How The Mighty Have Fallen

So, I’m out the other night and I see this guy I had relations with long ago and far away, in another place and time. He was older, not as slender, and his hair showing the signs of age. Oh, it was still thick and luxuriant, but grayer now. My first thought (shallow) was how the mighty have fallen. I mean, where was, as my friend Lori once said, the dark, pagan god. Okay, she didn’t say that, but it sounds really good, so I used it. She actually saw him from a distance the first time, on a misty night. He was standing beneath a street light, wearing a long coat, and she was like oh, my God, he’s gorgeous. Yes, he was. It was a different time and place in my life.

So, the mighty dark and pagan god is not aging as well as he could. Heck, does anyone really age as well as they could? Its constant work, trust me on that – exercise, eating right (for the most part), and trying to stave off the years the best that I can.

Once I got beyond my shallow (hey, it happens, get over it) thoughts, I came to another realization: he still had it, only in a different way. He wasn’t pursuing the younger men (he’s a few years older, but always went for the youngish types) this time. This time, the man he was pursuing – flirting, joking, smiling, dancing to the music – was a man probably 15 – 20 years his senior.

How the mighty have fallen!

Did he somehow realize that – extra weight, grey hair, the signs of youth no longer present – he couldn’t attract the younger men? Did the vibrancy of his personality somehow diminish with that realization? I mean, here was this man (the welcome wagon of Nashville – different story, another post, perhaps a book) who relentlessly and successfully pursued younger men, dancing and flirting with an older man. I mean, he had cards with his name and number on them. Seriously, people, cards. Now, the mighty have fallen.

Is gaydom so jaded that when men reach a certain age that stop going after what they want and start going after what they don’t want? Did he reach some age and realize that he would have to settle for something less? Is gaydom geared only to the young and the old have no chance at all?
So, the mighty fell and this man (me, in case you’re wondering) wonders why? I wonder if everybody reaches a point in their life when they give up on what they want?

I mean, I’m lucky. I found Frank fifteen years ago. The road to happiness has been rocky at times, but we survived. We love one another. We work through our problems. But, a different path in life, and me alone at 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 – what path would I choose? Would I sacrifice all my beliefs for companionship? Would I sacrifice what I truly wanted just so I wasn’t alone?

Did Mr. Dark Pagan God do just that? Do older gay men everywhere do the same thing?

I don’t have the answers to my questions. I just know that the mighty fell, and it wasn’t pretty.

Yeah, this post is probably a bit judgmental. That’s not my intent. My intent is to pose the question: at what point do we give up on ourselves and accept less than we deserve?

Mr. Dark Pagan God dancing, joking, flirting with a man he wouldn’t (trust me on that) have looked at twice 16 years ago when I first knew him. Did the onset of age change his perspective on life? Did the fear of loneliness cause him to rearrange his thought pattern to allow him to flirt with someone – here/now – that he would have ignored 16 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago?

I’m just wondering . . .

Morality or Opportunity?

Why is the media still focusing on South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford? Yes, the man had an affair. So what? His affair doesn't merit the constant media attention.

Did his affair affect his duties as Governor? Did his affair stop him from doing his job? Did his affair cause the United States to go to war with some foreign country? Did his affair cause the recession? Did his affair cause the housing crisis? Did his affair . . .

Well, the obvious answer is: NO! So, why in the frak is the media still focusing on this issue? A FL couple was brutally murdered in their home this week while their nine developmentally disabled children slept. 8 people have been arrested so far. Still, Gov. Sandford is making news. Still, we're talking about a man who had an affair.

As M'Lynn in Steel Magnolias once said . . . 'why, why, why, why, whhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyy!'

I mean seriously, people, the only reason this issue is still in the news is because the Gov. political opponents want him out of office. His opponents are not (at least in my opinion) doing this because of their high moral values, but rather because they are opportunistic political rats who see an opportunity for their party to take a position of power. That's it in a nutshell, dear readers. Morality has nothing to do with Gov. Sanford still being in the news. I'm just saying . . .

S

p.s. yes, the affair was wrong, he shouldn't have done it, but is it any more wrong than 99.9% of politicians breaking all their campaign promises once they get in office?????? I don't think so.

Woo-Hoo Massachusetts!!!

In a bold, brave, stunning, extraordinary, and so many other postive exclamatory (in a good way words), Massachusetts is suing the U.S. government, challenging DOMA! Article below or you can go here. Woo-hoo!

(CNN) -- Massachusetts sued the U.S. government on Wednesday, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"We're taking this action today because, first, we believe that [the Defense of Marriage Act] directly interferes with Massachusetts' long-standing sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents," Attorney General Martha Coakley said Wednesday afternoon.

"Massachusetts has a single category of married persons, and we view all married persons equally and identically," she said.

"DOMA divides that category into two distinct and unequal classes of marriage."
The lawsuit argues that the act, which became law in 1996, denies same-sex couples essential rights and protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state wrote in the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in federal court.

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, said that about 16,000 same-sex couples have been married there since 2004, when it began issuing marriage licenses. Since that time, the lawsuit said, "the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state. "

The state is challenging Section 3 of the law, which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and a spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Before the act, the lawsuit argues, defining marital status was the prerogative of the states.
The law "eviscerated more than 200 years of federal government deference to the states with respect to defining marriage," it said.

The lawsuit also argues that the law forces Massachusetts to treat same-sex married couples differently from heterosexual married couples, particularly through determining who qualifies for the state's Medicaid program, known as MassHealth, and whether a same-sex spouse of a veteran can be buried in a veteran cemetery.

"But for DOMA, married individuals in same-sex relationships in the commonwealth would receive the same status, obligations, responsibilities, rights, and protections as married individuals in different-sex relationships under local, state, and federal laws," the lawsuit said.
The defendants named in the lawsuit include the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and the United States itself.

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said the department will review the case but noted that President Obama supports the legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In March, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- the same Boston-based group that successfully argued in 2003 for same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts -- also sued the federal government over Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Besides Massachusetts, three other states recognize same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa. Vermont and New Hampshire will join their company when same-sex marriages become legal later this year and early next year. (www.cnn.com 07/08/2009)

I'm a quitter, not a finisher!

Those are the words Sarah Palin should have spoken in her most recent interview.

So, Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska and proved once again that she has no clue what she's talking about.

Her latest statement: I'm not a quitter, I'm a finisher!" Okay, she quit her job, which makes her a quitter. She didn't finish her job as governor, so, uh, doesn't that maker her a non-finisher??? I'm just saying . . .

I mean, seriously, people, does she actually think she's the hope of the Republican party? Oh, and then there's a new poll out there that said 7 out of 10 Republicans would vote for her. What about the other 3? Oh, that's right, they're going to vote Democrat because they can't stand her! Woo-hoo! Why, woo-hoo? Well, figure it out, if every 3 out of 10 Republicans votes Democrat, plus the majority of Democrats voting Democrat, well, that should push the Democrat to a win. Yeah, I know, the 3 out of 10 Republicans will probably just not vote. Woo-hoo! 3 out of 10 less Republicans voting!

Hey, do you realize Sarah Palin just created a Win/Win situation! First time I've had something positive to say about the woman.

Yes, I'm being a bit snarkity-snark-snark this morning. I'm allowed. I thought after the election I wouldn't have to hear about Sarah Palin. I hoped beyond hope that she would go back to Alaska and fade into the background. Well, so much for the hopes of millions upon millions of people. Like a bad check, she keeps bouncing back into the spotlight. I mean, can't we have a Sarah Palin free 10 year period, or something like that? I'm just saying . . .

S