Taking an "in your face" approach, PepsiCo sent a public message of support for the homosexual agenda. The company ran a full-page ad in the June/July issue of Out, a semi-pornographic homosexual magazine. The magazine is filled with page after page of nude and semi-nude photographs of men in suggestive positions.
First I raced home to see what the fuss was all about and found...no nudes. Bummer.
Being summer, there was a swimsuit fashion spread that featured men in swimsuits. Hmmmm...in a fashion mag. Really? Seriously though, using their criteria, any fashion magazine on the racks at your local drugstore qualifies as semi-pornographic. Oh, except it's usually women in those suggestive, semi-nude positions, so maybe that makes it okay?
Even if the AFA were to agree that all fashion mags are semi-pornographic, which they might, I've never been alerted by them about the various companies that promote themselves in Cosmo....or Elle, or Esquire for that matter. I keep an eye on AFA materials to see just what sort of lies they're spreading, and couldn't let this one go without a comment. Once again they are trying to punish a company for a willingness to believe that life should be about love and honesty and not about outdated social mores; and they're using outright lies to try and push their point.
I'm usually a Coca-Cola type of guy, but this is one time when the Cola war needs my support on the other side, so I'm shouting it here from my little corner of the internet soapbox: I am a very out and proud member of the Pepsi generation.
I can't stop coughing and sneezing and my body has sprung a constant snot leak that finally turned into a minor migraine this morning. I didn't get to go in to Boston myself as I planned, but I have to say my piece to the tens of folks who read this. Not because I feel I need to change your mind, most of you are already on my side, but because it needs to be said in as many places and with as many voices as possible and I will not be a silent Who.
Today there were rallies. in Boston. As you can read in the article, some folks ridicule us for speaking up here in Massachusetts where our right to marry is still valid.
To those folks and also to those who are saying that the voters in California already decided and we should leave the protests to them, I have this to say. The incredibly large sum given to the proponents of prop 8 by the Mormon Church which is located in Utah nullify any of your out-of-state support arguments. As for the vote, it was a rather narrow margin that allowed that bill to pass. If it hadn't been for the hate-filled, negative advertising funded largely by out-of-state agencies that blitzed the airwaves the week before the election, the majority may have cemented the marriages of my friends in California vs. putting them into a state of uncertain limbo.
I am for equality. I'm not looking for the government to force churches to accept gay marriage...just that they be recognized by the government the same way that my brother's recent union to his wonderful wife is recognized. If that means taking away his right to marry and coining a new word for those rights, I'll be happy about it. Marriage, they argue is a religious thing...so coin a new word for it...say PARTNERING or some such, and let that be what we call it from now on...for everyone both gay and straight. I want to be very clear here, recognizing civil unions - while a step in the right direction - is too close to a certain "separate but equal" philosophy that still leaves me as a second class citizen. It's marriage (or partnering if that's what it takes)or nothing. We will keep marching, we will keep standing up for ourselves, and we will eventually win. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this seems to be a generational issue and I have no doubts that it's a matter of years, not decades before this becomes an issue to be studied in history books, not current events.
So to all my brothers, sisters and siblings in-between who went out in support of equality today, I say thank you. I couldn't make it in person, but I was there in spirit. We're here, we're queer and we're going to be equal!
I'm happy that certain people I've known in life will have a harder time hiding. The people who pretend to be color blind for the most part, but think nothing of whispering a racist comment to me because I happen to be a white man.
This sort of person has always bugged me more than the overt racist. The second I point out that their comment isn't fair, they say, "But some of my best friends are black!" This is usually followed by, "Besides I love Oprah!" (or Denzel or Will Smith or whomever else happens to be hip at the moment) I've never met the black friends of these folks, but then I don't usually get to know these folks very well after they start making those comments. Even if these friends of theirs did exist, it doesn't give them license to dismiss the rest of that racial subset. I don't have the right to go around saying that other women are weak and less intelligent than men just because I happen to be friends with one or two of them. Besides, my mother would run over my toes if I ever said anything like that.
I'm happy for the country. There'll be some growing pains for sure, but already I'm hearing from friends outside the US that they're impressed that we can indeed make a change for the better and maybe, just maybe, can move back into a good place on the world's playground instead of being seen as the class dunce/bully who everyone both hates and pities.
On the other hand, we lost on prop 8 in CA. A very close race, but it passed. The fact is that blacks and whites may finally be ready to play together, but gays are still not allowed in the same game. We're still dealing with separate but equal which isn't equal at all.
Good news is that those under 29 voted pretty strongly with us. Those 30 to 64 were pretty evenly split. It was the 64+ age bracket that voted strongly against us. In another decade we'll have a much better shot at getting equal treatment. Until then, I remain a second class citizen.
Don't believe the polls. They can be twisted and turned and things are really too close right now for anyone to rest easy.
Want to know how to vote? I heartily recommend a helping of Obama with a side dish of NO on Prop 8. (That particular side is only available for tables located in California. I'm not there anymore, but I'm counting on you folks who are there to do the right thing and vote against discrimination.)
As for MA...I'm voting NO on question 1. It bugs me that people are trying to sell it by saying that it'll force the government to cut the fat. Call me a cynic, but it's obvious to me that they'll only cut things I care about and leave all the pork intact.
On question 2, it should be no surprise that I'm voting YES. I've been pretty vocal in my support for the legalization of all drugs. If someone wants a drug, they'll find a way to get it. Making them illegal only creates crime and deprives the government of a rather lucrative revenue stream in the taxes they would generate. (Total legalization would also throw organized crime for a loop and this tickles me.) But this isn't about all drugs, it's just about a very minor one and my feelings on that are simple. It has always bugged me that marijuana is illegal when alcohol - which I've seen destroy many more lives - remains legal. There you go. Either bring back prohibition or decriminalize marijuana, but be fair. And don't bother telling me about your cousin Henry, the pothead who is wasting his life. I'd rather deal with a pothead than an alcoholic any day.
As for the greyhound question...I can't help it, I'm a sucker for sad little animal commercials. (I still won't eat veal because of the PETA ads back in the 80's.) I'm voting yes.
I used to think I'd be pretty happy with just about anyone who isn't part of this current administration. There's also the fact that no matter who gets it, the problems our country faces right now are so big that pretty much anyone elected will most likely be crucified within a year or two for not being able to fix everything and tie it up in a shiny red, white and blue bow.
I've been pretty undecided between Obama and Clinton. They both have points in their favor and I've wavered between them over the past few months; sometimes leaning toward the message of change and hope that Obama preaches and sometimes thinking that Hillary is much more aware of the reality of the presidency and might get more done. I do believe that successful politics are usually a matter of ugly compromise, something that Hillary might protest against, but has proven adept at in the past.
It all came down to the telephone.
This morning Jack Nicholson called and urged me to vote for Hillary. Funny that...and rather clever. I detest the automated phone calls that have become so prevalent prior to any election these days, but that one made me smile. Sure, I immediately hung up on Mr. Crankypants, but that was part of the joy of the call. Who wouldn't get a thrill hanging up on Jack?
Then, less than 45 minutes later, Bill called. (as in Mr. Hillary) I once again hung up, though not with the same thrill as hanging up on Jack. After all, Mr. Bill is a successful politician and I've just stated my opinion on that: very happy that someone else is willing to lie down with the snakes, but not necessarily someone I want to listen to over my morning coffee.
The phone rang again and Bill's prerecorded message started up for a second time. Hang up....and then a third. He wouldn't listen to me as I asked him to shut up and it struck me as the main problem with most politicians. They don't actually listen to what the public wants, just spout on about what they think the public should want and try to capture us with the one issue we're supposed to care about.
The one thing that Barack keeps going on about is that we're not a nation of either This or That, to be easily carved up into politically-friendly bite size pieces. Instead we're a nation of people who've forgotten that we need to embrace our differences as well as our similarities in order to succeed. I remember a demographic study I sat through back in my Marketing days, shortly after the last election. It had a map showing the country in varying shades of purple instead of solid red and blue states. We're really not as different as the media tries to make out. Sure, I'm the last person to claim there aren't divisive issues that separate some groups from others, but people voting for a candidate because of a single issue is part of what got our country into the mess it's in today. (that and an archaic electoral system, but that's another rant for another day)
So, annoying phone call or not, Bill and Jack made me think about where I want to be standing when the chips are down. Call me a sucker, an idealist or both, but I'm going out today and voting for Obama. I'm going to believe that someday we all can decide to get along and make this country great again. Not by giving up our differences, but by accepting them and moving forward towards a common goal.
G's been reading to me about a recent NYT poll that shows that we, as gay men, are still very much second class citizens, and that most people wish we'd just go away.
We're talking civil unions here too. While opinions on that issue are more evenly split, slightly over half the respondents felt these unions were somehow threatening to their way of life. Why?
"I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was," said Ziad Nimri, 41, a salesman and a Democrat who lives in Spokane, Wash. "I don't want my children to start getting ideas. They see it's out in the open and you see men kissing men on television these days."
Mr. Nimri said he was also worried that if gays were allowed to marry, they would get other rights too, like tax benefits. "Because they're a minority, they're going to start actually giving them more privileges than normal people would have," he said. "Minorities always tend to get more than your average person does."
Let me be clear here. I don't want any special rights. I want the same rights that anyone else gets when choosing a life partner.
The fact that it was 1967 before the Supreme Court struck down the anti-miscegenation laws doesn't give me too much hope right now. Back then (all of 36 years ago), they decided that the freedom to marry whom one chooses is one of the "vital personal rights" protected under the 14th Amendment. That worked for interracial couples, but the truth is that many people don't think we gays belong with the persons mentioned in Section 1 of that amendment. In fact, if it weren't for the 15th Amendment, some people would still argue that any races other than Caucasion were inferior. That's my point. If it took nearly a century for the courts to make the logical leap from the amendment to actually supporting equal treatment, how long will it take before gays get the chance? We don't even have an amendment granting us any rights, let alone special ones.
Marriage can be seen as both a religious union and a civil one. If it's only the former, then there should be no civil liberties granted to any couple joined by the church. If it is truly also the latter, then there should be no discrimination based upon the gender one chooses to partner with. The only stricture should be that the parntership is between two consenting adults.
Period. End of story.
BTW, anyone who isn't outraged by the fact that gays are still considered morally inferior folk and yet thinks of me as a friend, I have only this to say. "Hey Saul, have fun holding those cloaks!"
Yesterday, my cubemate C and I called each other "Citizen" all day in anticipation of voting in the evening. (and a chance to leave a wee bit early) I'm happy to say that for the most part the results matched my voting sheet. Didn't get my candidate into the mayoral runoff race, (sorry Angela!) but Hallinan made it into the runoff for DA.
The only prop that passed, that I wish hadn't, was M. We already have panhandler regulations in place and it just goes too far. It also doesn't feel right to basically outlaw begging. Technically, under the new rules, Girlscouts could be fined for selling cookies at the corner of 18th and Castro. (of course they won't be, that's why this law isn't fair....just because a homeless person may not be as cute as a Girl Scout doesn't mean he/she has less rights to ask for money)
Just read through Props A-N for the upcoming election and my brain hurts. The voter information pamphlet is exactly 200 pages long. I think that pamphlets should not exceed 2-4 pages. 200 pages is a novella.
The good news is that the "pamphlet", along with a little online research, has made me feel confident about my choices for the three elected offices on the ballet and propositions A-M. (I got to Prop N and my head went numb.) I'll have another crack at it tomorrow during lunch and vote in the evening on the way home from work.
It's just Ah-nold. Our new governor. Gotta just hope for the best on this one. After all, no one's really sure where he stands on the issues. We may end up being pleasantly surprised while the Repubs may be dismayed. Yup, that's me...always looking for the rainbow in the middle of a hurricane.
I have just, for the first time ever, taken the content of this site and burned it to a disc. The whole thing, pictures and all, is only 7 megabytes. I am filled with a sense of peace knowing that know I am finally safe if the servers crash. I'm such a geek that I'm contemplating making a copy of the disc and bringing it with me to Boston to place in the family safety deposit box in case something cataclismic ever happens here in the Bay Area. (the servers are also located close to the San Andreas fault)
I do like going to the safety deposit box. Gives me a thrill as if I were in some James Bond flick. Oh hush up all of you, I already owned the geek thing.
In other happy news: The California State Assembly passed AB 205.
AB 205 would provide couples who are registered as domestic partners with the state of California protections such as child custody and child support requirements, the right to make funeral arrangements, community property, financial support during and after a relationship, mutual responsibility for debts, and death benefits for surviving partners of police and firefighters.
From an e-mail I recieved from LAGLC - I'm being lazy and cutting and pasting.
Trying not to harp on it too much, but today I actually heard the following exchange between two people at the crosswalk on the way to FedEx:
Person 1: I do feel bad for the people living there. It's gotta be hard to have bombs going off over your head all day.
Person 2: Well, what do they expect? They hit us on 9/11, this is what they get!
Myself screaming silently in my head: HELLOOOO! The people responsible for 9/11 are not why we're in Iraq right now. Blaming the Iraqi people for that travesty is the equivalent of blaming US Citizens for a corrupt Mexican police force. (grant you there's a difference in the heinousity scale there, but the analogy remains valid)
