Apr. 7th, 2007
03:42 am - insomnia driven test taking...
Klein Sexual Orientation Grid
I scored an average of 3
MeaningThis result can also be related to the Kinsey Scale:
0 = exclusively heterosexual
1 = predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual
2 = predominantly heterosexual, but more
than incidentally homosexual
3 = equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 = predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally
5 = predominantly homosexual, incidentally heterosexual
6 = exclusively homosexual
The idea of this excercise is to understand exactly how dynamic a person's sexual orientation can be, as well as how fluid it can be over a person's lifespan. While a person's number of actual homo/heterosexual encounters may be easy to categorize, their actual orientation may be completely different. Simple labels like "homosexual", "heterosexual", and "bisexual" need not be the only three options available to us.
Take the quiz
Mar. 18th, 2007
03:48 pm - 2007
January I decided to begin getting a grip on my very out of control health situations. I am currently being treated for my insulin issues and appear to be stabilizing on that front.
Since then it was expressed to me that my GYN was highly concerned that I may have Endometrial Cancer. So onto the biopsy and sonogram fun! My biopsy came back clear (YAY!). She did however find a polyp in my uterus. I am due for surgery to remove it as well as a D & C in early April. My sonogram revealed that the PCOS I have been dealing with since I was 16 has mysteriously disappeared. I don’t understand how this happens, but if they want to be gone I’m not about to argue.
My Grandmother passed away at the age of 95 on February 22, 2007.
I spent 11 days in Michigan attempting to handle as much as I could. I will try to find words for that experience for a later post.
Feb. 8th, 2007
From Rose Arce
Friday, February 6, 2004 Posted: 5:57 PM EST (2257 GMT)
(CNN) -- Underscoring its original ruling last November, Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would conform to the state's constitution.
The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts later this year to likely become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages.
In a statement released Wednesday night, President Bush said the ruling was "deeply troubling.
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
In his State of the Union address January 20, the president stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative groups had hoped.
But he said, "... if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."
Wednesday's advisory opinion by the Massachusetts court was in response to a request from that state's Senate about whether allowing gays to join in civil unions would be sufficient.
The court rejected using civil unions as a remedy, "Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. ... The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
Governor calls for vote
Wednesday's ruling came a week before a constitutional convention will be held by state lawmakers to consider an amendment legally defining marriage as a union between men and women. That amendment would have to be ratified by both houses of the Legislature in two successive legislative sessions and then be ratified by voters.
The earliest voters could consider a constitutional amendment would be November of 2006. The Massachusetts high court ruling from last November and reiterated on Wednesday will become state law in mid-May, regardless of what the constitutional convention decides.
"The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage," said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a written statement on Wednesday's opinion. "This issue is too important to leave to a one-vote majority of the [Supreme Judicial Court]."
In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling. (Full story)
The state Senate then asked the court whether the commonwealth could satisfy its constitutional concerns by granting civil unions to gays and lesbians, but forbidding them from obtaining civil marriage licenses.
Civil unions grant couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name, but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits.
Decisions ignite political debate
The November ruling in Massachusetts, as well as the granting of marriages to gay couples in Canada, set off a debate in the United States and among the Democratic presidential candidates.
Front-runner Sen. John Kerry is from Massachusetts and does not support gay marriage but does support civil unions. Gov. Howard Dean is from Vermont, which created civil unions.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee has endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota has said he believes the Defense of Marriage Act provides enough protection for the definition of marriage and that an amendment is not necessary.
Last year, California's State Assembly passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but that law stops short of allowing gays to marry. Several other states have granted limited marriage benefits to gays but called them domestic partnerships.
White House lawyers have been studying the legal implications of the Massachusetts decision in light of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and a possible constitutional amendment.
Feb. 5th, 2007
Jan. 21st, 2007
Dec. 26th, 2006
03:42 am - +/- Happy Holiday?
- desert for taking to Christmas dinner at good friends house distroyed
- rough night leading into rough morning (I have no need to elaborate on that one, really)
- car stupidity, fried alternator
- disappointing people that are important to me/not knowing how to have avoided it or fix it after it was done
- 3 people that need to get to work that usually get there in my now dead car
- everything is closed on Christmas
+ mah girls arrived
+ had enough stuff in the house for a small but yummy non traditional holiday meal
+ an old friend that usually drops the ball coming thru when I needed help
+ mah girl offering a way to get my husband to his job tomorrow
- having to be up to leave at 6am
+ making it thru the day without a complete nervous breakdown
I hope that everyone else out there had an amazing holiday!!
Nov. 10th, 2006
|Your Vocabulary Score: A+|
Congratulations on your multifarious vocabulary!
You must be quite an erudite person.
Nov. 7th, 2006
Oct. 30th, 2006
10:25 pm - *Smiles*
Oct. 29th, 2006
05:15 pm - October 29th
The closer I get to me, the more I feel this....
Navigate: (Previous 10 Entries)