Diana’s Little Corner in the Nutmeg State
"So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
And we never even know we have the key"
Already Gone - Eagles
Saturday, June 06, 2026
Dad's Story
Saturday 9
On Saturdays I take a break from the heavy stuff and have some fun…
Unfamiliar with this week's song? Hear it here.
1) In this song, Rick Nelson tells us he'd give his girl the stars from sky or a string of pearls. Have you more recently given or received a gift? What was it?
Nope…
2) By the time this record was released, Rick was already a show business veteran. He had been a regular on his family's sitcom, The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, since it began airing on radio when he was just 8. Most of us weren't child performers but many of us had chores around the house. When you were young, did your parents give you an allowance?
Mow the lawn.
3) The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet moved to TV, where fans saw Rick grow into a teen who drove a 1932 Roadster. The car really belonged to Tony La Masa, who collected classic cars and rented them out to TV and movie producers. Have you ever earned or raised money with your hobby?
I did!
I donate photographs to non-profits, one print in a silent auction for $250!
4) Paul McCartney has called Rick Nelson an "underrated singer who could really carry a song" and said Rick was one of his influences. Who do you believe you have influenced, professionally or personally?
Yes, she said I should go for my MSW, best advice I had in a long time.
5) This week's song was already an oldie by the time Rick performed it. "For You" was recorded the first time by Casa Loma Orchestra in 1933. In those days, most records were 78 rpm discs, thick and usually only able to hold 3 to 5 minutes of sound per side. Most record companies stopped producing them in the 1950s. Have you ever seen a "78?"
Yes. Sadly they were used to targets for a BB gun
6) The lyrics to "For You" were written by Al Dubin. After Al left college he supported himself as a singing waiter. That's really two jobs in one. Which would you do better at: singer or server?
7) The music was written by Joe Burke, whose last hit song was "Rambling Rose," recorded in 1948 by Perry Como. Have you ever heard of Perry Como?
Are you kidding?
My parents listened to him all the time, they watch his show, had his records.
8) In 1963, when Ricky's recording was on the charts, the Zip Code was introduced. How many different Zips have you lived in?
Okay we have to get a technical here… legal residences, one zip code. College, the family cottage in New Hampshire, and my cottage on Cape Cod.
9) Random question: When you were in high school, were you taller or shorter than your classmates? Or were you the average height?
Friday, June 05, 2026
European Union
Mon 1 Jun 2026Thirteen months after the UK supreme court delivered its landmark ruling that sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, and 10 days after an updated draft “code of practice” from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was laid before parliament, the UK is once again rowing about single-sex spaces, and particularly toilets. Once again, the purpose and value of those spaces for women are at risk of being eclipsed by complaints from people who would prefer that they didn’t exist in a way that complies with the current law. The code confirms that there is no legal way to open a single-sex service to people of the other sex, even if they are trans. Organisations are told to address the likely disadvantage to trans people by offering alternative, mixed-sex facilities. Associations (membership organisations with rules) can be trans-inclusive if they want, as long as they do not claim to be single-sex. Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities minister, said that avoiding any new “burden on business” was one of the reasons why the revised guidance has taken more than a year to arrive.[...]Trans people also suffer from high rates of domestic abuse and need access to services. There are justified concerns about inadequate funding. But mixed-sex support groups already exist, and a trend towards gender-neutral commissioning has been noted. The vast majority of public spaces and activities are already mixed-sex – which is why the Equality Act refers to single-sex ones as “exceptions”. What is not OK is the removal of this option on grounds that it is bigoted to seek a female-only space; or the claim that a service is single-sex when it is not.
Landmark CJEU ruling demands Member States to ensure legal gender recognition to guarantee freedom of movementToday’s judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) says all member states must provide for legal gender recognition procedures allowing their citizens who have exercised their right to move and reside freely in another member state to obtain identity documents matching their lived gender.Today, the CJEU delivered its ruling in the case C-43/24 Shipova, marking a historic step forward for trans people’s rights across the EU.The Court stated that under EU law provisions on freedom of movement and fundamental right to private and family life, member states have an obligation to legally recognise the lived gender of their nationals who have exercised their right to move and reside in another member state in their civil status registers; i.e. they must have a functioning process for legal gender recognition (“LGR”) in place. This is because, as the Court confirmed, identity documents and passports are key for EU nationals to enjoy freedom of movement, so in order to avoid “considerable inconveniences” in particular during identity checks or cross-border travel or in professional settings. Therefore, member states must provide identity documents and civil registry entries matching the person’s lived gender. The Court also recalled that tolerating discrimination against trans persons breaches their dignity and freedom. It also decided that national courts are not bound by supreme court’s decisions that run contrary to today’s judgment and EU law.[...]Why this mattersThis judgment goes beyond one individual case and applies across the EU. Currently, there are three EU member States, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia, that through laws, judgments and constitutional amendments, have made any access to LGR impossible. Without such recognition, basic rights, from crossing borders and accessing healthcare to applying for a job or enrolling at university, become daily struggles.The CJEU now, for the first time, clearly states that having access to LGR is a prerequisite to enjoying fundamental rights within the EU and that EU member states have an obligation to ensure access to LGR for nationals who exercised their freedom of movement and reside abroad. The judgement confirms that the absence of any possibility to obtain LGR in a member state is incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties provisions.
Pieter Cannoot, professor of law and diversity and legal scholar at Ghent University, said the judgment strengthens a growing line of EU case law limiting national restrictions on the recognition of LGBTQ identities. The court, he said, has “taken an important step towards recognizing a right to legal gender recognition in the EU,” linking the issue not only to free movement but also to fundamental rights such as privacy and nondiscrimination.Other scholars see the decision as part of a broader shift in EU constitutional law. Uladzislau Belavusau, senior researcher in European law at the University of Amsterdam and the T.M.C. Asser Institute, said the ruling reflects a broader shift in EU law, where the accuracy of identity documents is increasingly tied to the practical exercise of EU citizenship. In his view, the judgment shows the court moving toward what he calls the rise of “sexual citizenship” in the union, where recognition of gender identity becomes part of how free movement rights function in practice.
This clashes with conservative laws in countries like Bulgaria, where the Supreme Court rejected a registry change to uphold public interest and social values. Critically, the CJEU asserts EU law’s supremacy over national constitutional interpretations, even in core areas like civil law and personal identity. This overreach exemplifies Brussels’ agenda to centralize power, overriding elected parliaments and traditional cultural norms. The decision raises profound questions about EU primacy’s limits in sensitive matters, potentially compelling recognition of transgender identities that undermine societal foundations rooted in natural law. As Europe faces demographic and moral declines, this judicial activism threatens to impose progressive ideologies that erode national heritage and the sanctity of human dignity from conception onward.
Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire!
The Republicans cite a huge number of boys getting breast surgery... which is a Republican lie! There is a medical condition called gynecomastia, which is the overdevelopment or enlargement of breast tissue in boys and men. It is a common condition often triggered by hormonal imbalances during puberty. But they lie and lump all those surgeries in with us! Do you know how many surgeries are done on trans girls to enlarge their breasts? "0", zero! None!
I think that the Republicans know the difference, which means they must be doing it intentionally.
Senate Scrutinizes Gender Transition Care for Minors
By Legis1 Editorial · Edited by Zarrin Ahmed, Joanne Levine
Friday, May 15, 2026Why It Matters
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is convening a hearing on gender transition procedures for minors at a moment when the medical establishment is shifting, the Trump administration has moved aggressively on the issue, and major hospitals have already changed their practices. What happens in that hearing room on May 21 could shape federal policy on one of the most contested questions in American medicine and politics.[...]What Cassidy Is Driving
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a physician and HELP Committee chair, announced the hearing alongside a formal investigation into federally funded health entities he alleged were performing what he described as "irreversible gender mutilation on children and vulnerable individuals." Cassidy sent letters to federally supported community health centers scrutinizing whether they were providing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related services to minors using taxpayer funds, according to Fox News reporting. He also cited the Department of Justice representation of community health centers or their providers in litigation involving gender transition-related services as a concern.
The hearing is an extension of a sustained oversight campaign. Cassidy had previously expanded his investigation to include the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, alleging those organizations pressured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health to remove age limitations on gender surgeries. His committee's press office also reported that major U.S. hospitals ended gender transition services for children following actions by President Trump and Cassidy, framing that development as a direct result of the committee's oversight work.
The Political Fault Lines
The committee's Democratic members, including Sanders, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are expected to push back on the framing of the hearing and defend access to gender-affirming care. Baldwin, the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, has been a consistent voice on LGBTQ health issues.
On the Republican side, senators including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have each been vocal critics of gender transition procedures for minors in other venues and are likely to use the hearing to press that position.
So Dr. Paul knows the truth too, yet he will not violate his doctor's Hippocratic Oath. However, he has voted against trans bills because of cost. MedPage Today writes...
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) immediately pushed back, calling Wednesday's hearing "disappointing."
"It is disappointing in the sense as to why millions of Americans are giving up on the political process," Sanders said. "They look to Washington at a time when they are facing unprecedented crises, and they're saying who is responding to our needs. And today we are ... spending hours on a hearing that impacts an infinitesimal number of people."
He pointed instead to high rates of childhood poverty and hunger in the U.S. as well as high costs of healthcare.
Meanwhile, "what the medical and scientific community tells us is that gender-affirming care is associated with a lower risk of depression, severe anxiety, and suicidal thoughts," Sanders continued. "Bottom line, gender-affirming care for youth should be between a doctor, a patient, and their parents, not politicians and the federal government. Not only would banning gender-affirmative care do nothing to protect kids, it will make it harder for them to get the healthcare they need, and that would be a tragedy."
The government is "attempting to rob families of the right and freedom to make medical decisions about their own children," he contended. Additionally, the government is "baselessly attacking safe and effective medical care." And finally, "in a way we have never seen before in this country, the government is attempting to seize, secretly, the medical records of families to use private medical information about their children for an unlimited and unknown purpose."
"Few principles in American law are more settled than the right of parents to make medical decisions for their own children in consultation with their doctors," he added.
In response to questions from Sanders, Minter noted the "level of anguish" that healthcare professionals and families are experiencing due to the current administration's targeting of gender-affirming care for youth is "really profound."
[...]
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Cole's experience is tragic, but contended it is a classic case of medical malpractice. "I think the solution here is malpractice cases," Kaine said. "I think the solution is standards of care by the [American Medical Association] and the plastic surgeons and the pediatricians, which are evolving as more research is done. I don't think the right answer is a federal one-size-fits-all."
Listen to him! Take less than 5 minutes to listen to Sen. Sanders and hear the truth, not the Republican lies.
Thursday, June 04, 2026
Driving The Wedge!
They know what they are doing, and they don't care who they hurt as long as it gets them votes.
June 3, 2026Republican support for marriage equality has continued to plummet with fewer than 4 in 10 saying same-sex marriages should be valid under the law, according to new polling.
The big picture: The Supreme Court signaled that its landmark decision recognizing same-sex marriage nationwide remains settled law when it turned away a long-shot challenge last year. But the lead plaintiff in the 2015 case and other LGBTQ+ advocates warn the fight is far from over.
Driving the news: While a majority of Americans still back the validity of same-sex marriages, Republican support has slipped sharply — from 55% in 2021 and 2022 to just 37%, per Gallup findings out Wednesday.
- Two decades ago, just around 42% of Americans supported same-sex marriages according to Gallup polling, compared to 65% today. But that's down from early 2020s peaks of around 7 in 10.
- Meanwhile, the supportive share of Republicans has slipped back to where it was in 2015.
The main culprit was Republicans. Thirty-seven percent agreed that marriage equality should remain legal, while 67% of independents and 87% of Democrats agreed. When it came to the moral acceptability of homosexuality, 35% of Republicans agreed, compared to 65% of independents and 81% of Democrats.
The partisan divide was the most stark for the “changing one’s gender” question: 5% of Republicans agreed that it is morally acceptable to be transgender, compared to 42% of independents and 60% of Democrats.
The decline comes after Republicans across the country started attacking transgender equality in the early 2020s, following their electoral defeat in the 2020 elections. Rights that barely drew attention in the past – like the few trans girls participating in school sports, as they had for decades – became the center of a national conversation.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,
A Different View
“Freedom 250” claims we are a “Christian nation” and completely whitewashes history. That is where the controversy lies. Through this lens, the accomplishments and struggles of minorities are minimized.
Fifteen Years Ago!
When I got there Jerimarie from Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition (CTAC), Sally from ctEQUALITY, and Gretchen from Planned Parenthood were there already and a few minutes later Jennifer from the Gay Lesbian Advocate and Defenders (GLAD) arrived. I had been involved with the legislation since 2006, and Jerimarie and Jennifer were there from the beginning when the Hate Crime bill was first introduced and now we were there at the end.
The first amendment that was offered was about sex-segregated facilities and would have required everyone to use the facility of their birth gender. Sen. Beth Bye (D) asked the amendment’s author if he had ever to have to use the women’s bathroom because men’s room was too crowded, Sen. Welch (R) said no. Sen. Bye then went on to say that women do it all the time when the lines are too long in the women’s room and she said that the amendment would now make that illegal. Also speaking against the amendment was Sens. Cassano (D) and Coleman (D). The amendment was defeated, Yeas 15, Nays 21.
The next amendment offered was the teacher amendment, which would have allowed schools to transfer a teacher out of the classroom while they were transitioning. The amendment was introduced by Sen. Kissel (R) and once against Sen. Bye spoke passionately against the amendment, she said that when sexual orientation was being added to the anti-discrimination statutes back in the 90’s the opposition used the same arguments about gays in the classroom. The amendment was defeated, Yeas 16, Nays 20.
During all the debates on the amendments in the Senate, only two or three spoke in favor of or against the bill, the whole debate on the bill went rather quickly as opposed to the House where it seemed that everyone want to have their say on the bill. In the Senate, there was actually more backroom discussion on the bill that allowed for each side to have their say and then they voted on the bill. The House voted on three amendments and it took around five hours, while in the Senate they voted on four amendments and it took around two and a half hours.
The next amendment was introduced by Sen. Kissel and it was,
Any person who falsely exhibits a gender identity or expression, either through appearance or behavior, that is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, solely for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a crime, shall, in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment authorized by section 53a-35a of the general statutes for the crime of which such person stands convicted, be subject to the sentence of imprisonment authorized by said section for the next more serious degree of misdemeanor or felony, as the case may be, except that if the crime is a class A misdemeanor, such person shall be subject to the sentence of imprisonment authorized by said section for a class D felony.After a short debate, it was also defeated, Yeas 14, Nays 20.
Then they started to bring the bill to a vote, but they were interrupted by Sen. Roraback (R) who introduced an amendment that would limit the bill to an employer with 15 employees or more. That was also defeated 15 – 19 after a very short debate.
They then started to talk about the bill when once again they were interrupted by the introduction of an amendment, Sen. Witkos (R). The amendment was…
Any person holding a motor vehicle operator's license whose gender-related identity is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth shall notify the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of such identity and the commissioner shall indicate such identity in the electronic record maintained by the commissioner pertaining to such person's operator's license.When he was introducing the bill he got a strong stare by the Senate Minority Leader Sen. Kissel, you could tell he was displeased with the senator. The amendment was defeated Yeas 8, Nays 26 with many of the Republicans voting against the amendment. During the debate Sen. Sunzio (R) asked Sen. Witkos police procedures if he (Sen. Witkos is an Avon police officer) was called to a disturbance with a man dressed as a woman in a bathroom. Sen. Witkos explained that this amendment who help us because it would allow police officers to better assess the situation and it was not meant to be a “Scarlet Letter”. Well Senator, maybe you don’t see it as a “Scarlet Letter” coming from a place of power, but I see it a branding us for life.
Finally, the bill came up for debate. While it was being debated, Andrew McDoanld came up to the Senate Gallery to talk to us; Andrew is the former co-chair of the Judiciary Committee along with Mike Lawlor, both of whom now work for the governor. Andrew is now the governor’s chief legal counsel. I remember back when I first met him, Mike and the Governor in 2005, it was at a fundraiser for GenderPAC and they were still legislators and the governor was the mayor of Stamford. We were also joined by Andrew from the CT chapter of the ACLU. The bill was only debated for about 15 – 20 minutes and when the vote came it was 20 Yeas, 16 Nays, the vote was along party lines. We all started clapping and jumping up and down and hugging and just creating merriment.
We all went out into the hallway where the celebration continued; meanwhile the opposition sneaked by us and slither off. So far they have remained quiet and have not issued a statement.
The governor has been behind this bill all the way and he has been the driving force that kept the bill moving and he issued a statement…
This bill is another step forward in the fight for equal rights for all of Connecticut’s citizens, and it’s the right thing to do. It’s difficult enough for people who are grappling with the issue of their gender identity, and discrimination against them has no place in our society. Connecticut has lead the way in other civil rights issues and I’m proud to be able to support and sign this bill.I just wanted to say that was not one person’s effort, nor an organization effort, but was a grassroots effort with many people from many organizations, and individuals who all helped.

Photo: Diana (CTAC), Sally (ctEQUALITY) Jennifer (GLAD) Betty (Gallo & Co.) and Gretchen (Planned Parenthood) Missing from photo Jerimarie (CTAC) who was being interviewed and Andrew (ACLU/CT)
These are just some of the organizations that have helped…
CT TransAdvocacy Coalition
CT Women's Education and Legal Fund
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
CT AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League CT
New Haven Pride Center
CT Sexual Assault Crisis Services
Transitioning and Loving Life (TaLL)
True Colors Sexual Minority Youth and Family Services
CT American Civil Liberties Union
CT Outreach Society
NARAL Pro-Choice CT
The Connecticut Alliance for Business Opportunities
UConn Rainbow Center
UConn Women's Center
Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Unitarian Universalist Society: East
Permanent Commission on the Status of Women
New England Healthcare Employees Union SEIU 1199NE
CT Citizen Action Group
National Council of Jewish Women (CT)
CT Chapter of the National Organization for Women
Triangle Community Center
CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence
CT Clergy for Full Equality
CT Latina/os Achieving Rights & Opportunities
Human Rights Campaign CT
PFLAG Southeastern CT
PFLAG Hartford
City of Hartford Commission on LGBT Issues
National Association of Social Workers (CT Chapter)
City of Norwalk, Human Relations Commission
GLSEN CT
Thank you all! <3 br="">
Tomorrow night I celebrated with a lobster dinner.3>

