Apparently some gays are mad at Califohniah Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his recent comment calling some Democratic politicians "girlie men." I say we shouldn't be mad at him for making any type of allegedly "homophobic" remark, we should be mad at him for using an ancient and annoyingly over-repeated pop-culture reference best left in the grave with Dana Carvey's career.
Oh, and no blog entries for at least a week; I've got to move this weekend and then I'm off on a business trip. Be good while I'm gone.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Saturday, July 24, 2004
For It Is A Shame For Women To Speak
According to 365gay.com, Mike White, the head of the Oregon Family Council, said that he hoped that Lynne Cheney "doesn't address the gay marriage issue " at the Oregon state Republican convention and that he was "troubled" that she refused to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Furthermore, Mr. White, who clearly suffers from severe cranial-rectal inversion, further stated that "[s]he is here to rally support for the president, and common sense would saythat she will only make remarks on issues she and the president agree on." Fortunately, the Oregon GOP Chairman Kevin Mannix was tactful enough to just comment that the convention is"just delighted that she's coming. She's an excellent speaker."
I suppose that Mr. White would also favor Mrs. Cheney's, and probably all his female's constituents' silence in any religious matters, given Paul's command that "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. / And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:33-34). After all, what do women know about anything other than cooking and homekeeping?
A mother bear is not begrudged for protecting her cub, but Mrs. Cheney apparently should sit passively by and say nothing while legislation that would negatively impact her daughter tries to pass. Mr. White's suggestion that Mrs. Cheney should ignore a threat to her child is an interesting family value. Why can't Lynne follow Laura Bush's example of having no personality and letting her man make all the decisions?
Common sense seems to dictate, in this case, that Mr. White should only make remarks on issues that don't expose him as a hypocrite and dolt. Or to quote a non-Biblical piece of advice, "Best to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Furthermore, Mr. White, who clearly suffers from severe cranial-rectal inversion, further stated that "[s]he is here to rally support for the president, and common sense would saythat she will only make remarks on issues she and the president agree on." Fortunately, the Oregon GOP Chairman Kevin Mannix was tactful enough to just comment that the convention is"just delighted that she's coming. She's an excellent speaker."
I suppose that Mr. White would also favor Mrs. Cheney's, and probably all his female's constituents' silence in any religious matters, given Paul's command that "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. / And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:33-34). After all, what do women know about anything other than cooking and homekeeping?
A mother bear is not begrudged for protecting her cub, but Mrs. Cheney apparently should sit passively by and say nothing while legislation that would negatively impact her daughter tries to pass. Mr. White's suggestion that Mrs. Cheney should ignore a threat to her child is an interesting family value. Why can't Lynne follow Laura Bush's example of having no personality and letting her man make all the decisions?
Common sense seems to dictate, in this case, that Mr. White should only make remarks on issues that don't expose him as a hypocrite and dolt. Or to quote a non-Biblical piece of advice, "Best to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
God, Love, and Fags
From the gay spiritual magazine, White Crane, an exerpt from an article by Timothy Leary on same-sex love:
So, if God did not approve of homosexuality, God would not allow homosexuals to actually love one another. Homosexual people would only be able to experience the physical sensations of sex, but not know the rich life-giving experience of shared ecstasy. We would not know that sensation of being lost in ecstasy with another human being. The idea that same-sex love creates ecstasy and direct experiences of the Divine is frightening to people who want (or need) these cultural myths about heterosexual-only romantic love to be true. They do not want to face the idea that God may not care who makes love with whom. From their perspective it's OK if what queer people experience is furtive and hollow, but they dare not assume that we can actually experience real ecstasy. That would mean that God approves of our love because God is involved in it. Perhaps that is why the idea of same-sex marriage is so threatening. It shakes many ideas of love and sex to the core.
As long as same-sex couples can be seen as people who do not, or cannot, love in the same way as heterosexual people, we can be discriminated against. If our experiences of love are incomplete we do not need to be treated as fully human. If our relationships were accepted as loving and life affirming, the entire tenor of the debate over same-sex marriage, and queer civil rights in general, would have to change. If the layer of sentimentalism about heterosexual-only romantic love were lifted, it would blow the "God Hates Fags" arguments right out of the water.
The idea that heterosexual-only romantic love comes from God is a key factor in the mind-set of the religious right and those who oppose our right to live our lives freely and openly. This idea makes it possible to objectify us, demonize us and discount our loving relationships. Our love is thought to be of less value because it is thought to be for only furtive pleasure. Opponents of queer rights and same-sex marriage ignore us when we say that our relationships are life-affirming because it is important for them to believe that the Divine is not involved in our relationships. They are wrong about this.
So, if God did not approve of homosexuality, God would not allow homosexuals to actually love one another. Homosexual people would only be able to experience the physical sensations of sex, but not know the rich life-giving experience of shared ecstasy. We would not know that sensation of being lost in ecstasy with another human being. The idea that same-sex love creates ecstasy and direct experiences of the Divine is frightening to people who want (or need) these cultural myths about heterosexual-only romantic love to be true. They do not want to face the idea that God may not care who makes love with whom. From their perspective it's OK if what queer people experience is furtive and hollow, but they dare not assume that we can actually experience real ecstasy. That would mean that God approves of our love because God is involved in it. Perhaps that is why the idea of same-sex marriage is so threatening. It shakes many ideas of love and sex to the core.
As long as same-sex couples can be seen as people who do not, or cannot, love in the same way as heterosexual people, we can be discriminated against. If our experiences of love are incomplete we do not need to be treated as fully human. If our relationships were accepted as loving and life affirming, the entire tenor of the debate over same-sex marriage, and queer civil rights in general, would have to change. If the layer of sentimentalism about heterosexual-only romantic love were lifted, it would blow the "God Hates Fags" arguments right out of the water.
The idea that heterosexual-only romantic love comes from God is a key factor in the mind-set of the religious right and those who oppose our right to live our lives freely and openly. This idea makes it possible to objectify us, demonize us and discount our loving relationships. Our love is thought to be of less value because it is thought to be for only furtive pleasure. Opponents of queer rights and same-sex marriage ignore us when we say that our relationships are life-affirming because it is important for them to believe that the Divine is not involved in our relationships. They are wrong about this.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Words, Words
I was listening to a fascinating interview with journalist Hendrik Hertzberg on NPR the other day. Hertzberg served as President Carter's speechwriter for a time and is author of a recent book, Politics: Observations and Arguments, 1966-2004. He was being interviewed about many different areas of interest, but the interview began with a look at the term "liberal" and the "far left." The author noted that the far left does not exist any longer. The far left was truly alive during the 60's various civil movements and has actually become now the "far right" with the various militias and "people..who blew up Oklahoma City."
Hertzberg bemoans the demonization of the term "liberal" and bemoans the fact that "progressive" has replaced it, since, for Hertzberg, liberty (the root of liberal) is a better virtue that progress. He also rightly comments on how "liberal" and "far left" are both inappropriately applied to John Kerry, and, in general, are grossly misused to stir controversy.
Arguably, Kerry strides the liberal fence, although Republicans seeking to villify John Edwards as a liberal clearly have no conception of what the word means. For a North Carolina politician, the man is a bleeding-heart, but on a wide-scale, he's a step away from Republicanism.
Like Hertzberg I've also thought that "liberal" is a weak attempt at an insult. Why do people consider it insulting. People who are truly liberal must shed the label often just to be heard. Yet conservative retains a positive connotation largely, when conservative politicians have continued to put power and advantage in the hands of large corporations at the expense of working citizens.
Prior to this broadcast, I was struck by a sermon from a local church broadcast on televison. The preacher railed on about the homosexual agenda and how homosexuals were working against traditional marriage. This was no simple country preacher; the man seemed educated and well-spoken. How then can he, like so many in the Religious Right, draw such a simple distinction between "homosexual" and "Christian." People use the terms like they are mutually exclusive. Just as one can be Southern and Catholic, one can be homosexual and Christian.
Even from a theological perspective, there is no exclusion. Even if homosexuality is viewed in the context of being sin, the gospels boldly proclaim that all people are sinners . How is this one supposed sin worse or different? Again, words are used thoughtlessly and perhaps purposefully to hurt and divide.
All of which leads up to my most recently fume-inducer. Bill James is the Mecklenberg County Commissioner. (Mecklenberg is the county where Charlotte is located. I happen to live just outside of the county in Cabarrus County.) James is a fundamentalist with a mission: define or redefine the county according to his faith. According to the July 7-13 edition of the Charlotte Creative Loafing, James commented that he "[doesn't] know any liberal preachers of note anymore. the left doesn't seem to have any activist ministers...Liberals in Charlotte have given up...and won't even bring up gay rights. I don't know if there are any true liberals in Charlotte."
Actually, many liberal voices exist around Charlotte, no matter how James or his allies may try to drown them out. This mere statement angers me for its complete dismissal of many good men and women who are fighting the good fight in the region. It's the view of a man who probably sees anyone or anything that disagrees with him as, if not non-existant, inconsequential.
James, who opposes benefits for unmarried couples (gay or straight) and who thankfully failed to pass recently a bill prohibiting gays and lesbians from being foster parents or adopting, is proud of his attack on a 1997 production of Angels in America at the Charlotte Repetory Theatere. James proudly and smugly sees himself as the man to "rid society of behavior that is un-Christian and wrong." He also implies that liberals can't be true Christians because liberals "historically [have] this inability to accept that Christ is the only way to God...Without the anchor of Christianity...they just make it up as they go along."
James's actions and words mark him as the mean and stupid individual that he is. Clearly ignorant of anything outside his own world-view, he lacks the meekness, compassion and humility that Christ exhibited in His ministry. Still, they are but words from a small man and, as they say," sticks and stones".
Hertzberg bemoans the demonization of the term "liberal" and bemoans the fact that "progressive" has replaced it, since, for Hertzberg, liberty (the root of liberal) is a better virtue that progress. He also rightly comments on how "liberal" and "far left" are both inappropriately applied to John Kerry, and, in general, are grossly misused to stir controversy.
Arguably, Kerry strides the liberal fence, although Republicans seeking to villify John Edwards as a liberal clearly have no conception of what the word means. For a North Carolina politician, the man is a bleeding-heart, but on a wide-scale, he's a step away from Republicanism.
Like Hertzberg I've also thought that "liberal" is a weak attempt at an insult. Why do people consider it insulting. People who are truly liberal must shed the label often just to be heard. Yet conservative retains a positive connotation largely, when conservative politicians have continued to put power and advantage in the hands of large corporations at the expense of working citizens.
Prior to this broadcast, I was struck by a sermon from a local church broadcast on televison. The preacher railed on about the homosexual agenda and how homosexuals were working against traditional marriage. This was no simple country preacher; the man seemed educated and well-spoken. How then can he, like so many in the Religious Right, draw such a simple distinction between "homosexual" and "Christian." People use the terms like they are mutually exclusive. Just as one can be Southern and Catholic, one can be homosexual and Christian.
Even from a theological perspective, there is no exclusion. Even if homosexuality is viewed in the context of being sin, the gospels boldly proclaim that all people are sinners . How is this one supposed sin worse or different? Again, words are used thoughtlessly and perhaps purposefully to hurt and divide.
All of which leads up to my most recently fume-inducer. Bill James is the Mecklenberg County Commissioner. (Mecklenberg is the county where Charlotte is located. I happen to live just outside of the county in Cabarrus County.) James is a fundamentalist with a mission: define or redefine the county according to his faith. According to the July 7-13 edition of the Charlotte Creative Loafing, James commented that he "[doesn't] know any liberal preachers of note anymore. the left doesn't seem to have any activist ministers...Liberals in Charlotte have given up...and won't even bring up gay rights. I don't know if there are any true liberals in Charlotte."
Actually, many liberal voices exist around Charlotte, no matter how James or his allies may try to drown them out. This mere statement angers me for its complete dismissal of many good men and women who are fighting the good fight in the region. It's the view of a man who probably sees anyone or anything that disagrees with him as, if not non-existant, inconsequential.
James, who opposes benefits for unmarried couples (gay or straight) and who thankfully failed to pass recently a bill prohibiting gays and lesbians from being foster parents or adopting, is proud of his attack on a 1997 production of Angels in America at the Charlotte Repetory Theatere. James proudly and smugly sees himself as the man to "rid society of behavior that is un-Christian and wrong." He also implies that liberals can't be true Christians because liberals "historically [have] this inability to accept that Christ is the only way to God...Without the anchor of Christianity...they just make it up as they go along."
James's actions and words mark him as the mean and stupid individual that he is. Clearly ignorant of anything outside his own world-view, he lacks the meekness, compassion and humility that Christ exhibited in His ministry. Still, they are but words from a small man and, as they say," sticks and stones".
Voters in the Hands of an Angry GOP
Bush continues to try and sell the line that a few special individuals (like, say, the same ones who put him in office) are trying to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that hasn't changed for hundreds if not thousands of years. I find it interesting that Bushie wants to maintain and/or establish an enduring definition of marriage.
The Constitution was established to be able to adapt to the needs and demands of the times and people. Many religious texts, the Bible included, are understood differently given societal changes and advancements. Shakespeare, for example, while rooted firmly in his time, has themes, situations, and characters that are so universal, they are easily enjoyed and understood by modern audiences or are readapted with modern dressings.
If a society or a people want to redefine marriage, they should be able to. I find it interesting that although the Bible explicitedly prohibits women from being church leaders or even speaking in church, many evangelical leaders and ministers are women today. Why? We have different cultural understandings and values. Sounds a little hypocritical doesn't it to ignore or reinterpret one part and not another?
I'm tired of this slippery slope argument that says gay marriage leads to cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. Society always has the right to draw a line in the sand. We can say two men marrying is fine, but marrying your sister or daughter is not. Laws are a negotiation among different people for a common understanding. We may think one thing is fine, but not another. People said the EXACT SAME THINGS about interracial marriage. I don't think Rome is burning quite yet.
As for Bush, regardless of his belief, he is using this issue as a way to solidfy his base of the Religious Right and other conservatives. It's disgusting. He's playing with my citizenship and making a statement about my worth as a human being and American citizenship for political gain. I loathe the chimp that is Bush.
Do you want an American theocracy? Then vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
If this amendment were to be ratified, this would only encourage and fortify the position and power of the Religious Right. Already the false idol of the Republican party, this movement will not be satisfied with making homosexuals second-class citizens.
Fundamentialist continue to define our great nation in the image they think is morally correct. I'm trying to avoid a slippery slope argument here, but it is not too hard to see that we could easily be headed for even more breakdown between state and religion. Recently on Charlotte public access, I heard a conservative minister extolling the virtues of Christians becoming involved in politics. Indeed, this is one of the few points I agreed on with the man. People of all religions, as a matter of fact, should be encouraged to run for public office. Mostly because if only Fundamentialist run, they will continue a clear agenda for setting the moral code by their faith.
Fundamentalists seem to completely miss the point of the Christian faith. The whole gospel, indeed the entire message of the Bible, is about people choosing God. God never imposes Himself on people. Yet, Fundamentalists seek to remove the choice that is our God-given right. As an aside, I find it interesting to note that most Fundamentalists are economically conservative, cutting money to charitable organizations. I personally think that Christianity, taken to its logical extreme, leads to a very socialistic society. In any event, Fundamentalists labor under the delusion that they are, at any moment, about to be thrown to the lions for the hedonist secular throng. So, apparently, their tactics is to turn the lions loose on the public (or worse, try to invoke God to divinely punish the great unwashed masses).
Secondly, Fundamentalists assert that they are returning us to our great Christian foundation as a country. Much has been written and debated on this subject, and I don't have the time, length, or energy to get into it here, but a quick perusal of information on this matter leads to the conclusion that while some of the founding fathers were Christian, many were not. Most certainly weren't the raving evangelicals we know today.
Regardless of their religious faith, this country was established with the promise of freedom of a state-imposed religion. Part of the creation of this country was for the exercise of whatever religion you wanted to. Trying to re-create a "Christian" nation is wrong both theologically, morally, and historically. Yet, under the guise of persecution, Fundamentalists seek to create a theocratic society. And we all see how well theocracy works in the middle East. You think Calvin Klein will be excited to design burkas for the modern working woman? Oops, wait, she can't work. Never mind.
Despite what the Religious Right tells us, I don't feel like God is dangling us over the flames of hell like a spider over a fire so much as we are dangling over a fire created by these zealots. A fire probably created by book burning and the destruction of our Bill of Rights.
The Constitution was established to be able to adapt to the needs and demands of the times and people. Many religious texts, the Bible included, are understood differently given societal changes and advancements. Shakespeare, for example, while rooted firmly in his time, has themes, situations, and characters that are so universal, they are easily enjoyed and understood by modern audiences or are readapted with modern dressings.
If a society or a people want to redefine marriage, they should be able to. I find it interesting that although the Bible explicitedly prohibits women from being church leaders or even speaking in church, many evangelical leaders and ministers are women today. Why? We have different cultural understandings and values. Sounds a little hypocritical doesn't it to ignore or reinterpret one part and not another?
I'm tired of this slippery slope argument that says gay marriage leads to cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. Society always has the right to draw a line in the sand. We can say two men marrying is fine, but marrying your sister or daughter is not. Laws are a negotiation among different people for a common understanding. We may think one thing is fine, but not another. People said the EXACT SAME THINGS about interracial marriage. I don't think Rome is burning quite yet.
As for Bush, regardless of his belief, he is using this issue as a way to solidfy his base of the Religious Right and other conservatives. It's disgusting. He's playing with my citizenship and making a statement about my worth as a human being and American citizenship for political gain. I loathe the chimp that is Bush.
Do you want an American theocracy? Then vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
If this amendment were to be ratified, this would only encourage and fortify the position and power of the Religious Right. Already the false idol of the Republican party, this movement will not be satisfied with making homosexuals second-class citizens.
Fundamentialist continue to define our great nation in the image they think is morally correct. I'm trying to avoid a slippery slope argument here, but it is not too hard to see that we could easily be headed for even more breakdown between state and religion. Recently on Charlotte public access, I heard a conservative minister extolling the virtues of Christians becoming involved in politics. Indeed, this is one of the few points I agreed on with the man. People of all religions, as a matter of fact, should be encouraged to run for public office. Mostly because if only Fundamentialist run, they will continue a clear agenda for setting the moral code by their faith.
Fundamentalists seem to completely miss the point of the Christian faith. The whole gospel, indeed the entire message of the Bible, is about people choosing God. God never imposes Himself on people. Yet, Fundamentalists seek to remove the choice that is our God-given right. As an aside, I find it interesting to note that most Fundamentalists are economically conservative, cutting money to charitable organizations. I personally think that Christianity, taken to its logical extreme, leads to a very socialistic society. In any event, Fundamentalists labor under the delusion that they are, at any moment, about to be thrown to the lions for the hedonist secular throng. So, apparently, their tactics is to turn the lions loose on the public (or worse, try to invoke God to divinely punish the great unwashed masses).
Secondly, Fundamentalists assert that they are returning us to our great Christian foundation as a country. Much has been written and debated on this subject, and I don't have the time, length, or energy to get into it here, but a quick perusal of information on this matter leads to the conclusion that while some of the founding fathers were Christian, many were not. Most certainly weren't the raving evangelicals we know today.
Regardless of their religious faith, this country was established with the promise of freedom of a state-imposed religion. Part of the creation of this country was for the exercise of whatever religion you wanted to. Trying to re-create a "Christian" nation is wrong both theologically, morally, and historically. Yet, under the guise of persecution, Fundamentalists seek to create a theocratic society. And we all see how well theocracy works in the middle East. You think Calvin Klein will be excited to design burkas for the modern working woman? Oops, wait, she can't work. Never mind.
Despite what the Religious Right tells us, I don't feel like God is dangling us over the flames of hell like a spider over a fire so much as we are dangling over a fire created by these zealots. A fire probably created by book burning and the destruction of our Bill of Rights.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
All Signs Point to "Maybe"
Well, the FMA has been delayed for now by the failure to pass cloture in the Senate. I've been trying to fully understand the ramifications of the vote. At one point I heard that Republicans were actually filibustering their own bill, trying to buy time to raise more "yes" votes. Some politicians felt this would actually work against them, losing more votes, so it seems Republicans moved for an end of discussion, or cloture.
The failure to pass cloture means that debate can continue indefinitely on the bill, although C-SPAN notes that it means the bill is usually just set aside. So, many are calling this a victory. Certainly from the perspective that 50 "Nay" votes is 19 less votes than needed to pass a full amendment in the Senate, we have a victory. However, this was a procedural vote largely. So, in some respects, it was easy to vote against ending discussion. Legislators can easily still say they oppose the amendment, but feel like more discussion is needed before passing a Constitutional Amendment.
I feel somewhat badly because I only tried twice to contact my Senators and when the lines were busy did not try again. I feel less bad because my two Senators are Elizabeth Dole and John Edwards. Libby (R - in case you're living under a rock) was not going to be swayed. I understand why Bob needs viagra with her around the house. And, John, well John didn't vote. Neither did Kerry.
According to the Washington Post the two of them would have voted if they were needed, but with a clear win apparent, they abstained. This doesn't cut it with me. They just didn't want to be seen taking a stand for political reasons. And so they avoided the bullet. Still, they're better than the alternative, Mr. "I'm disappointed, but keep on bashin' those gays" Bush.
On a side note, both Senators from my previous home state of Georgia voted to invoke cloture, presumably in favor of the amendment. If I were still there, I would actively campaign to get Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator, out of office as soon as I could.
And after all is said and done, wouldn't have passing cloture been a good thing? Politically it is advantageous for Senators running for re-election. They can say they don't support gay marriage, but feel like we need to think about a big step like this. But, if cloture had passed, then they could have voted and, presumably, defeated the Amendment. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't this have been the true victory?
Still, I'll take it however I can get it. It's an encouraging sign, but just the start of the long haul. Things, I suspect, will get worse before they get better. Nonetheless, I'm cautiously optimistic and see this as certainly a good thing. I'm just don't see us in the winner's circle quite yet.
The failure to pass cloture means that debate can continue indefinitely on the bill, although C-SPAN notes that it means the bill is usually just set aside. So, many are calling this a victory. Certainly from the perspective that 50 "Nay" votes is 19 less votes than needed to pass a full amendment in the Senate, we have a victory. However, this was a procedural vote largely. So, in some respects, it was easy to vote against ending discussion. Legislators can easily still say they oppose the amendment, but feel like more discussion is needed before passing a Constitutional Amendment.
I feel somewhat badly because I only tried twice to contact my Senators and when the lines were busy did not try again. I feel less bad because my two Senators are Elizabeth Dole and John Edwards. Libby (R - in case you're living under a rock) was not going to be swayed. I understand why Bob needs viagra with her around the house. And, John, well John didn't vote. Neither did Kerry.
According to the Washington Post the two of them would have voted if they were needed, but with a clear win apparent, they abstained. This doesn't cut it with me. They just didn't want to be seen taking a stand for political reasons. And so they avoided the bullet. Still, they're better than the alternative, Mr. "I'm disappointed, but keep on bashin' those gays" Bush.
On a side note, both Senators from my previous home state of Georgia voted to invoke cloture, presumably in favor of the amendment. If I were still there, I would actively campaign to get Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator, out of office as soon as I could.
And after all is said and done, wouldn't have passing cloture been a good thing? Politically it is advantageous for Senators running for re-election. They can say they don't support gay marriage, but feel like we need to think about a big step like this. But, if cloture had passed, then they could have voted and, presumably, defeated the Amendment. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't this have been the true victory?
Still, I'll take it however I can get it. It's an encouraging sign, but just the start of the long haul. Things, I suspect, will get worse before they get better. Nonetheless, I'm cautiously optimistic and see this as certainly a good thing. I'm just don't see us in the winner's circle quite yet.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Is it genetic?
A friend sent this to me; don't know where it originates from, but found it fairly amusing...
The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.
Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics.
A remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Nonetheless, biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.
"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican." The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co- conspirators.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich - you know."
Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through and "came out".
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more Than someone "chooses" to have a Roman nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided of course that they don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.
But should they be allowed to marry?
The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.
Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics.
A remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Nonetheless, biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.
"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican." The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co- conspirators.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich - you know."
Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through and "came out".
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more Than someone "chooses" to have a Roman nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided of course that they don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.
But should they be allowed to marry?
Monday, July 12, 2004
Why FMA?
The Great Uniter of our nation said this past February that "The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith." This week the Senate is debating the Federal Marriage Amendment to see if marriage can "be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society," as the President believes it cannot. This debate is being carried out for the sole purpose of forcing a vote during an election year. This is a tactic of the proponents of the amendment.
The President, an expert on historical and international affairs further commented earlier this year that, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Definitely the expert on confusion, our President further stated that "their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
I agree this is an issue of much confusion. Let me provide a little clarity. Since many of the proponents of the FMA point to the emphasis the Bible puts on family and traditional marriage, and argue that gay marriage would certainly undermine these great institutions, I thought I would investigate what the Bible has to say about this great institution.
Now, mind you, the following is a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is just as most evangelicals would have it. No need to be throwing confusing details like historical context or linguistic nuances in there.
We start off with a very cheerful passage in Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure... Although perhaps if we should all honor marriage, then we should let gay people marry. I know, I know, I'm being silly.
But other passages paint a very different view of the great institution of marriage.
Paul the Apostle, who causes most Baptists to just salivate with Pavlovian glee upon mention of his name, isn't so keen on the idea of marriage.
I Corinthians 7:1 It is good for a man not to marry
7:8-9 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. / But if they cannot control themseles, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Sure, Paul ends up saying, "go ahead and marry," but it's just so you won't have sex outside of wedlock. That's a fairy-tale wedding come true. Get married so you can get knocked up.
That house with a dog, and a kid, and a white picket fence? Forget it. Paul makes it clear later on, (v. 28) But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Why is Paul so down on marriage? Verse 33-34 explains it, a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world - how he can please his wife - /and his interests are divided [between this and God]. Paul just wants us to live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (v 35)
And apparently Paul isn't so far out on a limb here. Jesus said it first in Matthew 19:9-11 [Jesus replied,] "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." / The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." / Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."
Romans 7:3 also emphasizes that if you divorce while your spouse is still alive, and you re-marry, you are commiting adultery. Why aren't we passing an Adultery Marriage Amendment?
Ultimately, though, I guess marriage isn't all that important to God. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. The ties that bind apparently are truly until death do you part. God doesn't do windows nor weddings.
Oh, and for all of you with mail-order brides or wives from another country, repent sinners: You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. ...Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and your foreign wives.Ezra 10:10
So, why bother with the FMA? If these Bible passages are to be believed, God doesn't seem to be all gung-ho over marriage. I guess if we're saying we value it now, then the institution has changed over millenia. Or maybe Dubya is calling God a liar.
Come to think of it, if wedding is about all of this, why don't we let them pass it?
The President, an expert on historical and international affairs further commented earlier this year that, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Definitely the expert on confusion, our President further stated that "their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
I agree this is an issue of much confusion. Let me provide a little clarity. Since many of the proponents of the FMA point to the emphasis the Bible puts on family and traditional marriage, and argue that gay marriage would certainly undermine these great institutions, I thought I would investigate what the Bible has to say about this great institution.
Now, mind you, the following is a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is just as most evangelicals would have it. No need to be throwing confusing details like historical context or linguistic nuances in there.
We start off with a very cheerful passage in Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure... Although perhaps if we should all honor marriage, then we should let gay people marry. I know, I know, I'm being silly.
But other passages paint a very different view of the great institution of marriage.
Paul the Apostle, who causes most Baptists to just salivate with Pavlovian glee upon mention of his name, isn't so keen on the idea of marriage.
I Corinthians 7:1 It is good for a man not to marry
7:8-9 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. / But if they cannot control themseles, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Sure, Paul ends up saying, "go ahead and marry," but it's just so you won't have sex outside of wedlock. That's a fairy-tale wedding come true. Get married so you can get knocked up.
That house with a dog, and a kid, and a white picket fence? Forget it. Paul makes it clear later on, (v. 28) But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Why is Paul so down on marriage? Verse 33-34 explains it, a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world - how he can please his wife - /and his interests are divided [between this and God]. Paul just wants us to live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (v 35)
And apparently Paul isn't so far out on a limb here. Jesus said it first in Matthew 19:9-11 [Jesus replied,] "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." / The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." / Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."
Romans 7:3 also emphasizes that if you divorce while your spouse is still alive, and you re-marry, you are commiting adultery. Why aren't we passing an Adultery Marriage Amendment?
Ultimately, though, I guess marriage isn't all that important to God. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. The ties that bind apparently are truly until death do you part. God doesn't do windows nor weddings.
Oh, and for all of you with mail-order brides or wives from another country, repent sinners: You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. ...Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and your foreign wives.Ezra 10:10
So, why bother with the FMA? If these Bible passages are to be believed, God doesn't seem to be all gung-ho over marriage. I guess if we're saying we value it now, then the institution has changed over millenia. Or maybe Dubya is calling God a liar.
Come to think of it, if wedding is about all of this, why don't we let them pass it?
Saturday, July 10, 2004
All We Need is Love
June 26 was Gay Pride in Atlanta and San Francisco. There was no way to get to San Fran (although some day I would love to experience Pride there), and Atlanta was on the list. I hadn't been in a few years and thought it would be fun to return.
But I did something better. I celebrated Pride with my partner at a celebration of two women's love for each other. We went to the ten year celebration of our friends Anne and Leslie, joining in recognition of their commitment with friends and family of theirs.
Clearly, the sanctity of marriage is highly threatened. I think straight people are probably just jealous that their ceremonies aren't as much fun or don't have nearly as fabulous food.
Good food, good drink, and good times were all had. And not a mullet or flannel shirt to be found anywhere. I think the most touching moment for me was when the father of one the women toasted them, stating he was happy to have gained two daughters.
May every parent realize they stand to gain two daughters or two sons; may people everywhere realize they stand to gain two friends or two church members or two bingo players or two neighbors with fabulous taste or the ability to fix your sink. May everyone realize that they only stand to gain more love in the world.
But I did something better. I celebrated Pride with my partner at a celebration of two women's love for each other. We went to the ten year celebration of our friends Anne and Leslie, joining in recognition of their commitment with friends and family of theirs.
Clearly, the sanctity of marriage is highly threatened. I think straight people are probably just jealous that their ceremonies aren't as much fun or don't have nearly as fabulous food.
Good food, good drink, and good times were all had. And not a mullet or flannel shirt to be found anywhere. I think the most touching moment for me was when the father of one the women toasted them, stating he was happy to have gained two daughters.
May every parent realize they stand to gain two daughters or two sons; may people everywhere realize they stand to gain two friends or two church members or two bingo players or two neighbors with fabulous taste or the ability to fix your sink. May everyone realize that they only stand to gain more love in the world.
Auntie Em, it's a twister, it's a twister!
Keith, thanks for the kind words.
Never fear, I shall not disappoint my entire readership of what, three, at most? No, the blogging continues despite the whirlwind of changes, most good, one bad, that have happened in a two week span.
About three weeks ago, my partner, Peter, who lives in Atlanta, found out his apartment complex was going to be destroyed to make way for assisted living housing. His lease runs out in August, so he decide that this was a pretty good sign from God that it was time to make to move up with me in Charlotte. We had planned on this eventually, but not for another year.
Since he's working on his doctorate, he has been unemployed other than a graduate assistantship. The weekend of June 26, lesbian friends of ours celebrated their 10th anniversary together. Peter came up for that event and thought he would stay through July 5 so we could look for a bigger apartment than the one I have now for the both of us. (Conveniently, my lease expires in August also).
No apartment complex really struck us as quite the right fit. We settled on one, only to feel like it was not the best choice for us, and then pulled the application. We ended up almost buying a house, but, in the nick of time, realized we were not ready for that step, particulary given Peter's unemployment and the fact that we had no idea what we are doing. (As an aside, we now have a great book "100 Questions Every First Time Home Buyer Should Ask" to help us when we are ready - I'm strongly recommend it.)
During this time, the technology person for my department quit after working six days. And before you know it, Peter has a job replacing this guy! Simply amazing!
We also seem to have located the nicest townhouse to rent. We're still waiting for everything to be finalized, but it's looking good. Keep your fingers crossed for us. Hopefully by Monday we will know. If we get it, it'll be a perfect place for us.
Karma is a bitch, however, and this is no exception. My parents received some unfortunate news this week that was shocking. I will not get into it here, other than to say that my parents have been completely wronged by small-minded (and probably small-endowed) selfish scared little men.
So, my life has been a rollercoaster that is not slowing down. Not only does the emotional peaks and valleys continue, but physical hills still exist. One of the busiest times of the year for my job is upon me in three weeks and we are planning on moving by the end of July because there's no better time before the end of August with our multiple obligations.
So, the blog may be slow for a bit while my life is slowing rearranging itself. But I look at it like this, once we land, there'll be no place like home.
Never fear, I shall not disappoint my entire readership of what, three, at most? No, the blogging continues despite the whirlwind of changes, most good, one bad, that have happened in a two week span.
About three weeks ago, my partner, Peter, who lives in Atlanta, found out his apartment complex was going to be destroyed to make way for assisted living housing. His lease runs out in August, so he decide that this was a pretty good sign from God that it was time to make to move up with me in Charlotte. We had planned on this eventually, but not for another year.
Since he's working on his doctorate, he has been unemployed other than a graduate assistantship. The weekend of June 26, lesbian friends of ours celebrated their 10th anniversary together. Peter came up for that event and thought he would stay through July 5 so we could look for a bigger apartment than the one I have now for the both of us. (Conveniently, my lease expires in August also).
No apartment complex really struck us as quite the right fit. We settled on one, only to feel like it was not the best choice for us, and then pulled the application. We ended up almost buying a house, but, in the nick of time, realized we were not ready for that step, particulary given Peter's unemployment and the fact that we had no idea what we are doing. (As an aside, we now have a great book "100 Questions Every First Time Home Buyer Should Ask" to help us when we are ready - I'm strongly recommend it.)
During this time, the technology person for my department quit after working six days. And before you know it, Peter has a job replacing this guy! Simply amazing!
We also seem to have located the nicest townhouse to rent. We're still waiting for everything to be finalized, but it's looking good. Keep your fingers crossed for us. Hopefully by Monday we will know. If we get it, it'll be a perfect place for us.
Karma is a bitch, however, and this is no exception. My parents received some unfortunate news this week that was shocking. I will not get into it here, other than to say that my parents have been completely wronged by small-minded (and probably small-endowed) selfish scared little men.
So, my life has been a rollercoaster that is not slowing down. Not only does the emotional peaks and valleys continue, but physical hills still exist. One of the busiest times of the year for my job is upon me in three weeks and we are planning on moving by the end of July because there's no better time before the end of August with our multiple obligations.
So, the blog may be slow for a bit while my life is slowing rearranging itself. But I look at it like this, once we land, there'll be no place like home.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Senate Ready to Vote on the FMA
The Human Rights Campaign has announced that a vote will take place in the Senate in early July on the Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution. The HRC is asking everyone to please contact their Senators today and ask them to oppose this hateful legislation. Visit the HRC action center to easily email your Senators or to find text for a letter. A little input could make a huge difference in our lives as American citizens.
Personally, I don't think the FMA has much chance of passing, but we cannot be complacent on this issue. We need to send a clear message NOW that this politicially-motivated and Religious-Right pandering homphobic piece of legislation is unacceptable and unAmerican.
Personally, I don't think the FMA has much chance of passing, but we cannot be complacent on this issue. We need to send a clear message NOW that this politicially-motivated and Religious-Right pandering homphobic piece of legislation is unacceptable and unAmerican.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Mythic Proportions
"The evil that men do lives after them,/ The good is oft interréd with their bones." So sayeth Marc Anthony in Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. However, just as President Ronald Reagan dodge the bullet of Tecumseh's Curse, perhaps he has also dodged the Bard's bullet as well.
Perhaps it is the American way to build up our fallen leaders. We certainly seem to enjoy tearing them down while they are alive, but a dead American President tends to be a saint. Even Nixon has been much less maligned after death, while controversy swirls around Clinton and Bush the Second.
I was not out or even aware that I might be gay while Reagan was president. During the 80's I had a huge crush on my high school best friend, but had no idea that meant I was gay. As so we cross path with another friend of Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra, Queen of Denial. In any event, I do not remember much about how he handled anything much less gay issues. Recent editorials concerning Reagan have shown that he didn't really get involved with any gay civil rights issues, mostly because gay civil rights was not a topic of national thought, concern, or debate. It is generally conceeded that he ignored AIDS until almost the end of his presidency, when he made some initial attempts to combat it, although at that point it was too little too late. Many believe that his inaction allowed AIDS to progress much further than if research was carried out sooner.
We'll never know. And although AIDS was primarily a gay issue in the 80's, we all know now that AIDS is a human issue and not the "gay cancer" people believed it was two decades ago. So, I don't have much of an opinion on how Reagan benefitted or hindered gays.
What does bother me, however, is the iconic status that has generally been bestowed upon him. He has become the Man Who Did No Wrong and most notably the Destroyer of Communism. I'm not a fan of the man, but I'm not out to villanize him either. I suspect that years from now we'll find out that, much like Woodrow Wilson, he was incapacitated for much of his second term and Nancy and his advisors ran the government. Alzheimer's, upon initial symptoms, often sets in about five years or less. And he was showing signs during his first half. Still, I'm not interested in that debate currently.
The man is quickly being lost in the myth. Like some Greek hero, he's becoming invincible and a conqueror of giants. Some have called for his face to be added to Mount Rushmore. Others suggested replacing FDR's face on the dime. When Nancy objected, they suggested he share every other dime. These are presidents who formed and gave direction to the country during crucial and unstable times. Reagan, for whatever good he did, was not even president during any particularly delicate time. Sure we had the Cold War going on, and everyone was afraid of Russia, but the country was not going through any true war or upheaval, as was the case with the presidents on these monuments and currency. Class points to Nancy Reagan for nixing the dime idea and for also asking for her husband's image to be striken from a Bush political ad seeking to capitalize on the current groundswell of positive feeling for the departed President.
So let us pay our due respects to the dead, feteing what he accomplished, but tempered by his faults and errors. The Bard also reminds us in Twelfth Night that "some are born great, some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them." Let us not thrust greatness where it does not fit.
Perhaps it is the American way to build up our fallen leaders. We certainly seem to enjoy tearing them down while they are alive, but a dead American President tends to be a saint. Even Nixon has been much less maligned after death, while controversy swirls around Clinton and Bush the Second.
I was not out or even aware that I might be gay while Reagan was president. During the 80's I had a huge crush on my high school best friend, but had no idea that meant I was gay. As so we cross path with another friend of Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra, Queen of Denial. In any event, I do not remember much about how he handled anything much less gay issues. Recent editorials concerning Reagan have shown that he didn't really get involved with any gay civil rights issues, mostly because gay civil rights was not a topic of national thought, concern, or debate. It is generally conceeded that he ignored AIDS until almost the end of his presidency, when he made some initial attempts to combat it, although at that point it was too little too late. Many believe that his inaction allowed AIDS to progress much further than if research was carried out sooner.
We'll never know. And although AIDS was primarily a gay issue in the 80's, we all know now that AIDS is a human issue and not the "gay cancer" people believed it was two decades ago. So, I don't have much of an opinion on how Reagan benefitted or hindered gays.
What does bother me, however, is the iconic status that has generally been bestowed upon him. He has become the Man Who Did No Wrong and most notably the Destroyer of Communism. I'm not a fan of the man, but I'm not out to villanize him either. I suspect that years from now we'll find out that, much like Woodrow Wilson, he was incapacitated for much of his second term and Nancy and his advisors ran the government. Alzheimer's, upon initial symptoms, often sets in about five years or less. And he was showing signs during his first half. Still, I'm not interested in that debate currently.
The man is quickly being lost in the myth. Like some Greek hero, he's becoming invincible and a conqueror of giants. Some have called for his face to be added to Mount Rushmore. Others suggested replacing FDR's face on the dime. When Nancy objected, they suggested he share every other dime. These are presidents who formed and gave direction to the country during crucial and unstable times. Reagan, for whatever good he did, was not even president during any particularly delicate time. Sure we had the Cold War going on, and everyone was afraid of Russia, but the country was not going through any true war or upheaval, as was the case with the presidents on these monuments and currency. Class points to Nancy Reagan for nixing the dime idea and for also asking for her husband's image to be striken from a Bush political ad seeking to capitalize on the current groundswell of positive feeling for the departed President.
So let us pay our due respects to the dead, feteing what he accomplished, but tempered by his faults and errors. The Bard also reminds us in Twelfth Night that "some are born great, some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them." Let us not thrust greatness where it does not fit.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Gay Days
The following comes from a column from the Orlando Sentinel on June 9, 1999. It just made me laugh.
Well, I spent three hours at the big Gay Days bash Saturday at the Magic Kingdom and didn't get hit on once.
Nobody likes older men anymore.
After talking to David Caton of the American Family Association, I expected a San Francisco-style gay parade. In fact, there were more traditional families than there were gays. And all the latter did was mill around, looking hot, eating ice cream, socializing, a few discreetly holding hands. Kind of what we all do at Disney. If not for the red shirts, I doubt anyone would have known it was Gay Days.
But I must say the lesbians were completely out of control.
Two hugged when greeting each other by Cinderella's Castle, and a couple on the ferry boat exchanged a quick peck.
If I had had my camera, I could have snapped off a picture for Dave to put on his Web page. The American Family Association says the event is designed for Disney and gay leaders to acclimate children to the hedonistic homosexual lifestyle.
Well, they did a darned poor job of it. The only thing the kids probably noticed was that the adults were hogging the line at Winnie the Pooh.
Well, I spent three hours at the big Gay Days bash Saturday at the Magic Kingdom and didn't get hit on once.
Nobody likes older men anymore.
After talking to David Caton of the American Family Association, I expected a San Francisco-style gay parade. In fact, there were more traditional families than there were gays. And all the latter did was mill around, looking hot, eating ice cream, socializing, a few discreetly holding hands. Kind of what we all do at Disney. If not for the red shirts, I doubt anyone would have known it was Gay Days.
But I must say the lesbians were completely out of control.
Two hugged when greeting each other by Cinderella's Castle, and a couple on the ferry boat exchanged a quick peck.
If I had had my camera, I could have snapped off a picture for Dave to put on his Web page. The American Family Association says the event is designed for Disney and gay leaders to acclimate children to the hedonistic homosexual lifestyle.
Well, they did a darned poor job of it. The only thing the kids probably noticed was that the adults were hogging the line at Winnie the Pooh.
Friday, June 18, 2004
This Little Light of Mine
Although you've probably rarely heard of him unless you like watching the cotton-candy hair changes of Jan Crouch on Trinity Broadcasting Nework, Benny Hinn is one of the most prominent modern faith healers. Most sensible people write him off as a sham and modern carpet bagger, and you can even find many Christian websites warning devotees of Hinn's errant teachings.
You can take Hinn about as seriously as you do Pat Robertson. Their predictions are about as accurate. Robertson claimed several years ago that Orlando was about to be devestated by a hurricane. (I believe because said devestation would take place for a reason related to Disney hosting gay days.) You'd think that a fairly safe prediction would have come true by now, but hasn't.
Far better and bolder than this prediction, however is one made by Hinn on December 31, 1989, :
"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."
The prediction is laughable. It's so far-fetched, it's comical. I wish Mitt Romney and some others could see that not even the threat of gay marriage has brought down this fire. Although it's hard to claim victory against such a controversial and fringe element like Hinn, still, Cheers, queers, we're still here!
What is not so laughable is the audience clapping immediately after Hinn says God will destroy homosexuals. Although this happened on the last day of the 80's, it chills me to think that anybody who is supposed to be a follower of Christ would applaud the destruction of a people. (Although one has to wonder if God was going to destroy a particular community: the Castro? South Beach? Palm Springs? And will God be destroying gay Christians too? Or do we only get partially destroyed?)
Maybe I'm forgetting the part where Jesus said to nuke thy neighbor. Relgion doctrine aside, (ideally I should be asking "what, in spite of religious doctrine...") what causes humans to feel so deeply against other humans that they want them eradicated?
Racist thought has been driven underground. It's not socially acceptible to be racist; that's the good part. The bad part is racism is now more covert and insidious. Homophobia is going down the same path. Within the next decade we will likely have full civil marriage. We may have federal employment protection even. But we still have work to do with how people perceive us. We must continue to work to help people understand that being gay means you're like anybody else: different. Not better, not worse, just different. Let this extreme example remind us of the mainstream impact we have left to make.
You can take Hinn about as seriously as you do Pat Robertson. Their predictions are about as accurate. Robertson claimed several years ago that Orlando was about to be devestated by a hurricane. (I believe because said devestation would take place for a reason related to Disney hosting gay days.) You'd think that a fairly safe prediction would have come true by now, but hasn't.
Far better and bolder than this prediction, however is one made by Hinn on December 31, 1989, :
"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."
The prediction is laughable. It's so far-fetched, it's comical. I wish Mitt Romney and some others could see that not even the threat of gay marriage has brought down this fire. Although it's hard to claim victory against such a controversial and fringe element like Hinn, still, Cheers, queers, we're still here!
What is not so laughable is the audience clapping immediately after Hinn says God will destroy homosexuals. Although this happened on the last day of the 80's, it chills me to think that anybody who is supposed to be a follower of Christ would applaud the destruction of a people. (Although one has to wonder if God was going to destroy a particular community: the Castro? South Beach? Palm Springs? And will God be destroying gay Christians too? Or do we only get partially destroyed?)
Maybe I'm forgetting the part where Jesus said to nuke thy neighbor. Relgion doctrine aside, (ideally I should be asking "what, in spite of religious doctrine...") what causes humans to feel so deeply against other humans that they want them eradicated?
Racist thought has been driven underground. It's not socially acceptible to be racist; that's the good part. The bad part is racism is now more covert and insidious. Homophobia is going down the same path. Within the next decade we will likely have full civil marriage. We may have federal employment protection even. But we still have work to do with how people perceive us. We must continue to work to help people understand that being gay means you're like anybody else: different. Not better, not worse, just different. Let this extreme example remind us of the mainstream impact we have left to make.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
The Reality of the Situation
Fox network canned the upcoming reality show "Seriously Dude I'm Gay" where two straight contestants tried to convince friends and family they were gay for a monetary prize. Reports indicate that thecontestants found their experience "hell[ish]" and a "nightmare." Fox decided to cancel after prescreenings with GLAAD and other groups did not go well.
I am also glad that Fox, for once, displayed taste and decorum. Lately they had been travelling the Jerry Springer route to fame, trying to out-low themselves with each new show. Out of the litany of reality programming Fox has brought us: Joe Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Paradise Hotel, Forever Eden, Temptation Island, Mr. Personality, The Littlest Groom, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance (among others), none have shown the slightest modicum of respect or decorum towards their contestants or the audience. Luckily, this long list clearly demonstrates that Fox is an equal opportunity humiliator and opportunist. It's hard to call them homophobic when they haven't exactly done the straight community any service.
Still, the fact the network thought the show stood a chance does point to America's latent homophobia. The show was originally marketed with the phrases "It's a heterosexual male's worst nightmare: turning gay overnight" and "a jury of their queers." Even though these phrases were pulled even before the show itself was, this is a clear indicator that, and they were probably right, most Americans would be drawn to the show because being gay is still seen as humiliating and degrading. Reality shows for the most part are just freak shows at best; The Littlest Groom is obviously evidence of the circus having come to television.
So it is with us queers. If being gay were not still seen as something undesirable, freakish, or lurid, shows like this would not be made. Probably shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would not be made because people wouldn't care. To me, being gay is something special and distinctive about myself. I take pride in being gay. I don't want to lose what I perceive to be almost a cultural distinction as we gain the civil rights and acceptance we deserve. Nonetheless, we still have a lot of education and outreach to do to change the way our fellow human beings (particularly American citizens) see us. Getting rights does not mean losing distinction. But getting rights does not mean gaining acceptance. We still have a road of activism we must travel after gaining our full rights; that's just the reality of the situation.
I am also glad that Fox, for once, displayed taste and decorum. Lately they had been travelling the Jerry Springer route to fame, trying to out-low themselves with each new show. Out of the litany of reality programming Fox has brought us: Joe Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Paradise Hotel, Forever Eden, Temptation Island, Mr. Personality, The Littlest Groom, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance (among others), none have shown the slightest modicum of respect or decorum towards their contestants or the audience. Luckily, this long list clearly demonstrates that Fox is an equal opportunity humiliator and opportunist. It's hard to call them homophobic when they haven't exactly done the straight community any service.
Still, the fact the network thought the show stood a chance does point to America's latent homophobia. The show was originally marketed with the phrases "It's a heterosexual male's worst nightmare: turning gay overnight" and "a jury of their queers." Even though these phrases were pulled even before the show itself was, this is a clear indicator that, and they were probably right, most Americans would be drawn to the show because being gay is still seen as humiliating and degrading. Reality shows for the most part are just freak shows at best; The Littlest Groom is obviously evidence of the circus having come to television.
So it is with us queers. If being gay were not still seen as something undesirable, freakish, or lurid, shows like this would not be made. Probably shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would not be made because people wouldn't care. To me, being gay is something special and distinctive about myself. I take pride in being gay. I don't want to lose what I perceive to be almost a cultural distinction as we gain the civil rights and acceptance we deserve. Nonetheless, we still have a lot of education and outreach to do to change the way our fellow human beings (particularly American citizens) see us. Getting rights does not mean losing distinction. But getting rights does not mean gaining acceptance. We still have a road of activism we must travel after gaining our full rights; that's just the reality of the situation.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Ok-lahomo!
This year's Tony Awards was an even gayer celebration than usual. Super-hot host Hugh Jackman aside, several shows with gay stories, characters, and/or themes took home the more prominent awards.
AVENUE Q which features the hysterical yet affirming song, "If You Were Gay" along with "Fantasies Come True" by Rod, a puppet in the closet, took home Best Musical, Best Original Score, and Best Book. Avenue Q is an irreverant, non-PC musical comedy featuring puppets and live actors that features other songs such as "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" and "The Internet is for Porn." It definitely carries queer sensibilities,although not exclusively a gay story.
Hugh Jackman took home Leading Actor in a Musical for THE BOY FROM OZ. This play showcases the life of Peter Allen, the gay ex-husband of Liza Minelli, and famous song writer who died of AIDS in the 80's.
I AM MY OWN WIFE took home Best Play and the leading (and only) actor, Jefferson Mays, took home the Leading Actor in a Play award. This one man show is about Charlotte von Mahlsdorf, a real-life German transvestite who survived both the onslaught of the Nazis and the repressive Communist regime that followed after World War II.
It's nice to see such strong support for works of art featuring gay themes and characters, particularly in a year that has seen polarization around gay issues. It could have been easy for voters to be turned off from all the "gay hype" and go with potentially less controversial or, in their eyes perhaps trendy, choices.
AVENUE Q which features the hysterical yet affirming song, "If You Were Gay" along with "Fantasies Come True" by Rod, a puppet in the closet, took home Best Musical, Best Original Score, and Best Book. Avenue Q is an irreverant, non-PC musical comedy featuring puppets and live actors that features other songs such as "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" and "The Internet is for Porn." It definitely carries queer sensibilities,although not exclusively a gay story.
Hugh Jackman took home Leading Actor in a Musical for THE BOY FROM OZ. This play showcases the life of Peter Allen, the gay ex-husband of Liza Minelli, and famous song writer who died of AIDS in the 80's.
I AM MY OWN WIFE took home Best Play and the leading (and only) actor, Jefferson Mays, took home the Leading Actor in a Play award. This one man show is about Charlotte von Mahlsdorf, a real-life German transvestite who survived both the onslaught of the Nazis and the repressive Communist regime that followed after World War II.
It's nice to see such strong support for works of art featuring gay themes and characters, particularly in a year that has seen polarization around gay issues. It could have been easy for voters to be turned off from all the "gay hype" and go with potentially less controversial or, in their eyes perhaps trendy, choices.
It's Fun to Marry at the YMCA
According to Vh1's "Best Month Ever" show, the cowboy from 70's disco gay super-group The Village People has married. What, didn't know the VP were gay?
A little googling revealed this AP article:
NEW YORK - The cowboy from the Village People has gotten married. MTV News reports Randy Jones married acid lounge artist Will Grega Friday at a New York club.
Grega and Jones have been together for 20 years. Grega proposed that night and they were married on the spot.
Gay marriage is still illegal in New York state, but Jones says, "It's only a matter of time before the courts rule in favor of what's morally right and humanly decent." Grega, meanwhile, points out, "I have a lifetime membership to the YMCA."
It kills me not knowing if the perennially favorite wedding reception song "YMCA" was used for the happy copule.
A little googling revealed this AP article:
NEW YORK - The cowboy from the Village People has gotten married. MTV News reports Randy Jones married acid lounge artist Will Grega Friday at a New York club.
Grega and Jones have been together for 20 years. Grega proposed that night and they were married on the spot.
Gay marriage is still illegal in New York state, but Jones says, "It's only a matter of time before the courts rule in favor of what's morally right and humanly decent." Grega, meanwhile, points out, "I have a lifetime membership to the YMCA."
It kills me not knowing if the perennially favorite wedding reception song "YMCA" was used for the happy copule.
Monday, May 31, 2004
A Queer By Any Other Name
I think this is progress...at the very least I like the judge's reasoning. So take that Tom Cruise...
Judge: Homosexual Isn't Libelous Term
MARTIN FINUCANE
Associated Press
BOSTON - Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna - under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man.
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.
The attorney for plaintiff James Albright, who had worked for Madonna as a bodyguard, didn't immediately return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment Saturday. Attorneys for the defendants, who included Madonna biographer Andrew Morton and St. Martin's Press, the publisher, also didn't respond to messages.
Gertner said other courts' rulings that stating someone is homosexual is defamatory had relied on laws criminalizing same-sex sexual acts that might well be unconstitutional. Previous decisions hadn't taken into account more recent decisions recognizing gays' equal rights, she said.
She pointed to a Supreme Court ruling last year that found a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, and to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling last year that it would be unconstitutional to prevent gays in the state from marrying.
Judge: Homosexual Isn't Libelous Term
MARTIN FINUCANE
Associated Press
BOSTON - Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna - under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man.
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.
The attorney for plaintiff James Albright, who had worked for Madonna as a bodyguard, didn't immediately return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment Saturday. Attorneys for the defendants, who included Madonna biographer Andrew Morton and St. Martin's Press, the publisher, also didn't respond to messages.
Gertner said other courts' rulings that stating someone is homosexual is defamatory had relied on laws criminalizing same-sex sexual acts that might well be unconstitutional. Previous decisions hadn't taken into account more recent decisions recognizing gays' equal rights, she said.
She pointed to a Supreme Court ruling last year that found a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, and to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling last year that it would be unconstitutional to prevent gays in the state from marrying.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Enya Face
Currently I'm listening to Enya's Orinoco Flow, which is really a fine, soothing piece of music. Unfortunately it has been forever tainted by an incident where I was kidnapped by the drunk ex-girlfriend of my roommate. Too drunk to drive herself, one of her roommates drove her to our apartment where she, on the edge of an emotional breakdown, asked me come over and visit. She then locked me in her room, lit candles, and played an Enya CD that repeated in an endless loop. She asked me to lay next to her (fully clothed) while she drifted off to sleep. No way I could possibly sleep and was horrified at the possibility of her trying to make a move on me (this is not vanity speaking; she had, at a previous incident, acted incredulous when I refused to invite her inside my apartment after having dinner with her). Luckily, she drifted off in a drunken stupor and I departed post haste.
See, now that's why I'm gay!
See, now that's why I'm gay!
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Men for All Seasons
If you haven't ever followed the Adam & Andy link here on my blog, do so today.
A&A is just the cutest little strip (not cute in that make me want to sacrifice Bil Kean's children to the devil kind of way) about a mid-thirties gay couple.
Now, James Asal the creator of A&A has posted the original run of strips on his website along with DVD-style commentary. And everyone I know knows that I just LOVE DVD-commentary.
Check it out here and then go read the modern stuff.
A&A is just the cutest little strip (not cute in that make me want to sacrifice Bil Kean's children to the devil kind of way) about a mid-thirties gay couple.
Now, James Asal the creator of A&A has posted the original run of strips on his website along with DVD-style commentary. And everyone I know knows that I just LOVE DVD-commentary.
Check it out here and then go read the modern stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)