Yeah. It’s like that. I had a brief exchange with them over it on my blog, and at first I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that all the vitriol I was seeing was just their grief talking. But no. Their son almost certainly knew what his lover would be up against after he passed away and that’s why he made sure his last wishes were covered by a will.

On my blog the Groffs made one accusation after another that turned out to either be exaggerations or outright falsehoods concerning how they, and their son’s gravesite were treated by their son’s lover. I understand how grief can make people want to lash out. But there’s clearly more then that going on with them.

And it’s runts like LaBarbera who are busy driving these wedges of fear and shame and ignorance between parents and their children. LaBarbera should be ashamed of himself. But then, he should take a drive down whatever lonely road he abandoned his conscience on, apologize profusely to it, take it back home and promise to take better care of it in the future too, and I doubt that’ll happen either.

“Meanwhile, homosexual activists threw everything but the kitchen sink at the doctor’s 1991 paper,”

I can’t believe he actually linked to your article. Any fool can plainly see that you did indeed throw the kitchen sink at the good doctor.

And please make sure to let us know when God receives Peter’s memo to consult with you, I’d be very anxious to hear about that.

I just found out that the page Peter used to reference Groff’s story was put up by a good friend of his. She has just taken the page down, saying that she does not appreciate how Peter used her tribute to Groff to spread lies.

And it certainly reveals how Ms. LaBarbera clings to the idea that legal, taxpaying adults should be considered wards of the state and forever beholden to parental demands until and unless we are legally married.

Of course, LaBabs is adamantly against us being allowed to be married, so he campaigns to force us to be treated as permanent wards of the State – even when the State has no interest in our adult choices without proof there is an inherent, verifiable health risk to the rest of the population.

Those statutes governing funeral and burial arrangements have long needed to be updated – in many states they are 100 years old. And, contrary to con-artist con-servatives, who claim such privileges were created as “incidents of marriage,” most of these were created as a means to LIMIT government interference in the rights of private citizens to make their own choices in life.

But LaBabsey’s crowd is frustrated about considering that notion. For one thing, more than half the adult population in this country is not married. And for another, conservatives don’t really view marriage as an expression of love and devotion to each other, but to the State. We saw that unfold during the Terri Schiavo debacle. Their argument clearly implies that, despite claims about the sanctity of the male-female relationship, they are more interested in the State withholding basic human rights to make decisions in universal life experiences as a bribe to force people to marry the State. Of course, this also requires the State to be beholden to con-servative religious dictates.

It’s another example of how the Right wants absolute control over every moment of our lives – and our deaths.

Peter just gave a great example of why gay marriage is needed.

Thanks Pete!

Now go ahead and change that photo to your friend Michael Johnston.

The obituary he links to mentions his partner of 7 years so I think Peter was so desperate to find a photo of a young, attractive AIDS victim he probably didn’t bother asking the family if it was ok to use their son’s image.

If Pete really wants to use somebody as a face of AIDS and unsafe sex, why not use a photo of his friend Michael Johnston.