Monday, February 09, 2009
E-mail THIS video to the claims adjuster...
Click play. There has got to be some molten metal at the end of this.
You can also read an early account of the circumstances surrounding this fire in Beijing here. If you were going to send the gist of this story to someone in a text, it would read "prbly firewks." It was the last night of Lunar New Year, and by order of city officials, all fireworks had to be used by midnight. So no one's saving anything -- they're setting a match to every fuse. Speculation is that a stray rocket could perhaps have ignited debris at the site.
My question is, what's the insurance situation on something like that? The building was an unoccupied, soon-to-be-opened Mandarin Oriental hotel. Say you're the developer and you see the spreadsheet on the wall. So you arrange to have a small accident happen on Lunar New Year when there will be lots of explosions as a cover. Will the policy pay out more to the developers than they could have reasonably expected if the hotel had opened? Or, perhaps more likely, will it pay a return faster than opening and waiting for a global economic turndown to pay it off the old-fashioned way?
I'm not saying I'm just saying.
Is It All Talk?
For all the talk during the Prop 8 debate about how those opposed to same-sex marriage weren't against equal rights, they just felt "marriage" was between a man and a woman, just watch what happens when that option of fully-equivalent civil unions come up. For example, in Hawaii, where a civil unions bill is making its way through the legislature and seems to have the votes required to pass. Money quotes:
"“There is no benefit to an unproductive relationship,” said Virginia Domligan, a pastor at Prayer Center of the Pacific in Pearl City. “Full benefits are for traditional marriage between male and female.”"
"Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona urged legislators to respect the 1998 vote and reject civil unions. He suggested that lawmakers could put the question on the ballot again rather than pass a law without another vote of the people. “This is nothing more than same-sex marriage under a different name,” Aiona said. “You would be circumventing the will of the people.”"
The gay community is prepared to accept fully-equivalent civil unions (especially if they are required of all couples that seek state benefits), but if the opponents of marriage equality fight like this they're going to end up losing that big battle over the word "marriage." Maybe not this year or next, but soon. If they would compromise and accept civil equality, maybe they'd have a chance to hang on to that word that's so important to them.
"“There is no benefit to an unproductive relationship,” said Virginia Domligan, a pastor at Prayer Center of the Pacific in Pearl City. “Full benefits are for traditional marriage between male and female.”"
"Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona urged legislators to respect the 1998 vote and reject civil unions. He suggested that lawmakers could put the question on the ballot again rather than pass a law without another vote of the people. “This is nothing more than same-sex marriage under a different name,” Aiona said. “You would be circumventing the will of the people.”"
The gay community is prepared to accept fully-equivalent civil unions (especially if they are required of all couples that seek state benefits), but if the opponents of marriage equality fight like this they're going to end up losing that big battle over the word "marriage." Maybe not this year or next, but soon. If they would compromise and accept civil equality, maybe they'd have a chance to hang on to that word that's so important to them.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Weirdness from Etsy
They say these handle covers would be perfect for a bridal shower gift, but I can only imagine them actually being put to use in...well...almost nowhere. Do you suppose she'd also knit a matching vulva potholder?
Friday, February 06, 2009
Like Bill Cosby says...
...only with more swearing. Lifting the African-American community from within:
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Another Reason to Love Golf
Almost two years ago, almost to the day, I wrote this brief post about Camilo Villegas, who I was predicting to be the next big star on the PGA Tour. In the two years since, Camilo has pretty much fulfilled my prediction. He is currently ranked #11 in the world, and shot a 63 today and leads the Buick Invitational by three strokes.
But that's not the additional reason I love golf. In another post, written during the 2007 Buick Invitational, I wrote that contrary to the opinion of those who think of golf as elitist, it is actually among the most democratic of sports. Here's how I put it then:
"Few people ever experience the thrill of dunking a basketball, or running a sub four-minute mile or flinging a football 60 yards downfield. And though few of us can drive the ball 300+ yards, from time to time, every golfer hits a shot that is identical to the sort Tiger, Vijay, Ernie or Phil make with somewhat greater regularity: the 60-foot putt that curls in, the chip from off the green that hits the flag and drops, the approach from 180 yards that nuzzles up close. (I do it with a 3-wood, Tiger with his 7-iron.) And 18 times a round, every golfer gets to hear the same lovely sound the pros do when the ball finds the bottom of the cup."
Here's the additional reason to love the game, a reason that came to me today while watching the pros try and tame Torrey Pines, and it relates to golf's egalitarian nature. What other sport can you play where you get the opportunity to experience that sport in the same venue the pros do? Sure, with connections, you could probably shoot hoops on the parquet in the Boston Garden, or maybe stand at home plate in Yankee Stadium. And though you could travel to Austria and ski the Hahnenkamm run, the most famous downhill course, they wouldn't clear the mountain for you and time you so you could compare your efforts against the world's best. The experiences just aren't the same.
Of course you can't play every course they play on tour (just trying getting a tee time at Augusta or Shinnecock if you're not a member or have member connections), but if you have the coin, you can tee it up at Torrey Pines South, Pebble Beach, Pinehurst or Bethpage Black -- all of which have hosted the US Open. There are dozens of other courses open to the public where other PGA tournaments, even majors, are played. If you want, you can even play from the back tees and see just how short you fall in relation to the standard set by the pros.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Pachycasso
This bit of video is bloody amazing. Please click. Even though I hate the ideas of animals in captivity or being exploited for frivolous human interest, it's still an amazing few minutes of footage.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The End is Near!
Has the economy officially collapsed, even at the upper end of household wealth? Rolls-Royce, which sold 27 cars in December of 2007, sold precisely zero in December 2008.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Why treat us differently?
After my response to a comment on a previous post, about how different relationships can be treated differently comes this post from Andrew Sullivan's blog on the same basic point:
"Think of the diversity of lived experience that now exists within this civil institution in America. You have strict Catholic families with no divorce, no contraception and lots of kids in a very traditional fashion; you have childless yuppie couples, living in different cities; you have arranged marriages among some immigrant families; you have a newly married couple in their seventies; you have Larry King on his seventh and Dennis Prager on his third; you have Britney Spears' 55 hour special; you have teenage elopers and middle-aged divorcees; you have a middle class evangelical couple with three young kids and two working parents; you have George and Barbara Bush and Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher; you have open marriages which amount to sexual arrangements; and Mormon marriages whose sexual monogamy will continue physically after death.
Are people really saying that a lesbian couple of several decades or a newly married couple like me and Aaron fall outside the cultural range of these experiences? Civil marriage is already so broad in its inclusion of social types and practices that including gay couples will make virtually no difference at all. And this is the genius of civil marriage: it's a unifying, not balkanizing, civic institution. To argue that including gay couples destroys the institution is absurd."
"Think of the diversity of lived experience that now exists within this civil institution in America. You have strict Catholic families with no divorce, no contraception and lots of kids in a very traditional fashion; you have childless yuppie couples, living in different cities; you have arranged marriages among some immigrant families; you have a newly married couple in their seventies; you have Larry King on his seventh and Dennis Prager on his third; you have Britney Spears' 55 hour special; you have teenage elopers and middle-aged divorcees; you have a middle class evangelical couple with three young kids and two working parents; you have George and Barbara Bush and Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher; you have open marriages which amount to sexual arrangements; and Mormon marriages whose sexual monogamy will continue physically after death.
Are people really saying that a lesbian couple of several decades or a newly married couple like me and Aaron fall outside the cultural range of these experiences? Civil marriage is already so broad in its inclusion of social types and practices that including gay couples will make virtually no difference at all. And this is the genius of civil marriage: it's a unifying, not balkanizing, civic institution. To argue that including gay couples destroys the institution is absurd."
A New Ally in the Fight for Equality
Through Facebook, I've come across a new organization fighting for marriage equality, EqualityMatters.org. Read the list of rights. Some are important, some are minor. Then read some of the stories of how real couples are affected when the option to marry is not available to them. Here are a few excerpts:
"Unlike straight couples that can pass their estates to their spouse tax-free, LGBT couples must pay full taxes as if we were leaving our estates to a total stranger."
"When she passed away I had no rights to anything; I was not even allowed at her funeral. Her family took her body back to Ohio from Maine where we lived together most of our relationship—even though her wish was to be buried in Maine. Thankfully her Aunt knew the truth and was there for me and kept her cell phone on so I could hear the funeral over the phone. Hearing the service over the phone and visiting her grave site after everyone had left was the only closure I had."
"Unlike straight couples that can pass their estates to their spouse tax-free, LGBT couples must pay full taxes as if we were leaving our estates to a total stranger."
"When she passed away I had no rights to anything; I was not even allowed at her funeral. Her family took her body back to Ohio from Maine where we lived together most of our relationship—even though her wish was to be buried in Maine. Thankfully her Aunt knew the truth and was there for me and kept her cell phone on so I could hear the funeral over the phone. Hearing the service over the phone and visiting her grave site after everyone had left was the only closure I had."
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
From Day One...almost
From the official whitehouse.gov website:
"President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights."
It's right there.
Except it never says "all." And that's where it can get tricky. The rights spelled out in the last sentence are among the easiest to provide equal access to. Only the most callous of the homophobes believe in denying access to a loved one in the hospital. The other three are just about money, and not that much of it in the larger scheme. Why not highlight federal immigration rights and Social Security survivor benefits?
I realize I should be over the moon about even the language that exists. The past eight years were not good ones for civil rights in general, and for gay people in particular. Society took many steps forward -- as witnessed by the ever-rising approval numbers for marriage equality (and even higher numbers saying yes to equivalent civil unions) -- but our government didn't come along.
So don't get me wrong, I'm grateful. But this is not our first time at the rodeo. We've been screwed in the past. Promised one thing, then told we had to settle for another. It happens. That's politics.
Which is why this bothers me. Because the language seems just vague enough to be politically-expedient if Obama can't get the whole deal done. Maybe Social Security is too broke to handle more survivor benefits, or immigration is too high anyway, and the right guard play enough games that the civil unions bill extends 1134 Federal benefits instead of 1136. (Or whatever the exact number is -- I've never seen it as an exact number that I can recall. It's either 1000+ or 1100+ or 1200+. UPDATE: It's 1138. Interesting that I estimated it so closely!) So it's not quite "all." It's still "1,100+," just as stated in the President's agenda.
This is weasel room that the simple placement of an "all" or two would clear up: "...civil unions that give same-sex couples ALL legal rights and privileges...", would be my first addition. Then: "...enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits..." Change "the" to "all" in that sentence and it's perfect. Two word changes and we're done.
Since Obama seems to act more with savvy than expedience, perhaps it's part of larger plan. Either way, let's get the show on the road.
"President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights."
It's right there.
Except it never says "all." And that's where it can get tricky. The rights spelled out in the last sentence are among the easiest to provide equal access to. Only the most callous of the homophobes believe in denying access to a loved one in the hospital. The other three are just about money, and not that much of it in the larger scheme. Why not highlight federal immigration rights and Social Security survivor benefits?
I realize I should be over the moon about even the language that exists. The past eight years were not good ones for civil rights in general, and for gay people in particular. Society took many steps forward -- as witnessed by the ever-rising approval numbers for marriage equality (and even higher numbers saying yes to equivalent civil unions) -- but our government didn't come along.
So don't get me wrong, I'm grateful. But this is not our first time at the rodeo. We've been screwed in the past. Promised one thing, then told we had to settle for another. It happens. That's politics.
Which is why this bothers me. Because the language seems just vague enough to be politically-expedient if Obama can't get the whole deal done. Maybe Social Security is too broke to handle more survivor benefits, or immigration is too high anyway, and the right guard play enough games that the civil unions bill extends 1134 Federal benefits instead of 1136. (Or whatever the exact number is -- I've never seen it as an exact number that I can recall. It's either 1000+ or 1100+ or 1200+. UPDATE: It's 1138. Interesting that I estimated it so closely!) So it's not quite "all." It's still "1,100+," just as stated in the President's agenda.
This is weasel room that the simple placement of an "all" or two would clear up: "...civil unions that give same-sex couples ALL legal rights and privileges...", would be my first addition. Then: "...enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits..." Change "the" to "all" in that sentence and it's perfect. Two word changes and we're done.
Since Obama seems to act more with savvy than expedience, perhaps it's part of larger plan. Either way, let's get the show on the road.
Turning the Corner
It was a day like any other. I got up, fixed a cup of hot chocolate, and sat down to read e-mails.
But it was also a day like no other. Because after I finished my web browsing and cocoa drinking, I turned on the TV in time to see Barack Hussein Obama step into the bright light and frozen chill of our capital.
Today was like no other because today we ended eight years of failed policies, cronyism, elitism, unbridled hubris and self-centered lawlessness. Today a man stepped onto the world's biggest stage, at one of its most critical times and said, yes, I will take on the challenges we face together. I have put together a team of bright minds and I will attempt to lead us all to the brighter future we all envision.
Of all the candidates I have voted for, I have never had one I truly felt confident following. President Obama isn't perfect, or a savior, and he will surely make mistakes. I was too young to experience the surge of hope and optimism surrounding the election of JFK, but unlike LBJ or Nixon or Ford or Carter or Reagan or Bush I or Clinton or Bush II, Obama brings with him not only a fiery brilliance, but a sense of calm leadership and sincere longing for public service that gives me a confidence I have never before had in a leader. Everything I see about the man makes me believe he will not only make the hard decisions, but the smart ones, as well.
Perhaps our global economy and culture are too complicated and intertwined for one man to competently nudge them in the direction we think we ought to go. But constitutionally, we can have only person in charge. I'm very glad it's Barack Obama.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Guilty on Virtually All Counts
I am an elitist. I shout it proudly from the rooftop! At least as long as "elitist" can be defined as someone who believes "elite" is a positive attribute, something we strive for. If someone believes we ought to have really freaking smart people taking on the incredibly immense challenges that face contemporary society, culture and politics, and you think that's elitist, then sign me up as a card-carrying member.
But take a gander at this column by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford, as he tries to lay out just how broad the definition of "elitist" seems to have become by allowing you to take a not-so-simple 18-part test to determine whether or not you fit.
Money quote: "13. The hammer with which you often consider striking yourself in the face when listening to Bush speak or when observing McCain's creepy grin or hearing Palin's embarrassing answers to simple questions of policy has never actually been put to use for any "real" work, and has only ever really been used to tap down a few loose nails on the deck of your Martha's Vineyard summer cottage or tighten some planks in the fetish dungeon."
But take a gander at this column by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford, as he tries to lay out just how broad the definition of "elitist" seems to have become by allowing you to take a not-so-simple 18-part test to determine whether or not you fit.
Money quote: "13. The hammer with which you often consider striking yourself in the face when listening to Bush speak or when observing McCain's creepy grin or hearing Palin's embarrassing answers to simple questions of policy has never actually been put to use for any "real" work, and has only ever really been used to tap down a few loose nails on the deck of your Martha's Vineyard summer cottage or tighten some planks in the fetish dungeon."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Find the poor, ignorant souls...
...who believe strongly enough that gay people shouldn't have equal civil rights. Click here to see where the folks who donated to Yes on 8 live, and how much they gave.
Nailed by E-mail
From an e-mail received this morning: "Although, I do not know you in person, I have received your contact via, personal search while seeking a reliable but obscure individual to assist me in this pending transaction."
Reliable but obscure. That's me, alright.
Reliable but obscure. That's me, alright.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Last Scandal of the Bush Era?
Johannes Mehserle, the cop who shot in the back and killed an unarmed man on a BART (who was on the ground and surrounded by several other cops) has been arrested in Nevada, where he had fled because of death threats. He had previously resigned from the BART police rather than answer question's from internal affairs.
I'm guessing that his victim, Oscar Grant, was not the most law-abiding citizen, and had probably been causing trouble. He was, after all, resisting arrest, struggling to avoid being cuffed. But with several other officers on hand, Mehserle clearly pole-vaultedover the line between reasonable force and brutality. In fact, he pretty much leapt beyond brutality right into murder.
To me, this seems sadly resonant with the Bush administration approach to conflict -- when the dark people are acting up, overreact. Don't just torture them - humiliate and photograph them for your entertainment. You have the power, use it. It's just going to waste if you don't, right?
Mehserle joins the ranks of folks like Lynndie England, people who felt empowered to express their hatred and rage because, when it came right down to it, the man at the top had the same gut response.
I'm guessing that his victim, Oscar Grant, was not the most law-abiding citizen, and had probably been causing trouble. He was, after all, resisting arrest, struggling to avoid being cuffed. But with several other officers on hand, Mehserle clearly pole-vaultedover the line between reasonable force and brutality. In fact, he pretty much leapt beyond brutality right into murder.
To me, this seems sadly resonant with the Bush administration approach to conflict -- when the dark people are acting up, overreact. Don't just torture them - humiliate and photograph them for your entertainment. You have the power, use it. It's just going to waste if you don't, right?
Mehserle joins the ranks of folks like Lynndie England, people who felt empowered to express their hatred and rage because, when it came right down to it, the man at the top had the same gut response.
Please sir, may I have some more?
Jon Stewart is ravenous these days. Like a child who has been told the giant bag of M&Ms is about to go back in the cupboard and is grabbing his last handfuls of candy, Stewart is relishing his last moments with the man who made him rich. Just watch...
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Happy New Year
It's been two weeks since my last post. I hope you all enjoyed your holidays.
But the reason I haven't been posted hasn't been entirely due to the long vac, but rather the fact that I haven't had much of interest to say. I realize that hasn't always stopped me before, but I do try to post only when I feel I have something to say that isn't entirely insipid. I'm happy to whine and complain and vent (but I'm happier when I can be funny or provocative or insightful), but I just don't want to be boring.
I'll try to maintain that commitment in 2009. Which brings me to my first complaint of the year: people who misuse "literally." When a sportscaster says "Graham is literally on fire out there today," there better be flames coming off him. "Literally" means something is actually happening. It has stepped out of the realm of metaphor and ventured into reality. The ad for a combo money clip and credit card holder where a guy complains that his fat wallet is "a pain in the butt -- literally" is alright. The interviewer who reflects that he could "literally see the wheels turning" in his subject's mind is not.
Just keep that in mind.
But the reason I haven't been posted hasn't been entirely due to the long vac, but rather the fact that I haven't had much of interest to say. I realize that hasn't always stopped me before, but I do try to post only when I feel I have something to say that isn't entirely insipid. I'm happy to whine and complain and vent (but I'm happier when I can be funny or provocative or insightful), but I just don't want to be boring.
I'll try to maintain that commitment in 2009. Which brings me to my first complaint of the year: people who misuse "literally." When a sportscaster says "Graham is literally on fire out there today," there better be flames coming off him. "Literally" means something is actually happening. It has stepped out of the realm of metaphor and ventured into reality. The ad for a combo money clip and credit card holder where a guy complains that his fat wallet is "a pain in the butt -- literally" is alright. The interviewer who reflects that he could "literally see the wheels turning" in his subject's mind is not.
Just keep that in mind.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
More Love, Less Hate
Read this post by Melissa Etheridge on The Huffington Post on the dust-up over PEBO's (that's President Elect Barack Obama) invitation to Rick Warren to invocate at the inauguration. She ended up having a conversation with America's new top preacher.
Money quote: "He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids."
My first reaction to the thought of Rick Warren praying at the inauguration was anger. It reminded me of how Clinton pandered to the gay community for votes, then let us down on almost every level. (My second reaction was why should anyone be praying at the inauguration of a civil servant, but that's another post.)
Then I started to think about Rick Warren the man. This is a guy who actually thinks it's Christians' duty to save the Earth, rather than exercise our dominion over it by poisoning it. This is a man who thinks we need to spend more time helping people with AIDS than worrying about what Britney Spears is wearing. And, unlike so many Christians, Rick Warren is a man who actually lives Christ's injuction to "give all you have to the poor and follow me." Well, nearly -- he gives 90% of his income to charity, when most Christians think tithing 10% is a really big deal.
This man walks the walk. So I'm for giving him a break.
Money quote: "He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids."
My first reaction to the thought of Rick Warren praying at the inauguration was anger. It reminded me of how Clinton pandered to the gay community for votes, then let us down on almost every level. (My second reaction was why should anyone be praying at the inauguration of a civil servant, but that's another post.)
Then I started to think about Rick Warren the man. This is a guy who actually thinks it's Christians' duty to save the Earth, rather than exercise our dominion over it by poisoning it. This is a man who thinks we need to spend more time helping people with AIDS than worrying about what Britney Spears is wearing. And, unlike so many Christians, Rick Warren is a man who actually lives Christ's injuction to "give all you have to the poor and follow me." Well, nearly -- he gives 90% of his income to charity, when most Christians think tithing 10% is a really big deal.
This man walks the walk. So I'm for giving him a break.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Ken is at it again..
Ken Starr, he of the Starr Report, which recapped the unfortunate dalliance between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, has a new cause: invalidating my marriage. Yes, Ken has stepped up to the plate as a member of the legal team that is responding to suits filed by opponents of Proposition 8 intended to overturn the new law. Have I mentioned I'm not a fan of Prop 8? Anyway, you can read more here.
The bigger news tonight on the marriage front, however, seems to be Jerry Brown's change of heart in terms of Prop 8. Brown had previously said he would defend the measure in the courts, but has reversed that position, saying: "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." However, since Brown's duty as AG is to uphold the laws of California, it's not surprising that this turnabout is getting more visibility than Ken Starr's appointment as lead counsel. I'm glad Brown is speaking out, but early reports seem to say his arguments will have a hard time holding up before the court.
The SCOTUS will get this one sometime in the next few years. My guess is that Prop 8 will be upheld at the state level, but overturned at the federal level.
The bigger news tonight on the marriage front, however, seems to be Jerry Brown's change of heart in terms of Prop 8. Brown had previously said he would defend the measure in the courts, but has reversed that position, saying: "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." However, since Brown's duty as AG is to uphold the laws of California, it's not surprising that this turnabout is getting more visibility than Ken Starr's appointment as lead counsel. I'm glad Brown is speaking out, but early reports seem to say his arguments will have a hard time holding up before the court.
The SCOTUS will get this one sometime in the next few years. My guess is that Prop 8 will be upheld at the state level, but overturned at the federal level.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Equal Access
A couple of nights ago I was dragged to a performance at the Davies Symphony Hall called “The Colors of Christmas.” (Front row seats were available at a discount, and that’s just too big a temptation for some to resist.) The show, in a nutshell, is an MOR R&B Xmas. Peabo Bryson, Jon Secada, Stephanie Mills and Melissa Manchester. Plus a full gospel choir and members of the SF Symphony. Not my thing. Especially when Peabo Bryson spent half his stage time off stage, right in front of me, sweating off his makeup.
As I listened, I noticed that all the songs were Christmas songs, only a few of them secular. Most of them were sacred carols – Joy to the World, Silent Night, etc. And I thought, doesn’t it seem odd that they wouldn’t throw in a Hanukkah song, just to be inclusive? But my next thought was, to quote our current President, so what? Not everything has to be inclusive. It’s impossible to please everyone, or take into account every individual’s preferences. In private life, at least. The SF Symphony is, I believe, primarily a private organization. Like country clubs, the Boy Scouts, and the Congressional Black Caucus, they ought to be allowed to include or exclude whomever they like.
But once you step up to the public trough, all that freedom to exclude goes out the door. When public tax money funds you, or when you are a public accommodation, you have to be available on an equal basis to every citizen.
Regardless of whether the state should be involved in the marriage business, they are. Churches, as private organizations, can discriminate all they like. But the state should not be able to withhold access to the benefits of civil marriage without solid, rational reasons.
I didn’t have to buy a ticket to “The Colors of Christmas.” There are lots of other musical events I could attend. But we each have only one state to turn to when it comes to obtaining a marriage license.
As I listened, I noticed that all the songs were Christmas songs, only a few of them secular. Most of them were sacred carols – Joy to the World, Silent Night, etc. And I thought, doesn’t it seem odd that they wouldn’t throw in a Hanukkah song, just to be inclusive? But my next thought was, to quote our current President, so what? Not everything has to be inclusive. It’s impossible to please everyone, or take into account every individual’s preferences. In private life, at least. The SF Symphony is, I believe, primarily a private organization. Like country clubs, the Boy Scouts, and the Congressional Black Caucus, they ought to be allowed to include or exclude whomever they like.
But once you step up to the public trough, all that freedom to exclude goes out the door. When public tax money funds you, or when you are a public accommodation, you have to be available on an equal basis to every citizen.
Regardless of whether the state should be involved in the marriage business, they are. Churches, as private organizations, can discriminate all they like. But the state should not be able to withhold access to the benefits of civil marriage without solid, rational reasons.
I didn’t have to buy a ticket to “The Colors of Christmas.” There are lots of other musical events I could attend. But we each have only one state to turn to when it comes to obtaining a marriage license.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Quote of the Day
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Civil marriage for all; religious marriage for all who want to supplement it with God's grace. Why is that so hard for some people of faith to grasp? Why are their marriages defined not by the virtues they sustain but the people they exclude?"
"Civil marriage for all; religious marriage for all who want to supplement it with God's grace. Why is that so hard for some people of faith to grasp? Why are their marriages defined not by the virtues they sustain but the people they exclude?"
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Fag Issue
Take a read of this piece from Salon.com. It's an "editor's choice" comment, culled from I know not where on their site. It makes it's point in a relatively crude, but effective, manner.
Money quote: "So I decided to ask myself why some of my fellow penis owners still seem to have a bit of a problem with the fags. What makes them different from normal men? Men like sports. Do fags like sports? The ones I know root for the same teams I do. And there’s this one fag who, if you give him more than one second at the top of the key, he’ll sink it every time."
Money quote: "So I decided to ask myself why some of my fellow penis owners still seem to have a bit of a problem with the fags. What makes them different from normal men? Men like sports. Do fags like sports? The ones I know root for the same teams I do. And there’s this one fag who, if you give him more than one second at the top of the key, he’ll sink it every time."
On the Golden, Days 6-14
OK. So you missed some stuff. The reason I didn't post for the past 10 days or so wasn't because I didn't have time. Sure I was busy when we were in the islands, but what about those four and a half days and five nights when I was crossing the Pacific?
For one thing, I was mostly disconnected from the news, and life in general. Lots of stuff happened on the ship -- met some fun people, played a lot of poker (two words: bad beat), read four books. I had some things to say, I suppose, but I didn't feel so much like commenting on what was going on as I was experiencing what was going on.
That said, I would like to share a couple of video clips I captured on board and on the islands, just to give you a flavor for the trip. I tried to upload them from the boat, but usually the connection was just too sketchy.
This bit was taken on Hawaii, our first day ashore. It's of the current steam/gas vent taking place in Kiluea Iki:
Yes, it was windy up on the crater's edge.
This one I took one day, heading west, just to give you a feel for the sensation of sitting on the veranda, enjoying the sound of water as the ship slices through the sea:
And this one is just to give you a TINY feel for the vastness of the Pacific.
Now imagine four days of that. Hypnotic. Not sure what four months would be like.
For one thing, I was mostly disconnected from the news, and life in general. Lots of stuff happened on the ship -- met some fun people, played a lot of poker (two words: bad beat), read four books. I had some things to say, I suppose, but I didn't feel so much like commenting on what was going on as I was experiencing what was going on.
That said, I would like to share a couple of video clips I captured on board and on the islands, just to give you a flavor for the trip. I tried to upload them from the boat, but usually the connection was just too sketchy.
This bit was taken on Hawaii, our first day ashore. It's of the current steam/gas vent taking place in Kiluea Iki:
Yes, it was windy up on the crater's edge.
This one I took one day, heading west, just to give you a feel for the sensation of sitting on the veranda, enjoying the sound of water as the ship slices through the sea:
And this one is just to give you a TINY feel for the vastness of the Pacific.
Now imagine four days of that. Hypnotic. Not sure what four months would be like.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
On the Golden, Days 3-5
Sorry to gang all these days together, but we've been very busy. Poker, reading, eating -- and even a business conference call (at 5:30 am!) -- seem to fill the days. Poker on day three was awful -- I couldn't get a hand, and when I did, someone else got a better one. But I made it all up on day four.
Yesterday we rented a car on the Big Island and drove up to Volcano National Park, which was amazing. Since I had been there last (in the summer of 1975), there had been several large lava flows that have changed the landscape quite significantly. We drove through miles of young lava fields (see picture above), their black, cracked and fissured surface putting me in mind of a pan of cooked brownies. It looked like an edible landscape. There is currently a large active steam vent in the Kiluea caldera that was quite dramatic. I took a few seconds of video and tried to upload them to share with you, but for some reason the upload process isn't working today. Maybe I can add it when we're in another port.
Today we wandered around Honolulu for a bit, and then I went to the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor. Powerful, even after all these years.
Tomorrow we are at Kauai.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
On the Golden, Day Two
Today the seas have calmed even further, and the ship steams quietly south southwest towards Hilo, where we will arrive early Monday morning. With no shore excursions possible, Princess tries to fill the day with activities of all sorts: lei-making, ukulele lessons, photography and computer seminars, movies (“The Dark Knight”), trivia, bingo, line dancing and yes, even a shuffleboard contest – all the middle-of-the-road pastimes one associates with cruise ships. I have foregone them all, preferring to play poker in the casino (I’m up, but only a little) and sit on the balcony and read the first of my books (“Pied Piper” by Nevil Shute, best-known for his novel “On The Beach”) as the ocean slips past at the rate of 20 knots an hour.
And eat. I’ve done some eating, though not nearly as much as possible. The options are many, but not terribly varied: there is a traditional dining room, where one is seated with other cruisers. You eat at the same time every evening and sit with the same people. There are also two “anytime” dining rooms, where you can either share a table or dine in solitude. Additionally, there is a 24-hour buffet, a hamburger/hot dog grill, a pizzeria, a coffee bar and two “specialty” restaurants, one Italian, one a steak house. These last two require an extra fee of $20/person. There is also a “chef’s table” option, which is $75/person additional, but it includes eight courses, paired wines, a trip to the galley and a visit from the chef. It is, however, reputed to be quite excellent.
Which is more than one can say for most of the food on board ship. Like pretty much everything else on Princess, the food is militantly middle-of-the-road. There is nothing to offend, but also nothing to inspire. Don’t get me wrong, I know it’s impossible to create world-class cuisine for 2500 people, and have it ready 24 hours a day. From time to time, a dish arrives that is quite good, but mostly it’s all very workmanlike. And given that I’m only paying about $100/day for my lodging, entertainment (such as it is) and food, I’d say they’re pretty good workmen. On our previous cruise (aboard the Emerald Princess), though the food was of slightly higher quality, the pizza was awful. On this ship, though, the pizza is actually pretty decent. My guess is the guy throwing the crusts is better at his job. Maybe the lower humidity in the Pacific (as opposed to the Caribbean) enters into the equation. Either way, it’s nice to be able to grab a slice in the afternoon, or to temper the bitter taste of an exceptionally bad beat (as when I flopped a straight, only to lose to a full house).
Tonight is formal night, though not for us. Black tie just isn’t Bob’s style. But we’ll put on our nicer duds, head down a few decks and see what the industrial kitchen is putting on the plates.
Tomorrow: who knows, we’ll see what mood strikes. Perhaps if I do well at the morning poker tournament (the first of the trip), I’ll bore you all with the details.
And eat. I’ve done some eating, though not nearly as much as possible. The options are many, but not terribly varied: there is a traditional dining room, where one is seated with other cruisers. You eat at the same time every evening and sit with the same people. There are also two “anytime” dining rooms, where you can either share a table or dine in solitude. Additionally, there is a 24-hour buffet, a hamburger/hot dog grill, a pizzeria, a coffee bar and two “specialty” restaurants, one Italian, one a steak house. These last two require an extra fee of $20/person. There is also a “chef’s table” option, which is $75/person additional, but it includes eight courses, paired wines, a trip to the galley and a visit from the chef. It is, however, reputed to be quite excellent.
Which is more than one can say for most of the food on board ship. Like pretty much everything else on Princess, the food is militantly middle-of-the-road. There is nothing to offend, but also nothing to inspire. Don’t get me wrong, I know it’s impossible to create world-class cuisine for 2500 people, and have it ready 24 hours a day. From time to time, a dish arrives that is quite good, but mostly it’s all very workmanlike. And given that I’m only paying about $100/day for my lodging, entertainment (such as it is) and food, I’d say they’re pretty good workmen. On our previous cruise (aboard the Emerald Princess), though the food was of slightly higher quality, the pizza was awful. On this ship, though, the pizza is actually pretty decent. My guess is the guy throwing the crusts is better at his job. Maybe the lower humidity in the Pacific (as opposed to the Caribbean) enters into the equation. Either way, it’s nice to be able to grab a slice in the afternoon, or to temper the bitter taste of an exceptionally bad beat (as when I flopped a straight, only to lose to a full house).
Tonight is formal night, though not for us. Black tie just isn’t Bob’s style. But we’ll put on our nicer duds, head down a few decks and see what the industrial kitchen is putting on the plates.
Tomorrow: who knows, we’ll see what mood strikes. Perhaps if I do well at the morning poker tournament (the first of the trip), I’ll bore you all with the details.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
On the Golden, Day One
First, Happy Thanksgiving to all. In this time of economic stress and political turmoil, it’s important to remember that all of us (at least the readers of the Feast) have much for which to be thankful. In addition to my biggest blessings (chief among them my amazing daughter and adorable husband), I’m also lucky enough to be writing this on the balcony of my stateroom on the Golden Princess as she steams southwest to Hawaii.
Let’s talk about cruising a bit, shall we?
I’d never thought of myself as the sort of person who would enjoy life aboard a giant yacht filled with 24-hour buffets, clanging slot machines, boutiques filled with mostly useless tchotchkes and ruthlessly cheerful (albeit) second-rate entertainers. On the other hand, I love the ocean, love having round-the-clock access to pizza slices, love playing poker and love watching humanity go about its business. On this seagoing hotel, I have all that and more.
We set out last night from San Pedro Harbor, Port of LA, just as sunset. The police boat escorted to the breakwater, and we sat at the stern a while and watch the lights of LA recede into the distance as the great, overfed masses of America (and the world, for there are plenty of Canadians and Brits about, and I hear snippets of conversation in French, Spanish, German and Russian) waddled about us. Make no mistake, if you like your humanity in XXL, a cruise ship is the place for you. The Golden Princess weighs in at 109,000 tons, and 60% is housed in inside cabins on the fiesta deck.
Ever prone to motion sickness, I’ve boarded both my cruises with some trepidation. But with a little help from Meclizine, knock (teak) wood, I’ve had no problems thus far. Granted, it’s a bit odd when you are walking and the floor is in a different place when your set your foot down than it was when you picked it up. It’s disconcerting but not frighteningly so. A bit like biting into a See’s candy that you thought was buttercream but turns out to be filled with caramel: it’s not what you expected, but it’s not unpleasant, either. With the swells relatively small (4-6 feet), and the ship’s stabilizers at work, the ride is quite smooth. When seated, it feels rather like riding a horse in slow motion. At night, lying in bed, the sensation is one of being in a brobdignagian hammock, gently swaying back and forth.
At the moment, the weather is cool, and the sea stretches out in all directions, nothing but blue horizon and the occasional dolphin coming to investigate what beast has invaded its waters.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about the food on board ship.
Let’s talk about cruising a bit, shall we?
I’d never thought of myself as the sort of person who would enjoy life aboard a giant yacht filled with 24-hour buffets, clanging slot machines, boutiques filled with mostly useless tchotchkes and ruthlessly cheerful (albeit) second-rate entertainers. On the other hand, I love the ocean, love having round-the-clock access to pizza slices, love playing poker and love watching humanity go about its business. On this seagoing hotel, I have all that and more.
We set out last night from San Pedro Harbor, Port of LA, just as sunset. The police boat escorted to the breakwater, and we sat at the stern a while and watch the lights of LA recede into the distance as the great, overfed masses of America (and the world, for there are plenty of Canadians and Brits about, and I hear snippets of conversation in French, Spanish, German and Russian) waddled about us. Make no mistake, if you like your humanity in XXL, a cruise ship is the place for you. The Golden Princess weighs in at 109,000 tons, and 60% is housed in inside cabins on the fiesta deck.
Ever prone to motion sickness, I’ve boarded both my cruises with some trepidation. But with a little help from Meclizine, knock (teak) wood, I’ve had no problems thus far. Granted, it’s a bit odd when you are walking and the floor is in a different place when your set your foot down than it was when you picked it up. It’s disconcerting but not frighteningly so. A bit like biting into a See’s candy that you thought was buttercream but turns out to be filled with caramel: it’s not what you expected, but it’s not unpleasant, either. With the swells relatively small (4-6 feet), and the ship’s stabilizers at work, the ride is quite smooth. When seated, it feels rather like riding a horse in slow motion. At night, lying in bed, the sensation is one of being in a brobdignagian hammock, gently swaying back and forth.
At the moment, the weather is cool, and the sea stretches out in all directions, nothing but blue horizon and the occasional dolphin coming to investigate what beast has invaded its waters.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about the food on board ship.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Don't Let It Happen!
Free speech is under attack. A new UN resolution has passed. It was designed to appease Muslims who are apparently concerned that their faith is associated with terrorism. Gee, wonder how that happened?
Good Point
In today's issue of Salon, there is an excellent interview with author and essayist Richard Rodriguez, who most people know from his video essays on "The News Hour" on PBS.
Although the interview mainly concerns Proposition 8 and the fight for equality, this is perhaps my favorite quote from the piece: "To my knowledge, the churches have not accepted responsibility for the Bush catastrophe. Having claimed, in some cases, that Bush was divinely inspired and his election was the will of God, they have failed to explain why the last eight years have been so catastrophic for America."
Yeah, what about that? If these people believe God called on Bush to do a great work, where are the results?
Although the interview mainly concerns Proposition 8 and the fight for equality, this is perhaps my favorite quote from the piece: "To my knowledge, the churches have not accepted responsibility for the Bush catastrophe. Having claimed, in some cases, that Bush was divinely inspired and his election was the will of God, they have failed to explain why the last eight years have been so catastrophic for America."
Yeah, what about that? If these people believe God called on Bush to do a great work, where are the results?
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Big Victory First?
In the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, the focus on marriage equality seems to be primarily taking place at the state level. Massachusetts and Connecticut, of course, already have full marriage equality. Legislatures in New York and New Jersey are expected to see legislation to create marriage equality will be introduced next year, and both governors have stated they will sign that legislation if it passes, as it is likely to do. The Supreme Court of Iowa will hear arguments December 9 in the case that will determine whether marriage equality will become the law in that state. Cases have been filed here in California to overturn Proposition 8 on various grounds.
But what if the place to start is at the top? What if, instead of focusing on state battles -- whether legal or electoral -- we turn our attention as a community on achieving equality on the federal level? After all, even Sarah Palin agreed gay people deserve full civil equality.
Here's what I could see: Congress passes a law which creates a new Federal-level civil union. All people who are currently legally married would be grandfathered in and continue to receive all 1049 federal benefits that apply to married couples, including those pertaining to taxation, Social Security and immigration. Everyone else who wanted to take advantage of those benefits would, as of a specific date, have to obtain a civil union license. These could be made available through federal agencies -- or perhaps states and counties could be empowered to issue the licenses.
Now, in order to get Federal benefits of marriage, every couple -- straight and gay -- must first obtain a Federal civil union. To get the state-level benefits of marriage, they need to obtain a state marriage license. If they don't live in a state with marriage equality, gay couples would have to go without those benefits. Straight couples would have to get a state marriage license to go with their FCU. Most gay couples would have to suffer along with the federal benefits only. It's an imperfect system. But it would be a major step toward equality.
And with civil equality in place at a federal level, individual states would likely begin to fall in line and extend equality there, as well. Mississipi and Utah might ultimately need some Supreme Court convincing to come around, but ultimately equality is going to win. Marriage might end up being a word with primarily religious connotations, but that's fine. As long as we are all treated identically under civil law, God can do whatever He wants. (Like there was any stopping Him, right believers?)
But what if the place to start is at the top? What if, instead of focusing on state battles -- whether legal or electoral -- we turn our attention as a community on achieving equality on the federal level? After all, even Sarah Palin agreed gay people deserve full civil equality.
Here's what I could see: Congress passes a law which creates a new Federal-level civil union. All people who are currently legally married would be grandfathered in and continue to receive all 1049 federal benefits that apply to married couples, including those pertaining to taxation, Social Security and immigration. Everyone else who wanted to take advantage of those benefits would, as of a specific date, have to obtain a civil union license. These could be made available through federal agencies -- or perhaps states and counties could be empowered to issue the licenses.
Now, in order to get Federal benefits of marriage, every couple -- straight and gay -- must first obtain a Federal civil union. To get the state-level benefits of marriage, they need to obtain a state marriage license. If they don't live in a state with marriage equality, gay couples would have to go without those benefits. Straight couples would have to get a state marriage license to go with their FCU. Most gay couples would have to suffer along with the federal benefits only. It's an imperfect system. But it would be a major step toward equality.
And with civil equality in place at a federal level, individual states would likely begin to fall in line and extend equality there, as well. Mississipi and Utah might ultimately need some Supreme Court convincing to come around, but ultimately equality is going to win. Marriage might end up being a word with primarily religious connotations, but that's fine. As long as we are all treated identically under civil law, God can do whatever He wants. (Like there was any stopping Him, right believers?)
Thursday, November 20, 2008
What I've Been Saying, Only Better
Once again, Andrew Sullivan nails the issue with clarity and intelligence. Click the link to read the whole thing, but here is one of many money quotes:
"The reason the marriage debate is so intense is because neither side seems able to accept that the word "marriage" requires a certain looseness of meaning if it is to remain as a universal, civil institution. This is not that new. Catholics, for example, accept the word marriage to describe civil marriages that are second marriages, even though their own faith teaches them that those marriages don't actually exist as such. But most Catholics are able to set theological beliefs to one side and accept a theological untruth as a civil fact. After all, a core, undebatable Catholic doctrine is that marriage is for life. Divorce is not the end of that marriage in the eyes of God. And yet Catholics can tolerate fellow citizens who are not Catholic calling their non-marriages marriages - because Catholics have already accepted a civil-religious distinction. They can wear both hats in the public square."
I've said similar (though not with such erudition) in many blog and news comments. We can have both civil marriage equality and respect for religious views of marriage.
"The reason the marriage debate is so intense is because neither side seems able to accept that the word "marriage" requires a certain looseness of meaning if it is to remain as a universal, civil institution. This is not that new. Catholics, for example, accept the word marriage to describe civil marriages that are second marriages, even though their own faith teaches them that those marriages don't actually exist as such. But most Catholics are able to set theological beliefs to one side and accept a theological untruth as a civil fact. After all, a core, undebatable Catholic doctrine is that marriage is for life. Divorce is not the end of that marriage in the eyes of God. And yet Catholics can tolerate fellow citizens who are not Catholic calling their non-marriages marriages - because Catholics have already accepted a civil-religious distinction. They can wear both hats in the public square."
I've said similar (though not with such erudition) in many blog and news comments. We can have both civil marriage equality and respect for religious views of marriage.
What Kind of Blog Am I?
According to typealyzer.com, The Rational Feast (and by extension, its author) is defined as:
"The logical and analytical type. They are especially attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about."
That's closer to the truth than I might have expected.
"The logical and analytical type. They are especially attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about."
That's closer to the truth than I might have expected.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Court Steps Back In
The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear suits brought by a variety of organizations on behalf of gay and lesbian couples affected by the passage of Proposition 8, and by religious and civil rights groups who worry that Proposition 8 will set an unfortunate precedent that could be used in the future to discriminate against churches and minority groups.
Briefs must be submitted by January 15 and oral arguments will be heard some time in March, with a decision expect within 90 days after that. It was in March of last year that arguments were heard before the Court in the in re: Marriage cases that led to the overturning of Proposition 22 and, ultimately, the approval of marriage equality in California and the placement on the ballot of Proposition 8.
The question is, is this a good thing for the community? The uproar from the right will be ear-splitting should the Court rule that Proposition 8 is actually a "revision" of the Constitution and not simply an amendment. "Activist judges" will likely not be enough of an expression of contempt, and I imagine Hannity and Limbaugh and Maggie Gallagher and the rest of the anti-equality cabal will have to develop a different, more censorious term. "Tools of Satan," perhaps? The churches will take to the streets just as we have. They will immediately begin efforts to recall the justices. They will work incessantly to remove from offices those legislators who refuse to pass a constitutional revision. (2/3 of the legislature would have to pass such a measure, and given that a majority of this same body twice passed legislation to create full marriage equality, that seems unlikely.)
There will be long-lingering animosity toward the gay community, and the issue may never fully resolve itself. But that's OK - it was never going to be fully resolved, even if we ended up winning the battle at the ballot box. For some people, same-sex marriage is always going to be intrinsically wrong, no matter how it comes to be legal.
What can the religious right do?
- It's virtually impossible for them to forward their agenda in the legislature as currently composed.
- It's unlikely they can vote out of office enough legislators to change that composition.
- They could appeal to the Ninth Court, and then to the SCOTUS, but it's unlikely they will win in either venue.
- If they lose at the US Supreme Court, they could attempt to re-introduce a Federal Marriage Amendment, but that's unlikely to gain the traction it needs (though it will certainly galvanize the opposition) to clear Congress. Even if it could, only 13 states have to reject the amendment.
Any of those reactions will take years to play out. And during that time, states with a combined population of 40 million (or more, if legislators in New York and New Jersey also approve marriage equality, and if the Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of equality) will have equal access to marriage.
The battle goes on!
Briefs must be submitted by January 15 and oral arguments will be heard some time in March, with a decision expect within 90 days after that. It was in March of last year that arguments were heard before the Court in the in re: Marriage cases that led to the overturning of Proposition 22 and, ultimately, the approval of marriage equality in California and the placement on the ballot of Proposition 8.
The question is, is this a good thing for the community? The uproar from the right will be ear-splitting should the Court rule that Proposition 8 is actually a "revision" of the Constitution and not simply an amendment. "Activist judges" will likely not be enough of an expression of contempt, and I imagine Hannity and Limbaugh and Maggie Gallagher and the rest of the anti-equality cabal will have to develop a different, more censorious term. "Tools of Satan," perhaps? The churches will take to the streets just as we have. They will immediately begin efforts to recall the justices. They will work incessantly to remove from offices those legislators who refuse to pass a constitutional revision. (2/3 of the legislature would have to pass such a measure, and given that a majority of this same body twice passed legislation to create full marriage equality, that seems unlikely.)
There will be long-lingering animosity toward the gay community, and the issue may never fully resolve itself. But that's OK - it was never going to be fully resolved, even if we ended up winning the battle at the ballot box. For some people, same-sex marriage is always going to be intrinsically wrong, no matter how it comes to be legal.
What can the religious right do?
- It's virtually impossible for them to forward their agenda in the legislature as currently composed.
- It's unlikely they can vote out of office enough legislators to change that composition.
- They could appeal to the Ninth Court, and then to the SCOTUS, but it's unlikely they will win in either venue.
- If they lose at the US Supreme Court, they could attempt to re-introduce a Federal Marriage Amendment, but that's unlikely to gain the traction it needs (though it will certainly galvanize the opposition) to clear Congress. Even if it could, only 13 states have to reject the amendment.
Any of those reactions will take years to play out. And during that time, states with a combined population of 40 million (or more, if legislators in New York and New Jersey also approve marriage equality, and if the Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of equality) will have equal access to marriage.
The battle goes on!
A Win for Religious Freedom
This decision by the Indiana Supreme Court seems like the correct one to me, even though the ACLU (whom I generally support) fought against it.
The case revolved around whether it was OK to have "In God We Trust" as a free option for license plates. From what I can gather, car owners had two free options for license plate phrases -- either "In God We Trust" or "Lincoln's Boyhood Home."
This seems fair and equitable to me -- believers can choose a plate that matches their beliefs, and any one who doesn't want the reference to God have a secular option. Not sure where the problem was with that in the first place.
Comments, anyone?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
And now, for something completely different...
In an attempt to begin to once again broaden the scope of The Rational Feast and move away from 24/7 Proposition 8, I present to you this photo of a cool item on etsy.com.
I'm liking how the artist combined a man's tie with suit coat fabric to create a pillow that would be perfect for a den or dad's easy chair.
Bravo.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Forgive them, for they know not what they do
The day before yesterday I received an e-mail from Marc Shaiman, a composer and musical director, whose main claim to fame is as the composer of "Hairspray," for which he and his partner won the Tony. OK, Marc didn't send it to me, it was forwarded.
Shaiman was writing to inform the world of how the artistic director of the California Musical Theater company in Sacramento (I knew it as "Music Circus" and saw several performances there) had donated $1000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Shaiman, rightfully incensed that a man who leads the creative process in a world where gay men make up a huge percentage of the creative talent both on and behind stage would so callously work against their interests, called for a boycott of CMT.
He got more than that. After a firestorm of e-mails and publicity, with many other theater professionals vowing to join the boycott, the artistic direction (Scott Eckern) resigned this morning. This is despite his issuing an apology yesterday and promising to donate an equivalent amount to the Human Rights Campaign.
As you can imagine, this has raised hackles on both sides of the issue. Those who support Eckern argue that he is entitled to express his personal opinion and that this has nothing to do with his job. Of course, those who were offended by Eckern's actions are also free to express their opinions by refusing to support his work.
My personal view would normally be that Eckern paid too high a price. He did apologize and match his donation, after all. Unfortunately, I think he deserves to lose his job -- not for his political opinion, but for sheer stupidity. Andrew Sullivan labeled him "Dumbest Man Alive" in a posting yesterday. I mean, really, you work every day with gay actors, writers, dancers, set designers, etc. and then you actively contribute to a law that would enshrine them in the Constitution as second-class citizens? It's not just stupid, it's thoughtless and cruel.
But wait, it gets worse. It turns out Eckern's sister is gay! That's right, he donated $1000 to help ensure that his sister and her partner could never enjoy the benefits of marriage. A man that displays that level of insensitive idiocy needs to find another job. Perhaps at a meat processing plant or a recycling yard or a toxic waste dump.
That said, let's move on to some more over-reactions to the Prop 8 vote. Apparently an activist group called "Bash Back" disrupted Sunday services at a church in Delta Township in Michigan. You can read the story here. You're not helping the cause, fellas. Hate can't be defeated with more hate. The only cure for hate and intolerance is love and understanding. Same thing is true for the morons who ripped a giant foam cross from the hands of an old woman who'd shown up at rally in Palm Springs protesting the passage of Prop 8. These idiots surrounded the woman, shouting at her and crushing the cross under their feet.
I wish I'd been there. We need to meet intolerance with understanding and hate with love and more love. We must counter stupidity with wisdom and fear-mongering with rationality.
We need to come together, not tear each other apart.
Shaiman was writing to inform the world of how the artistic director of the California Musical Theater company in Sacramento (I knew it as "Music Circus" and saw several performances there) had donated $1000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Shaiman, rightfully incensed that a man who leads the creative process in a world where gay men make up a huge percentage of the creative talent both on and behind stage would so callously work against their interests, called for a boycott of CMT.
He got more than that. After a firestorm of e-mails and publicity, with many other theater professionals vowing to join the boycott, the artistic direction (Scott Eckern) resigned this morning. This is despite his issuing an apology yesterday and promising to donate an equivalent amount to the Human Rights Campaign.
As you can imagine, this has raised hackles on both sides of the issue. Those who support Eckern argue that he is entitled to express his personal opinion and that this has nothing to do with his job. Of course, those who were offended by Eckern's actions are also free to express their opinions by refusing to support his work.
My personal view would normally be that Eckern paid too high a price. He did apologize and match his donation, after all. Unfortunately, I think he deserves to lose his job -- not for his political opinion, but for sheer stupidity. Andrew Sullivan labeled him "Dumbest Man Alive" in a posting yesterday. I mean, really, you work every day with gay actors, writers, dancers, set designers, etc. and then you actively contribute to a law that would enshrine them in the Constitution as second-class citizens? It's not just stupid, it's thoughtless and cruel.
But wait, it gets worse. It turns out Eckern's sister is gay! That's right, he donated $1000 to help ensure that his sister and her partner could never enjoy the benefits of marriage. A man that displays that level of insensitive idiocy needs to find another job. Perhaps at a meat processing plant or a recycling yard or a toxic waste dump.
That said, let's move on to some more over-reactions to the Prop 8 vote. Apparently an activist group called "Bash Back" disrupted Sunday services at a church in Delta Township in Michigan. You can read the story here. You're not helping the cause, fellas. Hate can't be defeated with more hate. The only cure for hate and intolerance is love and understanding. Same thing is true for the morons who ripped a giant foam cross from the hands of an old woman who'd shown up at rally in Palm Springs protesting the passage of Prop 8. These idiots surrounded the woman, shouting at her and crushing the cross under their feet.
I wish I'd been there. We need to meet intolerance with understanding and hate with love and more love. We must counter stupidity with wisdom and fear-mongering with rationality.
We need to come together, not tear each other apart.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Another Bit of Idiocy to Rail On
Today's idiocy? Laws against the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana. Click here for an interesting overview of how our nation's pot laws got to the point they are and why repealing them would be a smart idea.
Money quote: "Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Here is a quote regarding marijuana...
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.""
Money quote: "Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Here is a quote regarding marijuana...
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.""
Monday, November 10, 2008
Powerful as this is...
...I can imagine religious types responding to his invocation of the Golden Rule by saying "but what I would want others to do unto to me is to help keep me from sin. That's what I'm trying to do -- save gay people from continuing to live in a gravely sinful state."
Still Crushed
Tomorrow will be a week since the voters of California took the unprecedented step of removing rights from a group of people. The history of the state -- indeed, of the country -- has been one of extending rights, not limiting them. A week, and I still feel as crushed and deflated as I did when I saw the first returns and knew that what my gut had been telling me was right -- we are still too hated and misunderstood to be treated equally.
I read the blogs, I read the comments sections of news articles. I feel the anger, the hurt, the disappointment. I don't know what to do with it. How could all those millions of Californians have justified to themselves that it's OK to discriminate? To treat one group of people different from another?
And it's not just strangers. Our family has been friends with another family (mostly the parents) for more than 30 years. This lovely (or so I thought) couple have known me for more than three decades. They attend many of our family functions, including my mom's recent 90th birthday party. They have met my husband, greeted him warmly, laughed at the many funny things he says. Yet, I discovered (a few days before the election) that they had voted "yes" on 8 via their absentee ballot. These are not stupid, uninformed people. The husband owned a good-sized ad agency in San Francisco. But they helped to vote away my rights. I can't imagine what I might say to them should I ever see them on the street. (They live just a few miles from us.) It's certain I will never see them at another family event, because if anyone in my family had the audacity to invite them, they can't expect to enjoy my presence, as well.
So where do I go? We gay people are a tiny minority in this country. We have some political power, but apparently not enough. I have confidence that in 20 years, we will have full legal equality, but it seems clear that we will never be fully accepted. Or even truly tolerated. The "ick" factor will always be too much for most people.
I'm not ready to stop fighting for equality, but I'm not sure what strategy to employ. The only weapon I have at my disposal is logic and reason. And that hasn't worked. Our adversaries don't care about logic, apparently. Their fear is clearly too great to be overcome by logic. It's like a former friend of my husband's who -- when we were visiting Lake Tahoe together -- was afraid of a thunderstorm because he worried lightning would strike our 20+-story hotel and cause it to collapse. It was a base, irrational fear. But it was his fear, and nothing I said could make his heart beat any less quickly.
Far too many Californians are like that frightened little man -- and nothing I say can relieve their anxiety.
To all of you who have read this far, thanks for letting me vent on you.
I read the blogs, I read the comments sections of news articles. I feel the anger, the hurt, the disappointment. I don't know what to do with it. How could all those millions of Californians have justified to themselves that it's OK to discriminate? To treat one group of people different from another?
And it's not just strangers. Our family has been friends with another family (mostly the parents) for more than 30 years. This lovely (or so I thought) couple have known me for more than three decades. They attend many of our family functions, including my mom's recent 90th birthday party. They have met my husband, greeted him warmly, laughed at the many funny things he says. Yet, I discovered (a few days before the election) that they had voted "yes" on 8 via their absentee ballot. These are not stupid, uninformed people. The husband owned a good-sized ad agency in San Francisco. But they helped to vote away my rights. I can't imagine what I might say to them should I ever see them on the street. (They live just a few miles from us.) It's certain I will never see them at another family event, because if anyone in my family had the audacity to invite them, they can't expect to enjoy my presence, as well.
So where do I go? We gay people are a tiny minority in this country. We have some political power, but apparently not enough. I have confidence that in 20 years, we will have full legal equality, but it seems clear that we will never be fully accepted. Or even truly tolerated. The "ick" factor will always be too much for most people.
I'm not ready to stop fighting for equality, but I'm not sure what strategy to employ. The only weapon I have at my disposal is logic and reason. And that hasn't worked. Our adversaries don't care about logic, apparently. Their fear is clearly too great to be overcome by logic. It's like a former friend of my husband's who -- when we were visiting Lake Tahoe together -- was afraid of a thunderstorm because he worried lightning would strike our 20+-story hotel and cause it to collapse. It was a base, irrational fear. But it was his fear, and nothing I said could make his heart beat any less quickly.
Far too many Californians are like that frightened little man -- and nothing I say can relieve their anxiety.
To all of you who have read this far, thanks for letting me vent on you.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
The People Have Spoken?
Proposition 4, the parental notification measure on Tuesday's ballot, marked the third time the issue has been put to voters. The backers of the measure (which lost 52%-48%) now say they expect to try a fourth time. I don't have a problem with this; it's clearly their right to do so and it will be their money they spend in the attempt. As the father of a teenage daughter, I'm even sympathetic to their cause. (Though I voted "no" on 4 because I realize not every girl has parents who will react helpfully in a time-sensitive situation fraught with so many complications.) I also believe the optimum number of abortions ought to be zero.
However, I can already anticipate the outcry when marriage equality proponents begin the process of putting an initiative on the ballot to repeal Proposition 8: "What happened to the will of the people?!" "We already voted on that!" In the two elections since the first time parental notification initiatives were put forward, I haven't seen any commentary along those lines. And I read a lot. Why the difference?
However, I can already anticipate the outcry when marriage equality proponents begin the process of putting an initiative on the ballot to repeal Proposition 8: "What happened to the will of the people?!" "We already voted on that!" In the two elections since the first time parental notification initiatives were put forward, I haven't seen any commentary along those lines. And I read a lot. Why the difference?
Friday, November 07, 2008
Something Else for a Change
After all the campaigning and debate and disappointment of the past months, it's time to turn to something else for a moment. The blog has been focused almost exclusively on marriage equality for a long time. And if you look at the masthead above, you'll note that "golf" was intended to be one of the key subjects of The Rational Feast. So let's get back to it for a moment.
Yesterday I was this close to starting to call myself a "golfer." Long-time readers of the blog may remember I don't call myself a "golfer", but rather "someone who plays golf." I just haven't felt skilled enough to take on that moniker. Yet.
After taking two months away from the game due to injury, I recently picked up the clubs again. As an 18 handicap, I usually shoot in the mid-90s. I break 90 once in a while, have flirted twice with breaking 80, but can also shoot in the high-90s and even go over 100, especially on challenging courses. But in my first three rounds after the break I shot 91-89-89. The last 89 was on a pretty tough track, and 21 of those strokes came on just three holes.
Yesterday when I went out (on a gorgeous fall day) to my local course, I said to myself that if I could break 90 again I would start calling myself a golfer. The day started well, I nailed my drive straight down the middle. My approach landed a bit short and I ended up making bogey. But I followed that with two pars. The rest of the round I was up and down, but mostly consistent. I parred one of the toughest holes on the course (actually the toughest hole on the course, even though the scorecard doesn't list it as such), but then things started to fall apart a bit.
Between the 13th and 14th holes at this course there is a long uphill climb. Golfers in carts take the winding path up the hill, but walkers (like me) have a funicular (yes, a funicular) to take them to the 14th tee. Unfortunately, yesterday the lift was out of order so I had to make the long hike up. This took enough out of my legs that my next two tee shots were awful, causing me to go double-bogey, bogey. On top of this, I putted terribly, missing several four to five-foot putts that I ordinarily hole. Going into 18, I needed a birdie to break 90.
18 is a strange hole, a par 5 with almost a 90-degree dogleg right. I hit a beautiful 3-wood off the tee that faded perfectly, caught a cart path bounce and ended up in a great spot. I was in slightly thick grass, but I was only 180 yards from the green. I hit a solid hybrid to the front bunker -- then proceeded to shank the bunker shot. I was out of the sand, but left with a long breaking putt to make bird. I made a great stroke, but it didn't go in the hole. Then I missed the four-footer for par and ended with 91.
Oh well, time to start a new streak.
Conundrum
Every morning since Tuesday (I know, that's only three mornings, but I'm an impatient person) my first thought has been of the body blow the gay community took on election day. I'd like to move past the loss, accept it, and get on with the next step, whatever that is.
Herein lies the problem. What is the next step? Andrew Sullivan believes the best path is to forget the courts and do the hard work of convincing Americans that extending marriage equality is the right thing to do and to therefore achieve equality at the ballot box or in state legislatures. Bringing suits, he believes, will only result in backlash and bad feelings.
He has a point. I'd imagine a not-insignificant portion of Californians voted "yes" on 8 not because they didn't believe in marriage equality, but simply to teach the California Supreme Court a lesson about overturning the will of the people. If the suits that were filed the day after the election end up making their way to the US Supreme Court and the cause of equality prevails there (as it ought to, given the 14th Amendment) will we have won a legal battle but lost a larger, more important war? Americans may grudgingly accept same-sex marriage as a matter of law, but will equality always be stained by the fact that it was imposed upon the country by appointed judges and not elected officials or the American people themselves?
But what if African-Americans had waited until a majority of people felt they deserved equal access to education or the right to marry outside their race? How many more years would it have taken? Would they still be waiting for full equality? Although some extensions of civil rights (women's suffrage is the most important that comes to mind) have come through legislatures, many more had to be decreed and "forced" on the American people.
Of course, no court, no legislature -- not even a majority vote of the people -- can create acceptance. Loving v. Virginia gave interracial couples the right to marry, but I'm certain many still feel a twinge when they see a black man with a white woman. The law can be changed in a moment, but only time (and knowledge) will alter hearts and minds.
For me, the main problem with Sullivan's suggestion that we pursue electoral action is that people are very slow to change their minds. In the struggle to convince people that marriage equality is the right thing to do, we come too often to the impenetrable barrier of religious faith. Many millions of people believe there is an invisible superbeing that watches over us all and expects us to strictly follow rules established by books of mysterious provenance, filled with stories that would, if found on other pages, be considered "magic." No matter how rational or logical an argument you present to the more dogmatic among them, no matter how much evidence you provide, they can always fall back on "God says so" and that will -- for them -- settle any argument.
If Yes on 8 supporters had to back up their points with convincing evidence -- as they would in a court of law -- they'd have a very hard time prevailing. That's why Proposition 22 was declared unconstitutional -- because there is no rational reason to treat gay people differently under the law, even when it comes to civil marriage.
Unfortunately, voters don't have to be given rational reasons. They can say to themselves, "God wants it this way" and nothing can be done to sway them from that position. In California, if you can get a majority of people to agree with you, you can do almost anything -- at least until it runs up against the US Constitution. It happened with Proposition 2 in Colorado and could happen with Proposition 8 -- the SCOTUS could overturn it.
I'd rather have voters or the legislature extend equality, but to be honest, I'll take it any way I can get it.
Herein lies the problem. What is the next step? Andrew Sullivan believes the best path is to forget the courts and do the hard work of convincing Americans that extending marriage equality is the right thing to do and to therefore achieve equality at the ballot box or in state legislatures. Bringing suits, he believes, will only result in backlash and bad feelings.
He has a point. I'd imagine a not-insignificant portion of Californians voted "yes" on 8 not because they didn't believe in marriage equality, but simply to teach the California Supreme Court a lesson about overturning the will of the people. If the suits that were filed the day after the election end up making their way to the US Supreme Court and the cause of equality prevails there (as it ought to, given the 14th Amendment) will we have won a legal battle but lost a larger, more important war? Americans may grudgingly accept same-sex marriage as a matter of law, but will equality always be stained by the fact that it was imposed upon the country by appointed judges and not elected officials or the American people themselves?
But what if African-Americans had waited until a majority of people felt they deserved equal access to education or the right to marry outside their race? How many more years would it have taken? Would they still be waiting for full equality? Although some extensions of civil rights (women's suffrage is the most important that comes to mind) have come through legislatures, many more had to be decreed and "forced" on the American people.
Of course, no court, no legislature -- not even a majority vote of the people -- can create acceptance. Loving v. Virginia gave interracial couples the right to marry, but I'm certain many still feel a twinge when they see a black man with a white woman. The law can be changed in a moment, but only time (and knowledge) will alter hearts and minds.
For me, the main problem with Sullivan's suggestion that we pursue electoral action is that people are very slow to change their minds. In the struggle to convince people that marriage equality is the right thing to do, we come too often to the impenetrable barrier of religious faith. Many millions of people believe there is an invisible superbeing that watches over us all and expects us to strictly follow rules established by books of mysterious provenance, filled with stories that would, if found on other pages, be considered "magic." No matter how rational or logical an argument you present to the more dogmatic among them, no matter how much evidence you provide, they can always fall back on "God says so" and that will -- for them -- settle any argument.
If Yes on 8 supporters had to back up their points with convincing evidence -- as they would in a court of law -- they'd have a very hard time prevailing. That's why Proposition 22 was declared unconstitutional -- because there is no rational reason to treat gay people differently under the law, even when it comes to civil marriage.
Unfortunately, voters don't have to be given rational reasons. They can say to themselves, "God wants it this way" and nothing can be done to sway them from that position. In California, if you can get a majority of people to agree with you, you can do almost anything -- at least until it runs up against the US Constitution. It happened with Proposition 2 in Colorado and could happen with Proposition 8 -- the SCOTUS could overturn it.
I'd rather have voters or the legislature extend equality, but to be honest, I'll take it any way I can get it.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Retribution Coming?
Another one from the Volokh Conspiracy:
"To the 70% of black California voters (75% of black women voters) who supported Proposition 8, here's something to consider: it doesn't matter who's in the White House or who's in Congress, when you're applying for a job, what matters is who's reading your resume and what s/he does with it.
If your name is Lakesha, Darnell or anything similar, those of us who work in HR presume you're black. Because of the discrimination, exclusion and hate you chose to embrace and uphold, those of us who are gay and work in HR may now pause to consider whether we should contact you for an interview or simply place your resume at the bottom of the pile."
Can't say I'd do the same. But I understand the emotion behind it. Doesn't make it less wrong, though.
"To the 70% of black California voters (75% of black women voters) who supported Proposition 8, here's something to consider: it doesn't matter who's in the White House or who's in Congress, when you're applying for a job, what matters is who's reading your resume and what s/he does with it.
If your name is Lakesha, Darnell or anything similar, those of us who work in HR presume you're black. Because of the discrimination, exclusion and hate you chose to embrace and uphold, those of us who are gay and work in HR may now pause to consider whether we should contact you for an interview or simply place your resume at the bottom of the pile."
Can't say I'd do the same. But I understand the emotion behind it. Doesn't make it less wrong, though.
Concise, party of one?
It's an argument I have made on several occasions -- but never with more brevity than this:
"A frequently overheard slippery slope is:
Gay marriage = Less procreation = Human extinction.
But this slippery slope only works if we all become gay.
What process originating in gay marriage will make me divorce my wife and marry a man?
What process originating in gay marriage will make any appreciable number of straight people turn gay?"
From a commenter on the blog, Volokh Conspiracy.
"A frequently overheard slippery slope is:
Gay marriage = Less procreation = Human extinction.
But this slippery slope only works if we all become gay.
What process originating in gay marriage will make me divorce my wife and marry a man?
What process originating in gay marriage will make any appreciable number of straight people turn gay?"
From a commenter on the blog, Volokh Conspiracy.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Oh, The Irony!
Although some say the voting on Proposition 8 is still too close to call, with two million late absentee ballots still to be counted, I don't see a path that leads to the defeat of discrimination. I think, for now, we must accept that most Californians believe that our relationships are less deserving than theirs.
While that is a very bitter pill to swallow, I believe that one day we will drink from the cup of true equality. One day people will see the light and realize that love is love and that no one's commitment to care for another person has more value (in a legal sense) than anyone else's.
If Proposition 8 does indeed pass, I lay the blame on two groups: the LDS church and African-Americans. The Mormons donated massive amounts of cash (up to 70% of the bankroll for the Yes on 8 campaign)and African-Americans were the only demographic that voted for discrimination. Unfortunately, I think that neither of these two groups are sufficiently cognizant of the deep irony of their opposition to marriage equality.
The LDS church still suffers from an image of being a church that supported polygamy, a highly alternative view of traditional "one man, one woman" marriage. They were driven from more than one state, their leaders slain, in part because they held a non-traditional view of marriage. Yet today they marshal their not-inconsiderable resources to crush another form of non-traditional marriage.
But at least I can understand where their opposition comes from. And the discrimination against them ended, for all intents and purposes, over a century ago. What I cannot understand is how African-Americans, who still suffer from discrimination, can extend bigoted thinking to any other group of people. Though the spectre of racism still hangs above the heads of African-Americans, their battle for civil rights effectively ended with the election of one of their brothers to the highest office in the land. Yet, after throwing off their chains, instead of melting them down, they wrapped them around us. That I will never understand.
While that is a very bitter pill to swallow, I believe that one day we will drink from the cup of true equality. One day people will see the light and realize that love is love and that no one's commitment to care for another person has more value (in a legal sense) than anyone else's.
If Proposition 8 does indeed pass, I lay the blame on two groups: the LDS church and African-Americans. The Mormons donated massive amounts of cash (up to 70% of the bankroll for the Yes on 8 campaign)and African-Americans were the only demographic that voted for discrimination. Unfortunately, I think that neither of these two groups are sufficiently cognizant of the deep irony of their opposition to marriage equality.
The LDS church still suffers from an image of being a church that supported polygamy, a highly alternative view of traditional "one man, one woman" marriage. They were driven from more than one state, their leaders slain, in part because they held a non-traditional view of marriage. Yet today they marshal their not-inconsiderable resources to crush another form of non-traditional marriage.
But at least I can understand where their opposition comes from. And the discrimination against them ended, for all intents and purposes, over a century ago. What I cannot understand is how African-Americans, who still suffer from discrimination, can extend bigoted thinking to any other group of people. Though the spectre of racism still hangs above the heads of African-Americans, their battle for civil rights effectively ended with the election of one of their brothers to the highest office in the land. Yet, after throwing off their chains, instead of melting them down, they wrapped them around us. That I will never understand.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
A Little Empathy, Please
After all the debate, all the arguing, all the back and forth on the issue of marriage equality, today I want you to think about just one thing. I want you to imagine how it would feel if other people were allowed to vote on the validity of your relationship. How would you feel if millions of people were stepping into voting booths right now to decide whether YOUR marriage would be “valid or recognized”?
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Another Reason to Love Andrew Sullivan
Once again, he hits it dead center.
Money quote: "In so many ways, real conservatives should be rejoicing. How did such a marginalized group come to seek such a traditional way forward? And yet so many "conservatives", rather than hailing this socially positive development, demonized those of us who stood up for it, cast us out of respectable conservative discourse, and tried to do all they can to destroy and uproot our families.
It's an emblem of what went so horribly wrong with conservatism. Fixing it will be a critical element of putting it right. Until the Republican party finds a way to talk to gay and lesbian people and our families, they will fail to become a modern political movement."
Money quote: "In so many ways, real conservatives should be rejoicing. How did such a marginalized group come to seek such a traditional way forward? And yet so many "conservatives", rather than hailing this socially positive development, demonized those of us who stood up for it, cast us out of respectable conservative discourse, and tried to do all they can to destroy and uproot our families.
It's an emblem of what went so horribly wrong with conservatism. Fixing it will be a critical element of putting it right. Until the Republican party finds a way to talk to gay and lesbian people and our families, they will fail to become a modern political movement."
Equal -- on so many levels
Please click on this link. It's a simple, straightforward -- but very powerful -- affirmation of how ordinary our families are. How similar our lives are to heterosexual couples.
Money quote: "How much of your waking time is spent thinking about how you raise your children and the sort of people you want them to be? Do your children complain about going to religious services on the weekend, like mine do? Do they say, "Are you kidding me?," like it's a surprise, rather than your weekly routine? Do you have parents that you are also looking out for? Are you sometimes divided between the kids and your folks?"
Money quote: "How much of your waking time is spent thinking about how you raise your children and the sort of people you want them to be? Do your children complain about going to religious services on the weekend, like mine do? Do they say, "Are you kidding me?," like it's a surprise, rather than your weekly routine? Do you have parents that you are also looking out for? Are you sometimes divided between the kids and your folks?"
Children Will Listen, 2
Here is more evidence that the concerns of people that children will learn about same-sex marriage if Proposition 8 fails to pass are unfounded. Why? Because Prop 8 supporters gave the issue FAR more visibility by putting the issue on November's ballot.
Money quote: "The irony is that gay marriage has become the No. 1 topic of discussion on school playgrounds and sports practice fields precisely because of Proposition 8. The political battle has done far and away more to raise awareness of same-sex marriage among schoolchildren than the state Supreme Court's ruling in May ever would have. This last month has been a giant teachable moment on gay marriage -- which is probably not what Proposition 8's backers intended."
Money quote: "The irony is that gay marriage has become the No. 1 topic of discussion on school playgrounds and sports practice fields precisely because of Proposition 8. The political battle has done far and away more to raise awareness of same-sex marriage among schoolchildren than the state Supreme Court's ruling in May ever would have. This last month has been a giant teachable moment on gay marriage -- which is probably not what Proposition 8's backers intended."
Friday, October 31, 2008
Children Will Listen
From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"A reader writes:
My 7 year old just learned about gay marriage. Not form his school or teacher, but by the Yes on Prop 8 ad on radio while carpooling to school. He asked me about it and I gave an age appropriate answer. I have no doubt that many other kids will learn about the gay marriage thanks to prop 8 ads. I hope the theocrats realize the irony ...
Irony isn't their strong point."
It's a point I've been making lately with friends -- you can't keep sexuality in the closet for ever. As Jeff Goldblum said in "Jurassic Park": "Life finds a way."
"A reader writes:
My 7 year old just learned about gay marriage. Not form his school or teacher, but by the Yes on Prop 8 ad on radio while carpooling to school. He asked me about it and I gave an age appropriate answer. I have no doubt that many other kids will learn about the gay marriage thanks to prop 8 ads. I hope the theocrats realize the irony ...
Irony isn't their strong point."
It's a point I've been making lately with friends -- you can't keep sexuality in the closet for ever. As Jeff Goldblum said in "Jurassic Park": "Life finds a way."
Thursday, October 30, 2008
We've Made It To The Big Time!
You know you're doing well when people get so scared they compare you to Hitler and the Nazis.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Look to the Law
Read this story in today's Desert Sun, discussing an opinion released by 50 respected professors of law from around the state regarding the true impact of Proposition 8.
Money quote:
"These scholars concluded that Proposition 8:
• discriminates against gays and lesbians
• would have no effect on a church’s tax exemption
• would not effect education or parental rights
“We recognize that people of integrity can differ in their views of the meaning of marriage,” a news release said the scholars wrote.
“But people who want to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples should not rely on misleading claims about the current state of the law or about what Proposition 8 would do.”"
Money quote:
"These scholars concluded that Proposition 8:
• discriminates against gays and lesbians
• would have no effect on a church’s tax exemption
• would not effect education or parental rights
“We recognize that people of integrity can differ in their views of the meaning of marriage,” a news release said the scholars wrote.
“But people who want to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples should not rely on misleading claims about the current state of the law or about what Proposition 8 would do.”"
The Call Has Gone Out
The right are calling upon their invisible superbeing to save California from the menace my husband and I represent. Though their invisible superbeing can't vote, THEY can. So can you. Overwhelm suspicion. Defeat superstition. Don't let some people's mythologies to interfere with the rational process of governing ourselves as a community. Vote No on 8 -- and remind all your friends and family to do the same.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Eight Mile Laundry
In certain 'hoods, there's a tradition of battling with put-down rhymes in the manner of Eminem's movie, "Eight Mile." In the above, my favorite new commercial, a new white rap god arises.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Wasilla in Action
This may be the funniest thing you watch all week. Maybe all month. It is a one-man performed reading of the full transcript from a Wasilla City Council meeting from 1996, when Sarah Palin was either on the city council or mayor. (I'm not sure which, as 1996 is the year she was elected mayor.)
I don't know which is funnier/more tragic -- that the meeting was five minutes long, or that virtually all the five minutes was taken up with a discussion of refreshments. Either way, it's hysterical.
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Maestro Speaks
Violinist Itzhak Perlman reminding us the Proposition 8 is about nothing more than equal treatment under the law.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Blackmail?
The race just gets crazier and crazier. In addition to all the sign stealing (on both sides), now comes this. Apparently, the Yes on 8 campaign in San Diego sent as many as 30 letters to area businesses that had donated to No on 8, threatening that if they didn't make an equivalent donation to Yes on 8, they would publicize the companies' support of same-sex marriage rights. The Yes on 8 campaign admits sending the letters.
Not sure what they thought they were going to get, but I don't think publicity is what they were after.
Not sure what they thought they were going to get, but I don't think publicity is what they were after.
Monday, October 20, 2008
It's Already Happened
So let's decide HOW it's going to happen.
What has happened is that the concept of same-sex marriage has been heard by young children in the classroom. The proponents of prop 8 are trumpeting the field trip as evidence that marriage equality means children will be taught that "same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage." Not to burst anyone's bubble, but on a civil level, it is.
Kids need to know the truth. Kindergartners don't need to be taught a unit on the struggle for gay equality. In fact, sexuality and marriage don't need to enter the curriculum until junior high, at least. But what if one of the kids in a kindergarten class is being raised by two women? Or one kid casually mentions to another that his uncle got married to another guy -- and the classmate reacts strangely or even cruelly?
When the subject is raised -- for whatever reason -- when kids have questions, what should teachers do? Tell the kids to ask their parents? Possibly. But that could reinforce the perception of same-sex marriage as something to be ashamed of. (I know, lots of the Yes on 8 people secretly -- or not -- want homosexuality back in the closet, but since it's not going to be, they're going to have to get over it at some point.)
Or should teachers try to avoid the subject until they talk to parents? Or do you spend a few minutes of one class day talking in terms five-year olds can understand: "Though almost all boys one day find themselves really liking girls, some boys get a little older and find out they are attracted to other boys. Some girls discover they like other girls. That's how it is for Mitchell's two moms. It's sort of like being left-handed. We don't know why some people are, but it's wrong to treat anyone differently because of it." Something like that?
The point is, we shouldn't be arguing with the prop 8 proponents about whether discussions of same-sex marriage will happen in public schools. They will. They've been happening for years. Just like discussions of religion. So we need to talk about what we OUGHT to be teaching our children about the subject of civil rights and the "legal and financial aspects of marriage and parenting." That's why we have local schools -- so people can be involved in their children's education.
The field trip, for instance. (You know the one -- the other teachers arranged for a field trip to a fellow teacher's wedding for her young students. It's been a big dust-up in the blogs.) But where's the problem? Parents must always approve their child's attendance on ANY field trip. So if a same-sex wedding ceremony wasn't something you wanted your child to witness, you simply don't sign the permission form. As far as a wedding being an appropriate school activity for kids of that age, I bet it's happened before. I'm betting some kids were allowed to go see a teacher married in a civil ceremony. At some point, it's happened. Same-sex or traditional, a wedding can be a "teachable moment."
The Yes on 8 folks are cleaning our clocks on this issue. We're letting them control the debate. We need to shift the emphasis. Exactly how, I'm not sure yet. But we can't let the debate be about whether or not same-sex marriage will be discussed at all, but about when and how it ought to be in the curriculum so that parents' need for control over certain subjects can be balanced against children's need to understand the truth of how our society works.
Because the truth is, Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with what kids are taught in schools. Kids are going to learn about same-sex relationships -- in school and everywhere else -- no matter how the vote goes on November 4.
What has happened is that the concept of same-sex marriage has been heard by young children in the classroom. The proponents of prop 8 are trumpeting the field trip as evidence that marriage equality means children will be taught that "same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage." Not to burst anyone's bubble, but on a civil level, it is.
Kids need to know the truth. Kindergartners don't need to be taught a unit on the struggle for gay equality. In fact, sexuality and marriage don't need to enter the curriculum until junior high, at least. But what if one of the kids in a kindergarten class is being raised by two women? Or one kid casually mentions to another that his uncle got married to another guy -- and the classmate reacts strangely or even cruelly?
When the subject is raised -- for whatever reason -- when kids have questions, what should teachers do? Tell the kids to ask their parents? Possibly. But that could reinforce the perception of same-sex marriage as something to be ashamed of. (I know, lots of the Yes on 8 people secretly -- or not -- want homosexuality back in the closet, but since it's not going to be, they're going to have to get over it at some point.)
Or should teachers try to avoid the subject until they talk to parents? Or do you spend a few minutes of one class day talking in terms five-year olds can understand: "Though almost all boys one day find themselves really liking girls, some boys get a little older and find out they are attracted to other boys. Some girls discover they like other girls. That's how it is for Mitchell's two moms. It's sort of like being left-handed. We don't know why some people are, but it's wrong to treat anyone differently because of it." Something like that?
The point is, we shouldn't be arguing with the prop 8 proponents about whether discussions of same-sex marriage will happen in public schools. They will. They've been happening for years. Just like discussions of religion. So we need to talk about what we OUGHT to be teaching our children about the subject of civil rights and the "legal and financial aspects of marriage and parenting." That's why we have local schools -- so people can be involved in their children's education.
The field trip, for instance. (You know the one -- the other teachers arranged for a field trip to a fellow teacher's wedding for her young students. It's been a big dust-up in the blogs.) But where's the problem? Parents must always approve their child's attendance on ANY field trip. So if a same-sex wedding ceremony wasn't something you wanted your child to witness, you simply don't sign the permission form. As far as a wedding being an appropriate school activity for kids of that age, I bet it's happened before. I'm betting some kids were allowed to go see a teacher married in a civil ceremony. At some point, it's happened. Same-sex or traditional, a wedding can be a "teachable moment."
The Yes on 8 folks are cleaning our clocks on this issue. We're letting them control the debate. We need to shift the emphasis. Exactly how, I'm not sure yet. But we can't let the debate be about whether or not same-sex marriage will be discussed at all, but about when and how it ought to be in the curriculum so that parents' need for control over certain subjects can be balanced against children's need to understand the truth of how our society works.
Because the truth is, Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with what kids are taught in schools. Kids are going to learn about same-sex relationships -- in school and everywhere else -- no matter how the vote goes on November 4.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
It's Official
I was married on Monday. In a small, private ceremony, my beloved and I stood with a few family members, looked into each other’s eyes and promised to love each other, to look out for each other’s best interests, and to care for and support each other for the rest of our days, no matter what obstacles life puts in our path.
We want this marriage to last a lifetime. But we are afraid if too many Californians listen to lies and fear-mongering and vote “yes” on Proposition 8, our marriage might last only 23 days.
What can I say to convince you to defeat this perhaps well-intentioned but profoundly misguided effort to eliminate the right of couples such as my partner and I to marry? I know that for many people, there is nothing I can say. But I will try anyway.
Do you worry your church will be forced to marry same-sex couples?
It won’t. The Supreme Court decision that began this era of marriage equality said exactly the opposite: “no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
Are you concerned about what children may be taught in school about sexuality?
The only thing mandated by the state is that children be taught “the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” For parenthood, you will have to discuss sex at some point. But the legal and financial aspects of civil marriage? No need at all to discuss sex or sexuality to teach those lessons.
Worried about changing the definition of the word “marriage”?
I’m sorry, but we need to use that word, too. Domestic partnerships are important, but you know as well as we there’s something profound about the relationship to which we give the name “marriage.” It’s special to us, too. If you can allow Britney Spears’ 55-hour Vegas vindaloo to be called a “marriage,” surely you can allow my rather mundane (however extraordinary it is to me) example of mutual affection and caring to be called one as well.
Are you worried about children? How they “deserve to be raised by both a mother and a father?”
What if, hypothetically, I conceded that was the case? How does denying marriage equality do anything to further that goal? Does anyone seriously believe if Proposition 8 passes that gay people are suddenly going to look for opposite sex partners and start having children?
Of course not. How, then, does my marriage (to a delightful, loving man who is as interested in my well-being and happiness as I am in his) somehow translate into harm for more traditional families?
Gay people aren't going away, even if one of our rights might be.
We didn’t stop being gay when we were teased or abused on the playground because of who we are. We didn’t stop being gay when our parents disowned us because of who we are. Or when we were fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes because of it. When we could be arrested and jailed because of it.
Or beaten, tied to a fence and left to die.
If we didn't give up being queer after enduring all we have -- do people imagine we will forsake our identities because too many Californians refuse to recognize that our civil, legal arrangements with each other – our paperwork – deserve to be equal to yours?
The Yes on 8 campaign has almost $10 million more than those fighting for my rights have. The LDS church alone has raised 40% of the other side’s war chest, already has a very large and effective army in place, and is recruiting more volunteers from out-of-state to fight against equality. The campaign is allying themselves with other well-organized churches. They fill the airwaves with lies and appeals to base and groundless fears. To be honest, I tremble at the thought of them.
But I stand my ground. Because I stand on truth. I stand on the Constitution. All are to receive equal treatment under the law.
Unfortunately, many voters disagree with me. Proposition 8 may pass, and our marriage (at least the paperwork) could ultimately be “valid or recognized” for a mere three weeks and two days.
We must – all fair-minded Californians must, no matter how we feel about same-sex marriage – not vote to eliminate anyone else’s fundamental rights. If we miss this opportunity to guarantee equality, we may not have another chance for a generation or more.
Those of us who are closer to the end of our lives than the beginning may not, as Dr. King said, get to the mountaintop ourselves. But we can all take a giant step toward the promised land of equality for all by voting “No” on Proposition 8.
We can also help forward the cause of marriage by making a donation to Equality for All, the organization leading the fight against Proposition 8. There are approximately one million gay people in California -- but only 30,000 people have made donations to the No on 8 effort. (Hard to believe Bob and I are responsible for 1/1000 of those donors!) And lots of those were straight people. If all the gay folks got together and gave even $10 each, we'd be in great shape for these last two weeks of the campaign. Click here to make a donation. $10, $100, $1000 -- whatever you can do. It's important.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Favorite New Blog
I've only read a handful of posts, but so far I'm in love with The Liberal Mormon That Could. It's written by a young LDS wife and mother trying to make sense of the intolerance her church is spreading. It's beautifully done. Give her a read.
Still Some Open LDS Minds
Click here for an interesting point of view from a 28-year old software engineer from Provo, Utah. He discusses the recent broadcast by LDS church leaders on Proposition 8, pointing out the many examples of mendacity and fear-mongering engaged in by high level leaders of the church.
Money quote: "The circular logic surrounding modern-day prophets is mind-numbing. When one looks at racist statements by past leaders like Brigham Young or fallacious teachings of Bruce R. McConkie, people are quick to point out that prophets are imperfect. But then people readily immediately accept every word from present leaders of the church. Apparently, prophets only become fallible once they've passed on, how convenient. If prophets really are fallible (as has been shown, numerous times) then members of the church would be wise to not blindly accept, but really think things through thoroughly. Unfortunately, people are quick to follow the advice of N. Eldon Tanner, "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over." People's ability to accept leaders' fallibility at the same moment as denying their fallibility is stunning."
Money quote: "The circular logic surrounding modern-day prophets is mind-numbing. When one looks at racist statements by past leaders like Brigham Young or fallacious teachings of Bruce R. McConkie, people are quick to point out that prophets are imperfect. But then people readily immediately accept every word from present leaders of the church. Apparently, prophets only become fallible once they've passed on, how convenient. If prophets really are fallible (as has been shown, numerous times) then members of the church would be wise to not blindly accept, but really think things through thoroughly. Unfortunately, people are quick to follow the advice of N. Eldon Tanner, "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over." People's ability to accept leaders' fallibility at the same moment as denying their fallibility is stunning."
Oh. My. God.
The above is the latest screed from the Republicans in their attempt to remind voters that Barack Obama is, well...black. If his skin color wasn't a dead giveaway, they reinforce the point with a bucket of fried chicken, a slice of watermelon and his face on a fake "food stamp."
And this happened in California, not Louisiana or Alabama. Do we really live in 2008?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Show us the money, Ellen!
Ellen de Generes has finally gotten involved in the battle over Proposition 8. She's made a 30-second spot that is accessible from her show website. Yet, despite the millions she has earned from her tv shows and concert dates, so far no donation to the campaign. Her mother, Betty, however, has given $700. I'm certain I have far less than Betty de Generes, and I've given more than that already and have plans to give more.
So Ellen -- love you, love almost everything about you, thinking about being you for Halloween...but WHERE'S THE MONEY?! We have the ads in place that will counter the lies the other side is spreading, but we need cash to get them on the air. Come on, write a check. If Brad Pitt can drop $100K, you can do a million, can't you? Please, please write the check. Today.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Connecticut Too!
A few moments ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court reached the same decision the California Supreme Court did, ruling that the state's civil union law wasn't equal enough and opening the door for marriage equality in the state.
I'm not sure what to make of this decision in terms of the California battle over Proposition 8. Will it convince undecided voters that marriage equality truly is the future? Or will it harden the hearts of those who fret over the specter of "activist" judges? Maybe a little of both.
Update: This link is a more complete story than the link above.
I'm not sure what to make of this decision in terms of the California battle over Proposition 8. Will it convince undecided voters that marriage equality truly is the future? Or will it harden the hearts of those who fret over the specter of "activist" judges? Maybe a little of both.
Update: This link is a more complete story than the link above.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Well Done!
My team did a good job. It makes a good point -- no matter how you feel about same-sex marriage, do you really want to take away some people's fundamental rights?
It won't do anything for the true fundies, but I think it's the right "one thing" you can tell undecideds in 30 seconds.
Fox: See No Obama Supporters, Hear No Obama Supporters...
Count the hands. But hey, if denial works for them, who am I to argue?
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
