1st Amendment

They Really Believed What They Wrote

I’ve waited a few days to write this. I’m trying to be semi-polite. It would have been hard at the point of impact…

I do Facebook. There’s a group that I’m a member of that is made up of a mixed bag of writers, artists, free-spirits, and the random grumpy old man Op/Ed blogger…also, it seems at least one person that entirely missed the point *sigh* I received this note “ just want you to know my recent article has nothing to do with your friend. I really do wish her the best. But, the way this is going about is all wrong” and then a blog post about how if someone wanted to get married they should go to a state that allows it. It was couched in the assumption that the blogger didn’t care what people did as long as the blogger wasn’t forced into dealing with it. It said that we should allow states to deprive citizens of their rights because it was a “slippery slope” leading to polygamy, incest, and marrying “refrigerators and goats”. Also, there was some mention of “deformed kids”. *sigh*


Ok, so, yeah, I took it personally. I still do. I will tomorrow, next week, and next year *sigh* I mean, I don’t take stupid personally. They just can’t help it. I do take the idea that we are allowed to vote someone, Z, into second-class citizenship personally. I do take the idea that you would name me in a link so that you could say “nothing to do with your friend” personally. I take the idea that you think that you think that Z is a “slippery slope” because she wants the same rights that you demand, personally. I take the idea that you think the Constitution that protects your right to post some inane nonsense about marrying livestock and appliances shouldn’t protect one of the people I love personally. What? You thought by saying “nothing personal” that it wasn’t?

In all fairness, the blogger did say this ” But my beliefs are mine and yours are yours and guess what? We don’t have to agree with each other. What we do have is freedom of speech and the freedom to disagree and walk away. That is it. We do not have the freedom to force our beliefs and opinions on others.”…then the blogger went on to say what they wanted was more important than treating all citizens equally.

You see, the Constitution is very non-specific about who is granted “equal protection” when it makes that point. It says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” There are no exceptions listed in the words “any person”. It doesn’t specify gender, orientation, race, or faith. It uses the word “citizens”.

We don’t have a Constitutional right to not be exposed to things we disagree with. I’m allowed to be offended. I am not allowed to tell you that you can not do what you’re doing because it offends me. *caveat, I am not talking about criminal acts, merely legal acts by adults* I can not tell the author of the blog I’m writing about to not publish because it offends me. I can write a response. I can remove that person from the group that I choose to have contact with.


I’m still trying to wrap my head around this. The author would argue that Charles Effing Manson is allowed to get married because he’s straight and that doesn’t re-define marriage. They would say that I, an ex-addict, am allowed to get married because I’m straight. They’d maintain that a 90 year old man is allowed to marry an 18 year old woman that wants his money because they are straight but, that if Z finds a woman she loves, she is not allowed to get married? That her desire to be married would be invalid because she’s gay? Hunh? At what point did we get to judge who has a valid reason to get married? At what point do we decide that someone else’s relationship or inner workings of their household, assuming no crimes committed, are our place to restrict?


The author concludes with this comment “So Veruca go forth and get your goose. I just want you to take a minute and think about the repercussions, the end game, what your wants mean for the rest of us.” I would pose the same thing back to the author. When you set forth the “slippery slope” of deciding that some citizens are less worthy of rights than others, you endanger yourself. It has been less than a hundred years since women were given the right to vote in the USA. Are you willing to risk that? Loving v Virginia was in 1967, are you willing to tell interracial couples that their choice is invalid? Are you willing to stipulate that someone is not allowed to marry outside of their own religion? Better yet, are you willing to allow someone else to dictate those things to you? Are you willing to let a majority view vote away your rights? Are you willing to bet that you and your children will always be the majority and, therefore, safe from persecution? The Constitution was designed to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. It protects basic rights. It forces states to apply laws equally. It gives us a framework that enables us to pray as we wish, love as we wish, speak as we decide to, associate with whomever we choose, to peaceably assemble, and a myriad of other things. It DOES NOT allow us to deprive others of those rights. It doesn’t say “any person except…”


Yes, I did take it personally. I will always do that. I get frustrated when someone makes Z a “them” or one of “those people”. I will, every time, respond when someone directs that toward me or Z. She’s not one of those. In fact “those people” are not those. They are humans with the same strengths and weaknesses as any other human. They are women, men, and transgender. They are people that merely want to live their lives without being dictated to by someone’s innate prejudices and fears. They are citizens. They are sisters and brothers. They are loving and worthy of love. They are us.


I still can’t get past the original bit, perhaps it’s fatigue or, perhaps because I wonder about what would make them think I would let it slide or, perhaps because I’m protective of Z I can’t seem to let it go. What were they thinking when they implied “nothing personal, I just don’t think your friend is worth as much as I am”? Did they think that I’d just say, “It’s ok. I recognize that a person I love is unworthy of the same rights as you. That she’s really not important to me”. Here’s a hint, Z isn’t a blood relation yet, she’s family. Given a choice, I’d put her rights in front of mine. She earned hers, I was born into mine.

I’ve beaten this horse into the ground. I don’t know if the author of the blog I’m responding to will ever read this. I don’t really care. I do know that I couldn’t let it pass without a response. This was it.


More Thoughts… (Z, Being Gay, Christianity, The Bible and the Constitution)

After my last post, Z made this comment “I guess I’m not a citizen since the laws that apply too all citizens don’t all apply to me.” This reminds me of the part of this blog that I hate. *sigh* Z allows me to use her as the example. If you read any of these posts, you’ll very quickly realize that I think the world of Z and hate the idea of any harm coming to her. She’s a strong lady. Still, I wish there wasn’t the reminder, to her, that not everyone sees her as what we see her as. Not everyone sees the warm and caring human we see. They just see the part that is the thing they hate. That sucks. *sigh again* If there were a way to hide that from her I would but, she knows it better than I do. *sigh 3rd time*


I am a husband. Of all the parts of my self-identity, that is the most important. I remember the first time I told my wife I loved her. I think I was more surprised to hear me say that than she was. Falling in love with her was not a conscious choice. It was just something I realized I am. I didn’t mean to. I didn’t plan on it…Perhaps, Z may correct me, being gay is the same thing? You don’t mean to be. It is not a choice. It is just something you realize has happened…


Christianity has changed over the centuries. The early church is not the same as the modern one.Catholic Cannon and Protestant Cannon are not the same. There are various movements within the Church. We have changed our views on everything from Slavery to Women’s Rights.

Right now, there is a new set of factions. I don’t see it as a gay rights issue as much as an issue of who the individual believer is concerned with. Am I concerned about my own actions and following the example of Jesus or, am I concerned with the actions of others? For me, MY actions and the way I treat others are of greater concern than what perceptions I might or, might not, have of their life. *editorial, this statement contradicts the entire point, persuading others to change their beliefs, of the blog. I do understand that* Am I more worried about showing compassion toward others of, condemnation for what I think they are doing? Is my sin more important than my perception of someone else’s? Do I express myself with love and gentle persuasion or, do I point my finger and shout about their very existence being an “abomination”?

It is my choice to believe that God did not create “abomination”. It Is my belief that the Jesus I follow would have reached out to ALL humans. It is my belief that I should use my words to show support and love for those that are different from me and still created in the Image of God. It is my heart to be a compassionate Christian. It is my belief that your life does not make me a victim but, a fellow Child of God. It is not in me to think less of someone because of how they love but, to think more of them because they can.


Please *quietly pleading, passionate tone of voice* read your Bible, if you’re Christian. Please read all of it. Read the words of love and compassion. Read the words of encouragement and strength. Read the words that call us to look inward to our own weakness. Read the history in the Old Testament. Read the many varieties of what marriage is. Read the context of it’s time and social issues. Read the words of how we are to treat others. Read how we are to not judge the conditions of someone else’s soul but, our own.Read how we are to forgive “seventy times seven”. Read how we are not to “cast the first stone”…

Then, if you are American, read the Constitution. Read how it protects our rights to “equal protection under the law”. Please read how it uses, repeatedly, the word “citizens”. It doesn’t mention a specific religion or orientation. It doesn’t say we have a right to not be exposed to things or people we disagree with. Please tell me how keeping a group of citizens from having the same rights as another group is equal protection. Tell me how you might justify it. Realize that the same Constitution prevents the government from encouraging or repressing your faith. The same Constitution protects your right to offend and be offended. The freedoms of Expression and Assembly that protect me, also protect Westboro, PETA, NOM, and every politician and journalist. All those laws protect Citizens. We don’t get to pick which citizens are less than citizens. We accept that there will be citizens that we disagree with, That makes them no less worthy of protection than we are. Please try to understand that, if you want to be protected by the Constitution, you can not limit it to people just like you. It is there to protect the little guy, the weird people, the minorities, and the ones you disagree with. That is the entire point of it. It is to protect us, all of us citizens, not just the ones that look and act and think like us…

I love those two works. They give me the framework that I live within. One, the Bible defines how I interact with God and Man. The other, the Constitution, gives a basis for how the Government interacts with me. I need them both.


I think perhaps this enough for one day.

Please Do Me a Favor

Please do me a favor. Please don’t defend my “religious freedom”. I am a Christian. I am a straight married male. I am not a member of the LBGT community. I am NOT under attack.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way…I don’t want any more than what the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. That’s it. I don’t want any law that says more than that. I may pray at any time and any place. It is my choice not to inflict it on the outsiders in my community or at work. My faith is between me and God.

Whatever I might believe on ANY topic within the context of my faith, I do NOT have any right to use those views to influence the way I treat any other human. You see, the Constitution doesn’t state that humans are only straight. It doesn’t just say that they all are Christian. It does say “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Not one single place does that have any definition other than “citizen”. Period.

*ponders if this should become a “Z post”*

Get over it. There is no “gay agenda”. There is merely a desire to be treated equally with any other citizen. How hard is that to comprehend? If you were to ever meet Z, what you would find is a good citizen. She’s a veteran. She’s conservative, probably more conservative than most. She’s a Christian. She’s a good mom. She’s a Patriot. She’s hard working. You wouldn’t know she’s gay without being told by her. I didn’t and I knew her for years before I found out.

In spite of all of that, there are people that ideologically line up with everything she stands for that would deem her as less worthy of the rights of citizenship that they are shrieking they are being denied. NO part of her life or her actions are to their detriment. No act of volition on her part has earned the contempt that they seem to show for a fellow citizen. Here’s the kicker, she doesn’t want to be a “protected class”, I asked. She merely wants to be left alone to live her life like any other citizen.

I’m protective, as much as I can be from a thousand miles away, of my friend. I rarely use the word “love” and never casually. I love Z to pieces. My life is a better place for having her in it. This country needs more citizens like her. Every value we want our kids to learn, she has. Every attribute I want in a friend, loyalty, honesty, and trust she has in spades.

So, explain to me how giving her the same basic human rights that the Declaration of Independence started and the Constitution ended are infringing on you? Tell me that you feel that you are offended by her existence and, as a result, think you have some right to repress her basic rights. Tell me how what she does with an other human being is causing you harm. Tell me that, as a Christian, you think she’s worse than the whores and tax collectors Jesus hung out with. Tell me that when Jesus prayed for the ones that gambled for his clothes as he was dying at their hand, that she’s worse than they are. Explain to me that your “traditional Biblical marriage” includes King David’s 1000 wives. Explain that, according to your definition, a woman is obligated to marry her rapist. Please inform your wife that she is your property.

“But Miller, we didn’t mean that”. I am a Christian. I’ve read the Book a couple of times…All of that is in there. When you say you want a “traditional Biblical marriage” you are saying that.

What you really want is to use religion as an excuse. You want a freedom that doesn’t exist. You want freedom to not be exposed to something you don’t want to see. You want freedom to think you are more worthy than an other citizen. You want to believe, without knowing, that being gay is immoral and a choice. It isn’t, no more than being straight is. You desire to impose your views on an other human without having found them guilty of a crime. You do understand that the citizens we are allowed to take rights away from are called “criminals” and even they get a trial.


I am not objective. I, too, am offended. I hope that is coming through. I am offended by people that presume to use my Faith as an excuse. I don’t like the idea that Christianity is being used as an excuse to repress. I don’t have is the right to discriminate against people with a view that differs. I don’t have is a right to tell you that you can not be that way because it isn’t the way I am and think. I don’t have a right to not be offended.

If you don’t want to have anything to do with the LBGT community, don’t. If you think it’s “uchy”, come out and say that. If you want to find a religious stricture against being gay, apply it to yourself. If you feel that being gay is immoral, fine. Those are your rights. It is not your right to impose those views on others. Again, being gay is NOT criminal. People that are not criminals ALL have the same rights.

*sigh again*

I’ve beaten this dead horse enough for one day. Those that get it, will. Those that refuse to, never will. It’s always gonna be personal to me…at least it will as long as people keep saying Z has less value than they do. I wouldn’t trade one of her for all of them. I’d be getting ripped off. Maybe that’s the answer. Look past the “gay” and see the Z. See the human, the citizen, she is and tell me that she has less worth than they do. See who I see. See my friend for what she is, a treasure and a fellow citizen…and a human.

*Z, these will always, every time, be about and for you. Thank you for letting me write them. No matter what some stranger has to say, my life and world are better for having you in it. Thank you for being you.*

They Really Believe They Are Right…

According to the Gov of Indiana, he thinks that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a good thing. He had this to say,  “This bill is not about discrimination,” he said, “and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.”

He’s kidding, right? He thinks that allowing religious practice and belief to trump the Constitution is a good thing? Does he really understand what he’s saying?

He’s just signed a bill into law that does one of two things. It either means that, following the First Amendment, ALL religious beliefs and practices, including Sharia, must be allowed in order to avoid the state favoring one religion over another or, that he believes that the 14th’s intent that all laws must protect equally doesn’t apply to the LBGT population. The implication being that the LBGT population is undeserving of the rights afforded to all citizens because they are less than deserving of basic human rights.

This is my response…

Hey asshole, my friend Z is one of the humans on this planet that makes me think there’s the tiniest bit of hope for the species. She’s more than earned her rights as a citizen. She’s not some jackass whiner that happened to win a popularity contest by being able to pander to a constituency. She’s gone to war. She’s raising her kids to be valuable members of society. She’s brutally honest and totally loyal. You, on the other hand, can not even seem to remember an oath you took. Your oath was to ALL the citizens of your state, not just the ones that voted for you. Your oath was to uphold the Constitution. You just failed that test.


Yeah, this is a “Z post”. It becomes personal when someone uses the excuse of my faith to discriminate. It becomes more personal when they discriminate against the person I go to for Christian prayer, Z, because she happens to be a Lesbian. There is not a verse in my Bible that says  “…and the Lord said, “discriminate in My Name'”. I find verses on love. I find verses saying that we treat others as we wish to be treated. I find verses that say we are to teach by our actions and our compassion.

Nowhere do I find a verse that advocates these laws. Nowhere do I find anything that advocates discrimination.

These alleged Christians do not speak for me. They do not speak for Z. The only verse I can find that seems to fit my state of mind toward them right now is, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Why Do We Need Allies?

Okie dokie, I have a question. Before I ask it, I’ll admit that I have a skewed perspective. My friends, the ones I write about and for, are strong people. They have suffered the “slings and arrows” and come up fighting and stronger. Given that, why do “allies” have to exist? People like Z really don’t need me, in the sense that she needs reassurance of any characteristic of herself is lacking in worth or value. She doesn’t need to be told that she is a valued and treasured human being. She is all of those.

I’m not writing this to say that we shouldn’t speak out for people. I’m not even trying to make an excuse for silence in the face of stupidity or bigotry.

I’m not saying the rules should be changed, either. What I will say is that the rules should be applied evenly. As a Christian, secular rules protect my freedom to worship in the manner that suits me. Without civil protections of my rights to my personal beliefs, anyone that disagrees with me may dictate how I live my life. It is a matter of principal that those same protections be applied across the board. Simply put, equal is equal. “It’s against my religion” or “I think it’s uchy” are not reasons to blatantly discriminate.

As a straight person, my marriage is also protected. Yes, my wedding was a religious act. It was given civil legal protection. I could have had a wedding by a JP that would be given the same rights. No matter how many excuses anyone makes, NOTHING outside of my house will ever have any capacity to cheapen it.


Anyway, back to my point. I love Z to pieces. I call her my “cousin” because I love the idea of having her as family. I haven’t written about her as much this year because I haven’t written as much. I didn’t ask her to be a member of my family because she’s gay, I asked her because of the person she is. I wish I could make that point about the entire issue of equal rights. If you want to dislike someone because of the person they are, that’s fine. The world is full of jerks. If you want to take away civil rights because of criminal actions, again fine. That’s why prisons exist. If you want to judge based on something that happens between consenting adults, that’s not. If you want to dictate based on your views, be prepared to have the same done to you.

I don’t really want to be an “ally”. I want to be a friend. I’ll be glad when allies aren’t needed.

That question I started to ask, Why do we need allies?

There’s Not Much Going on Today

I have a pic that reads “Silence Is Complicity”. I love that pic. It serves as a reminder to me that, if I care about someone or for an issue, I have to speak. That’s the beginning and end of the purpose of this “season” of this blog.

There’s not much going on today. Aj is still Aj. Z is still Z. I am still me. Our private lives are still our own. They are still just the way I expect them to be, trusted and loved friends. They are still probably going to be that way tomorrow, too.

Time rolls on. Change is as inevitable as the tide. Too bad, that change doesn’t affect the hearts of people that choose to judge without knowing.

I wish I had more to write today. I just don’t. The USSC is done with it’s docket until October. None of the issues surrounding marriage equality and equal protection will be touched ’till then. Hopefully there will be some resolution. More hopefully, it will be the result that I want.

Just today, I want to build up. I love my wife and my dearest friends. They deserve respect and love. They have mine. I don’t know how or why they were put into my life but, the lesson is simple. You can not quantify love. Even if you could, why would you want to?

Motives and Motivations, Both Mine and Z’s

Some thoughts. They are related, so bear with me, please. *Since much of this is either a direct quote or, a group of thoughts in a conversation, please think of Z as a co-author*


The most anti-affirmative action person I know is Z. That’s probably not, unless you knew her, what you would expect from someone who happens to be gay.

In her words, “I was briefly in a convo today about someone wanting to get LGBT ambassadors established…one of my political groups I follow. I don’t want LGBT ambassadors. I want the best PERSON for every job to be picked for the job. Screw affirmative action. If you’re good at something it shouldn’t matter. What color your skin, where you come from, who you love, what you believe in, what you faith is or is not, if you are the best PERSON, the best HUMAN for the job you get it. If you’re gay and you suck at the job, you shouldn’t get it. If you’re Belgain and you suck at the job you shouldn’t get it. Black white gay straight, pagan shinto, who cares? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr had it all figured out. Judge people not by the color of their skin but, on the content of their character.Goes for orientation and faith and so much more. Human.”

You see, she doesn’t want to be “protected” by the USSC. Sounds like heresy. Nothing more than “equal protection under the law”. You see she, and I, believe that the 14th Amendment should be applied to everyone. Section 1 reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Like I’ve said, and it is and will be a recurring theme, “equal is equal”. Treat everyone the same under the law. Period. It is not a Liberal/Conservative issue. It is not a male/female issue. It is not a gay/straight issue. Either we follow the Constitution for EVERYONE  or we follow it for NO ONE.


Having said all of that, I do not treat everyone equally. Outside of my wife and work, Z gets more of my energy than anyone else. There are a couple of reasons. First, because she is Z. Second, because she is gay. What? Yeppers, because of that I write this page. If she weren’t, this page probably would not exist. At least, not in its current form with its current topic. You see, after 120, not counting this one, posts, I’ve spent a few hundred hours either writing or trying to figure out what will be written. My wife is the only other person that gets that much of my time. *editorial, I mean this in NO WAY as a complaint. If I didn’t want to do this, I would not. Period* Sure, there are other sites, pages, groups, and blogs that advocate LBGT issues and rights. There are people that make a living by working for organizations that support the issues. On the other hand, there is one Z’s Rights page. Welcome to it. I’m not saying that I like Z because she is gay. I like her because of the person she is. There is a place in my heart, a non-romantic place mind you, that is hers. It just so happens that I advocate for her, specifically, because she is gay. That kind of doesn’t fit the previous. On the other hand, it fits it because, if the “content of (her) character” wasn’t worth it, I would not be doing this.


There is the dilemma, where do we draw the line? I assume that no one is altruistic. I assign my motives to others. I expect that everyone has a personal agenda because, I do. For what it’s worth, this thought, too, was a part of the same conversation that prompted this post. We believe that everyone is like us. They are not. I expect that no one that advocates for the rights of an other person is doing it selflessly. That might or, might not, be true. There might be some totally unselfish individuals. I expect that Gun Rights advocates do it for themselves. I assume that the Environmental Movement is not doing it for the environment as much as they, personally, don’t want to eat, breathe, and drink junk or GMO’s. That’s fine with me. When an issue is personal, we are more passionate about it.


How to bring this to an end?

I will continue to advocate for Z. I will continue to be a “support group” of one. *editorial, I know that I am not her only ally or friend. That’s fine. She’s great. I am glad I’m not her only support* Yes, I realize that is selfish. I don’t really care. No, Z is not the only gay person that is in my family and group of friends. By getting equal protection for Z, it also has to happen for them.

I will, also, continue to expect that some of my ways of thinking apply to everyone. I will expect that activism, no matter the cause, has, at its root, personal motive. In fact, I hope that it does.

I will wish, even though I didn’t mention it above, that people will be able to separate their religious views from their societal views.  Meaning, even if they think they have religious grounds to object to an issue, they will realize that the Constitution is not a religious construct but, as set of rules for secular government. That the same Constitution that protects their faith, voice, and Liberty also affords those protections to those that they disagree with.

I wish that rationality would break out. That we would base our opinions of people on who they are, their capabilities, their integrity, and the “content of  their character” and not on who they choose to love.

It’s a Monday Morning “Wandering in the Dark” Kind of Post

There’s a thing that I worry about when I write these. I worry that by reminding Z that the “haters” exist and that, even though she has not been directly and knowingly insulted by them, it brings her down. You see, it is my intent to encourage her as much as it is to use her as an example of the innate goodness in every person. I do not want to discourage her by the reminder.

I have said it before and I’ll give it a repeat, I don’t think any straight person becomes even a “lazy activist” without having a specific person that we are concerned for. It doesn’t lessen the value of anyone else. It doesn’t mean that we don’t care what happens to them, too. It just means that out instinct is to protect the members of our family first. Please, if you are a member of the thousands tens of readers that happens to be gay and reads these,realize that I post for Z…and y’all. It is just that Z is family and friend. She is going to be my priority when I write. She is also the one that gave me permission to use her real name. Yes, guys, when I address her directly, I call her “Z”.

To my Pagan friends that read this, I know this blog had a bunch of posts about religious freedom in it. I still agree with those posts. I’ve gotten away from that for a while. I probably stay away for some more a while. The reasoning is simple. It seems that the issues of what determines equal protection are coming to a tipping point. *editorial, I don’t like that phrase, just not a better one* Religious freedom is protected legally. Being gay isn’t. I’m old…well, middle-aged. Focusing on one issue at a time helps my brain. Gonna stay with the issue that prompted this blog to start. It doesn’t mean you are forgotten or of lessor importance. Fair enough?

I made the last couple of posts about parades and rain. It’s rained two mornings in a row. I wonder if that’s  sign.

For what it’s worth, I think the greatest threat to equality is not the haters. I think it’s the apathetic. The ones that say, “they might be good people but, I don’t know any and it really doesn’t affect me.” I would rather have a Westboro protest happen. At least they tend to polarize people. It seems that every time they do, more people decide to stand against them. It removes apathy, even if the cause isn’t as much to be for Z as against Westboro. Either way works as long as the end is the same. I’m pragmatic on this one.

I’m looking for words that are better than “tolerate” and “accept”. If you happen to have any suggestions, please leave them as a comment to me, I’d be grateful.

I might catch a tiny bit of static if she reads the part next but, I’ll take it. *grins* Z won’t let me put her up as a “co-whatever” because she doesn’t think that “hints” or “ideas” are deserving of credit. I disagree. When you give impetus to someone’s writing, inspiration to their thoughts, an occasional kick in the rear, and, sometimes are directly quoted, you deserve credit. This blog would not exist without Z. She deserves credit. She earned it. So, if you happen to read these, think about Z. These might be my words but, they wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for her.

That’s it for this morning. Just a little mental house-cleaning.