[Information for portions of this report was found at LGBTQ NATION. Providing an undeniable and outstanding service to the LGBTQI+ Community!]
July is when the music has stopped, the flags are folded away, and we ask: Who carried us here?
That is where Gregory Marks comes in.
“I’ve always been out,” Gregory Marks once said. “I didn’t have a dramatic reveal or a tortured confession. I was simply a fat queer kid who knew exactly who he was.”
June has ended.
The parades have passed.
The rainbow flags that fluttered in storefront windows and along city streets are being folded and stored away until next year.
And that is exactly why I wanted to write about Gregory Marks.
Because some people do their greatest work when the crowds have gone home.
Gregory Marks spent decades singing with and alongside members of the LGBTQ community, helping people endure grief that many outside the community never witnessed. He was there when AIDS was stealing friends, lovers, brothers, and sons. He was there when funerals came too often and hope seemed in short supply. Music became his ministry. His voice became a refuge.
He was part of a generation that understood something profound:
Sometimes people cannot speak their grief.
But they can sing it.
The LGBTQ movement has always had its celebrated leaders. We know the names of activists who marched, politicians who legislated, and pioneers who challenged unjust laws.
But there are also people like Gregory Marks.
The caretakers.
The listeners.
The singers.
The ones who sat beside hospital beds.
The ones who attended memorials when families would not.
The ones who stood shoulder to shoulder with a hurting community and quietly said:
“You are not alone.”
The history of LGBTQ choirs and musical organizations is deeply intertwined with survival. Groups such as the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus became places where people could grieve together, celebrate together, and declare openly who they were in a world that often wished they would disappear. Music became protest. Music became healing. Music became hope.
That is Gregory Marks’ legacy.
Not merely the songs he sang.
But the people he helped carry through unbearable moments.
I think there is a lesson in that.
Pride Month is important.
The rainbow flag matters.
Celebration matters.
But perhaps what matters most is what happens on July 1st.
When the banners come down.
When the headlines move on.
When ordinary people continue doing extraordinary things for one another.
That is where love proves itself.
Not in the applause.
Not in the parade.
But in the quiet decision to stand beside another person and help them carry what feels too heavy to bear.
Why Pride Month, the rainbow flag, and the simple act of being seen still matter.
There are moments when people ask a sincere question:
Why is there a Pride Month? Why the rainbow flag? Why all of the celebration?
For many people, the answer is simple.
Because there are still nights when someone leaves a restaurant holding the hand of the person they love and wonders if they will make it home safely.
Recently in the small city of Caldwell, a gay couple, Juan Olvera and Eric Reed, say they were enjoying dinner at a local restaurant when they became the target of homophobic slurs from a group of men. The couple left, hoping to avoid confrontation. Instead, they say they were followed, chased through a parking lot and onto nearby railroad tracks, and assaulted. One man suffered a black eye, cuts, and bruises. The other required stitches after being struck in the face. Police arrested one suspect and filed a misdemeanor battery charge. Idaho law does not currently include sexual orientation among its hate crime protections.
The physical wounds will heal.
The fear takes longer.
Juan Olvera told reporters:
“I literally thought I was going to die.”
Think about that sentence.
Not in a war.
Not while committing a crime.
Not while threatening anyone.
But simply because he was gay.
And that is why Pride exists.
The rainbow flag is not a declaration of superiority.
It is not a political party.
It is not an attack on anyone else’s beliefs.
It is a signal.
It says:
I am here.
I have survived.
I should not have to hide.
I deserve to live openly and safely.
For some people, Pride is a parade.
For others, it is a quiet acknowledgment that they made it through years of fear, rejection, ridicule, or violence.
Many older LGBTQ Americans remember when they could lose jobs for being gay.
They remember being denied housing.
They remember police raids on bars.
They remember the terror of the AIDS epidemic.
And yes, they remember the beatings.
The rainbow became a symbol because symbols matter.
Flags matter.
They tell stories.
The American flag tells the story of a nation striving toward liberty.
The rainbow flag tells the story of people striving toward dignity.
Neither promises perfection.
Both represent hope.
This story from Idaho is not offered to inflame anger or divide people further.
It is offered as a reminder.
Behind every Pride flag is a person.
Behind every Pride Month celebration is someone who once wondered whether they would be accepted by their family, their church, their community—or even survive.
Most people, regardless of politics, agree on one thing:
No one should fear violence because of who they are.
No one should be beaten for holding the hand of the person they love.
No one should have to wonder whether tomorrow will bring acceptance or hatred.
That is not a gay issue.
That is a human issue.
And until stories like this become relics of the past rather than headlines of the present, there will continue to be Pride Month.
There will continue to be rainbow flags.
There will continue to be people saying:
We are here. We are your neighbors. We are your family. And we hope one day these reminders are no longer necessary.
Can walking past a rainbow flag once a day create a legally recognized hostile work environment? That is the question central to a high-profile federal lawsuit rocking Los Angeles County.
Can a flag really cause that much stress? It’s wild to think that just looking at a symbol once a day can push someone to sue their employer.
Eric Batman, a senior civil engineer with 24 years of service at the Department of Public Works, has officially sued his employer. Represented by the Liberty Counsel—the conservative Christian legal group famous for representing Kentucky clerk Kim Davis—Batman argues that the county’s June Pride flag mandate violates his constitutional rights.
The Core of the Conflict
In 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a policy requiring the Progress Pride flag to fly outside many county buildings throughout the month of June.
For Batman, who works out of the department’s Alhambra headquarters, the flag is not a symbol of inclusion, but a confrontation. According to the lawsuit, Batman holds deeply rooted Christian beliefs regarding biblical marriage and human sexuality. He contends that forcing him to walk past the flag daily compels him to “celebrate, recognize, and solemnize” actions his faith deems sinful.
Denied Remote Work and the “Back Door” Suggestion
Hoping to avoid the display entirely, Batman requested to work from home for the month of June in both 2024 and 2025. He already splits his time as a partial remote worker, meaning the logistics for a temporary work-from-home stint were already established.
However, the county flatly denied his accommodation requests. According to the lawsuit, county supervisors stated that remote work conflicted with their commitment to a “welcoming environment for all”. Instead, management offered two alternatives:
Use the rear entrance: Enter and exit the Alhambra building through the back door to avoid looking at the front flagpole.
Seek mental health counseling: Utilize county-provided counseling if the flag caused him emotional or spiritual distress.
Batman rejected both offers, viewingly the suggestion of “counseling” for his religious convictions as an overtly hostile act by management.
The Legal Argument: A Clash of Rights
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eric Batman v. Los Angeles County et al.), the suit claims violations under:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Religious Discrimination)
The First Amendment (Free Exercise of Religion and Freedom from Compelled Speech)
The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection)
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
Batman’s lawyers highlight a crucial point of comparison: the county has previously allowed Muslim employees temporary remote work flexibility during Ramadan. By denying Batman a similar one-month accommodation, his attorneys argue the county is engaging in selective, unconstitutional bias.
Furthermore, the legal team points to the 2023 Supreme Court precedent Groff v. DeJoy, which dictates that employers must grant religious accommodations unless doing so causes “substantial increased costs” to business operations. Batman’s lawyers argue that since his work record is exemplary and he already works remotely part-time, a one-month extension carries zero burden for the county.
The Public Backlash: Where is the Line?
The lawsuit has split public opinion, triggering intense online debate:
Critics of the lawsuit point out that the flag is government speech on a public flagpole, not a personal mandate. They argue that simply seeing a flag on a walk into an office does not restrict an individual’s personal faith or constitute a hostile work environment.
Supporters of the engineer argue that true inclusivity must include people of faith. They argue that forcing an employee to sneak through a back door or suggest they need therapy for their religious beliefs crosses a clear line into institutional bullying.
This is notably the second lawsuit L.A. County faces regarding this specific flag policy, following a 2024 suit by an evangelical county lifeguard who objected to being forced to open or manage facilities flying the banner.
As the case makes its way through federal court, it serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing culture wars shifting from the political stage directly into corporate and government office spaces.
Progress Flag Flying High Above In Opposition Of Confederate Flag At Capitol Building
BUT WHY DO PEOPLE LOOK AT A PIECE OF MATERIAL IN SUCH A WAY
Some conservative and religious critics draw this comparison to explain the depth of their objection.
From their perspective, the comparison is about how a symbol can represent a hostile ideology rather than a message of inclusion. However, historians, legal scholars, and social analysts point out that the two flags represent fundamentally different historical and structural concepts.
The comparison can be broken down into two distinct viewpoints:
1. The Perspective of Religious and Conservative Critics
For individuals who share the engineer’s viewpoint, the comparison is based on the emotional and cultural impact of the symbol:
Symbol of Exclusion: Critics argue that the Progress Pride flag has moved beyond a symbol of civil rights and now represents a specific political ideology that excludes traditional religious beliefs.
Perceived Hostility: From this viewpoint, seeing the flag flying on government property feels like an official endorsement of values that contradict their faith, creating a sense of being unwelcome or marginalized in their own workplace.
Compelled Culture: They view the widespread adoption of the flag by corporations and government agencies as a form of cultural dominance, similar to how marginalized groups view the dominant display of controversial historical symbols.
2. The Historical and Sociological Context
Scholars, civil rights advocates, and supporters of the Pride flag argue that comparing the two symbols is a false equivalence due to their origins and purposes:
Feature
The Progress Pride Flag
The Confederate Flag
Core Purpose
Symbolizes inclusion, equal rights, and protection for a historically marginalized minority group.
Symbolizes the Confederacy, a historical rebellion fought to maintain the institution of chattel slavery.
Historical Context
Emerged from grassroots civil rights movements (beginning with the 1978 Gilbert Baker flag) to advocate against discrimination and violence.
Used by a wartime government explicitly dedicated to white supremacy and the subjugation of Black Americans.
Modern Usage
Flown by institutions to signal a welcoming, diverse environment and compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Frequently used by hate groups, white supremacists, and anti-government movements as a symbol of intimidation.
Summary
While a conservative employee may experience a genuine sense of personal or religious discomfort seeing the Pride flag—viewing it as a symbol of an ideology hostile to their faith—the comparison to the Confederate flag breaks down under historical and legal analysis. One symbol was created to advocate for the inclusion of a minority group, while the other was created to defend the systemic oppression of one.
When it comes down to it, the people against the “Progressive Flag” or “Gay Flag” say they suffer the same emotional suffering as those who suffer from emotional scars from the “Confederate Flag.”
The bottom line? At the heart of the debate is a simple question: Can a symbol cause emotional harm? Those who oppose the Progress Pride flag argue that it does. Those who oppose the Confederate flag have made a similar claim for years. The disagreement is not over whether symbols carry meaning, but over which meanings society chooses to embrace and which it chooses to reject.
There is no sense in debating the issues of abortion, racial prejudices involving the Palestinian People, and whether or not there is a God or the equal rights movement, in sixty years people will still be debating these issues, why fall in that trap?
For decades, anti-abortion organizations in America have cited Biblical authority as the foundational justification for their movement. Through protest signs, political speeches, church campaigns, and fundraising letters, they represent opposition to abortion not merely as a political issue, but as an unequivocal mandate from God. However, this essay contends that such appeals to scripture are selective and may overlook significant biblical passages that both complicate and, at times, directly challenge the certainty and absolutism with which many modern anti-abortion groups present their views.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter once suggested that there was no sense in debating the issues of abortion, racial prejudices involving the Palestinian People, and whether or not there is a God or the equal rights movement. Barry Goldwater overheard him saying that in 60 years, people will still fight one another over these subjects. Putting together an argument to be sure to use them as political hay, so there is no use in my falling for their trap! And he was right. Regardless of what is decided today, others will continue to argue for the rights of these regardless of what is decided now. Today is never definite.
Still.
The verses ignored in these debates are violent, uncomfortable, and inconvenient to absolute arguments.
One of the most often mentioned passages is Genesis 2:7, which says life begins when Adam receives “the breath of life.” People who oppose abortion interpret this verse in various ways, but critics say it suggests personhood starts at birth, with breath, instead of at conception. This view is very different from modern political claims that life begins at fertilization.
Exodus 21:22-25 discusses a scenario in which a pregnant woman is injured during a fight and consequently loses her fetus. According to scholars such as Phyllis Trible and John J. Collins, the punishment prescribed for this loss differs significantly from that for killing a person, indicating that the biblical text assigns a different value to fetal life (Trible, 1978; Collins, 2004).
Historians, including Jonathan Klawans and Christine Hayes, also contend that ancient Hebrew law did not equate fetal death with the killing of an already born individual, but rather treated it as a lesser offense within its legal system (Klawans, 2012; Hayes, 2001).
Perhaps most controversial is Numbers 5:11-31, called the “ordeal of bitter water.” In this passage, a priest performs a ritual on a woman suspected of adultery. Critics of anti-abortion theology say the text describes a divinely sanctioned miscarriage if adultery occurred. Opponents of modern anti-abortion activism see a contradiction: groups say the Bible always condemns abortion, yet they rarely discuss a passage that seems to permit or even command ending a pregnancy in some cases.
The criticism gets stronger when readers see violent Old Testament passages about pregnant women and children. In 2 Kings 8:12 and Hosea 13:16, invading armies rip open pregnant women. Isaiah 13:18 describes unborn children destroyed during judgment. Critics say that while these verses describe war or punishment, they challenge claims that scripture always treats fetal life as sacred.
To many observers, the issue is not merely theology — it is selective morality.
Critics say anti-abortion movements focus on a few verses while ignoring bigger Biblical themes, like poverty, healthcare, compassion, violence, orphan care, and social justice. Some also say these organizations fight abortion but oppose programs that could reduce unwanted pregnancies, like prenatal care, food aid, childcare, sex education, or affordable healthcare.
Others say the modern anti-abortion movement is political as well as religious. Historians have shown that abortion became a key issue in American conservative politics in the late 1970s and 1980s. It helped mobilize voters and build evangelical political power. Critics believe this history raises questions about whether the movement is based on scripture or on political strategy wrapped in religious language.
At the same time, many people of faith point to scriptures such as Psalm 139:13-16 (“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb”) and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”) as evidence that unborn life holds deep spiritual value. For them, the abortion debate is not political, but a sincere belief that life is sacred from its earliest beginnings.
This does not mean that the Bible is “anti-abortion” or “pro-abortion”. The scriptures are ancient, complex, and have been read differently by various groups over hundreds of years. Many sincere believers oppose abortion because they value the unborn life. Critics, however, reject the idea that opposition is the only Christian view. People who believe in a sky daddy, and maybe still, in a real Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny, according to extreme critics.
The larger question may not be whether scripture can be used to oppose abortion. Clearly, it can.
The central issue, therefore, is whether anti-abortion groups sufficiently address the complexity and diversity inherent in Biblical teachings when presenting them as absolute authority in the abortion debate. This raises a broader question: whether these groups offer a comprehensive, contextually nuanced interpretation of scripture, or, as critics argue, oversimplify and selectively interpret biblical texts to serve specific political and ideological agendas. Thus, the debate centers not only on what the Bible says about abortion, but also on how faithfully its teachings are represented in contemporary discourse.
When difficult verses are excluded and uncomfortable passages ignored, faith risks drifting from spiritual truth toward political convenience. If scripture is going to be used to shape public belief, then all of scripture — including the passages that appear to challenge the argument — should be part of the discussion. As the old saying goes, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” People should be trusted to hear the full text and decide for themselves, rather than being instructed only on what they are expected to believe. Yet for some, allowing that kind of open examination may itself be seen as a threat to established belief.
Marketing to change people’s views isn’t a new concept—it’s one of the oldest tools of persuasion known to humankind. It begins quietly, almost imperceptibly, with the notion that a particular group or sect isn’t “right” for the community. That whisper grows into a chorus, spreading suspicion from one group to the next. Before long, it becomes an orchestrated campaign designed to win favor with the majority.
Sometimes the purpose is simple—boosting sales or swaying public opinion. Other times it’s darker. It aims to destroy a movement or to silence dissent. It can also trample a people beneath the weight of manipulated perception.
The pattern always begins the same way. A subtle warning disguised as concern. A headline. A slogan. A talking point. Then, as the message gains traction, it becomes sharper, more divisive. The targets shift—left or right, religious or secular, it makes no difference. The goal is control.
In the coming months and years, we will see more of this calculated persuasion. This is marketing that doesn’t sell products but ideas. It spreads fear and hate. It will portray immigrants as criminals, minorities as threats, and neighbors as enemies. The tactic is old, but the technology behind it is new—and more potent than ever.
This isn’t confined to one nation. It crosses oceans and borders, infecting democracies and dictatorships alike. It’s a sickness of the mind and spirit, a global contagion that thrives on division.
To resist it, those who are often isolated in their struggles must unite. Civil rights advocates, faith groups, workers, and artists need to see they are part of the same story. Each citizen must realize their cause is connected. Survival now depends on solidarity. Only by coming together can we create a message stronger than the one designed to tear us apart.
By Benjamin H. Groff II | Truth Endures / The Story Teller
3–5 minutes
A Decade After Obergefell
Will You Lose Your Rights To Marry Who You Love?
Ten years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, America finds itself again revisiting questions many thought were settled.
The Court’s ruling in 2015 declared that marriage, in all its forms, is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This includes guarantees of liberty and equal protection. As new petitions rise, the conversation has returned to the surface. Shifting public attitudes also contribute to this discussion. Who holds authority over marriage — the individual, the state, or the Constitution itself?
The Current Question Before the Court
A pending petition related to former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has reignited national attention. Her case asks whether local officials refuse to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. It also questions whether Obergefell overstepped by forcing states to recognize marriages they once prohibited.
The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case. Still, its presence on the docket is enough to open old wounds. It also raises new questions. Some legal analysts believe the current Court will not directly overturn Obergefell. Yet, it will narrow its reach through religious-liberty rulings. It also does so through state-level exceptions. Others assert that stability — not upheaval — best serves the nation and the families already bound under its promise.
Two Visions of Marriage and Rights
One side views marriage equality as part of America’s long arc toward inclusion. They view it as a civil institution that, once granted, should not be rescinded. They see equality before the law as non-negotiable. They fear that revisiting the issue will fragment the nation’s sense of fairness.
The other side argues that Obergefell disrupted centuries of state authority. It affected religious conscience. They believe that restoring local decision-making better reflects democratic process. They point to the tension between personal faith convictions and federal mandates as a conflict yet unresolved.
Between those poles lies a broad middle. These are citizens who do not agree on doctrine. They understand that marriage, whether between a man and woman or same-sex partners, carries profound human meaning. Many simply wish to preserve stability, protect liberty, and allow space for faith and freedom to coexist.
Faith, Law, and Living Together
Scripture has long influenced how societies view marriage. For some, biblical passages define its structure and purpose; for others, they offer moral insight without prescribing civil law. The tension between religious belief and constitutional law is not new. This tension echoes past debates over interracial marriage, divorce, and women’s rights.
In every era, society has had to ask two questions. What happens when faith and law collide? How do we live together without tearing the fabric of our community apart?
Why the Debate Still Matters
Even if the Court declines to hear new challenges, more than two dozen states have laws banning same-sex marriage. These laws are dormant on their books. If Obergefell were ever overturned or weakened, those statutes will return overnight, affecting benefits, inheritance, adoption, and family recognition.
At the same time, many Americans share a common belief. Conservatives and liberals alike think the government shouldn’t dictate the deepest personal choices of its citizens. This belief runs deep in the country’s DNA. – Barred from Hospital Rooms – Declined Visits By Family Funerals – Loss of Shared Property.
A Time for Reflection, Not Division
It is that America is less divided on love than on language. Many citizens who believe marriage is sacred still believe in equal dignity; many who support equality still respect faith’s voice.
The challenge before the nation is to find balance. This also is a challenge for the Supreme Court. It involves preserving both religious liberty and individual freedom. This must be done without sacrificing the dignity of either.
Marriage remains one of the few institutions that bridges our private and public lives. It does this whether one calls it a covenant before God or a contract under law. The real question is not who can marry. It is whether we can continue to respect those who see it differently. Is it a divine institution? One which a person be married and divorced five times, as long as it is to the opposite sex. Or, is it a civil contract between two people which protects their lives, property and future? Capable of being entered into by any two people.
Closing Thought
History rarely moves backward. Nonetheless, it does pause to consider and to recalibrate. It also reminds us that liberty requires both conviction and compassion. As this conversation unfolds, we argue less to win and more to understand.
We are living in a time when critical issues are being tossed around like poker chips in Washington. These include health care, Social Security, disability support, and the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The game has gotten meaner, the stakes higher, and the players more reckless. But if history teaches us anything, it’s that ordinary Americans can outshine the biggest machines of power. They can outlast them when they work smart and stay focused.
This isn’t about red or blue. It’s about who gets to live with dignity and who doesn’t.
1. Protecting What We’ve Paid For
Let’s start with the basics: Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements—they’re earned benefits. Working Americans paid into them every payday of their lives. Yet, each election cycle, someone in Congress floats the idea of “sunsetting” or “restructuring” them. That’s political code for cutting.
The smart move? Make every elected official—Republican or Democrat—go on record promising no cuts to Social Security and Medicare. It’s a winning issue across party lines because nearly every voter depends on it, or soon will. The average monthly advantage for retirees is about $2,000. You can’t afford to lose that—and neither can your parents.
2. The Health Care Frontline
Medicare drug price negotiations are already law, and they’re starting to bite down on Big Pharma. Those savings need to be expanded and defended. Keep the issue local—talk about your neighbor’s insulin cost, your pharmacy’s long lines, and your doctor’s limited hours. These stories hit harder than any campaign ad.
If you live in a state that still refuses Medicaid expansion, that’s another battle worth fighting. States like Oklahoma and Missouri proved that when citizens put Medicaid expansion on the ballot, it wins—even in conservative territory. It keeps rural hospitals open and saves lives. Simple as that.
3. Disability Rights Are Human Rights
For millions of Americans, especially seniors and people with disabilities, Medicaid is the real safety net. It funds long-term care, home health aides, and community services. Most people don’t realize that these programs face constant threats. This occurs at both the state and federal levels.
It’s time to make disability policy visible again. Discuss the waiting lists. Talk about the family caregivers working without rest. Tackle the closures of group homes that once kept people safe. Every one of those stories is a vote for compassion and common sense.
4. Standing Up for the LGBTQ+ Community
Across the nation, hundreds of anti-LBGTQ+ bills have been introduced under the banner of “protecting children.” But what they really do is threaten the safety and rights of already vulnerable people—students, families, and workers.
The answer isn’t more shouting matches. It’s telling real stories. These are parents who want their trans kid to live without fear. There is a teacher who wants to keep their job. Or a couple wants the same hospital visitation rights as anyone else. When the conversation becomes personal, hearts shift—and politics follows.
5. Building Alliances That Win
You don’t win these battles alone. You build coalitions that surprise people. Seniors and veterans defend Social Security. Small business owners back drug price reform. Nurses and church groups advocate dignity in care. That’s how movements grow—through unexpected allies who realize they’re all fighting for the same thing.
The revisionist thrives on division. A winning strategy thrives on unity.
6. How to Get Loud, Smart, and Effective
Use your voice locally. County health boards, school boards, and hospital districts make real decisions about care and coverage. Attend those meetings.
Tell your story. A 30-second video of your experience with health care or benefits will reach more people than a dozen speeches.
Learn it. Agencies post new rules all the time—public comments matter. Gather friends, go to Regulations.gov, and leave thoughtful, factual remarks. Bureaucrats read them.
Stick to clear messages:
“Protect what we’ve paid for.”
“Keep care close to home.”
“Freedom to make personal medical decisions.”
“Dignity for every family.”
7. The Bottom Line
The fight for affordable health care, strong social programs, and equal rights isn’t about party loyalty—it’s about survival. You can’t eat ideology, and you can’t pay for prescriptions with political slogans.
The people who built this country deserve to live out their years in peace, not fear. The next generation deserves to inherit something more significant, fairer, and more human.
That’s how we win. We don’t hate what’s broken. Instead, we protect what still works. We fight like hell to fix what doesn’t.
Henry and Harry met by accident one evening when Henry was riding with Harry’s roommate and fellow police officer, Teddy. Henry and Teddy stopped by Teddy’s house to pick up the legal papers Teddy needed for a court filing. He invited Henry in to meet his roommate, Harry.
When they entered the door, Harry was getting ready for his shift. He walked down a hallway wearing only his trousers and no shirt. Henry and Harry’s eyes locked onto each other as Teddy introduced them. Neither knew the other’s intentions or interests; they nodded and said hello, an electric charge lingering between them.
Harry worked at the police station’s front desk and communications center. Suddenly, Henry worked for the local radio station. He began coming to the station instead of calling on the phone for the day’s latest police activity. Henry would sit patiently. He went through the radio and comment logs. He looked for items to place in his news reports on the radio. Then, he would make small talk with Harry, their conversations stretching a little longer each time.
One day, Henry asked Harry if the officer was off the next weekend. Harry confirmed that he was. Henry explained that his boss wanted him to travel to Loca City. He needed to pick up his son and return him to Elm City. Harry said he’d love to go along for the adventure. Henry explained they go there on Saturday and return on Sunday. This way, he would be there to get the youngster after he got out of church.
When Saturday came, the two left Elm City for the nearly two-hour drive to Loca City. During the drive, they talked, learning more about each other’s pasts, dreams, and fears. At times, their arms brushed against each other on the armrest of Henry’s Ford Thunderbird. Unknown to each were the butterflies fluttering in their stomachs as the pair drove down the highway.
Upon arriving in Loca City, the pair stopped for burgers. Across the street, there was a movie theater. And, of course, they would take in a movie— Friday the 13th: Season of the Witch.
By all standards, the movie was a flop. But the film still had spooky moments, especially for Harry, who jumped and yelped throughout. It was ironic—him being the one who worked for the police department. Afterward, the two laughed at how jumpy Harry had been, and Harry was embarrassed.
It was getting late, and they decided to find a motel for the night. The two found a Holiday Inn Holidome. Henry said he would take care of the room. Harry was asked to watch the car. Harry complied. A few minutes later, Henry returned with room keys and said—
“I’m sorry about this. The hotel only had one room, and it had a queen bed.”
Harry’s reply was accepting.
“I don’t have a problem with it. I slept with my best friends all through hay harvest.”
Once in the room, the television came on. Of all things, it was a rerun of The Tonight Show with Joan Rivers. The two settled in with Joan Rivers rattling on. At some point, one of their elbows flinched into the other. Then, a tickling match ensued. The tickling led to rolling around in the bed, which led to a still moment.
Henry reached up and kissed Harry. That was in 1982. And in 2024, that kiss still lasts.
They demonstrated remarkable courage, enduring the hardships of hiding their relationship to protect their careers. They faced moments of having to pretend to be twin brothers to avoid violent repercussions. They even experienced the loss of family members who couldn’t accept their love. But through it all, they clung to each other, a testament to their resilience and the power of their love.
They were finally capable of marrying. They did so without fanfare—just them and a few close friends. There was a quiet understanding that this was always meant to be. But even then, their love faced challenges. They faced the threat of losing their rights as a married couple. Additionally, there was the ever-existing worry of discrimination in housing, employment, and medical care.
After over forty years together, they pridefully ponder on their journey. The fights, love, laughter, and pain were all part of their story. If anything, the years only strengthened their love. Their relationship is a beacon of hope for enduring love in a world that often challenges it.
Henry reaches for Harry’s hand as they sit on their porch, watching the sun set over their quiet neighborhood. His grip is weaker than it used to be, but the warmth is still the same.
“No matter what they take from us,” Henry says softly, “they can’t take this.”
Harry smiles, his thumb brushing over Henry’s knuckles.
“No, they can’t.”
After all, it is where they began—and will always belong. Their home is their sanctuary. It is where their love has blossomed and endured. Their home is a testament to their resilience and the power of love.
This is a true story. The names and places have been changed to protect the identities of those lives involved.
To Stay or Go: Evaluating the Benefits of Remaining on Facebook in Light of Controversial Changes
Social media platforms have become integral to modern life, offering communication, connection, and community building avenues. Nevertheless, as these platforms evolve, so do their policies and practices, often sparking debate about their social and ethical implications. Facebook, a leading social media giant, has recently faced criticism. This criticism is due to changes in its policies on hate speech, bigotry, and LGBTQI support. For individuals making the decision about staying on or leaving Facebook, they hold the power to be informed. Weighing the benefits of both options is essential for this empowerment.
The Case for Staying on Facebook
Maintaining Connections: Facebook remains a vital tool for staying in touch with family. It also helps keep connections with friends and acquaintances, particularly those spread across different regions or countries. For many, it is a lifeline to relationships that would otherwise be difficult to nurture.
Community and Advocacy Opportunities: Despite policy changes, Facebook still hosts several groups and communities that support marginalized voices. These include LGBTQI organizations, social justice movements, and local advocacy efforts. By staying, individuals can continue amplifying positive messages and supporting important causes.
Access to Events and Local Updates: Facebook excels as a hub for event coordination and news dissemination. Whether it’s discovering community gatherings, charity events, or public discussions, the platform enables users to stay engaged with their surroundings.
Platform for Countering Negativity: Staying active on Facebook allows users to directly challenge hate speech and bigotry. Individuals can use their presence to make a positive impact through reporting mechanisms, creating supportive content, and fostering constructive dialogues.
Professional Networking and Opportunities: Beyond personal connections, Facebook provides professional opportunities through networking, business pages, and advertising. Leaving the platform will limit exposure to these tools, which can be crucial for entrepreneurs, freelancers, or small business owners.
The Case for Leaving Facebook
Moral and Ethical Stance: Users can take a stand by leaving Facebook. They do this against policies they perceive as harmful or contrary to their values. This protest can send a powerful message to the platform and its advertisers, influencing change.
Reducing Exposure to Toxic Content: With the relaxation of hate speech policies, users face more harmful content. They become increasingly exposed to offensive material. Removing oneself from the platform eliminates the mental and emotional toll of encountering such material.
Privacy and Data Concerns: Facebook has faced ongoing scrutiny over its handling of user data. Leaving the platform reduces one’s vulnerability to data misuse, targeted advertising, and potential privacy breaches.
Encouraging Other Platforms: Exiting Facebook can prompt individuals to explore different social media platforms that better align with their values. Platforms like Mastodon, MeWe, or local community forums offer a more supportive environment.
Reclaiming Time and Focus: Many users realize an unexpected advantage when they leave Facebook. They find they have more time for hobbies, personal growth, and face-to-face interactions. The departure can foster a sense of liberation from the constant pull of notifications and algorithm-driven content.
Finding a Middle Ground
For those hesitant to make a definitive choice, there are ways to balance the benefits of staying and leaving. Users can regain a sense of control over their Facebook experience by reducing engagement. They can also limit time spent on the platform. Unfollowing toxic pages or users and curating a positive feed helps as well. Additionally, prioritizing different platforms for personal or professional connections while maintaining a minimal Facebook presence can further enhance this control.
Conclusion
The decision to stay on or leave Facebook is very personal. It depends on one’s values, priorities, and tolerance for the platform’s evolving policies. Staying permits individuals to keep connections. They can use their presence for positive change. Leaving can signify a powerful ethical stance. It can lead to personal growth. Regardless of one’s choice, it is essential to evaluate Facebook’s role in one’s life. People should make a decision that aligns with their values and well-being.
