I think you should. Sign up to become an organ donor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff41b/ff41b72be2ce1e07d29bfaf5715cc5590a32ac51" alt=""
Save a life once your own is over.
The rest of life.
Genealogy will be moving to its very own space: Genweblog.
Changes or additions: valoriez at zimres dot net
Lay hold of something that will help you, and then use it to help somebody else.- Booker T. Washington, 1856-1915
It was the "Mission Accomplished" of George W. Bush's second term, and an announcement of that magnitude called for a suitably dramatic location. But what was the right backdrop for the infamous "We do not torture" declaration? With characteristic audacity, the Bush team settled on downtown Panama City.Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (Picador) and, most recently, Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (Picador).
It was certainly bold. An hour and a half's drive from where Bush stood, the US military ran the notorious School of the Americas from 1946 to 1984, a sinister educational institution that, if it had a motto, might have been "We do torture." It is here in Panama and, later, at the school's new location in Fort Benning, Georgia, where the roots of the current torture scandals can be found. According to declassified training manuals, SOA students--military and police officers from across the hemisphere--were instructed in many of the same "coercive interrogation" techniques that have since migrated to Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib: early morning capture to maximize shock, immediate hooding and blindfolding, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep and food "manipulation," humiliation, extreme temperatures, isolation, stress positions--and worse. In 1996 President Clinton's Intelligence Oversight Board admitted that US-produced training materials condoned "execution of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion and false imprisonment."
Some of the Panama school's graduates returned to their countries to commit the continent's greatest war crimes of the past half-century: the murders of Archbishop Oscar Romero and six Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the systematic theft of babies from Argentina's "disappeared" prisoners, the massacre of 900 civilians in El Mozote in El Salvador and military coups too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that choosing Panama to declare "We do not torture" is a little like dropping by a slaughterhouse to pronounce the United States a nation of vegetarians.
And yet when covering the Bush announcement, not a single mainstream news outlet mentioned the sordid history of its location. How could they? To do so would require something totally absent from the current debate: an admission that the embrace of torture by US officials long predates the Bush Administration and has in fact been integral to US foreign policy since the Vietnam War.
It's a history that has been exhaustively documented in an avalanche of books, declassified documents, CIA training manuals, court records and truth commissions. In his upcoming book A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy synthesizes this unwieldy cache of evidence, producing an indispensable and riveting account of how monstrous CIA-funded experiments on psychiatric patients and prisoners in the 1950s turned into a template for what he calls "no-touch torture," based on sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain. McCoy traces how these methods were field-tested by CIA agents in Vietnam as part of the Phoenix program and then imported to Latin America and Asia under the guise of police training programs.
It's not only apologists for torture who ignore this history when they blame abuses on "a few bad apples"--so too do many of torture's most prominent opponents. Apparently forgetting everything they once knew about US cold war misadventures, a startling number have begun to subscribe to an antihistorical narrative in which the idea of torturing prisoners first occurred to US officials on September 11, 2001, at which point the interrogation methods used in Guantánamo apparently emerged, fully formed, from the sadistic recesses of Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's brains. Up until that moment, we are told, America fought its enemies while keeping its humanity intact.
The principal propagator of this narrative (what Garry Wills termed "original sinlessness") is Senator John McCain. Writing recently in Newsweek on the need for a ban on torture, McCain says that when he was a prisoner of war in Hanoi, he held fast to the knowledge "that we were different from our enemies...that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or approving such mistreatment of them." It is a stunning historical distortion. By the time McCain was taken captive, the CIA had already launched the Phoenix program and, as McCoy writes, "its agents were operating forty interrogation centers in South Vietnam that killed more than twenty thousand suspects and tortured thousands more," a claim he backs up with pages of quotes from press reports as well as Congressional and Senate probes.
Does it somehow lessen the horrors of today to admit that this is not the first time the US government has used torture to wipe out its political opponents--that it has operated secret prisons before, that it has actively supported regimes that tried to erase the left by dropping students out of airplanes? That, at home, photographs of lynchings were traded and sold as trophies and warnings? Many seem to think so. On November 8 Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott made the astonishing claim to the House of Representatives that "America has never had a
question about its moral integrity, until now." Molly Ivins, expressing her shock that the United States is running a prison gulag, wrote that "it's just this one administration...and even at that, it seems to be mostly Vice President Dick Cheney." And in the November issue of Harper's, William Pfaff argues that what truly sets the Bush Administration apart from its predecessors is "its installation of torture as integral to American military and clandestine operations." Pfaff acknowledges that long before Abu Ghraib, there were those who claimed that the School of the Americas was a "torture school," but he says that he was "inclined to doubt that it was really so." Perhaps it's time for Pfaff to have a look at the SOA textbooks coaching illegal torture techniques, all readily available in both Spanish and English, as well as the hair-raising list of SOA grads.
Other cultures deal with a legacy of torture by declaring "Never again!" Why do so many Americans insist on dealing with the current torture crisis by crying "Never Before"? I suspect it has to do with a sincere desire to convey the seriousness of this Administration's crimes. And the Bush Administration's open embrace of torture is indeed unprecedented--but let's be clear about what is unprecedented about it: not the torture but the openness. Past administrations tactfully kept their "black ops" secret; the crimes were sanctioned but they were practiced in the shadows, officially denied and condemned. The Bush Administration has broken this deal: Post-9/11, it demanded the right to torture without shame, legitimized by new definitions and new laws.
Despite all the talk of outsourced torture, the Bush Administration's real innovation has been its in-sourcing, with prisoners being abused by US citizens in US-run prisons and transported to third countries in US planes. It is this departure from clandestine etiquette, more than the actual crimes, that has so much of the military and intelligence community up in arms: By daring to torture unapologetically and out in the open, Bush has robbed everyone of plausible deniability.
For those nervously wondering if it is time to start using alarmist words like totalitarianism, this shift is of huge significance. When torture is covertly practiced but officially and legally repudiated, there is still the hope that if atrocities are exposed, justice could prevail. When torture is pseudo-legal and when those responsible merely deny that it is torture, what dies is what Hannah Arendt called "the juridical person in man"; soon enough, victims no longer bother to search for justice, so sure are they of the futility (and danger) of that quest. This impunity is a mass version of what happens inside the torture chamber, when prisoners are told they can scream all they want because no one can hear them and no one is going to save them.
In Latin America the revelations of US torture in Iraq have not been met with shock and disbelief but with powerful déjà vu and reawakened fears. Hector Mondragon, a Colombian activist who was tortured in the 1970s by an officer trained at the School of the Americas, wrote: "It was hard to
see the photos of the torture in Iraq because I too was tortured. I saw myself naked with my feet fastened together and my hands tied behind my back. I saw my own head covered with a cloth bag. I remembered my feelings--the humiliation, pain." Dianna Ortiz, an American nun who was brutally tortured in a Guatemalan jail, said, "I could not even stand to look at those photographs...so many of the things in the photographs had also been done to me. I was tortured with a frightening dog and also rats. And they were always filming."
Ortiz has testified that the men who raped her and burned her with cigarettes more than 100 times deferred to a man who spoke Spanish with an American accent whom they called "Boss." It is one of many stories told by prisoners in Latin America of mysterious English-speaking men walking in and out of their torture cells, proposing questions, offering tips. Several of these cases are documented in Jennifer Harbury's powerful new book, Truth, Torture, and the American Way.
Some of the countries that were mauled by US-sponsored torture regimes have tried to repair their social fabric through truth commissions and war crimes trials. In most cases, justice has been elusive, but past abuses have been entered into the official record and entire societies have asked themselves questions not only about individual responsibility but collective complicity. The United States, though an active participant in these "dirty wars," has gone through no parallel process of national soul-searching.
The result is that the memory of US complicity in far-away crimes remains fragile, living on in old newspaper articles, out-of-print books and tenacious grassroots initiatives like the annual protests outside the School of the Americas (which has been renamed but remains largely unchanged). The terrible irony of the anti-historicism of the current torture debate is that in the name of eradicating future abuses, these past crimes are being erased from the record. Every time Americans repeat the fairy tale about their pre-Cheney innocence, these already hazy memories fade even further. The hard evidence still exists, of course, carefully archived in the tens of thousands of declassified documents available from the National Security Archive. But inside US collective memory, the disappeared are being disappeared all over again.
This casual amnesia does a profound disservice not only to the victims of these crimes but also to the cause of trying to remove torture from the US policy arsenal once and for all. Already there are signs that the Administration will deal with the current torture uproar by returning to the cold war model of plausible deniability. The McCain amendment protects every "individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government"; it says nothing about torture training or buying information from the exploding industry of for-profit interrogators. And in Iraq the dirty work is already being handed over to Iraqi death squads, trained by US commanders like Jim Steele, who prepared for the job by setting up similarly lawless units in El
Salvador. The US role in training and supervising Iraq's Interior Ministry was forgotten, moreover, when 173 prisoners were recently discovered in a Ministry dungeon, some tortured so badly that their skin was falling off. "Look, it's a sovereign country. The Iraqi government exists," Rumsfeld said. He sounded just like the CIA's William Colby, who when asked in a 1971 Congressional probe about the thousands killed under Phoenix--a program he helped launch--replied that it was now "entirely a South Vietnamese program."
And that's the problem with pretending that the Bush Administration invented torture. "If you don't understand the history and the depths of the institutional and public complicity," says McCoy, "then you can't begin to undertake meaningful reforms." Lawmakers will respond to pressure by eliminating one small piece of the torture apparatus--closing a prison, shutting down a program, even demanding the resignation of a really bad apple like Rumsfeld. But, McCoy says, "they will preserve the prerogative to torture."
The Center for American Progress has just launched an advertising campaign called "Torture is not US." The hard truth is that for at least five decades it has been. But it doesn't have to be.
I promised a friend to tell him how to improve privacy on the profile page. Anyone who is not out, but wants to join some groups with "gay" in the name, should not display their groups publicly. To privatize your group memberships, go to Home > Account Settings > Profile Settings, and uncheck Display Groups belong to if you want to hide links to the groups you've joined on MySpace. Your MySpace groups will no longer be displayed on your Profile. You will still be able to access them by clicking your Groups link while logged in.
Each of your blogs can be posted as a public or private blog. Once you have finished writing, at the bottom you will see a number of choices, below mood and other stuff: Comments: disable Kudos & comments; Privacy: Public Diary Friends Preferred List [help].
Public - Anyone can read your post; Diary - Only you can read your post (you can use this like a diary); Friends - Only Myspace "Friends" can read your post; Preferred List - Only those on your Preferred List can read your post. The Subject of all of your blogs will always show on your profile page regardless of their privacy setting.
To create a Preferred list, go to Blog, and then on the left top, under MySpace Blog, you will see: Blog Home, My Subscriptions, My Readers, My Preferred List. Click on the Preferred list, and then search for the names of the people you want to allow to see your semi-private blogs. You can remove people from this list at any time.
If you want to ensure the ultimate MySpace privacy, make your Profile only viewable by your friends. To do that, change your age to 14 or 15. Home > Edit Profile > Basic Info: Edit: Date of Birth. Change the year to 1990 or 1991.
You can also go to Home > Account Settings > Privacy Settings, and
Check Require email or last name to add me as a friend if you want other users to be required to know your email address or your last name in order to send you an add friend request (this prevents people who don't know you from trying to add you as a friend).
Check Approve Comments before Posting if you want to review comments to your profile and journals before they are posted. Comments will NOT appear unless and until you approve them.
Check iHide Online Now to make your online status invisible to other users.
Check No Pic Forwarding to prevent other users from emailing links to your images from the site.
Check Friend Only Journal Comments to allow only your friends to post comments on your blog entries.
Check Block Friend Request From Bands to block unwanted friend request from bands.
They see reality, and knowing "the facts are friendly," they accept reality more than most people. They see through phoniness, deception, and "games"--and avoid them. They cope with problems, rather than avoid them.As often as I can, I choose to make these choices. When I don't--well, I'm just human.
They accept themselves and others; thus, they can honestly self-disclose and forgive others' shortcomings.
They are spontaneous with their ideas, feelings, and actions, being genuine and confident.
They focus on solving problems but their "problems" tend to be outside themselves. For instance, they often have a "mission" that may be difficult to accomplish but gives excitement, challenge, and purpose to their lives.
They enjoy privacy, withdrawing sometimes to be free to have their own thoughts. Occasionally, they may have mystical experiences in which they become part of all mankind or of nature.
They resist culturally prescribed roles, e.g. masculine or feminine. They resent unfairness caused by social roles and prejudice. They insist on thinking for themselves and completing their mission, even in the face of social criticism.
They enjoy and appreciate the commonplace, the little things in life--a rose, a baby, an idea, a considerate comment, a meal, a loving touch, etc.
They feel a kinship, a closeness, a warmth, a concern for every human being.
They are close to a few people, although not always popular. They can live intimately and love.
They do not judge others on the basis of stereotypes, like sex, age, race, or religion, but rather as individuals.
They have a strong self-generated code of ethics--a sense of right and wrong. Their values may not be conventional but they do guide their lives.
They are creative and do things differently, not in rebellion but for the joy of being original and talented. They are clever, even in their ability to be amused instead of angered by human foibles.
We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and, our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members.[Thanks to Rex Wockner for this translation.]
In the poem 'The Family,' our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda was sorry because, How does man live in denial in vain/by giving rules that prohibit and condemn? Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty.
It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.
Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in a profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil, that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better society.
With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by the democratic change of government. Our children will look at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them that people had to stay married against their will even though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and praise.
Today we demonstrate with this Bill that societies can better themselves and can cross barriers and create tolerance by putting a stop to the unhappiness and humiliation of some of our citizens. Today, for many of our countrymen, comes the day predicted by Kavafis [the great Greek gay poet] one century ago: Later 'twas said of the most perfect society/someone else, made like me/certainly will come out and act freely.
Oppose John Roberts' Supreme Court Nomination
In the past weeks, Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court –- someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But last night, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to fill her post on the Supreme Court.
We’ve got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be “overruled,” and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.
Join me in signing MoveOn’s petition to let our Senators know we expect them to oppose John Roberts right now at: http://political.moveon.org/roberts
Contracted var. of SCOTTISH.Thanks to James for posting this on the APG list.
The three forms of the adj., Scotch, Scottish, Scots, are still current, with some difference in use, which, however, is somewhat unsettled. Down to the middle of the 16th c. the only form used in southern English was Scottish; but in the dialect of Scotland (and in that of the north of England in the 14th and 15th c.) the form was Scottis (cf. Inglis = English), subsequently contracted to Scots. So far as our quotations show, the contraction of Scottish into Scotch is not recorded before 1570 (in the compound Scotchman), though the colloquial pronunciation which it represents may well be much older; instances of Scotch cap, Scotch jig occur in 1591-99, but the adj. did not become common in literature until the second half of the 17th c. From that time until the 19th c. Scotch has been the prevailing form in England, though Scottish has always been in use as a more formal synonym. In Scotland, the authors who wrote in dialect (down to Ramsay and Fergusson early in the 18th c.) used Scots, while those who anglicized adopted the form Scottish. But before the end of the 18th c. Scotch had been adopted into the northern vernacular; it is used regularly by Burns, and subsequently by Scott; still later, it appears even in official language in the title of the 'Scotch Education Office.' Since the mid 19th c. there has been in Scotland a growing tendency to discard this form altogether, Scottish, or less frequently Scots, being substituted. At the beginning of the 20th c., while in England Scotch was the ordinary colloquial word, the literary usage prefered Scottish in applications relating to the nation or the country at large or its institutions or characteristics. Thus it was usual to speak of 'Scottish literature,' 'Scottish history,' 'the Scottish character,' 'a Scottish lawyer,' 'the Scottish border.' On the other hand, it would have sounded affected to say 'a Scottish girl,' 'a Scottish gardener.' Although 'the Scottish dialect' is now the usual designation, it is seldom that Scottish is used as a n. instead of Scotch. Recent usage favours Scots in 'Scots law,' and it is now almost universal in historical references to money, as 'a pound Scots.'
In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman's supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such as 'Scotch mist,' 'Scotch whisky') Scottish (less frequently Scots) is now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1965)).
Free Z, a group started in dedication to Zach, a young man who was currently being held against his will and being forced to suffer acts of child abuse in the name of religion, started by Ben, age 16. This group has over 4000 members, and is very active, and creative! It has now expanded its reach to include all teens held against their will in these "ex-gay" camps.
Take Action to Legalize Gay Marriage, started by Melly, age 19.
Another, Support Gay Marriages! has almost 22,000 members, and was established by yoko, age 17!
SLC Convention & Visitors Center: http://www.visitsaltlake.com/go/genealogy.shtml
Richard Eastman updates his hotel critiques yearly: http://www.eogn.com/surveys/SLC
Comments are always solicited and displayed. The latest: http://eogn.typepad.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2005/10/where_to_stay_i.html
Annette Hulse describes the City Creek Inn. ...2 blocks from FHL... $48 for a room with 1 Queen, $58 for a room with 2 Queens.... No amenities," but clean, safe, cheap and convenient. http://www.citycreekinn.com
Tips on Making Your SLC Research Trip A Big Success: http://www.rootsweb.com/~genepool/slc.htm
Name of Future Husband: O'SULLIVAN, TimothyUpper Canada
Residence: Quebec
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Catherine
Residence: Quebec
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 30
Bond Number: 79
Date: 1819-09-21
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1129
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, James
Residence: late of Belfast, Ireland
Name of Future Wife: PATTERSON, Mary
Residence: late of Belfast, Ireland
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 31
Bond Number: 285
Date: 1822-08-06
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1129
Name of Future Husband: BARWIS, Thomas Bienvenue
Residence: Quebec
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Ann Elizabeth
Residence: Quebec
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 33
Bond Number: 529
Date: 1825-10-31
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1130
Name of Future Husband: HOYT, Sandford Liverston
Residence: Quebec
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Julia Hannah
Residence: Quebec
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 33
Bond Number: 572
Date: 1825-10-07
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1130
Name of Future Husband: MARTIN, Edward
Residence: late of Belfast, Ireland
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Margaret
Residence: late of Belfast, Ireland
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 34-C
Bond Number: 1372
Date: 1832-07-24
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1130
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, Hugh
Residence: Quebec
Name of Future Wife: COULSON, Harriet Sarah
Residence: Quebec
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 35
Bond Number: 1461
Date: 1833-10-28
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: AHERN, John Urquhart
Residence: Quebec
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Henrietta Eliza
Residence: Quebec
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 35-A
Bond Number: 1591
Date: 1835-12-12
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, John
Residence: Soulanges
Name of Future Wife: RODGERS, Mary
Residence: Soulanges
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 36
Bond Number: 1664
Date: 1836-06-10
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, Peter
Residence: Dunham
Name of Future Wife: HACKETT, Jane
Residence: Montreal
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 36
Bond Number: 1665
Date: 1836-11-28
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, William
Residence: Montreal
Name of Future Wife: CROSS, Elizabeth
Residence: Beauharnois
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 37
Bond Number: 1835
Date: 1837-03-10
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: WELCH, Hy.W.
Residence: Quebec
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Lucretia Mary
Residence: Quebec
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 38
Bond Number: 2086
Date: 1838-05-21
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, David
Residence: Montreal
Name of Future Wife: FLINN, Ann
Residence: Montreal
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 39
Bond Number: 2133
Date: 1839-03-15
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: LANCONS, John
Residence: St.Andrews
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Maria
Residence: St.Andrews
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 40
Bond Number: 2520
Date: 1840-02-03
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1131
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, Hugh
Residence: Montreal
Name of Future Wife: LINTON, Elizabeth
Residence: Montreal
Remarks:
Reference: RG 4 B28
Volume: 41
Bond Number: 2713
Date: 1841-07-19
Microfilm Reel Number: H-1132
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, Alexander
Residence: Pittsburgh tp.
Name of Future Wife: MABEE, Rachel
Residence: Charlotteville Township
Remarks:
Reference: RG 5 B9
Volume: 20
Bond Number: 2238
Date: 1831-06-04
Microfilm Reel Number: C-6780
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, James
Residence: Elizabethtown Township, Leeds County
Name of Future Wife: SHERIFF, Marie
Residence: Cornwall
Remarks:
Reference: RG 5 B9
Volume: 17
Bond Number: 1319
Date: 1827-10-29
Microfilm Reel Number: C-6779
Name of Future Husband: GRAY, William
Residence: Dumfries Township, Halton County
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Anette
Residence: Dumfries Township, Halton County
Remarks:
Reference: RG 5 B9
Volume: 35
Bond Number: 6374
Date: 1838-10-21
Microfilm Reel Number: C-6787
Name of Future Husband: SHAW, James
Residence: Puslinch Township, Halton County
Name of Future Wife: COWAN, Margaret
Residence: Waterloo Township, Halton County
Remarks:
Reference: RG 5 B9
Volume: 42
Bond Number: 8174
Date: 1840-03-02
Microfilm Reel Number: C-6790
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, Thomas
Residence: Richmond Township, Midland District
Name of Future Wife: CAMPBELL, Margaret
Residence: Richmond Township, Midland District
Remarks:
Reference: RG 5 B9
Volume: 43
Bond Number: 8528
Date: 1841-03-06
Microfilm Reel Number: C-6791
Name of Future Husband: COWAN, George
Residence: Bytown
Name of Future Wife: PATTERSON, Margaret
Residence:
Remarks:
Reference: RG 5 B9
Volume: 44
Bond Number: 8836
Date: 1844-11-06
Microfilm Reel Number: C-6791
Family Acceptance.com: http://www.familyacceptance.com/And see some GLBT religious organizations:
Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse: http://www.truluck.com/
Scholarly article - Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm
To Educate About the Consequences of Homophobia: http://www.teach-ministries.org/ -
Bob and Mary Lou Wallner have written a book called The Slow Miracle of Transformation.
Love Welcomes All: http://www.lovewelcomesall-wa.org/
Whosoever: The Bible and Homosexuality: http://www.whosoever.org/bible/
A Letter to Louise - A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality: http://www.godmademegay.com/
Soul Force: http://www.soulforce.org/And finally, a wonderful interview with Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, about his book The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love on KUOW radio: http://kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=8710
What the Bible Says, and Doesn't Say, about Homosexuality
A False Focus on My Family
Christian Youth: An Important Voice in the Present Struggle for Gay Rights in America
Finding an open and welcoming congregation - GayChurch.org: http://www.gaychurch.org/, Institute for Welcoming Resources (The Task Force): http://www.welcomingresources.org/directory.htm
Evangelicals Concerned: http://www.ecinc.org/
National Religious Leadership Roundtable: http://www.thetaskforce.org/ourprojects/nrlr/index.cfm
DignityUSA - GLBT Catholics: http://www.dignityusa.org/
![]() | White Ribbon Campaign Raising Awareness about Gay-Teen Suicide And remembering those who we've lost |