Gay Relationships: Starting A New One – Part 1
Starting a new relationship can feel a bit disorienting. At first everything is exciting; this is what you’ve always wanted, right? Months or years – seems like a lifetime – of dating, and all of a sudden here he is! What’s next?
Relationships require care and encouragement and it helps to get things started on the right foot. Perhaps your first thought is, “so when do we start living together?” Whoa – slow down. Most of us know guys who went home from the bar together the night they first met, and one of them basically never went home. Other couples have been together for years, but find it more agreeable to keep separate households.
Take time to find out what the right rhythm is for each of you. If your tendency in the past has been to make a commitment like moving in with someone after only a few weeks only to find that the relationship never should have happened, make a commitment to yourself that this time you are going to wait at least six months before combining your CD collections. What’s the rush?
Part of dating is trying to make a positive impression – being thoughtful, considerate, romantic. Those are good things in a relationship, too, but face it – if he hangs around, your lover is going to see you at times other than when you are on top of your game.
Allowing your partner to see you at times when you aren’t your best – when things haven’t gone well at work or you’ve had a painful conflict with your crazy family – isn’t stuff you would usually recommend for a first date. But being yourself in good times and bad is the way he’ll get to know you and the way the bonds of intimacy will deepen between you.
If you let your partner see you warts and all, he’ll probably show you his less-attractive stuff as well. It can be a little startling seeing Mr. Right’s flaws.
Don’t think you can change your partner. The start of a relationship offers a great opportunity to learn all about his eccentricities: the way he mispronounces that particular word of his, or his curious need to keep his checkbook in perfect balance.
See if you can practice just noticing rather than criticizing. Who is this peculiar creature that now shares your life? Promise yourself you won’t nit-pick these little things. Learn to relax and laugh at yourself and your reactions to these little things. Criticism and nagging aren’t going to get you off on the right foot.
Some men handle intimacy easier than others. Intimacy requires us to let down our guard and become more open and vulnerable. The trouble is, most men have learned from an early age that making yourself letting down your defenses is a stupid thing to do because you’re likely to get hurt. This makes closeness a real challenge for guys, even if it’s what we most want. You really care about what this guy thinks of you, and the temptation is to try to look good rather than be genuine.
One of the secrets of relationships is that if the relationship is a healthy one, we actually become safer in it by lowering our defenses. Our partner responds to our openness with more openness of his own, or we learn that the blemish that we worried would cause him to run away turns out to be no big deal.
John R. Ballew, M.S.an author and contributor to GAYTWOGETHER, is a licensed professional counselor in private practice in Atlanta. He specializes in issues related to coming out, sexuality, relationships and spirituality. If you have any questions or comments you can submit them directly to GAYTWOGETHERor or John R. Ballew, M.S. - www.bodymindsoul.org. or at (404) 874-8536.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Some NEW "Old" NEWS. . . . .
| SORRY I didn't post this "on time". . .just got caught up in other stuff. . ."I firmly resolve. . ..to amend my life. Amen.". . . .. justin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, July 9, 2010
REACTIONS TO RULING ON GAY MARRIAGE // GOES INTO EFFECT IN MASSACHUSETTS NOW
< Back to front page Text size – +
Reactions pouring in to gay marriage decision
EmailE-mail|Link|Comments (46) July 8, 2010 07:14 PM
A variety of advocacy organizations and political leaders are issuing statements about today's rulings by a federal district court judge in Boston striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Here are some of the statements:
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute:
In another blatant example of a judge playing legislator, a Boston-based federal judge has struck down the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.
Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time. This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.
Americans overwhelmingly believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Just two days ago the Governor of Hawaii vetoed a bill that would have redefined marriage through civil unions, upholding the will of the people of her state. Forty-five states have laws supporting traditional marriage, with thirty of thirty having affirmed traditional marriage in their state constitutions.
DOMA has withstood prior challenges, and I am confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley:
Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages. The federal government cannot require states, such as Massachusetts, to further the discrimination through federal programs. We are extremely pleased with Judge Tauro’s decision and we also want to congratulate GLAD for their well-earned victory on behalf of equality.
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts:
This ruling is a victory for equal rights and affirms the hard work we have done over the years to ensure that the citizens of our Commonwealth can marry anyone they love. I applaud the Attorney General and the members of the public who challenged the constitutionality of DOMA. They clearly made a compelling and effective case against discrimination and, in the process, helped to guarantee that all of our citizens have access to the same protections and benefits.
Paula Herrington, interim executive director of MassEquality
This is a tremendous victory. Married couples in Massachusetts are treated differently based on their sexual orientation. One set of them have access to the 1,000-plus benefits of marriage offered by the federal government, and the other set, those who happen to be married to someone of the same sex, do not. That’s unfair and it’s a classic example of unequal treatment under the law. We are pleased with Judge Tauro’s decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and hope that the ruling paves the way to a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
At the same time, we note the irony of the timing of Judge Tauro’s decision. Earlier this week, on Monday, Hawaii Governor Laura Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill passed by the Hawaii legislature that would have given same-sex couples in Hawaii access to the state benefits of marriage. Of course, it was the marriage movement in Hawaii in the mid-1990s that spurred Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in the first place.
It will take time, but we will see full marriage equality for LGBT people in every state in this country, and under federal law. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the arc of the moral universe is long, but Judge Tauro’s decision today helped bend it toward justice.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry:
Today's historic ruling strikes down federal marriage discrimination enacted under the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. DOMA created two classes of marriage - those the federal government respects and some it doesn't - denying married same sex couples and their families equal treatment and depriving them of the crucial safety-net that marriage brings. In Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers, represented by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, demonstrated that federal marriage discrimination harms gay and lesbian couples who are trying to make ends meet and protect their families.
Today's ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason. Today's ruling provides increased momentum to the national movement to end exclusion from marriage and Freedom to Marry's Roadmap to secure the freedom to marry nationwide. The crucial work of changing hearts and minds and winning the freedom to marry in more states is more urgent than ever as we build on today's momentum and encourage other decision-makers to do the right thing and end exclusion from marriage.
Michael B. Keegan, president of People For the American Way:
The court did the right thing today—the right thing under the Constitution, and the right thing for the citizens of Massachusetts. For too many years, thousands of legally married couples in states across the country have seen the federal government turn its back on their unions. The Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to give rights to some married couples and deny them to others. Today’s decision was vindication of that principle.
Americans don’t want to hurt their gay and lesbian friends and neighbors, but DOMA does just that—it causes real harm to people across the nation. Although this case has the potential to be contested for years, I hope that Congress will take this opportunity to do the right thing and repeal DOMA, so that all married couples, like those in Massachusetts, can enjoy the full rights and responsibilities of marriage.
*
*
Previous Story
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
Reactions pouring in to gay marriage decision
EmailE-mail|Link|Comments (46) July 8, 2010 07:14 PM
A variety of advocacy organizations and political leaders are issuing statements about today's rulings by a federal district court judge in Boston striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Here are some of the statements:
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute:
In another blatant example of a judge playing legislator, a Boston-based federal judge has struck down the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.
Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time. This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.
Americans overwhelmingly believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Just two days ago the Governor of Hawaii vetoed a bill that would have redefined marriage through civil unions, upholding the will of the people of her state. Forty-five states have laws supporting traditional marriage, with thirty of thirty having affirmed traditional marriage in their state constitutions.
DOMA has withstood prior challenges, and I am confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley:
Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages. The federal government cannot require states, such as Massachusetts, to further the discrimination through federal programs. We are extremely pleased with Judge Tauro’s decision and we also want to congratulate GLAD for their well-earned victory on behalf of equality.
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts:
This ruling is a victory for equal rights and affirms the hard work we have done over the years to ensure that the citizens of our Commonwealth can marry anyone they love. I applaud the Attorney General and the members of the public who challenged the constitutionality of DOMA. They clearly made a compelling and effective case against discrimination and, in the process, helped to guarantee that all of our citizens have access to the same protections and benefits.
Paula Herrington, interim executive director of MassEquality
This is a tremendous victory. Married couples in Massachusetts are treated differently based on their sexual orientation. One set of them have access to the 1,000-plus benefits of marriage offered by the federal government, and the other set, those who happen to be married to someone of the same sex, do not. That’s unfair and it’s a classic example of unequal treatment under the law. We are pleased with Judge Tauro’s decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and hope that the ruling paves the way to a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
At the same time, we note the irony of the timing of Judge Tauro’s decision. Earlier this week, on Monday, Hawaii Governor Laura Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill passed by the Hawaii legislature that would have given same-sex couples in Hawaii access to the state benefits of marriage. Of course, it was the marriage movement in Hawaii in the mid-1990s that spurred Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in the first place.
It will take time, but we will see full marriage equality for LGBT people in every state in this country, and under federal law. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the arc of the moral universe is long, but Judge Tauro’s decision today helped bend it toward justice.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry:
Today's historic ruling strikes down federal marriage discrimination enacted under the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. DOMA created two classes of marriage - those the federal government respects and some it doesn't - denying married same sex couples and their families equal treatment and depriving them of the crucial safety-net that marriage brings. In Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers, represented by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, demonstrated that federal marriage discrimination harms gay and lesbian couples who are trying to make ends meet and protect their families.
Today's ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason. Today's ruling provides increased momentum to the national movement to end exclusion from marriage and Freedom to Marry's Roadmap to secure the freedom to marry nationwide. The crucial work of changing hearts and minds and winning the freedom to marry in more states is more urgent than ever as we build on today's momentum and encourage other decision-makers to do the right thing and end exclusion from marriage.
Michael B. Keegan, president of People For the American Way:
The court did the right thing today—the right thing under the Constitution, and the right thing for the citizens of Massachusetts. For too many years, thousands of legally married couples in states across the country have seen the federal government turn its back on their unions. The Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to give rights to some married couples and deny them to others. Today’s decision was vindication of that principle.
Americans don’t want to hurt their gay and lesbian friends and neighbors, but DOMA does just that—it causes real harm to people across the nation. Although this case has the potential to be contested for years, I hope that Congress will take this opportunity to do the right thing and repeal DOMA, so that all married couples, like those in Massachusetts, can enjoy the full rights and responsibilities of marriage.
*
*
Previous Story
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
GAY MARRIAGE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL. !
< Back to front page Text size – +
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
|Comments (462) July 8, 2010 06:55 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.
"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."
Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.
“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”
Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.
“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”
Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.
Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.
“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”
“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”
He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”
The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.
Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We're reviewing the decision.”
Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
|Comments (462) July 8, 2010 06:55 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.
"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."
Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.
“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”
Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.
“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”
Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.
Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.
“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”
“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”
He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”
The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.
Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We're reviewing the decision.”
Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Is this possible?
Gay Relationships: When You’ve Screwed Up
Posted: 08 Jul 2010 04:07 AM PDT
We all make mistakes, but some are more harmful than others. What do you do when you’ve made a big one, and your partner is now hurt and angry?
Maybe you’ve had an affair or done something that has caused a major upset in your life and the life of the man you love.
Situations like this are a test. It’s a test of your relationship and whether or not it is solid enough to repair the damage done to it. The situation is also a test of your character. It’s important to do the right thing.
The first step is to be accountable. This is hard; do it anyway. No excuses. Offering an explanation (“Our sex life has been rotten for months”) is only going to add fuel to your partner’s anger. If you lied or broke an agreement between the two of you, it’s important that you acknowledge what you did. Doing so can begin the long road towards repairing your credibility.
If you’ve had an affair, answer your partner’s questions without giving him more information than is helpful. Own up to what you did. Keep in mind that this is about helping your partner work through his pain; it’s not about unburdening yourself. Avoid saying things that may make you feel better for getting them off your chest if your lover is going to feel hurt even more by the information.
Apologize and mean it. If you want the relationship to continue, say so. Understand that your partner may not be as clear as you are about what he wants. What does your partner need from you now? Understand that hiding information your partner has requested is likely to make things worse. Understand that your partner may find it difficult to trust you and may want to know where you are going and whom you’ll be with, for instance.
Be willing to listen to your partner’s feelings. This is not likely to be easy, but it’s what needs to happen. Expecting forgiveness before your partner is able to extend it is not going to help you. Be willing to hear what your partner has to say. If you can do this without being argumentative or defensive you’ll have gone a long way towards helping the wound heal.
Time heals many wounds. Make time for healing by being available for your partner if that’s what he wants; if what he wants is some space away from you right now, let him know that you will be around if he wants you.
Understand that forgiving is different from forgetting. You can ask for your partner’s forgiveness, but it is up to him to determine whether he can pardon your offense. If he’s able to do that, see if you can also forgive yourself.
Relationship or individual counseling may be needed to help you both move forward. One of the great things about being human is that we can learn and grow from even the most painful and difficult of situations. Sometimes we become stronger in the broken places.
John R. Ballew, M.S. author & contributor to GAYTWOGETHER, is a licensed professional counselor in private practice in Atlanta. He specializes in issues related to coming out, sexuality, relationships and spirituality. If you have any questions or comments you can submit them directly to GAYTWOGETHER or John R. Ballew, M.S. - www.bodymindsoul.org. or at (404) 874-8536.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
HOLIDAYS
This Sunday marks the 234th birthday of the United States of America. . . .. this is how STEW begins his latest blog entry.
So this is how I want to begin my blog entry this morning. . ..with a slight variation on a theme. . .;-)
Wednesday, June 30th marked a 'blessed event' in the O'Shea Family: the 22nd Anniversary of Justin O'Shea's natalicia. . . Yes I was born 22 years ago. Following old traditions we celebrate The Day with its Octave . . .eight days.
Wednesday evening we celebrated with a quiet fun dinner at home. . .Mom and Dad, Mme Bouvier, my gramma who drove down in her spanking red VW, Peter and I enjoyed a great meal. . .with birthday cake and making wishes and blowing out the candles. . . .and singing. . .of course! Never miss an occasion to sing!
Thursday, the first day of the Octave, our work-week ended! My boss gave us a long holiday weekend and provided lunch that day for all of us. . .including a spur-of-the-moment improvised birthday cake! A bakery cake with a lighted sparkler sputtering on top. hahahaa
Since I enjoy the privilege of being a member of the DaSilva Family now I had dinner with them last evening. A big dinner. . .Mama always makes a BIG dinner for all her children. . . . .ahem. This was a fun affair, with great food, lots of red Portuguese wine in big bubble glasses with long stems. . . . .the kind of glass which makes "only four glasses in a bottle". . .hahahaa. . .and of course singing.
Another huge birthday cake to feed the whole family. FUN fun fun.
There will be more partying this weekend as the entire O'Shea family will be home for the long weekend. My brother [12 years older than I] with his wife and two sons; my sister [10 years older] with her husband and son and daughter. My favorite [and only] niece and my three nephews really like their
Unca Justi [ that's the way they said it when they began to talk and thus it has remained. . ."Unca Justi". . . ..and I like it. Makes me feel old and patriarchal. LOL
The boys like hanging out in my room. . . .so.. . .I am careful. . . . .shall we say?! hahaha and are apt to just walk in with no knocks. . . .but that has changed: If the door is CLOSED, KNOCK AND WAIT. . .! ;-) They are old enough now to observe "age-appropriate behaviour". . . hehehe. . .My bro's two boys, the oldest of the four kids, tend to be "forgetful" . . . I also have two teen-age cousins who are just plain nosey !!!
It is always fun having all of us together. . . .a LOT of story-telling. . "remember the time. . .?" happens at meal time. . .suppers tend to be longer. . . with lots of chatter. So we remember together who and why we are. . .
Sunday will be a busy day. . ..After morning Mass. . .we ALL make a grand entrance at St. Peter the Apostle. . ..just the sheer number of us. . . La Grande Dame leads the way in and down the aisle. . . .then there is the after-Mass de riguer Mom's Sunday Brunch.
Then later that afternoon the Guests arrive for the O'Shea Annual 4th of July BBQ. . .all of the DaSilvas will be here also this year, plus friends and colleagues of Mom and Dad. . ..and assorted friends of everybody.
My job at this event is the go-fer-boy: I am the drink server. . .this year Peter will join me in that work. . . .lest the feast go dry! Last year one of Mom's colleagues at the college pinched my butt. .. Cougar!!! hahahaaa
I hope you all enjoy your weekend and various holiday traditions. . .
ciao . . . .Unca Justi. . . .hehehe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)