they go through. But, how can any of us as humans deny a person the right to share happiness, love and quality time with anyone, no matter what sex they are. I know that this seems like an easy concept to easy to me, and I accept that maybe it is not to others. Religions, beliefs and upbringings will always be diverse and always hold a strong place in society. But I still can’t bring myself to agree with the concept of denying a fellow human the right to love and be in a consenting adult relationship. So for Canada’s efforts at stepping up the plate and saying we are allowing our country to enjoy love and happiness, I say thank you. And good luck with the fight against the appeal for the decision.

Dita's picture
Dita on June 18, 2003 - 18:21 Permalink

and I agree, we need a preview option here. So many typos, I hope my post made sense. I get on a rant and forget to watch what I’m doing.. sorry.

Alan's picture
Alan on June 18, 2003 - 18:31 Permalink

I conldnt agre wth yu mre.

Rob MacD's picture
Rob MacD on June 19, 2003 - 00:29 Permalink

I conldnt agre wth yu mre” …. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Rob's picture
Rob on June 19, 2003 - 01:01 Permalink

Belgians? Cool? I’ve got to side with the Yanks here Peter, really. Belgians!

Rob Paterson's picture
Rob Paterson on June 19, 2003 - 01:52 Permalink

I was upset the other day when I read a letter in the Guardian saying that the bible was against gay marriage. His position was that he was a Christian.

Where in the gospels does Jesus attack gays?

Did not he have a really tolerant view of relationships? What was all that about casting stones? Who were his freends? Who was his special friend who stood at the foot of the cross and who dared go to the tomb? Who said that the church was not a building but in us? Who said that process was not as important as the heart? Who was a rebel and an anti authoritarian figure?

Jesus epitomises tolerance and anti establishment. He died for love — his attack on the establishment took him to the cross.

Now the Old Testament is another thing — but I ask why do so many “Christians” cherry pick the old testament to tell us that as a Christian you must oppose gays.

I hear Jesus being pissed at such an idea

Alan's picture
Alan on June 19, 2003 - 02:01 Permalink

Aside from that, Jesus was clearly anti-banking in the sense of interest and fee for currency exchange. He was not big on the state either. Caesers’ coin and all. Kind of a leftist anarchist. Exactly the guy the average US fundamentalist republican right establishmet guy these days hates. That’s why it takes so much effort to rebrand Him via TV, control of the state, glorifying though wealth accumuation rather than sweat, justifying war. Tough times for Jesus, baby.

Rob Paterson's picture
Rob Paterson on June 19, 2003 - 09:59 Permalink

Yes Alan — the so called religioue right are the antithesis of his teachings and own life — yet they claim their authority from him

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 12:18 Permalink

As a member of the silent majority, I would say nothing more to the new nuptuials then to welcome them to the world of pre-nups, seperation agreements, legal disclosures, exhorbadent lawyer fees and divorce.

Alan's picture
Alan on June 19, 2003 - 12:36 Permalink

Funny, Wanyne… when my silent maority meet we are not running into each other. That being that, well said.

Ken's picture
Ken on June 19, 2003 - 15:13 Permalink

Elsie Wayne’s defense of traditional marriage made me wonder for a moment what we are losing if we allow gay marriage. I love family, mom & dad, and home and would not want to jeopardize that in any way, I agree with Elsie that these things are important. Can someone point out to me what damage she fears? I don’t get it.

Is it like inflation, if we print too many marriage licenses they will be de valued?

Maybe it’s the same-sex sex that bothers her?

We give all the rights of a person to a corporation which is pretty wack and more of a legal stretch than gay marriage. And we allow corporate marriages in the form of mergers, they are two bodies each with the rights of a person — is it because corporations can’t have sex that this is not a problem?

Rob Fletcher's picture
Rob Fletcher on June 19, 2003 - 17:25 Permalink

Re: Wayne’s comments.

I read this in a tiny little editorial in the Post (can’t remember for sure, pretty sure it was the post) but I thought it was cute. I’m paraphrasing, but its something along the lines of:

… only after years of marriage will you come to fully understand the idea of same-sex.


Kevin's picture
Kevin on June 19, 2003 - 19:44 Permalink

Dita, your post inspired these thoughts:

Most people who are capable of love have loved a gay person.

Most people capable of sex have not had gay sex.

(Just call me “Rube” if either of those prove incorrect.)

How could the world be ready for gay sex and not gay love? Can love have a sexual orientation? Can love survive being “oriented”?

Oriented” love must also posess one more attribute; absentness.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 20:14 Permalink

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams,” marrige is still a wonderful institution. But, it is not for everyone, and every relationship.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 20:22 Permalink

ATV Milestones is gonna get a whole-lot more interesting! Imagine…the year is 2010. We have Mr. and Mr. XYZ’s(/i> 20th anniversary. In the picture, we have the feathers, pink chaffon(I can’t even spell “chaffon!) and multicolored matching bras to go with the red leather pants and toolbelt. Sure, why not??

What envelopes will we be pushing in the year 2010???

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 20:25 Permalink

Sorry about the tag….

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 20:27 Permalink

Why is this still italics, Peter?


Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 20:28 Permalink


Alan's picture
Alan on June 19, 2003 - 20:29 Permalink

Did that do it?

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 20:54 Permalink

LOL, I am not sure…hard to tell with “???”

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 19, 2003 - 20:55 Permalink

There, I am all better now! Had to throw in the closing tag to end this confusion. But, wierd it would carry on to my next comments.

Alan's picture
Alan on June 19, 2003 - 21:02 Permalink

As I have been told in the same circumstances, this page is one single page so an improperly closed tag will carry over on the display. I had it in my head originally that each reply displayed was a discrete file. I understand now that this would be awfully over complex.

CMax's picture
CMax on June 19, 2003 - 21:21 Permalink

IMHO religion (“wacky regressive sexual laws”) is the “root of all evil”……that’s it — it’s really that simple.

Alan's picture
Alan on June 19, 2003 - 21:30 Permalink

I thought money was the root of all folk music?

CMax's picture
CMax on June 19, 2003 - 21:32 Permalink

Praise the lord and pass the amunition!

Ken's picture
Ken on June 20, 2003 - 00:44 Permalink

The legal distinction of marriage is the key to receiving benefits like survivor payments from a pension, or cheaper car insurance, or immigration rights.

Maybe a lot of gay immigrants will be allowed to pay lower car insurance with their inheritance?
<font color=”white”>

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 20, 2003 - 00:53 Permalink

Marriage is going to the dogs.

Another example of a different view ofmarriage.

Ken's picture
Ken on June 20, 2003 - 02:35 Permalink

<font color=”black”>
White out!

Dita's picture
Dita on June 20, 2003 - 15:43 Permalink

[quote] How could the world be ready for gay sex and not gay love? [/quote]

The difference with gay love and gay sex is placement. See, with gay sex, people know it happens, people can oppose it, people can be down right against it.. but people (in most cases) don’t have to see it. What goes on behind closed doors can stay behind close doors so to speak. Now, with gay love, it’s more in your face. And by in your face I don’t mean gay people by any means try to shove it down your throat anymore then John and Jane Straight do.. I mean it’s more available to people now.. Gay love was something couples had to hide. There was no holding hands in the mall, or kissing in the park like the rest of the worlds couple could. It was left at home where the sex was.. it is foreign and unknown. And we all know people tend to fear the unknown.

Canada is now telling us, hold up.. let’s treat gay people the same as everyone else. They want to marry and have rights too. They want to be able to speak up for their loved ones at the hospital when they are sick, or be the spouse at a funeral. They want to be able to hold their loved ones hand and say “yup, you got it, we’re married”. But society as a whole is just getting used to this idea. It’s like letting the bull out of the cage… we’ve accepted seeing the bull behind bars, but now we have to play with him like all the others.

and personally, I think it’s great.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 21, 2003 - 01:10 Permalink

Apparently, above does not speak for ALL Canada

Marriage and Same-Sex Unions

Statement by the Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Marriage understood as the lasting union of a man and woman to the exclusion of others pre-exists the State. Because it pre-exists the State and because it is fundamental for society, the institution of marriage cannot be modified, whether by the Charter of Rights, the State or a court of law.

Enlarging and thereby altering the definition of marriage in order to include same-sex partners discriminates against marriage and the family, and deprives them of social and legal recognition as the fundamental and irreplaceable basis of society.

Permanent Council
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
Ottawa, 19 June 2003


CMax's picture
CMax on June 21, 2003 - 01:31 Permalink

Perhaps it is about time these tired old men (Bishops) were to stay in their churches and not pester the rest of society with their foolishness.

Alan's picture
Alan on June 21, 2003 - 11:30 Permalink

Perhaps a group that has only engaged in marriage ceremonies for a handful of hundred years for the millenia it has been practiced and who have some particular personal beliefs about it might not be a relevant source outside a set of common believers.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 22, 2003 - 13:50 Permalink

Oh yea of little faith…

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 23, 2003 - 00:37 Permalink

A CBC radio programme this evening has me wondering…what if somebody wants to marry their cousin…or brother? What if somebody (God help them) wants a second wife…or to marry the neighbors wife? Who will be able to deny them the request, and under what grounds? Will this segment of society receive the same sympathy and support that the Gays and Lesbians have generated? Why not?

A real Pandora’s Box, so to speak…

CMax's picture
CMax on June 23, 2003 - 12:50 Permalink

Thanx for the FUD, Wayne.

CMax's picture
CMax on June 23, 2003 - 13:03 Permalink

And furthermore…… I and hopefully others do not mind at all what you , or anyone else cares to believe in as long as you do not attempt to foist it upon me. If you are able to live in a completely self-contained community where everyone believes exactly the same thing, you are welcome to.

Like it or not, we live in a multi-cultural society. This will not change regardless of all the efforts of all the fascist types that abound.

All of us need to be able to function together and apart. Our history as a race is clear: religious repression spawns a lot of killing. We need to be able to play nice together — NO MATTER WHAT.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 23, 2003 - 20:17 Permalink

I’ll drink to that…just offered points to ponder…It is easy to see I have not “foisted” anything…just posed difficult to answer questions. I would add to that that it really does not matter to me whether or not YOU OR ANYONE ELSE mind what I believe in…does not change one darn thing. Regulars here I am sure would agree about that regarding me, and most feel as I do about their OWN opinions.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on June 23, 2003 - 20:33 Permalink

I have been called from time to time a “problem”, a “Conservative”, opinionated and conservative but this is the first time someone has inferred me as a “Facist”.

I play well with others, by the way. Just ask any golfer at Belvedere.