Mormon Meddling

Right about now I'm feeling that if Temple Square in Salt Lake was swallowed up in a giant sinkhole and all the church leaders with it -- I wouldn't shed a tear. These stuffy old men who believe they have a monopoly on what God wants/thinks have decided that denying civil marriage equality should be Christians' number one priority (screw the poor and homeless). Think the church isn't inserting itself DIRECTLY into the political process? Read this from an LDS family's blog. They were expecting a visit from the stake president (a church bigwig, usually overseeing 3-5 "wards," similar to a parish), and weren't sure what to expect. Turns out (horror, shock, surprise) it was money: "it was actually about making a contribution– a rather sizable contribution. He already had a figure in mind...(He) left a donation form for ProtectMarriage.com which asks you to submit, among other things, your name, and the name of your ward and stake...My wife wanted to know how they came up with the customized figure and stewed over the notion that they probably reviewed our tithing records...(He) said they’d be getting back lists of the donors and how much they paid. I didn’t like the idea of my faithfulness being gauged so. I also didn’t like contributing to a coalition of churches, many of which I suspect are Huckabee fan clubs. Plus, let’s face it, it was a huge chunk o’ change they were asking from us."

I imagine this sort of thing is being repeated thousands of times all across the stake.

Pull their tax exemption. Now. These are civil, political matters they are messing with. If the churches can't keep their fingers out of state matters, I don't see why we should cut them ANY slack in terms of taxation.

Individual church members are also doing their part to ensure that discrimination becomes the law of the land. Earlier I posted about famous Mormon science fiction author Orson Scott Card basically threatening the violent overthrow of the government (treason, anyone?) if Prop 8 isn't passed. Now he continues his science fiction efforts with this post purporting to debunk the scientific consensus that sexuality is biologically-based, as opposed to a conscious choice. (Even the church itself doesn't go that far.)

Card's ridiculousness seems to know no bounds. There is much fallacious thinking and illogic in the piece, as well as plain old cruelty, but I will focus on just a few of his comments:

"If science says that homosexuality is natural, uncontrollable and harmless, why would any decent person -- especially one who knows and likes, or even loves, a number of homosexuals -- wish to deprive them of something they desire so much?

Here's why:

1. Science does not say that gays have no choice whatsoever.

2. Science does not say that homosexuality harms no one, and that homosexual liaisons are as valuable to society as marriage.

3. It is not unfair to give unique preference to monogamous heterosexual relationships, if that preference and those marriages benefit all of society -- including homosexuals or potential homosexuals."

He never goes on to back up any of these positions. He simply hangs them out there as facts and then moves on.

He talks about a psychological study from 1957 - but never mentions that it is more than a half-century old, even though its conclusions were that gay men were as psychologically well-adjusted as straight men. Quite an accomplishment given the climate back then, I'd imagine.

Then he throws this little gem, in reference to twin studies that clearly show a level of genetic heritability of sexual orientation: "The study does not allow for the possibility that the physical appearance of the subjects might have played a role. If seduction, molestation or other sexual trauma contributes to homosexuality, and if those are influenced by the perceived attractiveness of the subject to a molester, seducer or rapist, then the greater physical resemblance between identical twins may account for some of the results."

First, IF "seduction, molestation or other sexual trauma contributes to homosexuality" -- any proof that it does? But second, huh? I'm not sure I get this -- if the twins are both cute, it's more likely they will BOTH be molested? What about less attractive twins? They'd both be equally unattractive, no? The twin study says nothing about attractiveness.

"Countless homosexuals record their "awakening" to homosexuality in the form of rape, molestation or seduction;" Countless? None that I've ever met have said this.

"In my opinion, all homosexuals should be enraged at the notion that of all human beings, only homosexuals cannot control their sexual behavior by conscious choices. This dogma implies that they are less than human. Yet this is precisely what the normalizers claim: "They can't help it."" No more than left-handers can't help being left-handed.

"We can all agree that no one can help desiring what they desire. Desires come unasked for and often from sources we do not understand.

But every other human impulse, natural or dysfunctional, can be recognized and controlled, at least to a degree. We expect alcoholics to be able to refrain from driving when drunk. We expect pedophiles to keep their hands to themselves. We expect aggressive males to curb their need to fight with perceived rivals. We expect people whose mental illnesses are only contained by drugs to take those drugs.

We expect heterosexual males -- males who are expressing the very drive that leads to reproduction of the genes, and which in other primate species is often expressed as rape -- to be able to recognize that "no means no" at every stage of wooing and coition.

In other words, our society right now says that everybody but homosexuals must curb whatever innate desires are perceived, by our society, as harmful or undesirable, regardless of how natural or evolutionarily productive they might be, or how strongly they are felt."

Oy gevalt. Drunk drivers and pedophiles have victims. A rapist (which is what he seems to be referring to with his "no means no" comment) has victims. Even a philandering husband as a victim. People in consensual relationships (like same-sex couples who are married or plan to) do NOT have victims. Like his church, Card expects all gay people to remain celibate. The married man has his wife, the alcoholic may drink as long as he doesn't drive, but we need to keep it in our pants to assuage HIS sense of morality? Give me a break.

Going Well, Keep It Up

According to some just-released information, it seems supporters of marriage equality are leading in the fundraising race. Equality for All.org has pulled in $5.8 million compared to $3.4 million for protectmarriage.com. But we mustn't stop now.

Some of the Equality for All dollars came from me, and some from generous friends and family who have donated at our wedding registry at Equality for All. If you've donated, thank you! If you haven't (and I think I sent e-mails to all my known readers), click on that link and donate. I've committed to raise $5000, and I'm only at $850. Do it now. Please. It's important.

Mortgaging the Future

A great piece from Tom Friedman.

Money quote: "My trip with Denmark’s minister of climate and energy, Connie Hedegaard, to see the effects of climate change on Greenland’s ice sheet leaves me with a very strong opinion: Our kids are going to be so angry with us one day."

The Sanctity of Marriage, Part 3

I only wish they had shown the ring exchange.

Leave Marriage to the Churches

Today's USA Today has an interesting editorial suggesting that the way out of the increasingly rancorous debate on marriage equality, something I've been fine with for some time: requiring all couples to obtain a civil union. Then, those who want to be married can go to whatever church will have them.

The question is, how easy is that to accomplish? What legislation will be required to navigate the many hundreds of laws that currently deal with "marriage" that would now have to recognize civil unions?

Homer Simpson's Alarm Clock

Must. Have. Bacon.

The device above? It's an alarm clock. You put a piece of frozen bacon in the tray and set the alarm. 10 minutes before alarm time, two halogen lamps turn on, cook the bacon, releasing the smell of happy mornings into your bedroom.

And if you're stuffed up, the device has a backup audio alarm.

The Sanctity of Marriage, Part 2

Love him/her tender:

Shipmates

I have felt for some time that the primary tactic in the right's battle to deny marriage equality will be a perceived threat to religious freedom. But read this.

It's a brief from findlaw.com that establishes the case that religious freedom and marriage equality are tied to each other in case law.

Freedom isn't the same for everyone, so you have to make accommodations: "Just as the free exercise of religion is useless to an Orthodox Jew if it only protects his right to observe Sunday as the Sabbath, so too the right to marry is an empty guarantee if it only protects a lesbian’s right to marry a man."

There are going to have to be accommodations on both sides, because we're in this freedom thing together.

Love is not a diamond, it's a fax machine

Part of my efforts in fighting against Proposition 8 is cruising the Internet for news stories and blog entries that discuss the topic, and countering any false information that I find there. Sometimes that takes the form of a letter to the editor (at least two have been published), but more often my comments are among the many that one can find in comments sections of newspapers and blogs.

Recently I have been engaging with a lovely LDS woman in the central valley of California. She's on the opposite side of the issue, obviously, but she's nevertheless been civil and engaging.

When I asked her how allowing marriage equality would affect her marriage, she replied: "It will cheapen it, it will have less meaning…kind of like a rare diamond that loses its worth and rareness."

My reply was simple. Love isn't a diamond. The more diamonds there are, the less valuable each one is. But if fewer loving couples can marry, it doesn't make her marriage any less special to her. In fact, (and this I didn't say to her, because it just came to me) love is more like a fax machine.

The first fax machine that was produced was absolutely useless, because it had nothing to communicate with. The second fax machine gave itself and the first fax machine true value. Every fax machine that was built after that added a bit more to the value of every other fax machine because there were hundreds, then thousands, then millions and tens of millions of the devices. Same thing with e-mail. The more people who have it, the more useful and valuable it becomes.

Love is like that. The more of us who can enjoy it, the more happiness there is in the world. That's good for everyone.

Who to Believe?

According to two different stories that hit the Net just a couple of hours apart, opponents of Proposition 8 raised more money than those backing the measure, and vice versa. According to the Wall Street Journal, backers of Proposition 8, which will amend the California Constitution to remove the right of same-sex couples to marry, raised $3.7 million in the first half of the year, compared to $2.5 million for the opposition (some of which came from me). But the San Jose Mercury-News reports that opponents of Proposition 8 raised $2.6 million to the backers' raising $2.3 million. Both stories report that Prop 8 proponents raised more money out-of-state.

"A tax on stupidity"

An interesting piece by David Brooks in today's New York Times, discussing the growing wealth gap and how current systems reinforce it.

Money (literally) quotes: "The country’s moral guardians are forever looking for decadence out of Hollywood and reality TV. But the most rampant decadence today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness money."

"A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets, about 9 percent of all income."

You simply must...

click here, if only to read the headline. For some really sobering reading, click on the link that takes you to www.boycottmcdonalds.com, and navigate your way to the comments page. You'll see plenty of ignorance and fear -- plus the reason why Americans are so fat.

Hyperbole on Parade

As I predicted, the Christianists are attacking marriage equality by raising the specter of a country without freedom of religion.

Money quote: ""If you don't care about this campaign, don't want to get involved, you can go to jail and start a wonderful prison ministry," Garlow adds. "But if you want religious freedom, we're going to have to win this thing.""

Reaping what they've sown

The religious right (and the right in general) have been dismissive of the humanity of GLBT people, and once again we see the result of their efforts. The shooter at the church in Tennessee who last night killed two people and injured seven revealed his motive in a letter: he hated liberals and gays and chose a church that was welcoming to gay people to express his hatred.

When gay people are demonized, and when liberals are called "traitors" (as they quite often are), it's not surprising to see that some will act as they have been taught to act when confronted with "demons" and "traitors."

Rodney King had it right -- can't we all just get along?

The Sanctity of Marriage, Part 1

No active link, but if you copy this into your browser -- http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5457915 -- you can watch a "Good Morning America" piece on a couple that got married at the demolition derby.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I'll post other video of other weddings that don't seem quite as sacred as the right would like us to think is the case.

Quote for the Day

"We're all born naked. Everything after that is drag."

RuPaul

Talkin' About A Revolution

Orson Scott Card, a Mormon science fiction author with wide crossover appeal, has put to paper his thoughts on the same-sex marriage issue. He's agin it. So much so that he thinks it will ultimately result in the overthrow of the US Constitution. Money quote:

"What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."

Hitchens was right: religion poisons everything.

Their cup runneth over...with anger and vitriol

Here's a comment posted on OneNewsNow, a Christian "news" service (Hey, if they can put marriage in quotes...) on a story about a therapist in the Bay Area who feels under attack because most of her colleagues oppose Proposition 8.

"The homosexual community is going to cause a civil war in the streets if they continue to keep pushing us around. They better back off becuase (sic) the sleeping giant which is the heterosexual community is awakening and getting sick and tired. Once we begin to push back, the homosexual community isn't going to know what hit them."

Do what you will -- you'll never find our Weapons of Mass Fabulousness!

Super!

Pronounce that "sue-pear," since this is a French language site showing "70 amazing business cards." And they are. Some of my favorites:

The Foes

This is the sort of thinking that is out there (this being a quote from the comments section of the Napa Valley Register, asking for people's opinions on Prop 8):

"John Richards wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:50 PM:
" Even if we accept that gays are born that way, that does not mean that homosexual activity is normal or acceptable. I believe all of us are born with some sort of handicap or 'thorn in the flesh'. How well we deal with that handicap has great bearing on what happens to us in the next life. Some people are born cripple, yet (unlike gays) they don't insist on running foot races with able-bodied runners."

No Complacency, Please

Promising new poll numbers out yesterday. According to a Field Poll, 51% of likely California voters plan to vote "no" on Proposition 8. 42% plan to vote to write discrimination into the California Constitution and 7% are undecided.

Remember, though, that on Proposition 22, the most recent vote on marriage equality in the state, polls showed the measure barely winning and it ended up taking 61% of the vote. Bigots, it is not surprising, tend to lie about their bigotry to pollsters.

More analysis here. What you'll see in that breakdown of numbers is that every age group opposes Prop 8.

Tell Your Friends

I've just returned from an organizing meeting in the "No on 8" campaign. It was wonderful to be in the presence of like-minded people (including quite a few heterosexuals) ready to stand up for equality.

110 days until the election -- if you believe in equality and don't want discrimination written into the California Constitution, you need to vote no on 8, and ask all your friends and family to do the same.

This won't be the last time I ask you this. This is very important. It's the biggest battle for civil rights since the 60s. You are going to be part of history. The question is, which side of history will you be on?

Counter Arguments Due Today, continued

I read this just now, another article regarding the attempts to remove Proposition 8 from the ballot, primarily because it represents a "revision" to the Constitution, rather than an "amendment." Not an easy read, but a convincing case.

Money quote: "If the Supreme Court permits Proposition 8 to be placed on the ballot, the Court in fact would have harmed the very institution it sought to protect. If Justice Ronald George and the California Supreme Court fail to remove Proposition 8 and we win in November, our marriage rights may, NO RATHER WILL, be put up to a simple initiative vote at every major election cycle. Whoever loses will always return. And with that threat, same gender couples will face the continual threat of invalidity, without any of the permanence the framers envisioned for the California Constitution."

Counter Arguments Due Today

Although it's been mostly under the radar, opponents of Proposition 8 filed a brief on June 20, asking the California Supreme Court to remove the initiative from the November ballot, on the grounds it is not an amendment to the Constitution, but a "revision," which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Will they succeed? It's apparently a long shot, and I have mixed emotions about it. If we thought there was a backlash to the Court after their 4-3 decision creating marriage equality in California, imagine the shrieks from the right if the judges took the decision out of the hands of the people again. I'd like to hope we can defeat Prop 8 on its merits (or lack thereof), but I'd prefer not to have the stress on election night of wondering if my then 11-day old marriage will stand.

Read a bit more here.

Is He Worth It?

If you haven't already heard, big fat idiot Rush Limbaugh signed a multi-year $400 million contract to continue spewing lies and vitriol over the public airwaves. And I will defend to the death (or perhaps to the point of mild discomfort) his right to do so. I'm a pretty big fan of the First Amendment.

But the bigger question is, is he worth it? I suppose if any broadcaster is, Rush is. Why? It's not just because he delivers an average of 20 million listeners a day. It's because of who those listeners are: dittoheads. That's Rush's term for his hard core fans. The ones who say "ditto" to everything that springs from his insubstantial, OxyContin-coated lips. If you were an advertiser, wouldn't you want to reach an audience that refuses to think for itself, preferring instead to defer to the mighty voice on the radio? Wouldn't they be the kind of folks who will blindly follow all the pronouncements coming from the speaker -- including the commercials?

Compassionate Conservatism in Action

Oh the humanity!

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

The Market Works

For all the Democrats' past fuming over the reduction of CAFE standards (the requirements for car manufacturers to meet certain levels of MPG efficiency), it seems the market may be doing a better job than legislators ever could have of encouraging the production of higher mileage vehicles. And American auto makers may have shot themselves in the foot by lobbying for lower standards. GM stock is trading at less than $10 a share, a level it hasn't seen since the Eisenhower administration. (That rumbling sound you hear is my father spinning in his grave.) Meanwhile, Honda -- which happens to deliver a fleet with the best gas mileage and lowest emissions -- is the only car company showing increased sales.

If America had listened, we green-inclined folks were saying the right thing all along. Although it would have been better if we'd started working on better mileage cars and developing solar power years ago, the free market is doing a more powerful job of delivering that message.

"Now poop on them, Oliver"

If you like your humor random and abstract, click play. This is an Indian music video to which someone has added subtitles that are not a translation of the original, but rather an interpretation of what the words sound like in English. Pretty hysterical. And some wild dancing, too.

A Small Setback

It may not seem like much, but the battle for marriage equality took a minor hit when it was announced that the initiative will be number 8 on the November ballot.

If you don't already know, "8" is the luckiest number in Asian culture, because it sounds like the word for "prosper" or "wealth." My guess is that more than one Asian voter will have a hard time pulling the lever to vote "no" on the number eight. After all, Chinese pay thousands of dollars in auctions to have license plates filled with eights, and the Chinese government made sure this summer's Olympic Games would begin on 8/8/08 at 8:00 p.m.

Stop Those Activist Judges!

Well, the Supreme Court has done it. They've overturned the DC handgun ban, which was voted in by a clear majority of the people. Someone has to stop the black-robed tyrants from overruling the will of the people! What has happened to this country when we actually follow the Constitution? First it's equality in California (which the majority doesn't want), now it's handgun control (which the majority wants). Where will it all end?

These People Are Insane

Last week, I posted a video of a Heinz mustard ad. If you watched it, you know it's about an English family getting ready for the day. Mum is packing lunches and handing them out to the kids and to the husband heading off to work. Husband forgets to give Mum a kiss, so he's called back to perform that minor marital duty.

Except Mum is a man. A New York deli man, complete with white apron and hat and Brooklyn accent. For anyone with 11 brain cells in proximity to each other would understand this is a FANTASY. The kids call the deli guy "Mum," so it's obviously a bit of magic -- Mum has been inhabited by the spirit of traditional new york delis because she chooses to use Heinz deli style mustards.

The American Family Association, headed by chief wingnut Donald Wildmon, however, don't get it. They think it's promoting a homosexual agenda.

I've said it before, and I'm afraid I will have to say it again: don't these people have something better to do with their Christianity?

"Grid Parity"

I've been hearing about news like this for several months now, due to my work with Applied Materials, the company partly responsible for the technology revolution due to their production of the machines that make computer chips. Now Applied Materials is concentrating on producing the machines that will make photovoltaic solar arrays.

With increased capacity (and higher oil prices), we are now only a couple of years away from what is called "grid parity" -- the point when the cost to produce a kilowatt of power is the same for solar as it is for fossil fuels.

Money quote: "At the point of grid parity all kinds of things become possible, including the widespread introduction of plug-in hybrids, and a corresponding decrease in global dependence on oil for transportation needs. Sure all such predictions need to be taken with a grain of salt. But 40 percent annual growth -- which is what is occurring right now -- is nothing to sneeze at. We are getting closer."

Go Friedman!

A smart guy talking common sense. No surprise it's not our president. But he IS talking about our president: "Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”"

Even the Wall Street Journal

Conservatives are starting to speak up and remind people that marriage -- even when it's between two people of the same gender -- is a conservative value. Read this opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal.

Money quote:

"America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation."

Wouldn't that be something? If young people decided not to get married because it meant being a party to discrimination? Or maybe they'll opt out of marriage because "it's so gay."

If Only He Lived in California

We could use a few rational conservatives like this guy.

Money quote:

"Would a married gay couple moving next door create some discomfort for me as I explain it to my children? Darn right it would. I would undoubtedly squirm in that discussion. But life doesn't guarantee my comfort, and whether they keep their yard looking nice is my business, whereas their personal relationship is not.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think my prior stand against same-sex marriage was based on my personal thoughts about homosexuality rather than individual liberty. Those are two separate issues. My uneasiness may never go away, no matter how many names the enlightened ones call me, but the freedom of same-sex couples does not depend on my endorsement of their lifestyle.

As a conservative, I believe the state should stay out of the business of judging which unrelated adults may and may not make a marriage commitment to each other, that when a same-sex couple chooses to marry, we conservatives should value their liberty far more than any personal or religious disagreement with homosexuality. Conservatives should welcome the contribution of same-sex marriage to the virtues of commitment and family stability we hold so dear."

What's Keeping Me Awake Nights, 2

As I previously posted, I think the greatest weapon in the Christianists' arsenal is the appeal to religious freedom. My sense is that people recoil a bit internally at any infringement of religious freedom, and at first glance many stories, like this one, can come across as an unfair impingement on the right of someone to adhere to the tenets of their faith.

But in a public position, you have to follow the law or accept the consequences.

What if the situation were different in some aspects, but at the core the issues were exactly the same? Say a civil servant in some county in Alabama is in charge of the licenses that must be issued to any gathering of 20 or more with live or amplified music. But this citizen knows those parties almost always include dancing, something she feels the Bible very clearly prohibits. So she never approves one. So there could be no public dances, no dancing in bars, and certainly no dancing in the streets. She thinks it a sin, and can choose not to condone it -- but she can't withhold performing her civic duties, without being willing to accept the consequences that might come with that.

For A Smile...

...click play.

A Blow to the Golf World

Tiger Woods will miss the rest of the season. Apparently, another knee surgery is scheduled and he will miss the rest of 2008, including the Open Championship (aka The British Open) and the PGA Championship.

Religious Freedom vs. Marriage Equality

As I posted here a week or so ago, I'm worried that the religious right may be successful in their attempt to conflate marriage equality with a diminution of religious freedom.

Fortunately, here comes someone both smarter than I, and MUCH more informed about the legal issues surrounding the balance between the freedom to hold certain religious beliefs (and to act on those beliefs) and current laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation. It's a longish post by Dale Carpenter but you can read it here.

Money quote: "While marriage and religious belief are one creature in the minds of many people, they are separate things in the law. Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, for example, refuse to recognize secular divorce. But few argue that we should refuse to let people divorce for this reason. One can be divorced under the law but married in the eyes of the church. The statuses can be separated without a diminution of religious liberty. And nobody thinks that this de-linking of the two constitutes official oppression or the obliteration of religious freedom. Similarly, in principle, it should be possible to have a regime in which same-sex couples are married under the law but not married in the eyes of a given religion — all without extinguishing religious faith."

More Backstory, Please

Is this -- related to this?

Was CNN punishing Clinton advisor Lanny Davis for accepting a position with arch-rival Fox News?

Aspire to More

A story in today's Marin Independent-Journal put it more positive spin on the day's potential effects, drawing on family experiences to make an excellent point. Half of one of the first couples to marry in Marin County believes there many reasons - both legal and social - why acceptance of marriage equality is important. When she came out to her parents, she said, the reaction was not what she'd hoped for. She said when she came out of the closet to her parents, they were saddened because they didn't think she would get married or have children.

"For a person just coming to terms with who you are, the last thing you need is to have your family upset," said Karpay-Brody, 48. "For young relationships it gives people goals just like with heterosexual relationships - do you aspire to a higher commitment through marriage?"

This is an important aspect of the debate that is being ignored.

It's Here. Will It Last?

Today, just moments after 5:00 p.m., Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, two women whose relationship has lasted 55 years, took an important step toward full civil equality for all Americans. What was the phrase? "If we are not all free, we are none of us free"?

There is no remaining argument against same-sex marriage except one that assumes the existence of a literal God. And his Word passing through many translations -- without ever losing its literal Truth. And since I have the same amount of verifiable evidence to support MY idea of god as they do to support THEIR idea of God, the Constitution has to treat that evidence equally. Even if they capitalize their god.

Yet they trumpet their lack of rationality by continuing to pump out the same old tropes. "It's better for kids." "It's the way it's always been." "Civil unions they can have, but marriage should be for a man and a woman." Oh...wait, that last one is also John McCain's and Barack Obama's position. (Though wouldn't it be wonderful if they decided to change their minds and make the announcement the same day -- letting everyone know that fighting civil equality will always end in defeat, that legal discrimination on the basis of an inborn trait is wrong [no matter how icky it is to you], and that it's stupid to punish rather than reward behavior [entering into the civil marriage contract] that generally increases social stability? Any chance of that?)

Try as they might, none of them are sticking, logically speaking. I'm afraid, however, logic might not be enough. There is a hard stretch of road ahead.

More Evidence That Sexuality is Not a Choice

Not only does this study out of Sweden add to the growing body of research showing that sexuality is not a chosen behavior, it suggests that gay men's brains are more balanced than those of straight men: "Using MRI scans of gay and straight men and women, the researchers found that people who liked women -- heterosexual men and homosexual women -- had larger right brain hemispheres, while people who liked men -- heterosexual women and homosexual men -- had symmetrical brains."

Wow.

That's all I can say about this photo, taken in Iowa.

Sounds Like Fun to Me

Watching legendary aviation engineer Burt Rutan speaking at the 2006 TED Conference on DVD last night, he mentioned something that sounds like a load of fun.

Because the moon has very little gravity, he believes it would be possible that during space tourism flights around the moon, that the crafts taking those tourists aloft could program elliptical orbits around the moon that would take them safely to within 10 feet of the moon's surface.

Sign me up.

As The World Kerns

Ann Barnett -- the woman who stopped her county from performing ANY marriages rather than performing even one same-sex ceremony -- is in deeper than I think she ever expected to be.

Now
AP has picked up on the story. Others as well, I'd imagine.

Who knows, maybe she planned this as part of a broader strategy to conflate same-sex marriage with the loss of religious freedom. But I doubt it. I just don't think she thought it all the way through. Her only media strategy at the moment is being non-responsive.

This could get complicated.

You can see the video of her smiling denials to comment here.

It gives you a peek at what it looks like when there is no rational reason to deny equality, yet you still do. Maybe someone told you God says it's a sin and you believed them. Or maybe it's just because it feel weird to you and you can't get over the "ick" factor. She is definitely of the school of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Bless her crooked little heart, she thinks she's doing the right thing. She's standing up for a principle. It's just that this principle stands only if you believe that an invisible all-powerful being wants discrimination written into the Constitution.

Sign him up!

A note to any Christianist opponents of same-sex marriage: you can now happily ally yourself with the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Money quote: "I consider all American constitution evil, because it permits same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad." I'd love to see the Sheikh and Pat Robertson doing ads in favor of the same-sex marriage amendment, like Robertson and Al Sharpton are currently do for a global warming campaign.

It's Not Your Kern Yet

When I first noticed this story about how Kern County has decided to stop performing ALL marriages at the county courthouse, something didn't sound right to me. The reason given was, "lack of staff and space." I can't imagine the county clerk's staff is busy all day every day performing weddings. And don't they charge for that service? If they weren't charging enough to cover costs, why not simply raise the fee?

It just sounded fishy to me, like a cover up. Turns out, I was right. The Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk, Ann Barnett is morally opposed to same-sex marriage and wanted to find a way to not have her office perform them. She tried to resign as county clerk, but remain as auditor and controller, but apparently the county was having none of that.

So, citing space and budget concerns, she ordered all marriages to stop as of Friday, June 13th, the Friday before the Monday when same-sex marriage will be legal in California.

Knowing that this could result in legal action, Barnett fired off an e-mail to the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-same-sex marriage organization:

"Sent June 4, 2008 at 11:19 a.m.

From: Glenn Spencer (the Assistant Auditor-Controller-County Clerk)

To: Holly Estes

Subject: RE: Will You Provide Legal Assistance?

Holly, I also left a phone message for Brian, but I imagine he may be very busy right now. Our question is, now that the Supreme Court has refused to stay its decision, will Alliance Defense Fund defend the County Clerk if she ceases performing all marriage ceremonies as of 5:00 pm on June 16th? We have the news media calling for her response, and we need to issue a news release today, but she really needs to be assured of your legal assistance before she speaks to them, as we fully expect to be sued and our own counsel is not being of help. Thanks."

However, according to the story, performing weddings seems like it would be a profit center for the county:

"Records obtained from the clerk’s office for April and May of 2008 shed some light on whether wedding ceremonies are a financial drain on the county, as the press release claims. The county clerk’s office charges $30 for every ceremony it performs. In April and May the office performed 299 marriage ceremonies, according to records. That’s income — over two months — of $8,970. At that rate, it appears the county brings in more than $50,000 a year from performing marriages, before costs are figured into the equation.

An analysis of the pay of the county staff who perform the ceremonies puts the revenue into context. The top average hourly pay for an office services specialist — one of the classifications that conducts the weddings — is around $19.20 an hour, based on county salary charts. A marriage ceremony conducted Thursday took seven minutes to perform.

Barnett’s press release also stated that the county does not have the space to deal with increased ceremonies. But her office currently has two separate wedding rooms set aside for the marriage ceremonies."

I don't think this can last long.

An Online Exchange

The voice in quotes is that of Jane Chastain, a political blogger.

The question is simple: how will allowing same-sex unions prevent any heterosexual couple from marrying and therefore providing a more stable environment in which to raise children?

“The answer is simple: It would not prevent heterosexuals couples from marrying but it, in effect, takes away the benefits of marriage.”

No — it would EXTEND the benefits of marriage to a group of people who are currently denied them. In California, domestic partnership is almost identical, but it’s still not equal.

“A married couple is given certain tax breaks and other benefits. If the same tax breaks are given to everyone than — for all practical purposes — the tax break does not exists.”

Yes, it DOES exist. It’s still a tax break for married people. Single people don’t qualify. It supports and rewards the formation of more stable human partnerships, something gay people — and the society we live in — benefit from.

“Also, the state gives certain benefits to its employees, such as health insurance, to spouses. The state has a budget and these benefits must be paid for in the form of higher taxes.”

If I’m getting you right, it’s OK to discriminate — if it’s expensive. Or is that it’s OK to discriminate if it means YOU get more of the pie?

“When you treat same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples than EVERYONE must be taxed more in order to pay for those benefits. Therefore, you have heterosexual couples with children subsidizing same-sex couples.”

There are gay families with children. More important, there are benefits for couples with children that most gay couples and childless straight couples don't qualify for.

“It is the same thing with a private business that gives the same benefits to domestic partners as married couples. A state or company can pay its workers only so much for a given job. The employer divides this pay into wages and benefits. If the same benefits are given to everyone, the married couple ends up with less, because the pool of money available for benefits is reduced.”

But there is no reason to deny same-sex couples these rights — as long as the couple is willing to take on the responsibilities of marriage, as well.

That’s why the gentleman on O’Reilly was unable to come up with a rational reason — because there is none.

Equality has a cost. But the benefits far outweigh the price.

More Good News

According to a USA Today poll, 63% of Americans think same-sex marriage is strictly a private decision.

Backstory, please.

Watching tonight's coverage of the elections on CNN. One of their live feeds was with a Clinton advisor/confidante, who was at the gymnasium where Hilary gave her non-concession concession speech.

Problem is, the union crew is simultaneously breaking down the room. And not quietly. Nobody lowers his voice, nobody attempts to compensate in any way for the presence of a TV satellite feed in their midst. Admirably, Clinton's guy kept his composure and ignored the banging and the clattering and the rasping and the squeaking and the echoing. At one point, he was physically knocked out of the way by crew members!

It seemed almost deliberate. Was someone sending someone a message? Who? And who? Hilary dissing CNN? Or the labor movement dissing her? Or was it simply a pissing match between a CNN producer and a union foreman?

I want to know.

The Philosophy of Change

Here is an interesting point of view on the politics of same-sex marriage -- with a decidedly philosophical point of view.

Money quote: "The 1960s sexual revolution advanced the frontiers of liberty into the bedroom. Under the guise of privacy rights, contraception and abortion gained constitutional protection. When the California Supreme Court calls same-sex marriage a right because it is "integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy," it is only ratifying a deep cultural change that's already taken place."

What's Keeping Me Awake Nights

Given the history of political tactics used by the right, the Rove-inspired attacks that lack reason or rationality, yet appeal to the less thoughtful (but still electorally-empowered) among us, I've been having some fitful nights concerned over how social conservatives will attack marriage equality. As I stated in an earlier post, the main arguments currently appear to be morality, tradition and the welfare of children. These are either not germane (Biblical morality has nothing to do with civil marriage) or are easily refuted (tradition changes all the time and extending civil equality to same-sex couples won't prevent opposite-sex couples from forming stable families).

For me, the major challenge lies in countering the coming attacks that will contend that the approval of same-sex marriage will result in proscriptions on religious freedom. The right wants the electorate to believe that gay couples will want to force churches to marry them.

Here's their logic: because homosexuality has been classified as a "suspect class" (at least under California law), similar to race, religion or national origin, the GLBT community can now expect similar protection against discrimination. A public accommodation, like a bus line or a lunch counter can't prohibit African-Americans or Jews or Pakistanis from using a public accommodation simply because they are black, Jewish or Pakistani. Now the same is true of homosexuality.

Here's how it's playing out. In New Jersey, a Methodist organization is suing the state because it feels pressured to hold same-sex commitment ceremonies in an open-air building that is used both as a church and other purposes, including weddings. The church owns the property, but receives tax benefits because of its non-profit status.

In Philadelphia and in Berkeley, the Boy Scouts have been forced to pay market rents for spaces they use, rather than the subsidized $1/year rents they had previously been charged. Why? Because the Boy Scouts don't allow gay folks as members and both those cities (rightly, the courts ruled) don't want to subsidize discrimination.

In these instances, however, the case seems clear: you can't have it both ways. If you want the tax benefits, you have to accept the laws of the community charging the tax. If you want to be a private organization and discriminate with impunity, fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to underwrite bigotry.

However clear that seems to me, it may be less so to Christianists.

The most challenging case, however, is one out of New Mexico. A lesbian couple planning a commitment ceremony tried to hire a photographer -- that refused to take pictures of the ceremony, citing religious grounds. The couple sued under the state's anti-discrimination law and the photographer was fined $6000.

To be honest, that one seemed a bit extreme to me. What happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Then I thought, what if the photographer was Muslim and refused to photograph a Jewish wedding? Would we feel the same?

So, the Christianists are coming. And they are going to be shouting that the queers are trying to strip them of their religious rights. (Never mind that the Catholics have been denying divorced people the right to marry in their churches for decades without incident or lawsuit.)

Just read. And this. Money quote: "Wilson said that California's faith-based organizations will likely be barred from sexual-orientation discrimination in the use of facilities that are offered to the public, and may increasingly find themselves the targets of discrimination-based civil-rights litigation."

OK, let's have it...

As Bill O'Reilly says in this clip, if the same-sex marriage opponents want to win in November (assuming the proposed amendment to the Constitution makes it to the ballot), they are going to have to come up with a logical reason why same-sex marriage is bad for California. All his guest can come up with is, "because that's the way it's always been."

I don't think they can do it. The fundies have three basic arguments:

1) "It's immoral."
This is easily dispensed with. Whose idea of "moral" do we choose? Many religions think gambling is immoral, but the state runs a lottery and there are dozens of casinos, card rooms and race tracks in the state. Standing on morality means relying on religious belief as the basis of your argument, and given this is a secular issue, that won't stand with a majority of voters.

2) "Marriage has traditionally been one man, one woman."
This isn't any more valid than the first, but this may be the hardest nut to crack. The definition of marriage, contrary to what the right keeps repeating, has changed a great deal over the past two millennia. It was originally a matter of property, designed to link powerful families. In some cultures, during some point in their history (including modern-day Islam), "marriage" could mean one man, many women. It used to be that marriage truly meant "until death do you part." Modern divorce laws have changed that. More than once. For many years "marriage" did not include couples composed of people of different races.

The challenge is, no matter how much logical reasoning you deliver to some people, they will simply be unable to change their mind in terms of what they will tolerate. There will be a large segment of the population, primarily older, who will dig in their heels and say, "I like it the way things are."

3) "Children do better with a mother and father in the home and traditional marriage supports a stable environment for raising children."
First off, there is no fertility means test for marriage. Infertile couples, or those beyond childbearing age are not denied marriage licenses. Even fertile couples who choose not to have children are allowed to marry.

Second, whether you like it or not, non-traditional family arrangements can create children. Single women go to sperm banks, lesbian couples do the same or find male friends to donate the needed cells, and women get pregnant out of wedlock and choose not to marry the father, for whatever reasons. Denying committed same-sex couples the right to marry will not change that one whit.

There is no evidence that children in families headed by a same-sex couple do any worse, but even if it happens to be true, giving the children of same-sex couples a more stable environment (which marriage will certainly do) is obviously a good thing. You can't keep gay people from having children, but we can at least provide the option of a more stable relationship setting for them to grow up in.

The battle continues.

New Poll Results

Here's a bit of good news. Let's hope it holds up. Of course, polls on subjects like this are notoriously inaccurate, as some people don't express their true opinion for fear of seeming bigoted.

Decider or Deceiver?

According to former White House press secretary Scott McLellan's new book, due out next week, Bush “convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,” regularly engaging in self-deception.

And here I thought it was just us he was lying to.

Civics 101

And another thing -- all the people shouting about "activist judges" overturning the "will of the people" need to remember one thing: the courts are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Glenn Greenwald of Salon said it especially well: "The duty -- the central obligation -- of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be "better" in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it."

Read his entire column here.

Same-Sex Marriage=The Holocaust

I'm still not sure why the religious right is so mortified over the prospect of same-sex civil marriage. There is no evidence that same-sex couples having access to the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage does any damage to traditional marriage. Though I guess I should be careful about using that term -- whose traditions are we talking about? Restrictions on race, women as chattel and polygamy could certainly be defined as "traditional" in terms of marriage. For the life of me, I can't see how Bob and I having a marriage license would affect anyone else's relationship. I know, I know, they think by approving civil marriage we we will be putting society's stamp of approval on what many people think of as sin. I would remind those folks that some religions think the consumption of alcohol, or dancing or wearing immodest clothing is sinful, but we tolerate those behaviors in our pluralistic society.

But, for whatever reason, the same-sex marriage thing has really got under their skin. Witness this from an organization called "Save California." Click to see the whole page, but here's the money quote: "History is replete with examples of doing what was right despite unjust laws and tyrannical orders, (including) the post-WWII Nuremberg trials punishing military officers who followed orders and committed crimes against humanity." What's interesting is what this page said when it was originally posted: "Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order."

Apparently they think the wording was abhorrent, but not the overall concept. They're wrong.

Imagine the Effort

MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo.
As you watch this video (about seven minutes long), try to imagine the ferocious amount of work this must have taken. The animation itself is very cool, but it's the scale in which it is realized that amazes me. Enjoy.

"Young@Heart" -- A Must See

This movie won't change the world -- but it will make you smile, bring a tear to your eye and give you a greater appreciation for both the strength and frailty of life in its last days.

"Young@Heart" is a documentary film that follows the Young@Heart chorus as they prepare to add new songs to their repertoire. The choristers are all senior citizens, ranging in age from 74 to 92. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir they are not, but the level of commitment (and soul) they bring to their efforts more than compensates for any lack of talent or the shakiness of tone that comes with age.

What's most interesting about the Young@Heart Chorus is the sort of songs they do. Their set list includes songs by Prince, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Sonic Youth, The Ramones and Coldplay. It may sound like an odd fit, but many of the songs take on new and wonderful depths of meaning when you hear them sung by people who know they have only a little time left. "Golden Years" and "Stayin' Alive" have a completely different sort of resonance when these folks sing them. Their performance of Dylan's "Forever Young" at a prison had tears rolling down my cheeks.

The most beautiful and moving aspect of the film is how, in the face of infirmity and death, these 18 or so septugenarians, octogenarians (and one nonegenarian)just keep pressing on, living in the moment, making music and bringing happiness and pleasure to those who hear them. It's likely the most inspiring film I've seen in years. Do yourself a favor and go. Tonight.

(NOTE: the video link above is of the chorus singing Coldplay's "Fix You." The featured singer is a man with congestive heart disease, a former member of the chorus who returned to the stage for one night only. The puffing sound you hear at the beginning is his oxygen delivery system.)

Moving on

The last two days have been exciting, wonderful, joyous, as we celebrate the Court's historic decision. I'm kind of blown away that the justices (virtually all appointed by Republican governors) actually went as far as they did. So are the news media. But the ones who are, I think, truly blown away are the religious conservatives who are fighting to repeal this decision by amending the state's constitution to metaphorically etch this decision in stone.

To all those out there who believe homosexuality is sin, I agree. According to virtually all religious traditions, homosexual behavior is forbidden. However, we're talking about CIVIL marriage here. No one is going to be forcing any church to marry anyone they don't think is worthy.

But here is the other thing I want to say to church-going folks: don't you have better things to do with your Christianity? Aren't there poor to be helped, homeless people to be nurtured, abandoned children to be cared for? Aren't any one of those things -- and perhaps a thousand others -- more important than preventing two people of the same gender from committing themselves to caring for each for the rest of their lives. Just asking.

Tempted? You bet!

This sounds like exactly the sort of thing I need. I wonder what it might do to creativity?

BIg Day Tomorrow

Tomorrow, the California State Supreme Court will deliver its ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which bars the state from recognizing same-sex unions performed out of state. If they find that law incompatible with the state constitution's guarantees of equal civil rights, California could become the second state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry.

As usual, the pro-"family" set is ready with their usual blather: "The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."

Let's take both of those issues, one at a time. First, the government should indeed promote and encourage strong families. That includes gay families. After all, when two people are willing to take on legal responsibility for the debts of their partner, that goes a long way toward encouraging stable families. Second, allowing the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners does not deny any child a mother and a father. Who said these gay couples are having children in the first place? Even if they do, the research done to date says children raised in same-sex households thrive just as well as those in more traditional families.

Let's hope the Court has seen through these specious arguments.

Up for a relaxing stroll?

Then don't head up this path. But since you are sitting safe somewhere, go ahead and watch this video.

I hope this is true...

...because this gives me hope that McCain will have a harder time beating Obama than some think. It's a brief, but excellent, analysis of a very important aspect of politics as practiced in the Internet age.

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Fourteen, "The 39 Steps"

"The 39 Steps" is a stage adaptation of the Hitchcock film of the same name. At first glance, this doesn't seem like the best choice for adaptation. "Rear Window" would be a more logical choice, or "Strangers on a Train," or even "Psycho." Each of those have relatively few locations and limited characters. "The 39 Steps," on the other hand, has over a hundred characters and takes place in London, Scotland, in (and on) a train, farms, homes, a police station...

Fortunately, none of that really matters, as long as you're playing for laughs. Which is exactly what this stage adaptation (imported from London) does -- magnificently. After what seemed like one wounded family after another at the beginning of the trip, it was delightful to close the trip with this madcap (no word better suits this production) evening in which four actors play 100+ roles. In truth, three actors play 100+ roles, because Charles Edwards plays just the one part, Richard Hannay, the ordinary man caught up in extraordinary circumstances.

I'm trying to imagine someone not having a good time with this -- and having a hard go at it. It comes at you with such sincere, wacky brilliance, clowning with such imagination and intensity that I truly can't imagine anyone being able to resist it. It's two hours of physical comedy, pantomime (it's OK, it's the good kind) and absurdity that are focused on finding as many ways as possible to make you laugh.

Part of the fun of "The 39 Steps" is watching how one low-budget theatrical technique after another comes into play. It's a wonderful example of the power of theatrical imagination, as the producers find ways of telling a complex story using simple tools.

A bigger part of the fun is watching the amazing cast perform this incredibly physical comedy. The way they portray passengers chatting in a train compartment (all four of them rocking in loose unison) and a chase scene on top of the train (by flapping their coattails to simulate the rush of air past them) -- or a hundred other bits of business are little moments of genius. Not earth-shattering genius, nothing that will change the world, just new ways of making us laugh and think.

I suppose if I try hard enough, I could imagine some grump thinking the references to other Hitchcock movies are too obvious, and that the moment someone mimes being behind glass the jig is up, or that the whole enterprise is entirely too silly. But I don't like to imagine people like that.

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Thirteen, "Sutton Foster"

Just a brief entry, as a formal review (or as formal as my "reviews" get) is not required for such an informal evening.

Sutton Foster, Broadway star of "Thoroughly Modern Millie," "Little Women," "Young Frankenstein" and the upcoming "Shrek: The Musical" is recording her first album in a couple of weeks. So, in order to gauge which songs are working best with audiences, she booked herself for a late night Monday gig at Joe's Pub. There, in front of a crowd of 150 or so (including her brother, fellow Broadway star Hunter Foster and fellow "YF" cast member Andrea Martin), Sutton stepped up to the mic for an hour or so of songmaking with a three-piece band behind her.

In addition to some lovely ballads (most of which I had never heard), Sutton did a great version of "Oklahoma!" (presumably for Martin, who played Ado Annie in the most recent Broadway revival) and a very funny song about being out on a hot summer night and willing to go home with any man as long as he has air conditioning.

Though her voice was tentative on a couple of occasions, Sutton has an easy stage presence and a very relaxed manner with an audience that makes for a wonderful evening.

One other thing: if you plan on seeing anything at Joe's Pub, plan to have a snack there. Making a table reservation makes it much easier to get a seat close to the action.

NOTE: for some reason, this never posted the day I had intended it to.

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Twelve, "Passing Strange" and "Good Boys and True"

"Slaves have options. Escape. Revolt. Death. Cowards have only consequences."

Hearing those words, Youth, the character at the center of "Passing Strange" makes the decision to leave his relatively comfortable middle-class African-American lifestyle and head to Europe to seek a different culture, a place where the boundaries American culture places on black people will have less effect on him. Youth is the younger alter ego of Stew, the musician who created "Passing Strange" to tell his unique (and compelling) story.

Throughout his adolescence, Stew/Youth was an outsider in virtually every aspect of his life, possessing not merely the ordinary teenage outsider angst, but also being black but not "ghetto," smart but living in a milieu that doesn't appreciate his sort of intellect, and musically-gifted but unappreciated. So, in search of a community where he can invent a new life for himself, Stew heads to Amsterdam and Berlin, where he falls in with various groups seeking enlightenment through drugs, sex, rock and roll and art. Especially art. As one character says to him, "when we are in the presence of art, we are taking the cure."

As many of the ads for today's pharmaceutical cures say, "Passing Strange" is "not for everyone." But you don't need to ask your doctor if "Passing Strange" is right for you -- just send me a message and I'll let you know if the show will cure any of your specific ills.

Personally, I loved it. There are many very funny scenes, especially the dialogues between Youth and his Mother (she speaks in a standard, Midwestern sort of way most of the time, but dips into a black dialect when she wants to reprimand or cajole him), and the art performances Stew sees/participates in in Berlin. The wall of colored light that appears when the scene shifts to Amsterdam is bold and adds a needed boost of visual energy.

More of a rock opera than a musical, "Passing Strange" actually tells its story through songs, rather than using songs to embellish moments within a story. It's loud and colorful and smart and entertaining and performed with passion and vigor by Stew and his excellent cast. Most important, it has a real soul at its core, a singular vision being expressed -- something Broadway too often lacks.

"Good Boys and True," by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is currently in early previews at the Second Stage Theatre. Perhaps once the cast has had a chance to become more familiar with their roles and to become more comfortable with their fellow performers and coalesce into an ensemble, the power that I think is there in the text will come through. The story, which takes place at an exclusive, Catholic, boys-only school, is simple: a video tape has been discovered, showing what looks like the captain of the football team having violent sex with an unknown teenage girl. (The story takes place in 1989, pre-YouTube.) Is it, in fact, the handsome, charismatic team captain, son of two doctors, one of whom was a legendary leader and athletic star when he attended the same school? Will the football coach find some way to keep the story under wraps, to deal with it quietly?

There is a lot to like about "Good Boys and True." The set is beautiful -- row upon row of glittering sports trophies, calling to mind the tradition (and priorities) of the school, and allows for almost seamless changes between scenes. The story is interesting and has plenty to draw us in.

Unfortunately, there are still too many wrinkles still to be ironed out of this preview production. The actors, I think, can grow into their roles. The author may find ways of reforming his text to build in a bit more drama. The question is, will they? I'm guessing no.

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Eleven, "South Pacific"

As one enters the Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center for the sparkling new production of "South Pacific" (the first-ever Broadway revival of the show), there is a scrim spread across the stage, upon which are projected the first few sentences of James Michener's "Tales of the South Pacific," the book upon which the show was based:

"I wish I could tell you about the South Pacific. The way it actually was. The endless ocean. The infinite specks of coral we called islands. Reefs upon which waves broke into spray, and inner lagoons, lovely beyond description. I wish I could tell you about the sweating jungle, the full moon rising behind the volcanoes, and the waiting. The waiting. The timeless, repetitive waiting."

Likewise, I wish I could tell you about this production of Rodgers & Hammerstein's amazing show. The way it actually was. The stunning sets. The amazing voice of Paolo Szot. The 30-piece orchestra filling every corner of the space with tone and tune. I wish I could tell you about the sweetness of both Kelli O'Hara's voice and her interpretation of cockeyed optimist Ens. Nellie Forbush, and the power of the male chorus as they belt "There is Nothing Like a Dame," unamplified but still potent enough to press you back in your seat.

But I can't, really. You're going to have to go to New York and experience it for yourself. If you are coming to New York and have even one night free, this is the show to fill those evening hours. Sure, "Spring Awakening" breaks new ground for the Broadway musical, and "Jersey Boys" takes the story of Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons and puts it on stage like a living, breathing, singing graphic novel, but no show is as worthy of your attention as this "South Pacific."

First, this is one of the best -- if not THE best -- Broadway musical ever written. Every song is great. Every one. Of course, some are greater than others, but there are no off numbers, none that just don't fit. On top of that, the book has true drama. Something important takes place on stage. In fact, several important things: two love stories and an adventure story that also throws obstacles in the path of love. Add to all that the political undertones of "South Pacific," the way it lays bare the foolishness of prejudice at the same time it reveals the importance of duty and the glory of sacrifice for a worthy cause.

Part of me wants to go on and talk about how this nearly 60-year old show has such resonance with our current situation, how it touches on deeper aspects of humanity (Bali Ha'i as a metaphor for the mystery of existence that compels us all to seek meaning in the midst of mystery), how it touches on aspects of humanity that are universal -- both light and dark. But I would run the risk of boring you, something "South Pacific" never does. Even as it ran past the three-hour mark, I wanted it to go on and on and on, like that timeless, repetitive waiting to which Michener refers.

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Ten, "Betrayed"

On walking out of "Betrayed," the new play being presented by the Culture Project, a theater group headquartered in SoHo, my companions for the evening asked what I thought. I said it was "interesting, but in the way a New Yorker article is interesting." This makes sense, because -- as I found out when I looked at the program for the first time this morning -- the playwright, George Packer, is a New Yorker writer.

The story is a very simple one: three Iraqis go to work as translators for the US during the early stages of the war, then find themselves cut adrift when the insurgency begins and they are labeled as traitors to their country -- or various factions within it. Packer's script gives an insider's view of what takes place inside the homes (and minds) of some Iraqis, as Packer has visited the country six times since the start of the war.

Intisar, Laith and Adnan have dreams like everyone else -- they want a peaceful place to live, they want to spend time with their families, they want to chance to use their talents to make a better world. As you can probably imagine (and you don't have to see "Betrayed" to find this out, simply watch CNN), none of these dreams come to fruition.

The problem with "Betrayed" is that it lacks a sense of real drama. The verisimilitude is there -- Packer's on-ground experience guarantees that. The facts are in place, but the fire is missing. Part of this is likely due to Pippin Parker's flaccid direction and staging. There's not a lot of imagination at work here, so what we get is a set and staging that feels like something you'd see from the local community college theater department: workmanlike, but not transforming. The actors do their best (except for the gentleman playing the US ambassador, who was embarrassingly bad), and the peek into the everyday lives of Iraqis is enlightening, but overall, "Betrayed" left me "unsatisfied."

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Nine, "The New Century"

I'm under attack. I'm not sure of my adversary's name or nature, all I know is he has gained a strategic foothold in my sinuses. It's a lovely spring in New York, flowers and trees everywhere are in bloom, and one or more of them has my number. My eyes are red and swollen and my nose is packed tighter than Times Square on New Year's Eve.

That said, I'm still not missing anything. I just have a little less energy to devote to reporting on what I see.

Last night's festivities included dinner at Cafe des Artistes (a lovely room, if you like that style, but such overrated food -- still, few options near Lincoln Center), followed by a performance of Paul Rudnick's evening of four short plays, "The New Century." All four deal with -- on one level or another -- the challenges of being gay (or related to someone who is) in a "post-gay" world where one's sexuality isn't supposed to matter (at least to civilized people) and yet somehow still does.

"Pride and Joy" is the first offering, and consists entirely of Linda Lavin speaking at a P.L.G.B.T.Q.C.C.C.&O. meeting. (That's Parents of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals,Transgendered, Questioning, Curious, the Creatively Concerned and Others.) Lavin is a stereotypical Jewish mother (all the characters in this show are stereotypes), who has three children who cross pretty much every sexual boundary possible. Yet, she still loves them. Just like she LOVED "Will & Grace." "They're so cute -- like if Pottery Barn made people!"

"Mr. Charles, Currently of Palm Beach" trots out the biggest stereotype of the evening, a WAY over the top nelly queen who claims to be the gayest man on Earth. So gay he can turn someone homosexual with just a glance. So gay, in fact, that he has been banished from New York for being too gay and embarrassing the straight-acting gays who are trying to assimilate back into the broader culture. Mr. Charles hosts a public access show in Palm Beach, Florida. His co-host is boy toy Shane, who wants a show of his very own. Mr. Charles zings one biting comment after the other, including one of the biggest laugh lines of the night when he explains how to tell if the man next to you at the theater is gay: "He's saving his Playbill. And he's awake." He also gives an amazing encapsulation of the history of gay theater in 60 seconds.

In the second half, things start to drift. The stupendous Jayne Houdyshell portrays Barbara Ellen Diggs in "Crafty." Diggs never met a pair of pinking shears or a bolt of rickrack or an embroidery frame she didn't like. She keeps busy with crafts partly to dull the pain of having lost her son to HIV 20 years earlier. Houdyshell is wonderful as usual, but this is the weakest of the four pieces.

The closing bit, "The New Century" finds all four characters back together -- this time in a Manhattan maternity ward. A few more funny lines hit their targets -- but the allergens are hitting their targets inside my sinuses, so it's off to bed for me.

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Eight, "The Four of Us" and "Boeing Boeing"

Another day, another Van Morrison song. Yesterday, "Adding Machine" put me in mind of "Precious Time." Today's matinee, "The Four of Us" put Van's "Professional Jealousy" in my head. Despite its title, "The Four of Us" is a two-hander, concerning two twenty-something writers, Benjamin and David. On holiday in Prague, David writes a play and Benjamin works on a novel. They enter into an agreement -- when David has a play produced, or Ben's novel is published, the other will buy lunch. Both end up picking up a check, but the equality ends there, for David's play is produced by a small theater in the Midwest, while Ben's novel provides him with a $2 million advance (including movie rights).

While this is ripe territory for drama, most of the juicy bits get left on the table. The green monster never rises to his full height, never breathes the fire of envy. He merely sticks a nostril above the surface, flashes one shiny fang, then slips back into the deep. Ben and David argue, but never with any real teeth. The jealousy David might feel comes out in an angry outburst during a Q&A session following a reading of his play, but Ben's not really a part of it.

In all, a rather bland, unsatisfying afternoon.

"Boeing Boeing" on the other hand, has nothing but satisfaction on its mind. A classic French farce (which has been filmed twice, once in French in 1960 and once in English -- with Jerry Lewis -- in 1965), "Boeing Boeing" is filled with slamming doors, missed connections and broad physical comedy.

The story concerns Bernard (Bradley Whitford, of "West Wing" fame), a successful architect living in Paris who is managing to juggle three women who all think they are the only one. Each is a stewardess for a different international airline, each on a different schedule. Bernard's old school chum, Robert, shows up on the same day that a new jet goes into service, throwing off Bernard's timetable perfection in scheduling the exit of one fiancee with the entrance of the other.

Christine Baranski is miscast as Berthe, Bernard's long-suffering maid, but Whitford is terrific, and Mark Rylance is hysterical as Robert. Robert is from Wisconsin, and his slow-talking, simple ways stand in perfect contrast to Bernard's playboy smoothness. Rylance (in photo above) originated the role in the London production of the show, and I'm so glad he crossed the pond to reprise it at the Longacre.

I have a feeling "Boeing Boeing" may not strike a chord with New York's critics, but audiences are going to devour this tasty concoction of retro-humor from the dawn of the sexual revolution.

New York, Spring 2008 -- Day Seven, "Adding Machine"

Although the music in the new operetta at the Minetta Lane, "Adding Machine" sounds nothing like what Van Morrison would write, a line from one of his songs comes to mind: "Precious time is slipping away -- you know you're only king for a day. Doesn't matter to which god you pray -- precious time is slipping away."

For Mr. Zero, the beaten-down anti-hero of this brilliant new work from composer Joshua Schmidt (with lyrical assistance from Jason Loewith), his precious time has already run out. He just doesn't know it yet.

Zero hates women. At least his shrill wife, Mrs. Zero. He does seem to have a soft spot for Daisy, the younger woman who assists him at work. Daisy and Zero are a team of calculators: she reads the figures from sales slips, he writes them down and adds them up in his ledger book with a fountain pen. But who needs human calculators when the brand new adding machine (the work is based on a 1923 play by Elmer Rice) is there to do the work faster, more accurately and at a far lower cost?

The story is highly melodramatic, but told in a highly expressionistic style. I don't want to give away much about the story itself, because I hope you'll have the chance to see it yourself. Though I'm not generally a giant fan of recitative, or the talk-singing that often links songs within an opera or operetta, this production seems to have found a way to make the recitative both more musical and more dramatic. Then, when a more conventional tune pops up, like the delightful, romantic "I'd Rather Watch You," it seems to glisten even brighter.

I loved almost everything about "Adding Machine." Every scene, every sequence seems to have its own visual signature, its own way of building the story from the inside out. The lighting (kudos to lighting designer Keith Parham) is bold, elegant and edgy, the sets (Takeshi Kata) are simple but effective, and the video projections (Peter Flaherty) add dimension to scenes without calling attention to themselves.

The performers are top-rank, with big voices and a sure presence on stage. All are terrific, but Amy Warren (as Daisy) deserves special mention for treating us to her big, sweet voice. When she opens her mouth, you know she truly feels what she's singing.

Director David Cromer also deserves praise for his powerful and efficient storytelling. The opening scene, with Mr. and Mrs. Zero in bed -- with the set designed in such a way that we in the audience feel we are looking down at them from above -- quickly establishes the claustrophobia and limited options in Mr. Zero's life. Then we are immediately thrown into Zero's work life, with a brilliant, rhythmic fugue of boredom as three calculating teams call out the numbers that fill their days, AND the dreams that fill their minds.

"Adding Machine" never lets you really get comfortable. There is always some new way of expressing an emotion or calling attention to lost opportunities. Yet it's an entirely pleasurable evening. I found myself smiling over and over at the cleverness of a lyric, or the way attention was called to a character's emotional state, or how a tune will swell on a completely unexpected, as it did on "and then came the leg of lamb!" The story -- like most operatic works -- is a tragic one. I don't think I'll spoil the show for you by saying that Mr. Zero does not end up in a happier place. But you will, if you make your way to the Minetta Lane Theatre for "Adding Machine." Best show of the trip so far.