X-15 test pilot William J. "Pete" Knight diagnosed with an acute form of leukemia

Author of Calif. gay marriage ban diagnosed with leukemia

Wednesday May 05, 2004

SACRAMENTO (AP) California Sen. William J. ``Pete'' Knight, the
architect of the state's gay marriage ban, has been diagnosed with an
acute form of leukemia and may not return to Sacramento before he is
termed out of office in November, according to his Capitol office.

Knight, R-Palmdale, has been absent from his seat since April 12
because of his illness and ongoing medical testing. Other senators
have consented to shepherd his package of 24 bills, which includes a
measure that would require courts to put in writing their reasons for
ordering child support and another that would stiffen prison sentences
for people who evade police.

The 74-year-old senator, a retired Air Force colonel and
record-setting test pilot who trained for the space program, is best
known as author of the state's Defense of Marriage Act, a law that
states only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized as
valid in California.

After twice failing to get similar legislation through the
Legislature, Knight took it to voters, who passed it by more than 61
percent in 2000.

More recently, a nonprofit group the senator leads, the Proposition 22
Legal Defense and Education Fund, had been at the center of legal
efforts to overturn the nearly 4,000 marriages that were performed in
San Francisco earlier this year and to prevent a law granting
expanding spousal rights for domestic partners from taking effect in
January.

Knight, a former Palmdale mayor, has served in the Legislature since
1992, when he was elected to the Assembly. He was elected to his first
Senate term in 1996, and is slated to be termed out of office when his
second term ends this year.

Knight's office said he will be undergoing treatment for acute
myelogenous leukemia, which develops when there is a defect in bone
marrow. The disease is most frequently treated with chemotherapy,
radiation and stem cell transplants.


http://kcal9.com/california/CA--Sena...rces_news_html

Rusty Barton wrote in message . ..
Author of Calif. gay marriage ban diagnosed with leukemia

Wednesday May 05, 2004

SACRAMENTO (AP) California Sen. William J. ``Pete'' Knight, the
architect of the state's gay marriage ban, has been diagnosed with an
acute form of leukemia and may not return to Sacramento before he is
termed out of office in November, according to his Capitol office.

Knight, R-Palmdale, has been absent from his seat since April 12
because of his illness and ongoing medical testing. Other senators
have consented to shepherd his package of 24 bills, which includes a
measure that would require courts to put in writing their reasons for
ordering child support and another that would stiffen prison sentences
for people who evade police.

The 74-year-old senator, a retired Air Force colonel and
record-setting test pilot who trained for the space program, is best
known as author of the state's Defense of Marriage Act, a law that
states only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized as
valid in California.

After twice failing to get similar legislation through the
Legislature, Knight took it to voters, who passed it by more than 61
percent in 2000.

More recently, a nonprofit group the senator leads, the Proposition 22
Legal Defense and Education Fund, had been at the center of legal
efforts to overturn the nearly 4,000 marriages that were performed in
San Francisco earlier this year and to prevent a law granting
expanding spousal rights for domestic partners from taking effect in
January.

Knight, a former Palmdale mayor, has served in the Legislature since
1992, when he was elected to the Assembly. He was elected to his first
Senate term in 1996, and is slated to be termed out of office when his
second term ends this year.

Knight's office said he will be undergoing treatment for acute
myelogenous leukemia, which develops when there is a defect in bone
marrow. The disease is most frequently treated with chemotherapy,
radiation and stem cell transplants.


http://kcal9.com/california/CA--Sena...rces_news_html


Sadly Pete Knight passed away Friday. My local newspaper The Baltimore
Sun had very little to say the pilot's adventures in the X-15. They
mostly concentrated on his stand regarding gay marriages. Frankly,
they nearly demonized the man.
Of course the Sunpapers has never had a good reputation when it comes
to reporting events that don't fit its agenda.

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.

From Gene DiGennaro:
Sadly Pete Knight passed away Friday. My local newspaper The Baltimore
Sun had very little to say the pilot's adventures in the X-15. They
mostly concentrated on his stand regarding gay marriages. Frankly,
they nearly demonized the man.

As much as I admire Pete's aerospace accomplishments (let's not forget
X-20 selection) I certainly fault the man for disowning his own son
for being homosexual (I can only imagine how Pete acted toward his own
brother when he was dying of AIDS). Father/son relationship in a
nutshell:

-- Dad, I got selected to the Air Force Academy.

- That's my boy.

-- Dad, I'm a fighter pilot.

- That's my boy.

-- Dad, I've flown combat missions over the Gulf.

- That's my boy.

-- Dad, I've chosen a man as my life partner.

- (Permanent silence.)


Recent photo of Pete Knight's son during his marriage ceremony in San
Francisco:

http://tinyurl.com/2c8sx
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi...3/10&type=news


It will be interesting to see whether or not there will be photos of
the son and his life partner attending Pete Knight's funeral as a
couple.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From Gene DiGennaro:
Sadly Pete Knight passed away Friday. My local newspaper The Baltimore
Sun had very little to say the pilot's adventures in the X-15. They
mostly concentrated on his stand regarding gay marriages. Frankly,
they nearly demonized the man.

As much as I admire Pete's aerospace accomplishments (let's not forget
X-20 selection) I certainly fault the man for disowning his own son
for being homosexual (I can only imagine how Pete acted toward his own
brother when he was dying of AIDS).

snip

OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal? CT's done
climbed right up there and is casting stones, as if he has no faults
of his own.

From stmx3:
(Stuf4) wrote

As much as I admire Pete's aerospace accomplishments (let's not forget
X-20 selection) I certainly fault the man for disowning his own son
for being homosexual (I can only imagine how Pete acted toward his own
brother when he was dying of AIDS).

OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal? CT's done
climbed right up there and is casting stones, as if he has no faults
of his own.

Casting stones? There is a critical difference between making a
judgement versus -passing- a judgement.

Judgements in and of themselves cannot violate respect. It is
judgements polluted with condemnation and judgements imposed onto
others that cross the line. I have expressed no condemnation
whatsoever toward Pete Knight (nor toward his son, for that matter)
let alone voiced any attack.

What I see to be a fault of his, he probably saw as a virtue. I am
not saying that one is right and the other wrong. Whatever I may see
as faults, I am not saying that anything he did was "bad". I look at
his life... I see wonderful things that he's done, and I see
not-so-wonderful things that he's done. These are my own judgements
that I hold only for myself. In all of this, I strive to accept
everything.

Pete made his own judgements of his son. Imagine if parents would
accept their children, with everything seen to be faults along with
those facets that are seen to sparkle.


~ CT

From stmx3:
OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal?


I'd also like to make a comment about morals and ladders...

I don't criticize people for their efforts in climbing moral ladders.
I congratulate them. Striving to improve the ideals we uphold and
choose to incorporate into our lives is an endeavor that I see as
worthy.

If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want
them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but
reevaluate their vector. I happen to admire Pete's efforts toward
legislation to improve society. That's not to say whether I agree
with the direction. In either case, I admire his effort.

With an appropriate opportunity, this is the encouragement that I
would have given to Pete Knight. Back when he was flying X-15s, if
someone on the ground noticed that his flight path was not headed
toward the landing site, the proper procedure is to radio a vector to
him. But alas, his time has past and the best we can do now is to
learn from the example that he lived.


In short (akin to the glass-being-half-empty/half-full allegory):

Given a situation of a person being in a lofty moral position, this
can either be seen as a problem of a person who has climbed too
high...

....or a problem with the others who aren't climbing.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From stmx3:
OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal?


I'd also like to make a comment about morals and ladders...

I don't criticize people for their efforts in climbing moral ladders.
I congratulate them. Striving to improve the ideals we uphold and
choose to incorporate into our lives is an endeavor that I see as
worthy.

If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want
them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but
reevaluate their vector. I happen to admire Pete's efforts toward
legislation to improve society. That's not to say whether I agree
with the direction. In either case, I admire his effort.


But who defines what that errant direction is? Do you? If not, why
do they need to "reevaluate their vector"?

In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in
the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously
"radio a vector to him", presumably to land on your moral airstrip.

What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when
their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational
airman's notice: "Hey, ya'll...I'm aheadin' North. Now don't ya'll
come 'twixt me an' mah destiny, cause then I'm gonna have to be
admirin' you while I turn ya back on course!"

I hope you can see that I'm not telling you which way to go. I'm just
saying, "Keep your compass to yourself."

With an appropriate opportunity, this is the encouragement that I
would have given to Pete Knight. Back when he was flying X-15s, if
someone on the ground noticed that his flight path was not headed
toward the landing site, the proper procedure is to radio a vector to
him. But alas, his time has past and the best we can do now is to
learn from the example that he lived.


In short (akin to the glass-being-half-empty/half-full allegory):

Given a situation of a person being in a lofty moral position, this
can either be seen as a problem of a person who has climbed too
high...

...or a problem with the others who aren't climbing.


~ CT

On 18 May 2004 05:47:21 -0700, (stmx3) wrote:

(Stuf4)

SNIP

....stim3, a favor: please don't respond to this worthless troll
anymore, at least not on this newsgroup. CT has proven he's nothing
but a troll, dead set on polluting this group with his bull****
conspiracy theories. Please help us in our efforts to get rid of him
by not responding. Your cooperation in this would be most appreciated
by everyone here.

Thanks!

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

From stmx3:
OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal?


I'd also like to make a comment about morals and ladders...

I don't criticize people for their efforts in climbing moral ladders.
I congratulate them. Striving to improve the ideals we uphold and
choose to incorporate into our lives is an endeavor that I see as
worthy.

If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want
them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but
reevaluate their vector. I happen to admire Pete's efforts toward
legislation to improve society. That's not to say whether I agree
with the direction. In either case, I admire his effort.


But who defines what that errant direction is? Do you? If not, why
do they need to "reevaluate their vector"?

I do. You do. They do. We all make our own judgements.

I posted my evaluation on a particular subject. You posted your
evaluation on my evaluation. Who are you to judge me? You are a
freethinking person.

You have not imposed your judgement onto me. I have not imposed my
judgement onto anyone else. We have both expressed our views without
being oppressive.

Why do they need to reevaluate after learning that their direction is
seen to be in error? They only need to if they see a need to.
(Otherwise it is only the others who are in need.)

In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in
the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously
"radio a vector to him", presumably to land on your moral airstrip.

Please be clear that the criticism I posted had nothing to do with
whether or not my moral compass is aligned differently from his. I
could be in total agreement with Pete's beliefs on homosexuality. I
could be in total support of legislation that he pushed...

I *still* focus on his decision to cut off communications with his
son. That is not a method that I support (though you may feel
differently).

And I must wonder...

How many thousands of little rejections did young David Knight get
from his father when growing up, and did those rejections influence
his decision to seek love from other males later in life...

What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when
their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational
airman's notice: "Hey, ya'll...I'm aheadin' North. Now don't ya'll
come 'twixt me an' mah destiny, cause then I'm gonna have to be
admirin' you while I turn ya back on course!"

I hope you can see that I'm not telling you which way to go. I'm just
saying, "Keep your compass to yourself."

You are offering a correction for me to use as I see fit. Perhaps
that is not so qualitatively different from me offering a vector to
those who may be in Pete's previous situation.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote in message
. com...
If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want
them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but
reevaluate their vector.

You first. Lead by example.