I’ve been remiss in updating the blog this year; rather than full-form old-style blog posts, most of my writing these days takes the form of microblogging via Twitter and/or Facebook. However, Jeff and I both have been publishing occasional posts on a new shared site, “happy together,” accessible at both thomandjeff.com and jeffandthom.com, so you’re covered whichever one of us comes first when you think of us as a couple.

On our shared site, currently we’re chronicling our plans for our wedding this coming September 26. Yes, for those of you who haven’t already heard elsewhere, we’re engaged. To the semantics: yes, thanks to the odious Proposition 8 and DOMA, our union won’t actually be legally considered a civil marriage in California, with any of the state or federal rights and obligations afforded to opposite-sex couples. But as far as we’re concerned, it’s still a wedding. And, in fact, we already are registered in California as domestic partners, which gives us the same rights and obligations as does marriage here — though only at the state level, since the federal government won’t honor the legal agreement into which our state allows us to enter, which causes all sorts of real and potential issues and headaches when traveling out of state or when filing income taxes. But anyway, back to the positive…

On Friday, February 13, Jeff and I went into San Francisco to the same state office not where you apply for a marriage license, but where you apply for a business license, in order to register as domestic partners. The next day we drove down to San Simeon, Monterey and Carmel for the weekend, and over a romantic Valentine’s Day dinner in Carmel, we each proposed to the other. Happily, we both said “yes.”

So, our wedding and luncheon reception will be held Saturday, September 26, 2009, on the terrace and in the adjoining Terrace Room at the historic Cliff House in San Francisco, with its dramatic location overlooking the Pacific Ocean and Seal Rock.

For more information and for future updates about the wedding, please visit happy together or subscribe to its RSS feed (http://www.thomandjeff.com/feed/).

This afternoon we had brunch at the Park Chalet on the Great Highway, and then walked across the road to Ocean Beach to take some photos, from some of which I created the following 360-degree panorama:

Afterwards, we drove to the Legion of Honor Museum where we caught the 4:00 organ concert and then strolled around until the museum closed. Afterwards, we took some additional photos on the grounds, from which I created the following panorama:

Andrew Sullivan today wrote that California's Prop. 8 "should stand, and the court should decline to reverse it. We lost. They won in a fair fight. No whining."

First of all, "we" lost? Sullivan doesn't live or vote in California. He didn't contribute a penny to defeat Prop. 8 (at least as of the most recent information in the donor database, from November 6). He already has taken advantage of his right to legally marry his own same-sex partner in Massachusetts and his rights weren't taken away by popular vote. How exactly is he part of "we", and just why should we care what he thinks about this?

Second, by what stretch of the imagination was this a "fair fight"? Frankly, yes, I'd have preferred if Prop. 8 had been defeated at the ballot box, for once and for all. The elected representatives of the people, after all, approved same-sex marriage twice, but the governor vetoed it, saying that the Supreme Court should be the ones to decide.

And when it did go to the people, it won --and still, barely-- by saturating the air waves with hateful lies and misrepresentations that would never be acceptable if used of any other minority, through appeals to irrational fears and bigotry, and with millions of dollars and person-hours of volunteer time essentially mandated by the Mormon church of its membership, much of that money and time coming from people who don't even live in the state. And it won through the absurdity of a constitution that can be so easily amended, but not so easily revised. That's hardly "fair."

Moreover, Prop. 8 never should have been placed on the ballot for majority vote in the first place, and the California Supreme Court seemed to agree in its May ruling (hat tip Pam's House Blend) when it wrote:

"..under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process [emphasis mine]."

As I wrote a few days ago, our constitutional republic is supposed to guarantee that the rights of an unpopular minority are not subject to the vote of a majority; we have constitutions and courts specifically to protect those rights from popular vote.

It seems to me, then, that the court has a responsibility not only to hear the cases before it in the matter of Prop. 8, but that it should act to overturn it. Otherwise, we and they have effectively agreed with the popular, albeit incorrect, opinion that "the majority is always right," that the courts are "activist" as opposed simply to fulfilling their constitutionally mandated role, and thereby we essentially weaken the very foundation of our government. That is to say, if we agree that it's okay to let the majority rule in the case of equal civil rights for gays and lesbians today, and that the courts are prohibited from doing their job to protect those rights, how can we ever justify in any past or future scenario that the majority shouldn't be able to rule in taking away rights from other minorities, including racial or ethnic minorities, or religious minorities, and that the courts must remain silent and accept the will of the people then, too? Why shouldn't the majority be able to make interracial marriages illegal again, then, or to make civil marriage illegal for atheists or any other unpopular minority?

Finally, Sullivan also writes, "It is one thing to decide that gay couples are barred from civil equality from now on, but to reach back and strip couples who married in good faith under the law is excessive." I'm certainly in agreement that it would be wrong for the state to forcibly divorce couples who already legally married in California because of majority rule, though I'm unsure why Sullivan should be able to find this any different than allowing the majority only to prevent any such marriages in the future. I'm particularly chilled by the cavalier manner in which Sullivan apparently finds it acceptable to ban gay couples from civil equality, under any circumstances, just as long as we agree that it's unacceptable to take away his marriage. I'm sure your wedding cake tasted delicious, Andrew; thanks so much for your "let them have cake" attitude to those of us here in California who deserve the same equality.

While Keith Olbermann can sometimes be over the top, I was really moved by his "Special Comment" in regards to same-sex marriage and California's Prop. 8 earlier this week, and several straight friends wrote to tell me about it as well. Here it is, if you haven't seen it already.

I was similarly touched by Judith Warner's most recent New York Times column, "What It Felt Like to Be Equal." The quotes Warner shares from gay people who were directly affected by the passage of Prop. 8, about feeling that gays are now perhaps the only group it is okay to publicly disdain and legally discriminate against, and how the otherwise historic election of Barack Obama can feel painfully hollow, capture exactly how I have been feeling since last Tuesday.

It wasn't that she begrudged Obama his victory. It was just that his historic triumph made the insult to her community all the more painful. An awful thought came to her that night: Now we're the designated cultural outcasts. "It's almost like we're the last group you can be openly bigoted about," she told me.

"You look around and you think more than half of the people in this state voted to take this away from us? At a time when we're celebrating the election of an African American to the White House? I don't know how you heal from it," she said. "It's hard to get it out of your bones."

And Warner's perspective as a straight person, admitting that it's not always easy to understand why this is important, is perhaps the most eloquent writing on the issue I've yet seen:

It's easy, if you're straight, to file away the gay marriage issue in a little folder in your mind, to render it, essentially, inessential. It can fall into the category of "bones you throw the religious right because things could be so much worse." Or "things that would be great in a perfect world." Or "what's the big deal?" because you don't actually get what a big deal it is to be able to get married when you've never had to consider the alternative.

Many of the gay men and lesbians I spoke or e-mailed with this week didn't fully realize what a big deal it was to be married either. Until they were.

"I don't think I had realized until then what it felt like to be equal," Swanson told me....

"I don't feel equal anymore. It was a great feeling, while it lasted."

But we shall overcome.

Tomorrow Jeff and I will be joining tens of thousands of other Americans -- gay, Lesbian, bisexual, transgender, straight, young, old, black, white, Latino, Asian -- in rallies across the country to continue to protest the injustice of Prop. 8 and laws like it. We'll be at San Francisco's City Hall at 10:30 tomorrow morning; there will be simultaneous rallies in hundreds of cities in all 50 states. You can find your closest event at the Join the Impact site.

Artist Shepard Fairey, who created the iconic Obama "Hope" and "Progress" posters, has created a special graphic for the occasion, "Defend Equality. Love Unites."

I’d been planning to write this post since the passage of California’s Proposition 8 last Tuesday eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, but because I procrastinated, as usual, others, including Jeff, have beat me to the punch. Nevertheless, here’s my own take on the matter.

Two issues that have often distressed me, and that especially concern me in the aftermath are the claims like those by Proposition 8 supporters that 1) we live in a “democracy,” where “majority rules,” and that 2) judges are “activists” who overstep their bounds when they overrule a majority vote directing at limiting rights to a minority group.

First, it’s shameful that so many Americans, perhaps even a majority, have such a fundamental misunderstanding of their country’s government. Yes, America is a democracy, but the word “democracy” does not necessarily mean that “majority rules.” There are many types of democracies. The US is of course, a constitutional republic, a particular form of democracy that constrains the ability of the majority, or of any one person, entity or governmental branch, to have unchecked power, especially over minorities, and especially concerning individual rights:

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican… (Wikipedia)

Moreover, America was founded as such a constitutional republic in large part specifically to safeguard the rights of minorities against the “tyranny of the majority.” Claiming that a majority vote is sufficient to remove a right from a minority group, then, is about as un-American an idea as possible and by definition un-republican (lower case).

And this means that the judges who make unpopular decisions upholding minority rights, whether it be the right of interracial marriage or in California of same-sex marriage, are not creating law, they are not usurping the right of the majority, for in fact the majority has no such right to tyrannize a minority. Rather, these courts are doing what they were created and are constitutionally obligated to do. And in doing so, they remain significantly more true to the founders’ ideals than do those who would establish a mobocracy in America. For that is what the philosophy of “majority rules” is, in its purest form, nothing more than an angry, ugly mob.

You’d think that with their veneration (almost to the point of fetishization) of the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes “and to the Republic, for which it stands,” the right especially would have a little better understanding of U.S. government, and would at least learn what a republic really is, if they’re pledging allegiance to it. Apparently, not so. On the other hand, it’s a wonder that the right loves the Pledge of Allegiance so much in the first place, given that it clearly states, “with Liberty and Justice for all.” Not “all except blacks,” or “all except women,” or “all except gays and Lesbians,” even though there were times in our history when “all” or “we the people” was believed to mean only “all white men”; it was just as wrong then as it is now, and the courts were just as correct in their duty to rule against excluding gay folk from “all” in California earlier this year as they were in ruling against noninclusive forms of “all” for people of color and for women in the past.

These are largely the only emotions I've been able to feel since Tuesday night, with the exception of two fleeting moment of elation 1) when the election first was called for Obama, and 2) when Obama gave his speech. Even in the midst of those moments, though, I kept being reminded that the promises inherent in an Obama presidency were not truly mine, as a gay person in America, to fully share. And while at the time I wrote that I was happy again to be an American, the truth is that by the next morning, recognizing the passage of California's Proposition 8, I no longer felt as though I truly were even considered an American by even half my adopted home state of California, much less by anywhere near half the country as a whole.

Fifty-two percent of California voters Tuesday night did something remarkable and frightening. They amended the state's constitution to strip a civil right from one group of people only. It's that easy to do, which is shocking enough, yet the same process that makes it possible to take away rights by a simple majority vote requires a much more difficult process to restore those rights. Perverse. That same night, 70% of California voters voted to give additional rights to farm animals raised for food.

How am I supposed to feel now that a sizable percentage of the people I see on a daily basis in my neighborhood, at work, in stores and restaurants, not only believe that my life and my relationship are worth less than theirs, but vote to back up their personal religious beliefs with the force of the state?

And what recourse do I have when a mere 50% plus 1 of my fellow citizens have the power to do so? That frightens me. The tyranny of the majority unchecked.

And most of these people voted to take away my rights, Jeff's rights and the rights of tens if not hundreds of thousands of other Californians and their children for one reason only. Religion. Religious leaders, subsidized by my own taxes, regularly stand up in their tax-exempt churches and tell these people to vote against me, that my life is evil and sinful, that (according to Catholic doctrine) I am "intrinsically disordered", and that I am less than human. Millions of dollars poured in from out-of-state Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus, and tens of millions of dollars -- between 40% and 70% of the total funds for this initiative -- were given by Mormons, many again from outside California, commanded from their pulpits to do so.

Why should churches be allowed to benefit from tax advantages when they can act so clearly and directly to take away my rights, even though I have to pay taxes but receive fewer rights than other Americans? Through my life I've been moving from a position of having been indoctrinated in religion myself, to a period of spiritual exploration, to personal atheism combined with religious tolerance. After this egregious use of religion and its taxpayer-subsidized bully pulpits to attack me and my family and to deny me my rights, however, I have moved solidly to a position that religion must be actively fought in its every attempt to intrude publicly into law, science and education, and that religious institutions should not be subsidized by the state but should pay taxes.

But hey, if preventing me from marrying the man I love and intend to spend the rest of my life with now means that your marriage is safe again, and that you'll stop those divorce proceedings so you can marry for the third time, stop beating your children, stop sleeping with your husband's best friend, and stop slapping your wife around, well, then maybe it's worth it. I'm really sorry that expressing my desire to actually enter an institution that you've already pretty much destroyed and more than half of you can't even sustain has placed such a burden on you that you have become unable to treat it with any sanctity or dignity. I never knew I had that kind of power.

Know what, though? And this is what ultimately helps me channel my anger into something more productive, and diminishes my despair. Yes, you and your superstitions and your old-fashioned bigotry may have won this skirmish. Oh, but so narrowly, and that gap continues to narrow, and quickly. In the years to come, and maybe even soon, you will lose your war on fairness and equality. Younger Americans overwhelmingly don't buy what you're selling about us -- they know us, are friends with us, love us, and see us and our relationships as no better or worse -- and they will vote for equality instead of for hate and fear.

To the 52% of my fellow Californians who voted to make me a second-class citizen on Tuesday, though, I really do have to thank you for a couple of things.

First, my love for Jeff has not been diminished by your hate, fear and/or ignorance; our relationship is no less valid than yours, nor our commitment to one another any less real or meaningful, despite your wishing it so. If anything, this attack has made us even stronger. Thank you.

Second, over the last couple of months I've been struggling with figuring out what I wanted to do next in my professional life, feeling that I needed to make a major change. While I was already leaning this way, you've absolutely helped me hone in on what that change should entail. To wit, I intend now to focus my job search with institutions like the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, and similar organizations that work unceasingly and tirelessly to defeat your attempts to legislate hate and inequality. Thank you.

There is an unfair ballot proposition in California that, if passed, will take away my fundamental rights. This is really important to me. Will you help me defeat Proposition 8?

Jeff and I have been together for five years. We love and support each other in the same way as families all over the country; we share the same joys and the same sorrows, we have the same dreams and the same fears. We intend to spend our lives together, and we hope to be married next year. The California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that it is unconstitutional in California to deny us the right to marry, just as it was the first court to rule, in 1948, that laws prohibiting interracial marriages also were unconstitutional. It is the constitutional duty of the court, in fact, to safeguard the rights of minorities, and that is what the California Supreme Court did.

California’s Proposition 8, however, now would take away our constitutional right to marry. It would take this right away only for same-sex couples and it would write discrimination directly into the state constitution. Constitutions are intended to delineate and give rights, not to take them away. Whatever your personal views or your church’s views are on gays and lesbians (and you should know that many, many churches, religious organizations, and faith- and community-based organizations actually have come out in opposition to this hateful proposition), I trust you agree that eliminating fundamental rights — from anyone — is just wrong.

And this isn’t just a hypothetical. If this proposition passes, Jeff and I will be prohibited from marrying next year, and the marriages of many of our friends may be invalidated. They and their children will be directly affected. Jeff and I will be directly affected. Imagine if other voters were able to decide to take away your right to marry, or to say that your own marriage had never really existed. That would be unfair. It would be wrong.

If you live in California, I hope you are already planning to vote NO. If you don’t live in California, you can help by making a donation to the No on 8 campaign.

Virtually every major paper in California is against Prop 8. The L.A. Times says it is “a drastic step to strip people of rights.” La Opinión called Prop 8 “an unnecessary initiative”. Even papers in the most conservative parts of the state have editorialized against Prop. 8. The San Diego Union Tribune, for example, wrote that “Prop 8…[singles] out a particular group for discrimination, a move that offends many Californians’ sense of fairness.” The Orange County Register said, “Revoking same-sex couples’ right to marry doesn’t belong in the state constitution. We recommend a “no” vote on Prop 8.” And the Sacramento Bee wrote, “Californians should reject the call to amend the state constitution to exclude some people from marriage. That would be a black mark on the constitution, just as past exclusionary acts remain a stain on California’s history.” They know that the truly conservative position is to encourage marriage for all, not to discriminate against some.

The other side has raised over $10 million more than us, and as much as 40% of their donations have come from the Mormon Church. No one church should be able to decide what civil rights we enjoy as private citizens of this country. The Prop. 8 supporters are using their vast war chest to spread lies and misinformation. Your donation will help reach undecided voters who need to hear that Prop. 8 is wrong and unfair.

If all of this doesn’t convince you, I hope you’ll email me so we can talk about this. You can also find out more at the No on Prop 8 site.

Thank you for doing all you can to defeat Prop. 8.

So assume you're driving in a state with the following two separate traffic laws:

1. When police, fire and rescue vehicles or ambulances approach you using a siren, flashing light or both, you must immediately yield the right-of-way; and
2. Upon approaching a stationary emergency vehicle that is displaying a flashing, blinking, or alternating emergency light you must proceed with caution and, if reasonable, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, yield the right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that occupied by the stationary emergency vehicle or, if changing lanes would be unreasonable or unsafe, proceed with due caution and maintain a safe speed for highway conditions (called the "move-over" law).

Now, you find yourself in the following situation:

Driving in the right lane of an interstate highway, you see ahead of you the flashing lights of several stopped state police cars on the right shoulder. According to the second law above, you must move over to the left lane, so you do.

Once you move into the left lane, however, you pass a state police car parked on the left shoulder (it does not have its lights flashing). After you and several other cars pass it, it pulls out and turns on its lights.

According to the first law above, you must yield right-of-way to the approaching police vehicle, so you should move back into the right lane to let it pass. When you do, it doesn't pass you, but neither does it pull in behind you and signal that you should pull over and stop. It continues to stay just behind and to the left.

What do you do? If you stay in the right lane now and pass the police cars parked on the right shoulder, you'll be guilty of violating the second law above. If you move back into the left lane in front of the patrol car there, though, you'll be guilty of violating the first law.

When this happened to me (yeah, it's not a hypothetical) when we were returning to Dulles airport after flying out Virginia earlier this month to attend my nephew's college graduation in Roanoke, I slowed down and stayed in the right lane, and immediately after passing the line of police cars parked on the right shoulder, the police car in the left lane finally passed me, and pulled off the road, while the last car in the line already on the right shoulder pulled out, turned on its siren, pulled me over, and ticketed me for violating the second law above.

When I explained the extenuating circumstances, the officer would hear none of it and issued a summons to appear in court next month. Noting, though, that I live in California, he said I could just plead guilty and pre-pay the fine by mail or online, and not have to physically appear.

Were I still living in Virginia, I absolutely would have gone to court to fight it, based on the fact that the second law says that the lane change must be made "if reasonable," and that given the circumstances I did not feel it was reasonable and that I was, in fact, put in a no-win situation by the officer's refusal to consider the impact of the second police car on my decision. But because I couldn't afford to take time off from work and buy an airplane ticket to fly back across the country for the court appearance, I reluctantly decided I would just pay the fine.

So I went online to try to find out how much the fine was, and how to pay it. I thought it would be around $30, which is the amount of most such fines for failing to yield right-of-way. The URL for the court system listed on the summons and on the automated voicemail for the county court, however, was incorrect. The automated message included the fines for only some traffic violations, but not for the one for which I was cited, and the message cut off in the middle every time I called it. I finally found my court case information online today (the summons was issued May 4, but they only finally entered it into their system this morning), but the option to pre-pay my fine wasn't active. So I found another phone number and finally reached a live person who told me that there was no pre-payment available for that violation, that I had to appear in court, and that the penalties can be quite severe (apparently a fine of up to $2500 and, under certain circumstances, license suspension and up to one month in jail!). When I explained that I live in California, and appearing in court would be difficult, she said that I could send a letter in my stead which would be attached to my case information and read by the judge at the time of my hearing.

So that's what I've done. Now I keep my fingers crossed and hope that either the trooper doesn't show up the day of my case, or that the judge agrees that what I did was "reasonable," especially given that I was in a no-win situation.

I'm not heartened, however, by the person on the phone's assertion that an absence on my court date, even with a letter, usually ends in an automatic guilty finding. Nor by the fact that this was clearly a sting operation: there was no real emergency, just four state police cars taking turns pulling people over in a taxpayer-funded version of automobile leapfrog (once one person was pulled over by one officer in the line, then the next person who drove by was guilty, so they were pulled over by the last officer in the line, which then meant that the person who next passed them got pulled over by another one of the waiting officers, ad infinitum). And the action of the other trooper actually makes me feel entrapped, given that he wouldn't pull ahead or behind me, but kept his car in a position where I would have to violate one law or the other.

I didn't bring up those issues in the letter, of course, as I want to fight the charge strictly on the merits of my decision and the unique situation itself, not muddy the waters by making it look like I was attacking the state police or questioning either their motives or the validity of the law. I understand the intent behind the law, as several state policemen in Virginia have been killed when they've been struck by cars while in the process of issuing a ticket and standing next to someone's driver's side window, but I don't like being set up for failure especially when throughout the incident I had been trying to obey the law, by moving over to the left lane in the first place, and then back to the right lane later.

It certainly doesn't make me want to return to Virginia anytime soon, and when I do visit again, I have no intention of getting behind the wheel of a car there. My family will have to come pick us up at the airport.

Earlier today I was laughing about the mention on the news of a 2.9-magnitude earthquake near Concord; 2.9 hardly seems worth mentioning, and hardly would be felt. Then, about twenty minutes ago, our own house started shaking, dishes were rattling, and the cats went ballistic, their claws scrabbling frantically on the floor as they ran wildly about trying to figure out what to do, as we experienced what is currently being classified a 5.6-magnitude earthquake whose epicenter is down near San Jose. We’re fine; the shaking lasted about ten seconds, and there was a fair amount of noise from dishes and glasses rattling around, and one picture tilted slightly on the wall, but furniture stayed put and there was no damage. All in all, pretty mild—given our distance from the epicenter—but relatively long. The 1957 quake, which had its epicenter here in Daly City, was a 5.3, so it’s a little sobering to think how this one might have been different if it had been closer.

The cats are still a little spooked, but Tiki’s just come into the kitchen to eat, so they’re starting to calm down.

As the earthquake was happening, I updated my Facebook profile with the info, and posted a twit immediately after I filled out the USGS questionnaire; I was frustrated, in fact, that it was taking so long for the USGS site to update with the current quake so I could submit our experiences. I’m such a geek.

On the commute home from work last night, I started listening to a This American Life episode, entitled “Roadtrip!”, on my iPod. Ira Glass had just finished the introduction as I pulled up to my first traffic light where, looking around, I saw an SUV parked on the right side of the street, sporting the California license tag

ROADTR♥P

Originally uploaded by thomwatson

After talking about it for a couple of months, and several trips to the Peninsula Humane Society, we came home Saturday afternoon from our most recent visit with two additions to our household, a 3-1/2-year-old male Maine Coon mix (right, top) and a 2-year-old female tortie (right, bottom; there are more photos of them on Flickr). We disliked the names they had been given by their previous owner—“Fuzz” and “Poof,” respectively—and since they don’t seem to respond to them anyway (maybe they don’t like them either) we’re planning to rename them. I’m pretty sure that we’ll call the energetic, rambunctious female “Tiki,” but we’re still searching for the right name for the male.

The two of them had come from the same home, and were offered by the shelter only as a pair; we had been planning to get two cats this time around, and Jeff had seen them on the shelter’s web site Friday and IM’ed me with the URL. The Maine Coon had a strong resemblance to Alex, and we both fell in love with them a little bit even before we’d seen them in person, I think.

At the shelter, we got to spend some time with them in one of the “get-acquainted” rooms, where the male seemed to warm up to us, while still remaining cautious, fairly quickly, but the more skittish female just kept making rounds of the room’s perimeter, not letting us get within a couple of feet before running away. Within a half-hour, though, she eventually would come over and head butt an outstretched hand before skittering away again. Knowing that we couldn’t really judge them from their behavior in such a stressful environment and such a very short time, we decided to just go for it, and we left the shelter a short while later, each of us with an occupied cardboard cat carrier.

It’s so interesting to see how their personalities differ so much from Alex’s and from one another’s, and how they’re changing before our eyes. On Saturday when we got home and let them out of their carriers, the male—who had been the friendlier, more curious at the shelter—slinking immediately over to and then inside and to the back of the fireplace, where he stayed for a while, emerging to make his way to the bedroom and under the bed, where he didn’t emerge again until just before bedtime. The female immediately started exploring the entire house, running and sliding on the wood floors. She’s still a little skittish, and we have to be very deliberate and slow when moving toward her, lest she bolt, but she is permitting some petting and head scratching. The male still likes to hide a fair amount (under furniture, on top of dining room chairs, under the bed, behind the futon), but he’s getting out and about more and more. Neither of them like to be picked up, at least not yet, nor have they shown much inclination at being lap cats (though he has jumped onto my lap at the computer desk a couple of times, though never staying for more than a few seconds). However, both already have begun sleeping on the bed, at our feet.

So neither of them is the extraordinarily social cat that Alex was—then again, Alex was perhaps the most social cat I’ve ever known, so it’s not completely a fair comparison—but they’re showing signs of warming up, at least to us, even after just two days. I’m betting that they’ll probably never be as extroverted as Alex was, and probably always remain somewhat skittish around strangers—hopefully they’ll outgrow that with us, in time—but they could surprise me.

They’re really gorgeous creatures; I don’t think these pictures really do them justice, especially of her. I’ve always been more partial to long-haired cats, and especially to Maine Coons or Maine Coon mixes, but I really find her extraordinarily beautiful, especially when the sun hits her fur and brings out the other tortoiseshell colors among the predominant black. Her most striking feature, though, is her round, amazingly golden eyes. Though casually the male is a ringer for Alex, there are clear differences; where Alex shaded to cream, for example, this cat shades to a fairly brilliant white. His paws and head are bigger in proportion to his body, common among the breed, but to a greater degree even than Alex’s. As did Alex, the new kitty has noticeable tufts of fur from the ears and between the toes, and the same fluffy feather-duster (as we’ve discovered as he trailed enormous dust bunnies when he emerged from beneath the bed) raccoon tail. Alex, however, had a slightly more traditional meow, while the new cat has the unusual warbling trill often heard with Maine Coons; Jeff said the sound reminds him of a tribble.

One thing I really miss, though, is Alex’s loud and frequent (nearly continual) purr, which I found very soothing and reassuring. I don’t think I’ve heard the new male purr yet, and the female only briefly and very quietly. Perhaps as they become more accustomed to us and to the house, and understand that this is their home and that they’re safe here, we’ll be treated to more frequent rumbling purrs.

In any case, Jeff and I are both really happy to have the cats here with us; the whole process has been really moving. And this is Jeff’s first time to choose a pet; Alex and I already had been living together six years before Jeff joined our family, so this is a completely different experience for him, and even more so since he’s home with the new cats all day. I think he’s enjoying going through the process.

Yes, apparently peanut butter provides proof that god exists.

As sad as the creationists are, their stupidity sometimes engenders great hilarity.

This morning on the way to work I stopped off at San Francisco City Hall, filled a parking meter with a huge handful of spare change—for a grand total of only 29 minutes—and went to the Office of the County Clerk, where 19 minutes and a check for $112 later, I was sworn in as a deputy marriage commissioner (albeit valid only for the solemnization of one specific marriage on the date of October 20).

Part of the process was kind of amusing; I was given a photocopy of my friends’ marriage license, and was asked to sign and print my name and print my mailing address. The documentation provided makes it VERY CLEAR that I have to stay within the boxes and may not cross-out, white-out or write-over any information, so this was my test run to prove that I could stay within the lines. This is serious, for as the web site points out, “The office of the County Clerk has a right to refuse deputization of a person, should the office feel that the person is unable to complete the paperwork correctly.”

I then had to swear or affirm (my choice)—right hand raised and all—that I would uphold the Constitution of the United States. Figuring that the current president and congress have set a pretty low bar for that task, I readily affirmed.

This isn’t an explanation why; it’s an honest (if hyperbolic) self-entreaty. What exactly does having a Democratic-controlled Congress give us? We haven’t seen any real pushback on Bush’s unitary executive claims. We haven’t gotten any movement on addressing civil liberty abuses and curbs. We can’t seem to get any bills out to control war spending or bring our troops home. We still have “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and gay Arabic linguists continue to be thrown out of the armed services. The list goes on and on and on…

What do we get instead?

A Senate resolution, passed by a 72 to 25 vote, condemning the free speech of MoveOn.org, for its (admittedly perhaps somewhat over-the-top) advertisement that ran in the New York Times attacking Gen. Petraeus. (Buried in a Washington Post story noting that an anti-war bill was blocked by nearly the same margins.)

The time and taxpayer money that the Senate just wasted on making non-binding resolutions that would police ad content makes about as much sense as the time and taxpayer money the State of Minnesota wastes in assigning policemen to sit for hours on end in public restrooms, waiting for sexual advances. MoveOn? I say, rather, “Move on, already! Enough of this bullshit, Senators!”

I am so totally disgusted by the lot of ‘em.

From a mailing to the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus:

My name is Benjamin Donner and I am a clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. I am currently carrying out my dissertation research on gay identity development across cultural groups in the United States, and thought you might be willing and/or able to help distribute my survey to individuals interested in contributing to cultural equality within the psychological literature, both within the Harvard community and outside of it.

As you may know, academic studies into the developmental experiences of gay and bisexual men are extremely scarce. It is my hope that this research project will shed greater light on those experiences that may be unique to specific cultural groups of gay and bisexual males in the U.S. so that clinicians and organizations are ultimately better equipped to both assist and appreciate our strengths and needs. With that in mind, I would greatly appreciate your distribution of my internet survey to individuals who might be willing to participate. Participants must be biological males, age 18 or over, residents of the United States, and attracted to other biological males. The survey should take between 10 and 15 minutes to complete. All responses will be entirely anonymous - email and IP addresses will not be requested or even identifiable - and will be kept in the strictest of confidence. If you’re willing to share it with others, the survey can be found online at the following link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=rjif1K1SdRN_2bBC3hVcT6Pg_3d_3d

Have all the copy editors at nytimes.com been laid off? Most days it feels like I can’t read an article there without finding at least one mistake. The current top feature, for example, entitled “Democrats Place Hurdle to Mukasey’s Nomination”, contains two errors in just the single paragraph below, one of which—a missing verb—even leaves the meaning, or at least the particular nuances thereof, somewhat unclear:

Mr. Mukasey himself has attracted criticism, notably from civil liberties advocates, who say he has been to [sic] supportive of law enforcement while on the bench. But he has sometimes [mollified? been praised by? puzzled? thumbed his nose at? what?] such critics, as he did with his handling of the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen suspected of membership in Al Qaeda. Although Mr. Mukasey backed the White House by ruling that Mr. Padilla could be held as an enemy combatant—a decision overturned on appeal—he also defied the administration by saying Mr. Padilla was entitled to legal counsel.

On a more positive note, however, the Times also has noted that they will no longer charge for access to TimesSelect or recent archives. While I personally already enjoy free access to TimesSelect and the Times archives through my university, I really applaud this decision.

immaculate conception church, san diego
Originally uploaded by thomwatson

Tomorrow morning I have a 7:00 flight to San Diego, where I’ll be attending a conference at UCSD (which technically is in La Jolla) for the editors/managers of the top-level University websites across the UC system, so I’ll be meeting my peers, for the first time, from the other campuses. It’s a short trip; I’ll be returning Friday evening.

It’s my second trip to San Diego, the first having been last December when Jeff and I took advantage of cheap Southwest fares to go just for a very quick weekend, flying down Friday evening after work and returning Sunday night. As part of my attempt to live a tiki life, we stayed at the cool Humphrey Half-Moon Inn and Suites on Shelter Island and had brunch on Sunday at the Bali Hai.

Jeff posted a fairly comprehensive report about the weekend at the end of December, and his Flickr set from the trip is very representative of the things we did and saw, including the hotel, the restaurant, Old Town, Hillcrest, Balboa Park, Coronado Island, and LEGOLAND. I also have some photos from the trip up on Flickr as well, though so far of only a subset of our activities there; I just uploaded some from LEGOLAND earlier this week, though, and more photos from that trip are forthcoming.

As an atheist, almost casually, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly. Surprising that she’d admit it, but, well, I really have to give her some credit for that, at least.

Are you religious?
No, I’m an atheist. But I absolutely love religions and the rituals. Even though I don’t believe in God. We celebrate pretty much every religion in our family with the kids. They love it, and when they say, ”Are we Jewish?” or ”Are we Catholic?” I say, ”Well, I’m not, but you can choose when you’re 18. But isn’t this fun that we do seders and the Advent calendar?”

But she remains as tight-lipped and grim as ever when asked about her sexual orientation, and the magazine, not surprisingly, gives her a pass.

Over the next two hours, there’s only one subject that she firmly swats away. A recent Out magazine cover featured two models holding up pictures of her and Anderson Cooper’s faces in front of their own, under the headline ”The Glass Closet: Why the Stars Won’t Come Out and Play.” When asked if she has any response, Foster says, ”Was that the one with the Popsicle sticks?” Her thin lips tighten into a calm half smile of reproach: ”No, I have no response.”

So be it. Too many actors today flaunt their personal lives to make up for the lack of a real professional one. And then there’s Jodie Foster … a smart, sensitive actress audiences love to root for.

In her mind, then, is it worse to be known as gay than to be known as an atheist in the US? I thought that polls typically suggest the opposite, though as someone who’s both I already know that either one means I’ll never get to be President.

Apple today announced some new iPods, including the new iPod Touch, which boasts a wide, touchscreen display, like the iPhone. I'd been waiting for Apple to release a widescreen iPod for a couple of years, now. What's more, it has wi-fi and web browsing.

I was really excited, and was ready to order one the minute it was available, even though I'd bought a new 80Gb iPod Video just earlier this year.

But then I saw that they're only offering it in 8Gb and 16Gb models. And the 16Gb model sells for $50 more than the new 160Gb model traditional iPod (now called iPod Classic). I'm sorry. The wide display, the touchscreen, the wi-fi and the Internet connectivity are cool and sexy, and I'd absolutely be willing to pay more for those features. But my current 80Gb iPod already is nearly full, and I'm just not willing to pay more for an iPod with only one-tenth to one-fifth the capacity. The beauty of the iPod, after all, is that I can carry my entire music collection with me; I don't have to make choices beforehand about what I might want to listen to. That's why I use the iPod and not the CD changer when I'm in the car.

Sorry, Apple. I think you really dropped the ball on this one. I know it won't matter to Apple that I won't buy one--after all, even though they limited the iPhone to a single carrier, which is the major reason I didn't buy one of those, they've still sold an insane number of them. But because of that business decision, and now this one (and a partnership with Starbucks... WTF?! Yeah, I like my frapuccinos, but does any company other than Microsoft and Walmart exemplify evil corporate empire more?), I'm also seriously rethinking my planned purchase of an Apple laptop or desktop this fall. I'm a former fanboy (I used to be a really annoying Apple enthusiast, in fact), and really thought you might woo me back. But you just keep taking me for granted.

I wonder if there's a country song somewhere on iTunes that accurately captures my sense of betrayal?

shades of alex
Originally uploaded by thomwatson

Today we spent about an hour at the Peninsula Humane Society shelter in San Mateo, scoping out the kitties. It’s been about three-and-a-half months since Alex was lost, and he still hasn’t been found or returned to us, and Jeff and I have decided that it’s time to bring a new cat (or two) back into the house.

The problem, though, is how in the world to choose. We saw two cats today I absolutely fell in love with. Three-month-old Nicolasa, pictured here, even looks like a tiny, female version of Alex. She was so sweet, gentle and calm.

Then there was two-month-old “Doc Brown”, who, on the other hand, was anything but calm. He leapt and climbed all over his cage—and his patient, snoozing mother—batting at me with his funnily oversized kitten paws (fortunately, his kitten-sized claws didn’t break the skin). He had such an amazing personality, and a striking coloration and interesting spots and spiral patterns in his gray fur.

Then there was the adorable batch of littermates named for Disney characters—Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Daisy and Goofy—and another adorable, teeny-tiny little puffball, so many cats and kittens in need of safe, loving homes.