Four things that are only loosely related: National HIV testing day, Patti Davis wrote a column for Newsweek in which she says Ann Coulter cured her road rage, a marriage in Pakistan leads to criminal charges because the 'husband' is a transsexual, and an Italian schoolteacher has been acquitted.

First, National HIV testing day was yesterday. I didn't find that out until today. Realistically, it's probably a good idea to get tested, even if you know you are not 'at risk' for the disease. Hopefully, you'll find out that, sure enough, you don't have it. On the other hand, you may find out that, through some kind of a fluke, you are in the early stages, and treatment can prolong your life considerably. I know a lot of people have said that AIDS is a gay disease, but let's not forget Ryan White, the Eagle Scout with hemophilia who died of AIDS, contracted through a blood transfusion. At the time, a lot less was known about AIDS, and blood screenings were much less likely to catch it. This also helps me to ignore those people that say that God created AIDS as a"gay plague." If God wanted to wipe out homosexuals, He could find a much more effective and selective way to do it.

Patti Davis' column in Newsweek references Ann Coulter making a snide remark questioning John Edwards sexuality. To be honest, I don't pay much attention to Ann Coulter. The first time I heard of her was when Senator Clinton created a fuss that Ann Coulter accused the 9/11 widows of being glad that they had the insurance money, rather than their husbands. Shortly after that, I started seeing ads for Ann Coulter's book that said "Read for yourself what she really said." That was not enough reason for me to buy the book. Of course, I can appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton says that Ann Coulter said that, it doesn't necessarily follow that she did, although she probably did say something similar to that. To be honest, I think it's kind of a stupid idea. You might convince me that there are a few (very few) widows that feel that they are better off now, but I imagine that there are a lot more who would gladly give the money back (and more) to get their husbands back. And, as far as the remark that Ann Coulter made regarding John Edwards; from what I understand, she didn't call him a derogatory term for homosexual, she implied that he was a homosexual, using a derogatory term. Evidently she thought she was being clever. In any case, even if she really thinks that he is gay (which I doubt), the use of the term was, at best, in poor taste, and really reflected badly on her, rather than on him. At least it helped Patti Davis.

In Pakistan, criminal charges are being brought against a married couple because the husband is a transsexual. The Pakistani government conducted DNA tests and determined that, at the genetic level at least, both bride and groom are female. Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country, and transsexuals and gay marriage are both haram. Now, my question is this: There are a lot of people in this country that want to legalize gay marriage, and attack the 'religious right' for trying to define marriage as 'one man-one woman.' There are also a lot of people that say that we should be sensitive to, and respect the beliefs of, other religions (other, in this case, meaning other than Christianity, which is the predominant religion in this country). Granted, this is not a theocracy, nor should it be, but how do you respect the beliefs of 'other' religions and still practice what is forbidden?

Okay, I hadn't intended to get into it today, but, let's consider for a moment, separation of church and state. Religious organizations and governmental bodies should respect each other, but laws should be made for the good of the people. A lot of religious debate against 'gay marriage' has centered on 'protecting the sanctity of marriage,' and yet, a lot of these people fight the idea of a 'civil union' also (a civil union is just another name for marriage). I have a hard time understanding that if the government (which is not religious) chooses to afford the same rights to couples joined under a secular, legal civil union as to those that are joined by a religious ceremony which happens to be recognized by the government, what that has to do with the 'sanctity of marriage.' I could understand if our government just decided that, yes, we are going to let gay couples get married, and we will issue them the same licenses that we do to heterosexual couples, and if you don't want to be prosecuted under hate crimes laws, then you will perform the ceremony... I can see how that would interfere with the sanctity of marriage. Let's face it though, we have one of the highest divorce rates in the world; we're not exactly keeping marriage sacred as it is. Let's also consider that the religious right likes to talk about how homosexuality is an abomination. Okay, the scriptures tell us that. Of course, when God listed out the things He didn't want us to do, somehow, homosexuality didn't make the top ten. Adultery did. Would you have me to believe that homosexuality is a greater sin than committing adultery? You might convince me that it's just as bad, but this is a country where adultery has become fairly socially acceptable. Where is the outrage about that affront to the sanctity of marriage?

I'll tell you something else: I don't think that are too many homosexuals who want to get married for the sake of being married; I think most of the ones making noise about it just don't like the idea of somebody telling them that they can't. If we legalize civil unions, and then make dissolving a civil union as much of a production as a divorce, then there probably won't be many. To be honest, gay marriage makes me nervous. But the idea of our government deciding who can and who can't get married makes me even more nervous.

Now, about the Italian teacher. She made a student write, "Io sono deficiente," (I am deficient) on the blackboard 100 times. The boy's family filed a civil suit against her, and the local prosecutor brought criminal charges. At first, the "I am deficient" phrase does sound a little extreme, but the student in question tried to stop another boy from using the boys' room because he considered the other boy to be 'girly.' He also taunted the boy about being gay. Now you understand why I included this. For what it's worth, I agree with the court, the teacher needed to do something. Writing on the blackboard seems pretty appropriate, if a little old-fashioned. Maybe we need more old-fashionedness.