Women

It's strange, I think that I have come to terms with my homosexuality personally. I may not be ready to tell some people, but I have accepted that I like men. Nonetheless, every so often I catch myself thinking about being married to a woman. Part of me rather misses the idea of having the picture perfect suburban life.

I know I can still find a partner, move to an upper middle class suburb, adopt a couple kids and have an enjoyable and satisfying life. Perhaps it's an internalized prejudice, but secretly it feels like a consolation prize. Maybe that's why I am not gung ho about my current relationship (I'm going to break it off, though I may pin the blame on graduation and "going in different directions" blah blah blah).

Occasionally I'll see a woman I think would make a "good wife." She's lovely (but not model beautiful), Southern (not redneck) in dress and manners, with an upbeat personality and a wry, sometimes sarcastic sense of humor. Indeed, I had just the girl picked out in undergrad. She was all those things plus my best friend. Add a cock and she'd have been perfect.

I wonder if these hang-ups come from being closeted to my family. Perhaps when I'm out to them, I'll be more comfortable. Even so, life would be a lot easier if I were straight.

Really Gay Moment

Here I am sipping wine, watching bravo, and sewing pink fabric ears for a costume (going to be a pink elephant).

The only way I could possibly be gayer right now is if were naked with another man.

I get it!

So at lunch the other day with Karen (over glasses of wine, because let's face it: we can drink at lunch), she was describing how Sean doesn't understand how she makes money by buying on sale. Karen's rationale goes like this: If the handbag costs $900, and I get it on a great sale for $500, I have made $400 dollars. Sean counters: No, you spent $500, so you lost $500. The truth is, they are both wrong, but Karen is closer to right.

Karen's wrong only because she hasn't made money, but she has increased her utility.

Say Karen values the handbag at the full price (meaning she would buy it for $900). If she pays $900, her utility is the same. She has lost $900, but gained the handbag which she values at $900.

Now, say the handbag is on sale for $500, and Karen buys it. Out of Karen's $900 she has lost $500, and in exchange she got something she values at $900 and still has $400 of her money left. Her total utility (as measured by dollars) is $1300, a gain of $400.

Happy bargain hunting!

Gay marriage in NY + Arthur Branch

A New York Supreme Court determined that it is unconstitutional (under the state constitution) for New York not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

People familiar with the courts in New York will immediately recognize why this isn't terribly exciting: unlike other states and federal courts, In New York the "Supreme Court" is the trial level. Still appealable.

It's interesting that in just a couple weeks two big trial decisions regarding gay marriage came down in separate states.

In similar news, I am aware of Arthur Branch's, um, disappointing statements regarding gay marriage. The self-described Federalist is uncomfortable with just this type of thing: A state judge determining that a state has to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. He supports (or at least used to support) civil unions at the state level. I'm curious to know what he thinks about the Department of the Treasury or Social Security Administration recognizing them as well.

Like I have always said, whether it's called marriage by the state is irrelevant, it's the recognition of civil benefits for same sex partners that matters.

Further, I find it interesting that some people think that civil unions would hurt the push for marriage. I realize that having a separate but equal institution seems unpleasant, but with the progress we have seen in just 10 years, do we really think that it would stop with civil unions anyway?

Update: Mea Cupla, I forgot to link to the news story about the NY court ruling. You can read about it here.

The situation

Tim noticed that I have been rather doctrinaire lately. He posits that it is because some left wing boy broke my heart. It's true that my mind has been elsewhere lately, but actually it's quite the opposite: people seem to fall in love with me too easily. I know it sounds a bit conceited, and I, of course, say it with tongue in cheek (this time my own), but really I am not used to this.

Back in my "straight" days, I was basically asexual. I ignored girls sexually, and was oblivious and indifferent as to whether they ignored me. Sexual attraction was largely a non-issue.

All of a sudden, I spent a summer out of the closet, and went, admittedly, a little wild. Now I can't seem to leave the summer in the summer. Not a day seems to go by without a text from some guy I met last summer (thankfully, David got the message. Though I doubt he reads the blog). One guy even offered to fly me back to the city for a long weekend. I'm not saying we're in stalker land, but then again I don't really know where that line is.

Here's the odd part, while I consider myself above average on looks, intelligence and personality, I don't think I am enough on any measure to warrant the kind of attention I am getting. It's not that I don't like the attention, it just confuses me. I like the attention; I want people to want me, but I feel a little guilty about leading the boys on.

The Cycle

This

is why I'm not this.


I'm okay, though--I have a 32 inch waist. So I'm also not this


In fact, I was good today! I had this for dinner.


That means I deserve one of these.

"Gay Pioneers"

My firm's diversity committee sponsored a screening of the short (30 Min) documentary "Gay Pioneers." I went, though I was dreading it. I worried that this film would be the "woe-is-us, we're all victims" whine fest that I despise. I was quite pleasantly surprised. The film was all about the first (pre-stonewall) demonstrations for equal rights for gays and lesbians. The tone of the film was the much more optimistic "we've come such a long way (even if we still have a long way to go)" message that I and I think straight people can better relate to. I actually recommend it highly.

One thing that struck me: in the first Mattachine demonstrations (1965-1968) they had a strict code of dress and conduct. At the time they were fighting the misconception that gays were only a bunch of weirdo queens. Instead men had to wear suits; women had to wear dresses. They had to lower their signs when they played patriotic songs. They had to be respectful but firm. The message they wanted to convey was "we are upstanding citizens just like you." Contrast that with Pride today.

What does this say about us? It could go either way. On the one hand you might say our pride events that resemble gay Mardi Gras are doing nothing more than perpetuate the stereotype that we are weirdos. On the other, you might say, how great it is that we can be so visible, campy, and celebrate our differences without the (great) fear of people throwing stones at us. One could argue that the pride events of today have lost the message in favor of a week long party. Others might argue that Pride is more of a celebration of who we are than it is about gaining recognition, so a party is appropriate.

Not sure yet where I fall. I did enjoy my first "out" Pride this summer. But I do understand the importance of demonstrating that gays are just like ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, coming out of the closet is all about being honest instead of conforming to the requirements of society. These Pioneers in the 60s paved the way for social change that ALLOWS us take a weekend, week, or even whole month in most major cities to celebrate our progress and work towards even more. Then back on the first hand, I know that lots of people look at Pride as a prime example of the "decadence and immorality" of our community, making progress even harder. I don't have an answer here, and I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.

not everything is so serious

Last night I was talking to a reader on IM, and I realized that my "blog personality" is a lot more serious than my "real personality." I definitely have opinions on serious things, and the blog is sort of an outlet for that, but at the same time, I keep reading and thinking apart from the substance, this person doesn't sound much like my image of myself (though I think in comments I can be a little more laid back). Not sure how I can inject my more fun actual personality into this virtual person I have created, or even really if I should. In fact, I'm not even sure why I bring it up except to think out loud.