I love listening to this great, gay American patriot. Click here to listen
6/30/10
The sacredness of nature
Scoop up the water and the moon is in your hands;Hold the flowers and your clothes are scented with them.
--Zen saying
6/29/10
Love & fear in relationships
Love Without Fear: Building Fearless Relationshipby Brenda Shoshanna, Ph.D
Today fear is rampant in all areas of our lives. There are many ways we seek safe harbor, a place to feel protected and cared for. Many turn to relationships for this, to experience security and comfort. Then, a paradoxical thing happens, the relationship itself becomes a cause of fear. What makes this happen? How can we experience fearless relationships, based upon true compassion and good will?
It has been said that there are only two emotions: love and fear. For some of us, oddly, love is frightening, while fear feels safe. We think fear will warn us of danger and keep us alert. We are taught it can be dangerous to be trusting; that love makes us weak. This is fear speaking, creating confusion, based upon lies. Fear is a liar. The more we believe the false messages it brings us, the more power it has in our lives. The good news is that once we see through fear, once we turn and face it, it melts away. Then it’s easy to see that true strength comes from living a life grounded in love; in understanding what it means to be loving, not necessarily how to be loved.
Fear has many faces and camouflages itself in different ways. In relationships, fear masquerades as counterfeit love. Counterfeit love is the idea that love is a feeling, not a way of life. Counterfeit love confuses the experience of excitement, infatuation, dependence and attachment with love. As soon as you have strong feelings towards another, it is easy to imagine that you are in love. But, most of the time, it is simply that you feel you have finally found the ideal person, who will fulfill all your desires and dreams. Counterfeit love is based upon fantasy and unfulfilled longings from the past. Strong feelings towards another are not necessarily love.
When you use another person as an object to fulfill your desires this is not love. When your desires and expectations are not met, when the reality of the other person bursts through, your so called love often turns to hate. Many say they do not know where the love went. Of course it did not go anywhere at all. It was not love in the first place, only a camouflaged form of fear. It is the fear that causes all the distress and undermines your basic sense of confidence, clarity and good will.
In order to experience love without fear, it is important to and learn how to recognize and dissolve fear and to become clear about the difference between real and counterfeit love. Then you naturally discover where to put your trust, how to look for and find the best in others and how to be strong and safe, no matter what life brings along. You learn how to open your hands and offer to others what it is you have been wanting from them. As you do, you see you already have all that you have been wanting. The source of all you long for is within.
There are many ways of dissolving fear and building fearless relationships. This is the practice of fearlessness, based upon the principles of peace of mind. When these principles are learned and practiced, not only does fear depart, but your natural ability to love and accept others, (and yourself), expands exponentially.
As an example, one of the most common causes of fear in relationships is the fear of rejection, of not being good enough, or able to satisfy your partner or yourself. When this fear becomes active, you twist and turn yourself into a pretzel, become someone you aren’t to get the love and approval you crave. However, this craving is a drug and the more you get, the more you want; and ultimately, the emptier you become. Approval is not love. It is the false self that demands this, the self that is fueled by fear. The truth is that you can never change enough or do enough to “make” someone love you. Again, this is the voice of fear speaking, turning the truth upside down.
No matter how much praise the false self receives, it never feels really approved of or loved. By its very nature, it is skittish, fearful and ungrounded. It constantly craves more and feels threatened regularly. The false self cannot distinguish between what is useless and what is valuable. It eats too much, makes wrong choices and refuses to face reality. When two false selves join together for a love relationship, sooner or later, they become shipwrecked, and wonder what went wrong.
Although we spend much of our time and energy building up the false self, we do not realize that who we are is intrinsically perfect, lovable and complete. If we turn to a relationship to validate or complete ourselves, we are bound to suffer. No matter how many times Amy’s boyfriend told her he loved her, she didn’t believe it. She needed to hear it again and again. “Why do you love me?” she kept asking. Of course this became exhausting for her boyfriend, who, feeling drained, ultimately left. Why would we cling to our disturbing egos? Because we have no idea how magnificent we truly are.
There is another way to proceed. Use your relationship as a teacher to find out who you really are, to dissolve fear, learn to trust and taste the sweetness and power of love without fear. Your relationships will transform naturally and whatever happens, you will feel full and complete.
Brenda Shoshanna is a psychologist and a practitioner of both Zen and Judaism. She is the author of Jewish Dharma and Zen and the Art of Falling in Love. Her work focuses on integrating East and West, and she offers workshops on relationships and personal and spiritual development. Her new book is Fearless (The 7 Principles of Peace of Mind): becomefearless.org.
6/28/10
Nominee Elena Kagan, a highly qualified legal mind that's perfect for the Supreme Court
She joins many other qualified justices of recent years, including Roberts, Aliota, and Sotomayor, the last of which I agree with.
My predictions for the World Cup: 1. Argentina, 2.Spain or Portugal 3. Brazil
1. Argentina2. Spain or Portugal
3. Brazil
I really like Argentina and Germany but I chose Argentina to beat the Germans in the quarter finals. I think Spain or Portugal may be in the final. Looking for the Brazilians to be upset.
Happy Summer!
I am smiling about summer and am glad the heavens are, too. This Friday I go on vacation to Fire Island, NY, for a much-needed break. (photo from http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/)
Patience
Adopt the pace of nature; her secret is patience. Sometimes you don't need the things you "need" to enjoy the simple things, quiet times, friends and family.--Amish Proverb
6/25/10
Rugby star, Gareth Thomas: "I prayed so hard to be straight"
Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas spoke with Bernard Goldberg on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel on HBO, about his earlier struggles.
Texas GOP party platform hates the gays
CCELEBRATING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. We advocate the repeal of laws that place an unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.
Family Values – We affirm that this section is a response to the attacks on traditional family values. These include well- funded, vigorous political and judicial attempts by powerful organizations and branches of the government to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior upon school children, parents, educational institutions, businesses, employees, government bodies and religious institutions and charities. These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents.
Marriage and Divorce – We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.
Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.
Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
Truly seeing
Once, when speaking to Nansen, Rikko quoted another master: "'Heaven and earth and I are the same root. All things and I are of the same substance.' Isn't that fantastic?"Nansen pointed to the flower in the garden and replied: "People these days see this flower as though they were in a dream."
-- Zen Mondo
6/24/10
I like the co-hosts of this new political show on CNN: Eliot Spitzer & Kathleen Parker
While Eliot may be a sleaze for sleeping with prostitutes, he was totally right about the ethics of the banks and other financial services firms. Kathleen Parker is a smart conservative, too. I am looking forward to this pairing.
6/23/10
Appreciation for what is
What a wonderful life I've had! I only wish I'd realized it sooner.--Colette
(This is a picture of my young cousins and my uncle, who all live in Austin)
Read this review of Honda's new hybrid sports car
Read this positive review of the new Honda CRZ. Being environmentally-conscious does not have to be boring anymore!
Landon Donovan scores last minute goal over Algeria, advancing USA to the next round
Landon is not just gifted, he is also very handsome, as is his American teammate. USA, USA!
6/22/10
"Thank God My Moms Are Lesbians"
By Ry Russo-Young. From the Daily BeastLast week, my boyfriend emailed me a link to a study that says kids who grew up with two lesbian parents turn out just fine and, in some cases, even more well-adjusted than their peers raised in traditional families. I was touched that he had sent it and forwarded the study to my two moms and my sister Cade. Everyone responded instantly, our emails filled with exclamation points. We were happy that our family was recognized in a positive way. Although my mom’s response was “tell me something I don’t know,” this must have felt like a small victory after so many years of struggling to come out and have a family.
This study followed families for 17 years, from the time the mothers decided to have children and into their teenage years. One of the conclusions, that kids raised by lesbian mothers scored high marks on self-esteem and confidence, isn’t surprising. A part of what helps a child’s own self-esteem is her relationship with her parents and the examples they set. My moms were always honest with me about who they were and where they came from, sharing their stories about how they came to be, and then how I came to be. These are their journeys, their freedom battles, and their struggle.
Would they be harassed if they kissed on the street? How about in a restaurant? Was having a family even possible?
My moms are 15 years apart in age. Born in 1940, Russo is the older mom and Robin is the young one. When Russo was 15, she went to see a psychiatrist and confessed to him she thought she was gay. The shrink laughed, told her not to worry, and to “come back to me when you have six children.” Twenty-five years later, she would go on to have two children—with a woman.
By the time my moms met in the late '70s, Russo had been married twice. Her first husband was a moody Italian named Salvatore Russo. They were in acting school together with Al Pacino, who was so poor at the time that he could only afford rubber shoes. She took Russo as a last name and kept it after their divorce. After she became a lesbian, friends nicknamed her “Russo” and it stuck. When I’m not calling her mom, I use her old nickname, the one that came from her life before me.
My other mother, Robin, describes her childhood as being in black and white, as if she were watching her own life on television, observing from the outside. After she came out in college, she says all of this changed. She was suddenly an active participant in the world and met Russo a few years later. Now everything was in color.
For my moms, coming out was only the first hurdle. Displaying their relationship in public was a political choice and possible risk. Would they be harassed if they kissed on the street? How about in a restaurant? Was having a family even possible?
Robin’s family didn’t approve of her being a lesbian and didn’t take well to her new partner. Even worse, her parents were horrified when she announced they were having their first child. Robin’s relationship with her parents deteriorated rapidly and her connection with her siblings remains distant and strained.
And yet my moms set out to start a family anyway. They were given a hand-drawn booklet that taught lesbians how to inseminate themselves using a turkey baster. Russo was inseminated with a known donor first because she was older. Robin was inseminated less than a year later with a different known donor. My sister Cade and I were born, their family complete.
From then on, my moms fought to defend their choices as parents. They were ferociously committed to the idea that we were a “real” family, despite people saying otherwise. We weren’t a family in the traditional or nuclear sense, but we were in the most important ways. We were a unit, a team, a group united by love. This meant dinner together every night and family vacations to Provincetown, Massachusetts. There was Boggle, the tooth fairy, Sesame Street, family pets, and school plays. Only one childhood staple was absent: Barbie. They worried she would give me a bad body image.
"I couldn’t exactly imagine myself there in the roaring “normal” world of condoms and weddings, but being gay never seemed right either."
We are a family of four women and our lives were full of unity, respect, and a lot of honest discussion. Having two Jewish mothers meant plenty of food and almost as much talking. Sometimes the talking turned to yelling and tears, but that’s what worked for us. As a result, a relationship based on truth and respect was born. Be who you are and we will love you for that, they told me. I was encouraged to think independently and to follow my heart, just as they had. When I had problems we talked about them, whatever they were, without guilt or shame.
When I was younger, the question of how I would “turn out”—straight or gay—weighed on my mind. When raised in a heterosexual household, the assumption is generally that you will be heterosexual, get married, have kids, the whole nine yards. Growing up, I was very conscious that I would be straight or gay, one or the other. My tween years flew by with what sounded like the suspenseful Jeopardy song counting down in the background.
If I were a lesbian, I would be just like my parents, which seemed the more comfortable, safe choice. Ironically, being straight psychologically felt riskier because it meant that I would no longer be a part of the queer culture I grew up with. When I was young, my family marched in New York’s gay pride parade. Would I have to watch from the sidelines if I turned out straight?
The whole idea of being heterosexual seemed foreign and somehow glamorous to me. Would I be one of those ladies I’d spotted on the street wearing high heels and kissing a tall man with muscles and stubble? I couldn’t exactly imagine myself there in the roaring “normal” world of condoms and weddings, but being gay never seemed right either.
Then, when I was 17, I had my first love, a very nice teenage boy from Boston who played guitar and loved Bob Dylan. While my sister had been known for her makeout sessions with Theo on the back stairs of our high school, she had recently come out as a lesbian and here I was—in the throes of realizing I wanted to be with men. Living in a household full of women made me think that the male body was alien only to me, however, having spoken with my friends, I don’t seem to have been any more in the dark about the male form than they were. I was scared of having sex, yet I was dying to, and I was questioning whether it was it OK.
When I was a teenager, I would often go into my parents’ bedroom in my pajamas to say good night. I’d sit on the little couch we called the day bed and snack on cookies while we chatted. One particular night when I was going on about my boyfriend, my parents propped up on pillows watching Masterpiece Theatre, my mom said to me, “Oh, just go do it already—and stop talking about it!” Somehow she knew everything and I hadn't even told her. I felt a complete sense of relief. My neurotic teenage mind needed to hear that it was OK that I was straight and that I was having sex. She sensed that and gave me her blessing.
I still seek my mothers’ blessing in many ways. I directed two independent feature films, the most recent film, You Won’t Miss Me, was at Sundance Film Festival and comes out in theaters this October. When they saw the film, my moms had trouble articulating why they liked it and didn’t have the language to help me make it better. We can talk about so much and yet, my parents can’t solve all my problems. Maybe it’s taken me longer to grow up because we are so close as a family.
There’s that song that goes “To know know know you is to love love love you… and I do.” My moms’ history is part of who I am and how I see the world. My family will impact the way I want to raise my own children and the kind of relationships I have with them. It will affect the films I make and the relationships I have with friends and lovers.
At my mom’s birthday dinner, my boyfriend noticed that after 30 years together my moms still hold hands at the table like teenagers. He was impressed by the strength of their relationship after all this time. I smiled and took his hand, trying to imagine his face in 30 years.
Ry Russo-Young is a filmmaker living in Manhattan and an Oberlin College graduate. Her second feature film, You Won’t Miss Me, premiered at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival and won a Gotham Award. The film will be released theatrically in October 2010. Her first feature, Orphans, received a Jury Prize at the 2007 SXSW Film Festival and was released on DVD by Carnivalesque Films.
Would men be happier without online pornography?
June 21, 2010 By Marnia Robinsongoodmenproject.com
A few years ago, men from all over the world began arriving in my website’s forum complaining that they were unable to stop using Internet porn. Google had sent them—perhaps because my site shares information about the effects of sex on the brain.
My site, however, is about relationships, not recovery. Yet their obvious distress, and porn’s impact on their relationships, motivated me to welcome them. As I listen, these visitors support each other in the struggle to leave porn behind.
Often they report dramatic changes as porn use recedes: more energy, increased social confidence, better concentration, greater gains from workouts, stronger erections, a return to earlier sexual tastes, increased optimism, and more enjoyment from life’s subtler pleasures.
In short, many men are happier without Internet pornography.
Their experience has shown me that porn’s chief danger isn’t obvious to most users. It arises from intense stimulation of the reward circuitry of the brain—a portion of the ancient “mammalian brain,” which lies under the newer neocortex (rational brain). The reward circuitry governs emotions, mating, eating, motivation, and all addictions. It runs on a neurochemical called dopamine, the “gotta get it!” neurotransmitter.
Novelty-on-demand (slot machines, video games, porn videos) is often so enticing for this primitive part of the brain, that compulsion becomes a risk. Moreover, our brains evolved to light up not only for novelty-on-demand, but also for the genetic bonanza of sex with a novel partner.
Therefore, Internet porn, which offers new partners begging for ejaculate at each mouse click, registers as so rewarding that the brain easily rewires itself to focus more and more attention on these perceived opportunities. This can swiftly reorder the user’s priorities.
♦♦♦
Our brain’s reward circuitry evolved foremost to drive us toward sex and food. We seem to be especially vulnerable to superstimulating sexual arousal and junk food. Junk food has helped make 64 percent of Americans overweight (and half of those obese).
And now that free, streaming videos are available privately in endless supply, how many are using porn? (Hint: last year a Montreal professor had to revise his study about the effects of porn. He couldn’t find any male “porn virgins” on a major university campus.)
“The addictiveness of Internet pornography is not a metaphor,” explains psychiatrist Norman Doidge in The Brain That Changes Itself. Porn users are seduced into pornographic training sessions that meet all the conditions required for plastic change of brain maps, namely, rapt attention, reinforcement, and dopamine consolidation of new neural connections.
Some users (such as musician John Mayer) substitute porn for intimate relationships or friendly interaction, learning life skills, and so on. Their reward circuitry no longer perceives the latter as worth the effort. After all, this part of the brain can’t reason. It weighs options according to which release the most dopamine.
Paradoxically, it’s while someone is recovering from intense stimulation that he’s most likely to want more intense stimulation. This primitive mechanism evolved to keep us on task when something especially stimulating (“valuable”) is around. It works by numbing the pleasure response for a time (by weakening the effects of dopamine), so we look around for more.
This, by the way, is why drug addicts need more and more to get the same effects. This device probably worked just fine for spreading genes when receptive, novel mates were scarce. Today, however, the brain mistakes each enticing 2-D hottie as a prime opportunity to pass on genes. A porn user can feel as if his duty is never done.
♦♦♦
Overstimulated men report growing numb to life’s subtler pleasures, such as the charms of real partners. At the same time, they can be hypersensitive to the sexual stimuli their brains associate with “relief.” For many, the pursuit of more stimulating materials becomes mandatory to relieve the misery of feeling as if some key ingredient of their happiness is missing—and it is. Brain changes have temporarily dimmed their capacity for enjoyment.
It is not unusual for men caught in this cycle to feel anxious, socially ill-at-ease, moody, despairing, and apathetic. Until they reboot their brains, life seems meaningless, but for the single-minded pursuit of hotter stimuli. As one man put it:
With the magazines, porn use was a few times a week and I could basically regulate it. ‘Cause it wasn’t really that ’special’. But when I entered the murky world of Internet porn, my brain had found something it just wanted more and more of…. I was out of control in less than 6 months. Years of mags: no problems. A few months of online porn: hooked.
Often users don’t realize what they’re passing up until they give their brains a chance to return to equilibrium. For some, the lengthy withdrawal required to achieve this can be so agonizing (shakes, insomnia, despair, cravings, splitting headaches) that they feel trapped.
For example, in The Great Internet Porn-Off, 70 percent of contestants could not go without porn for two weeks. Nor can some officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission, it seems.
♦♦♦
A planet where computer literate men run a considerable risk of compulsive porn use won’t be as happy as it could be. People struggling to ease cravings for more and more stimulation generally have little time, sensitivity, or resolve for creativity, good causes, relationships, or nature’s pleasures. Yet the transformation in those who feel better without porn is inspiring. Consider these posts:
I feel again. I feel emotions again. My interest in women is heightened, my confidence is up and gives me motivation again. I’m 28 now and until the last couple of years I felt I had the maturity of a 15 year old. But as I heal and recover from this compulsion, I’ve felt emotions I’ve never had to deal with before. It has helped me grow up.
After a few days I noticed increased energy, increased attention, and higher self-esteem. After a month—although it took several tries to get there—those improvements were all through the roof. A couple of months later, I was having real sex. It is nice to get aroused by little things, like a revealing blouse or just a woman’s flowing, shiny hair and fragrance.
I am more at ease with myself and can look people in the eye, with kindness and a superhuman confidence. I had two women introduce themselves to me yesterday, shake my hand and HOLD IT. Wow. I was so comfortable talking to everyone. I wrote two pages of a script that went in an even deeper direction than I was aiming for. Exercising is through the roof.
I have so much more energy, I’m less moody, I have more enthusiasm and motivation for work, I don’t feel drained all the time, and I feel a deeper sense of connection with everything around me. But the biggest change it has made is in my relationship. My girlfriend and I feel much closer to each other already.
When it comes to sexually explicit materials, our society tends to get lost in debates about free speech, degree of obscenity, sexual repression, and harm to third parties. Maybe we should take a closer look at porn’s power to hijack brains.
Marnia Robinson, J.D., is the author of Cupid's Poisoned Arrow: From Habit to Harmony in Sexual Relationships. She blogs with the collaboration of her amazing husband Gary Wilson, who teaches human sciences.
"The Joy and Pain of Close Relationships"
from Tricycle MagazineYou do not learn non-attachment by disengaging and avoiding the intensity of relationships, their joy and their pain. It is easy to disguise as non-attachment what is not non-attachment at all, but your fear of attachment. When you really care about someone and you are willing to commit to that friendship, then you have fertile ground to learn about both attachment and non-attachment. That is what makes a close relationship so rich.
--Judy Lief, "Tying the Knot" (Spring 1998)
6/21/10
Honda will soon introduce a hybrid sports car
After providing hybrid cars that satisfy the Sierra Club and Utne Reader sets, Honda will soon introduce a hybrid sports cars that thrills those who like cars and enjoy driving. I can not be more thrilled. This car will be called the Honda CRZ and is the spiritual successor to Honda's popular and award-winning 2-door sports car from the late 80's/early 90's, the CRX. I had one of those cars and loved it.
In honor of Father's Day, read this "Across the Threshold of Fatherhood"
By NICK FLYNNNew York Times
IN early 2006 I was coming out of an extended trip through what I can now only call a spiritual wasteland. The first line from Dante’s “Inferno” had been rattling around inside me — I, too, had come to the middle of my life and found myself in a dark wood, having lost my way.
The woman I had been with for two years proposed, gently, that we think about having a child together or else think about going our separate ways. There was no threat in her voice; she preferred we go together into this uncharted territory, but it would be all right if I needed to be lost for a while longer.
Around this time, another man named Nick Flynn, while visiting a museum in England, tripped on his shoelaces and fell down a flight of stairs, knocking down three 17th-century Chinese vases along the way and smashing them into hundreds of pieces. An early news report claimed the man was the “American author” Nick Flynn.
I’d been in England in the preceding years, yet I was fairly sure I hadn’t broken any vases. A photograph appearing alongside a follow-up to the article showed a man, approximately my age, with longish hair (like mine at the time), wearing sunglasses and a hooded sweatshirt that covered part of his face. You couldn’t make him out clearly; he could be me, especially if you hadn’t seen me in a couple of years. He was standing with his hands raised, palms upward, as if to say, “What, I do something wrong?”
For the next year or so this gesture became for me a useful if inane joke as I muddled through the days leading up to deciding with my girlfriend if we were going to try to have a child.
I’d always imagined that one day I would be a father, but mostly it was off my radar. I admired friends who had somehow figured out how to cross that threshold. But part of the fear for me was that my parents each had complicated relationships with being parents. My mother had become pregnant at 18, had two children by 20 and left my father shortly after I was born.
At first she raised us on food stamps and tips from waitressing as we floated between friends’ couches and rundown rental apartments. Eventually we became more comfortable, but those early years took a toll. I can’t imagine it was easy to be a young single mother in Scituate, Mass., in the 1960s — I know there weren’t many others.
My mother did a good job of it, I thought. But tragically, when I was 22, she ended her life, a fistful of painkillers followed by a bullet to her heart. All in all, though, if I could be a parent like she had been, I’d feel O.K. about it. It’s likely, however, that I carried deep inside me the lingering sense that parenthood could destroy me.
My father was another story. My experience of him was of absence, of nonbeing, of a name without a body. Today he would be referred to as a deadbeat, his face on a subway wall. Back then my mother had to take a warrant out on him for nonpayment of child support. Nonsupport, we called it around my house.
He was a terrible drunk, which was why my mother left him, and the years that followed would lead him into jail and homelessness. Child support was the least of his troubles, though from federal prison he did begin sending me letters, which he would sign “your father.” Later he told me he wrote letters to everyone he knew, because stamps were free.
The vase-breaker Nick Flynn continued to appear in the news every few months during this period of indecision for me. It soon came out that there was no way he could have tripped on his shoelaces, as he claimed, and taken down all three vases with him. Each was set into a recess in the wall, and he would have had to lunge for each as he tumbled past. One article cited a museum official announcing that Nick Flynn was banned from the museum. He was subsequently banned from all museums in Britain.
It was odd to have this other self in the world, in the news, so obviously causing damage, to read about him showing up at the museum again, ostensibly to ask how the restoration was going, and being escorted out by the police, all at a time when I wasn’t feeling especially solid myself. This went on for a year, and if I were to run into an acquaintance or even an old friend after an article about him would appear, I’d eventually be asked, with a grin, “So what about those vases?”
It never seemed like a good idea for me to follow that up with, “We’re thinking of having a kid.”
Beyond the obvious and justified fear that being a father would change everything in my life, what was my hesitation? At that moment my life needed change more than anything. Though I was stalled in what I told myself was another rough patch, the difficult parts of my childhood were well behind me. I’d made it to the other side, worn but intact, mostly. I decided to check back into therapy, and began meditating daily for a half-hour, something I’d done off and on (mostly off) for years.
Sometimes I meditated on this other self, this other Nick Flynn, who broke things and became famous for it. Who made up a story about tripping on shoelaces that he himself seemed to believe. Was this my fear, that I would trip on my own shoelaces and break my daughter into a million pieces? And then tell a story I’d made up about it to deflect the blame? Was my doppelgänger pointing a way out of the woods, or a way deeper into the darkness?
Change is one of the only constants in Buddhism; as meditation became the way I breathed in the days, this became apparent. I could have stayed in those bewildering woods a little longer, but something in me decided I’d had enough. And so I said yes to a child, when I could just as easily have said no.
After that, the days leading up to my daughter’s birth felt like the slow ascent of a roller coaster — one day I knew that I’d reach the top of that rickety contraption and there she’d be. At that moment I’d hold her for the first time, yet I knew, feared, that the next moment the car would drop and the true, terrifying ride would begin.
Maeve Lulu, sometimes called Lulu, was born two years after we first began talking about her, two years after I committed to meditating every day. It was as if I closed my eyes one day, sat down facing a blank wall, and two years later I opened them to find her in my arms. From that moment on she became my meditation — I wake up with her most mornings at sunrise (amazing, and exhausting, to see so many sunrises) and spend the next hour or three simply being with her, preparing food, making drawings, reading books.
For the first few months I was a comically inept parent. The first night home from the hospital, I held her bare body against my bare chest until a friend who was a doctor came by and asked what I was doing, and told me to put some clothes on that baby.
Her little limbs were blue, eggplant blue. It was January, infants have bad circulation, and she was blue with cold. I had noticed it, but while still in the hospital I’d stopped by a couple of parenting classes where they had said something about blue limbs. But the way I remembered it, they’d said it was O.K.
When she was almost a year old, I was at a dinner party with her on my lap, and a friend asked what I missed most from my old life. He is single and dating, which seems to be working for him. But I was stumped — I had never considered that I was missing anything, not since she appeared. Everything did change with her arrival, but nothing that didn’t need to be changed.
And now Maeve is already a toddler. The car reached the top of the roller coaster, and then it fell, just as I knew it would. I was afraid she would fly out of my arms as we fell. I didn’t know we could fall together, that I could hold onto her as we fell, that she could be safe in my arms.
The Chinese vases were in the news again recently. Someone had actually glued them all back together, piece by painstaking piece. Friends I haven’t seen in a while still ask, after we fill one another in on our lives, about the vase thing. I used to shake my head and correct them. But more and more I simply nod and say, “Ah yes, those vases.”
Nick Flynn lives in Brooklyn. His latest memoir is “The Ticking Is the Bomb” (Norton).
Saw the most amazing documentary today about San Francisco during the AIDS years. Heart-breaking and inspiring.
We Were Here: Voices From the AIDS Years in San FranciscoUSA, 2010, 90 Minute Running Time
Program: Documentary
Language: English
DIRECTOR: David Weissman
Filmmakers David Weissman and Bill Weber co-directed the 2001 documentary, The Cockettes, chronicling San Francisco’s legendary theater troupe of hippies and drag queens, 1969–1972. We Were Here revisits San Francisco a decade later, as its flourishing gay community is hit with an unimaginable disaster.
The first film to take a deep and reflective look back at the arrival of AIDS, We Were Here focuses on a small number of interviewees, all of whom lived in San Francisco before the epidemic hit.The stories they tell are not only intensely personal, but also address the much larger political and sexual complexities of that era.
We Were Here explores what was not so easy to discern in the midst of it all — the parallel histories of suffering and loss. Despite legitimate fears of being forced back into the closet by AIDS, the gay community was in many ways greatly empowered by the challenges that the epidemic presented.
Though this is a San Francisco-based story, the issues it addresses extend not only beyond San Francisco but also beyond AIDS itself. It speaks to our societal relationship to death and illness, our capacity as individuals to rise to the occasion, and the importance of community in addressing unimaginable crises.
6/19/10
Capturing the ennui of suburban Marin county
This is a photograph by my talented teenage mentoree, Jason. He will be a sophomore at Corcoran College of Art + Design, this fall in Washington, D.C. I love him to death!
Seeing each other
Isn’t a relationship just an exercise in seeing the perfection in each other’s imperfections?--Hyla Molander
"The Velvet Rage," a book about the pain of growing up gay in a straight man's world
I met the author of this thought-provoking and insightful book last night. Alan Downs Phd. talks about the effects of hiding one's sexuality and associated shame on the ability of gay men to emotionally mature and form deep and lasting romantic relationships. The book finishes with 10 big life lessons that are very Buddhist in spirit...and lead to authenticity. I am going to start reading this book.
6/18/10
Skillful behavior creates good results
The power farmer makes weeds,the mediocre one makes crops,
the skilled farmer makes soil.
--Zen saying
"The GOP's BP Problem"
by Richard Wolffe, The Daily BeastJune 17, 2010 | 12:29am
Pundits panned Obama’s speech, but Richard Wolffe reports the White House is taking comfort in research that suggests swing voters liked it, want a bill passed—and see Republicans as the obstacle.
The pundits largely panned President Obama's first Oval Office address, devoted to amping up his response to the BP oil disaster. But the White House is taking some comfort in research by one of Obama's campaign consultants—which points toward a new political strategy that could yet yield a legislative victory on energy and climate legislation this year.
David Binder, who worked as an Obama for America pollster in 2008, conducted focus group research among white independent men in Columbus, Ohio. In stark contrast to the cable TV analysis on Tuesday night, Binder's group reacted "very positively" to Obama's address—especially his "conviction and sincerity" and his plan for alternative energy sources.
"Voters believed that any possible Republican opposition to clean-energy legislation would be motivated by partisanship, and not by principle," Binder concluded.
Even more encouraging for the White House than the instant analysis of the speech: Binder's group of independent men expressed skepticism about the GOP's motives in the coming debate on clean energy.
"Voters believed that any possible Republican opposition to clean-energy legislation would be motivated by partisanship, and not by principle," Binder concluded. "Further, they overwhelmingly agreed that if Republicans oppose Obama's plan without offering a proposal that would be good for the American people—and not just good for business—they would be more likely to vote Democratic."
Binder cited one voter who said, "This is a big crisis, this isn't about party. If the Republicans come out with a line drawn in the sand and do nothing but poke holes in what the Democrats say without offering any other type of solution that's good for the American people, then, 'See ya!' And the solution can't just be good for business; it has to be good for average people."
The research also tested GOP responses to Obama's energy strategy—namely, that the president's plans could lead to higher costs for consumers via more taxes and bigger energy bills. Binder found that "voters agreed with the president that the cost of doing nothing would be even greater."
There's little question that the partisan politics surrounding the oil spill are heating up. On Wednesday, the Republican National Committee unveiled a new ad campaign, which uses Democratic consultant James Carville's critique of Obama's disaster response in asking why it took the White House so long to convene a meeting with the brass at BP. The ad suggests that Obama's falling approval ratings for his handling of the Gulf Coast crisis—fueled by the constant drumbeat of criticism on cable—make him an attractive target whose performance could help drag down Democratic fortunes this fall.
But Binder's research offers the White House hope for a countervailing narrative—and suggests that Republicans waging an aggressive partisan attack over the issue risk overplaying their hand.
Obama may benefit, amid the heightened partisanship, from some early courtship of select Republicans on climate and energy issues. Back in March, Obama met with a bipartisan group that includes six Republicans: Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, George LeMieux of Florida, Dick Lugar of Indiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
One GOP senator not on the March list showed up to the White House for talks with the president on Wednesday, after the BP meetings ended.
Scott Brown of Massachusetts—the man who almost ended health-care reform with his surprise election in January—visited with Obama for a rare one-on-one session, which included talk about energy and climate legislation. According to the Boston Herald's report, Brown urged Obama to consider aspects of the GOP's energy agenda, signaled his willingness to support a truly bipartisan bill—but drew the line at backing any legislation featuring cap-and-trade measures.
White House officials say the president will reach out to senators on both sides of the aisle in the coming weeks, and remains open to good ideas from any source as he pushes for a comprehensive bill. They say Obama is determined to find the votes for an energy bill this year.
In the meantime, Obama is following his Oval Office address and talks with BP by pushing ahead with a long-term Gulf Coast recovery plan. On Thursday he meets with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, to begin work on the wide-ranging recovery plan.
That work includes economic development and environmental restoration, as well as public-health issues and targeted help for individuals and businesses. Obama expects Mabus to consult with a huge group of interested parties, including state, local and tribal governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and the entire range of federal government departments and agencies already working on the disaster response.
Obama also wants Mabus to wrap up this ambitious new project as soon as possible.
Richard Wolffe is Daily Beast columnist and an award-winning journalist. He covered the entire length of Barack Obama's presidential campaign for Newsweek magazine. His book, Renegade: The Making of a President, was published by Crown in June.
"Cupid's Ammo:" smart ways on how to maintain hot, blissful monogamy
"Cupid’s Ammo"
June 1, 2010 By Marnia Robinson
Having trouble staying faithful? Learn how to trick your brain into hot, blissful monogamy.
When you’re hit by Cupid’s arrow, you effectively become delusional. You don’t realize this, of course, because, well, you’re delusional. You’re convinced that the person you met last week at your buddy’s wedding is The One, and you expect the passion you’re feeling to keep you quivering with interest and ecstasy for a lifetime. (Scientists call this phenomenon “pair bonding,” and though they’re experts on the condition, they’ve been known to succumb to it themselves.) Cupid is a sneaky dude, or rather, the biological agenda he personifies doesn’t necessarily promote enduring love.
Cupid’s ammo is the first of a series of neurochemical impulses in a primitive part of your brain known as the limbic system—or “mammalian brain.” Your ancient mammalian brain is so powerful, so efficiently wired, that it often overwhelms your more recently evolved and considerably more realiable “rational brain.”
The mammalian brain’s mating agenda urges you to:
(1) fall in love recklessly with fireworks that propel sperm to egg,
(2) bond long enough to fall in love with your kids so they have two caregivers,
(3) get fed up with your mate,
(4) look for a new one.
This agenda improves the genetic variety of offspring, and the greater the variety, the better our genes’ chances of surviving into the future. Cold, heartless, but effective.
But what if you want to outsmart Cupid and actually stay in love? (If you’re married, you already signed up for this, so pay attention.) After all, contented monogamy has its up-sides: close, trusted companionship protects psychological and physical health, and having two caregivers improves kids’ chances of well-being. One household is also cheaper to maintain than two, and serial seduction can be downright tiring—and expensive.
How can you steer the primitive part of your brain toward hot, sweaty, monogamous contentment? It’s challenging because the primitive mammalian brain doesn’t run on logic or vows. You may have noticed that you can’t use willpower to force yourself to fall in love—or stay in love. Go ahead and try—you’re going to lose that game every time.
Your mammalian brain runs on subconscious cues, that is, behavioral signals that bypass your rational brain and trigger gut responses. By understanding which pedals to push, you can steer your romance more consciously and with less inner torment.
The behaviors that deliver the most potent subconscious signals may surprise you. Hot sex with lots of orgasms plays right into Cupid’s agenda; it sounds counter-intuitive, but intense sexual stimulation can actually dampen the pleasure response in many brains, at least temporarily. This can be a powerful trigger for a mammal to seek greener pastures. “Fertilization duty done here; time to find this mate less alluring—and respond to any potential novel mate with gusto.” Scientists call this the Coolidge Effect—named, after President Calvin Coolidge, who, while on a trip to a poultry farm, marveled at the promiscuous roosters. Ninety-seven percent of all mammal species operate their love lives entirely on this signal. They copulate to the point of disinterest, and then they move on.
Humans, on the other hand, are among the rare mammals with the capacity to “fall in love.” We’re pair bonders. Even so, our impulse to breed early and often still lurks within. It competes with our “bonding” inclination, sometimes causing severe inner conflict. Perhaps you’ve noticed.
Our bonding program starts off with a bang—in the form of a “honeymoon cocktail.” It’s a temporary booster shot of thrilling neurochemistry: increased dopamine (the brain compound most closely associated with addiction), norepinephrine, nerve growth factor, lower serotonin, and adjustments to testosterone levels. The result is often infatuation and even obsession, which temporarily blunts the “move on” message—even in the face of lots of sex and the wild mood swings that new lovers often experience. They’re hooked on each other.
Sadly, any honeymoon neurochemistry will wear off within two years. This is why the move from infatuation to long-term contentment is problematic. As the buzz fades, your perceptions of each other may fluctuate disconcertingly during the days or weeks after passionate encounters.
One husband experienced the phenomenon this way: “We’d have sex for fifteen minutes. Then I’d be grouchy for a week. Then I’d be sweet as honey as I got horny again.”
Women sometimes experience it, too. “My wife turns into a major bitch on occasion the morning after a night of really great sex,” one man said. “I’m talking multiple orgasms and a two to three-hour session. And the next morning I am the anti-Christ!”
“This happens to me, too,” a woman told me. “I wake up in the morning after a great night with my dear husband and feel like the bitch from hell sometimes… really irritable and moody. Normally I’m a very even-keel kind of gal. Things feel better when orgasms are more spread out. I have personally noticed a significant decrease in my attraction and warm fuzzy feelings toward my spouse when the “O” is on a constant, regular basis.
Mood swings like these, even in milder forms (not to mention the projections they foster), can extinguish the sparkle in a relationship, making both partners wonder if they’d be better off with someone new. Since most of us don’t realize that subtle neurochemical shifts are coloring our views, we tend to blame each other.
The good news is that the ancient mammalian brain is also home to the only part of the brain that can stay in love. Just as too much sexual stimulation can put lovers out of sync, “attachment cues” can help them look good to each other indefinitely.
Bonding behaviors include skin-to-skin contact, gazing into each other’s eyes, kissing with lips and tongues, wordless sounds of contentment and pleasure, stroking with intent to comfort, touching and sucking of nipples/breasts, spooning or hugging each other in silence, placing a calming hand on our lover’s genitals, and gentle intercourse. These behaviors deliver the subconscious message, “Strengthen this emotional tie.”
Incidentally, these cues work because they derive from the basic mammalian infant-caregiver attachment behaviors that enable us to fall in love with our parents and kids. Only in rare pair bonders like humans can adult mates use similar subconscious cues to sustain their romances indefinitely.
To keep us doting, bonding behaviors must occur almost daily. Even a moment or two can do the job, but these signals are far less effective if couples use them only rarely, or solely in connection with reaching climax.
Bonding cues are not the same as foreplay. Foreplay is designed to produce sexual tension. In contrast, these ancient cues work because they relax mates’ nervous systems. Foreplay is goal-oriented; bonding behaviors are not. Intriguingly, gentle intercourse without orgasm can be a powerful bonding behavior. In fact, various cultures throughout history preserved this technique under different names: karezza, amplexus reservatus, Daoist dual cultivation, and others.
So, how do you keep monogamy rewarding over the long haul? Emphasize daily, soothing bonding behaviors (including relaxed intercourse). Keep in mind that by not dampening each other’s sexual desire (at a brain chemical level), you can sidestep the subsequent feelings of dissatisfaction that can send you running for the hills.
If you want to enjoy monogamy indefinitely, send Cupid the right signals.
6/17/10
I love surprises...World Cup favorities, France & Spain, upset by these willing underdogs
Today: Mexico 2, France
Yesterday: Switzerland 1, Spain 0
Yesterday: Switzerland 1, Spain 0
6/15/10
America's World Cup soccer hunks
I have a thing for cute soccer players. Check out some American beauties.
Power of meditation: When you are completely absorbed in your breathing there is no self
When you are completely absorbed in your breathing there is no self. What is your breathing? That breathing is not you, nor air. What is it? It is not self at all. When there is no self you have absolute freedom. Because you have a silly idea of self you have a lot of problems.--Suzuki Roshi
"For Even Better: 10 Tips for Relationship Bliss"
by Colleen Wachobwww.mindbodygreen.com
How many books have your read on healthy eating? Self-help? Fitness? Dating? Leadership? Wellness? If your bookshelf looks anything like mine, Amazon should probably be thanking us for our intellectual curiosity. But what about the modern marriage? It is the most profound relationship in many people's lives, but there are fewer fact-based options for the person seeking to understand how to strengthen our most important relationship.
Having recently celebrated our first wedding anniversary, I wanted to learn how my husband and I could help immunize ourselves from future strains and stresses on our marriage. Since we inherit most of our conceptions of marriage from our families, peers and social groups, I was drawn to Tara Parker-Pope's scientific exploration of relationships in For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage. After her 17-year marriage ended, the New York Times Well Blog columnist Parker-Pope sought an objective, fact-based understanding of what went wrong in her own relationship. Whether you think of your significant other as your soul mate, life partner, husband or wife, Parker-Pope offers insights to help you strengthen your most profound relationship in life.
If you are in a new and thriving marriage, a fulfilling partnership of many years, or evaluating whether you want to take the next step, Parker-Pope's tips from "For Better" will help you maintain, booster or rekindle the relationship bliss:
1. Celebrate the small stuff.
"It's not enough that your partner knows that you take pride in her or her accomplishments. You have to show it. Making a fuss over the small, good things that happen everyday can boost the health of your marriage."
2. Learn how to fight productively.
"The key to fighting productively is to recognize when a disagreement is going in the wrong direction and to take steps to calm things down and repair rifts."
3. Silence is not golden.
"By staying quiet and avoiding conflict when things bothered them, they had missed important opportunities to cultivate and grow their relationship."
4. Don't put negative thoughts into the universe.
"Men and women who had pondered thoughts of divorce in 1980 were nine times more likely to have gotten divorced by the end of the study."
5. Plan together.
"Couples who planned a baby's arrival or who were equally joyous at becoming parents were far more likely to maintain their marital happiness or even enjoy an increase after the baby was born."
6. Maintain a circle of friends and support.
"Strong friendships outside the marriage can take the pressure off your relationship, help you work things out away from your spouse, and ultimately protect your marriage from unnecessary stress and discord."
7. Overcompensate for mistakes.
"Do marriage math. Even when you make a mistake, tell yourself that you're going to do at least five positive things for your spouse to make up for it, and then do them. And don't wait until you bicker to turn on the charm. Nice gestures and comments go far in a marriage, they are easy to do, and they will help insulate your marriage from being damaged by the inevitable bad days."
8. Set the marriage bar high.
"Husbands and wives who hold their partners to a reasonably high standard have better marriages. If you expect a better, more satisfying relationship, you improve your chances of having one."
9. Give it a break.
"Sometimes, improving your marriage means giving it a break. Increasing your connections with family, friends and society is good for your marriage."
10. Be aware of your body language.
"Eye rolling is a painfully obvious sign of contempt, and it's a powerful predictor that your relationship is in serious trouble."
"Olson surprises many conservatives by seeking to overturn gay-marriage ban"
By Robert BarnesWashington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 14, 2010; A01
Cocktails had been served on the terrace, the ubiquitous Washington buffet of tenderloin and salmon consumed, and the gay law students settled in to hear from the famed legal mind who is leading the battle to make sure they have the right to marry whomever they want, wherever in the United States of America they live.
But first, an introduction: The assembled were reminded of Theodore B. Olson's sterling conservative credentials; about his loyal service in President Ronald Reagan's Justice Department; that he was President George W. Bush's solicitor general; that perhaps the crowning achievement in his gaudy career as a Supreme Court advocate was persuading five justices to stop the vote counting in Florida in the 2000 election and acknowledge that Bush had won.
So far, so quiet.
But then Olson took the microphone, and began to describe his crusade to overturn California's Proposition 8 and establish a constitutional right for same-sex marriage. The two gay families he represents are "the nicest people on the planet." He believes to his core that discrimination because of sexual orientation "is wrong and it's hurtful, and I never could understand it." He knows some worry that the lawsuit is premature, "but civil rights are not won by people saying, 'Wait until the right time.' "
This fight, Olson told the law students gathered on a spring evening in the luxe D.C. offices of his firm, Gibson, Dunn and Cruthcher, "is the most compelling, emotionally moving, important case that I have been involved in in my entire life."
Standing O. Another jury persuaded.
Olson will try to repeat the performance Wednesday in a federal courthouse in San Francisco. He will present closing arguments in a potentially groundbreaking trial in which Olson and his political odd-couple partner David Boies -- his Democratic rival in Bush v. Gore -- are asking a federal judge to overturn Prop 8, with which California voters limited marriage to a man and a woman. The suit says that violates the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses.
It is the first stop in what is likely to be a years-long, historic journey to the Supreme Court, the Brown v. Board of Education for the gay rights movement. Some critics wonder if it is a bit of an ego trip as well, whether Olson's belief in his own skills could lead to a debilitating loss at the high court.
The case has prodigious legal talent on all sides. Washington lawyer Charles J. Cooper, a star in the same conservative orbit that Olson usually inhabits, is counsel for the California group that sponsored Proposition 8. Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, first nominated by Reagan and finally confirmed under President George H.W. Bush, drew the lot to hear the case. (He also picked up the San Francisco Chronicle one morning after the trial to see a column reporting that he is gay, an issue about which he has never publicly spoken.)
But no one has attracted as much attention as Olson, a tall and lanky man who is approaching 70 but still wears his strawberry-blond hair in bangs. That the man who was a loyal Reagan lieutenant and defended Bush's anti-terrorism policies is now championing gay rights has been too much for some conservatives. M. Edward Whelan III, whose National Review column is influential in conservative legal circles, called the lawsuit "a betrayal of everything that Ted Olson has purported to stand for."
Paul D. Clement, who was Olson's deputy as solicitor general and then took over the job, said conservatives have "come to terms" with Olson's decision, "but those who never understood it are still scratching their heads."
Olson said people continue to look for a reason -- for instance, there is no family member who influenced his thinking, he said -- because "I'm a mossback conservative and thus not supposed to have these views." But he said that while in the Bush administration, he opposed an attempt to amend the Constitution to define marriage.
"This is 'California Ted,' not 'Federalist Society Ted,' " said Lisa Blatt, an attorney who worked with Olson in the solicitor general's office, referring to his upbringing on the West Coast.
There was equal suspicion on the left, mixed with disbelief. As one blogger wrote on a gay Web site last year: "Ted Freaking Olson is now better on gay marriage than our president." President Obama has said he favors civil unions, not same-sex marriage.
But the man-bites-dog aspect of Olson's advocacy has brought a blizzard of publicity: profiles and television interviews and the chance for him this year to write a nearly 4,000-word cover story for Newsweek, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage."
"We believe we can change people's minds just by bringing this case," Olson said. "It will give us an audience."
Olson got involved when his former sister-in-law ran into liberal Hollywood activists Rob and Michele Reiner, who were lamenting Prop 8 shortly after its passage in November 2008 and were wondering about a legal challenge. The former sister-in-law suggested they call Olson because she thought he might be sympathetic.
Chad Griffin, a California consultant, was the original go-between for the Reiners and Olson. He had worked in the Clinton White House at a time when Olson was seen as a major cog in the "vast right-wing conspiracy" accused of miring the Clinton presidency in scandal and investigations.
"I never thought there was a single issue I could have agreed with Ted Olson about," Griffin said. "I really saw him as the enemy."
Now, he said, "Those who know him know that this is a man who both professionally and personally cares deeply about this issue."
But among those who favor same-sex marriage, the question remains: Is this the time to bring the issue before an increasingly conservative Supreme Court?
Olson waves away the worries with a combination of legal research and sound bites.
He describes the recognition of the right to marry as a natural progression of the court's precedents. Twelve times, "dating to 1888," the court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right, he said. Add to that the court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia that state laws limiting marriage to people of the same race were unconstitutional.
In 1996, the court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that forbade laws offering anti-discrimination protection to gays. In 2003, it overruled a law that prohibited private homosexual acts.
Opponents of same-sex marriage point out that the court let stand a decision in which lower courts found constitutional a state's right to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Olson said that was 40 years ago.
Andy Pugno, general counsel for Yes on 8, said Olson's arguments ignore simple facts.
"There is no federally protected right to same-sex marriage, and it was perfectly rational for voters to adhere to a traditional definition of marriage and to decline to experiment with other kinds of marriage," he said.
Olson argues that "tradition" would have meant that it was illegal for Obama's parents to marry. Pamela Karlan, an opponent of Prop 8 and co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School, is not as confident in the court as Olson.
"I wouldn't want to be up in front of this Supreme Court" to ask for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Karlan said. "My own hope is that the voters of California will vote to repeal [Prop 8] before this case ever reaches" that stage.
Five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, most because of court decisions. Thirty states have constitutional provisions that limit marriage to a man and a woman; others have statutory restrictions on same-sex marriage.
Olson said he sees no conflict between his conservative beliefs in democracy and his efforts now to have the courts overturn a referendum approved by voters.
"Whenever minority rights are put to a popular vote, the minority loses," he said. California's situation is especially complex, because 18,000 same-sex couples married during the period when the state supreme court allowed it and voters amended the state constitution to forbid it.
Olson, who has argued 56 cases before the Supreme Court, said it is "inevitable" that the court will decide the issue, and told the law students that the case he and Boies are preparing represents the best chance to win.
Asked by one student at the dinner whether he had suffered for taking the case, Olson told his own small story of discrimination.
As a form of protest, he said some conservatives have urged others to withhold money from the Republican National Committee, which has hired Olson for the latest challenge to campaign finance laws. But he took note of his audience's political views and added that that is "something that most of you probably would not mind."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)