Musical Moments
I haven't heard this song in a while, but it came up on my playlist today. Mulan was released in 1998. My wife and I had agreed we would separate just before Thanksgiving 1998. We waited for the holidays to pass, and I moved out January 5, 1999. Needless to say 1998 was a rough year. I remember being floored by this song the first time I saw the movie. Even now hearing it again brings back all those feelings of inadequacy and seeing no way for things to ever change.
It may even have been this song that started my long slide to leaving the church and coming out. It articulated how I was feeling so perfectly. It almost felt like someone was trying to tell me something. If that song started it, this one cinched it.
(Try and get past the awful music video. I'm making a serious point here.) Footloose was originally released in 1984. Being completely clueless, I hadn't figured out I was gay at the time, even though I totally related to that song and felt that yearning for a prince charming come to rescue me. I did say I was completely clueless.
Fast forward to 1999. For the 15 year anniversary of Footloose's release, the soundtrack was remastered and released. Having always had an emotional connection to that soundtrack, I bought the CD. I got it home, popped it into my computer and gave it a listen. Bonnie Tyler's song came on and I suddenly felt like I had been put into a time machine and transported back to 1984. It was like I was 17 again. Nothing about how I felt about that song had changed. I knew then that if nothing in the intervening 15 years had done anything to alter the way that song made me feel, nothing ever would.
Of dishonesty and blinders
Interesting isn't it, when science can't explain the origin of the universe or the true nature of matter, it's a sign of the Hand of God. Proof that the Creator exists and has knowledge and designs that are beyond the feeble comprehension of man. But when science can't explain the origins of homosexuality, there's no Hand of God. There are no designs beyond the comprehension of men. It's just sin.
Please. Get some work done.
Over at thinkprogress.org, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) is quoted on the subject of gay marriage.
So, pretty soon, if you don’t set parameters, you don’t have any parameters at all, the license means nothing — the marriage means nothing. It’s their right to marry whoever they want, but we’re saying marriage is between a man and a woman. So, there’s a difference there. But it’s not a right in the Constitution as far as that goes either. It’s not a right of anybody — of a 3-year-old to be able to drive a car. You know, the government has set some parameters that they think is correct.
OK. Having worked as a counselor for troubled adolescents, I would be happy to testify that the license doesn't mean anything as it is. It's little more than a genital check. I once worked with a young man whose parents, heterosexuals as it happens, were both on disability for mental health issues. They had produced three children, all of them struggling, at least two of them basically living on the streets, because their parents are barely capable of functioning as individuals, much less as parents. But as long as there's a penis and a vagina involved society conservatives don't care. We can't interfere with an individual's God given right to f*** up their kids.
If the government is setting parameters, they need to justify said parameters with real, measurable outcomes that demonstrate the state has an interest in monitoring and controlling said outcomes. I have yet to see any such data regarding GLBT folk. In fact, the data currently suggests GLBT folk are no better or worse at parenting than their heterosexual counterparts. Therefore, the state has no interest in preventing GLBT people from marrying. On the other hand, how much money do you think the state spends on treatment and incarceration of adolescents and adults who come from dysfunctional homes? It would seem there's a manifest budgetary consideration, but the state chooses not to involve itself in questions of parental fitness for heterosexuals...that is until it's too late and the damage is already done. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?
A 3-year-old and a car...really? That's just stupid and absurd. A 3-year-old is incapable of driving a car. A paraplegic is incapable of running a footrace. A blind person is incapable of describing the color of a sunset. GLBT folk are perfectly capable of loving and bonding. A more correct analogy would be forbidding someone a driving license because they are missing a finger on each hand and cannot therefore grip the wheel in exactly the same way as 10-fingered individuals.
I once saw a sign at a little tourist shop in Austria that said, "Vor inbetriebnahme des Mundwerkes Gehirn einschallten." Roughly translated: Before opening mouth, engage brain. I swear some conservatives don't even have a working clutch.
<blink>
An Out magazine on a newsstand? In 7-Eleven? In Sandy? Is the world coming to and end?
You just never know
This morning on the Diane Rhem show she interviewed Edward Albee the playwright who wrote Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? When I tuned in, he was relating how the movie studio didn't keep to their original vision of the movie based on Albee's play as described to him. He talked about how the character Martha was 52 in the play, but 32 in the movie and was intended to be 20 years her husband George's senior, but is six years his junior in the movie. He made light of the fact that the verbal agreement he had with the studio "wasn't worth the paper it wasn't written on." Nevertheless he thought the movie was well done, well acted and well directed.
The first caller was a gentleman who called to talk about an all male production of the play he had participated in. I'm sure he was expecting a response along the lines of "That's an interesting idea. How did it go? Was it well received?" But that's not what he got. Albee's response: "I wouldn't have let you do that." You could tell the caller was taken aback by Albee's outright rejection of the idea. He fumbled with his words. He tried to talk about the success of the production, that it was very well received. He also talked about how strictly faithful they were to the script, the only change that was made was to substitute Martha for a man named Richard. I don't remember how many times Albee repeated "I wouldn't have let you do that." He wouldn't engage with the caller at all. He just kept repeating "I wouldn't have let you do that." He did ask if the men were in drag or if they had substituted a gay male for a heterosexual female. When the caller affirmed the second option, Albee's once again stated, "I wouldn't have let you do that. It hardly seems the same to me." (paraphrasing) Apparently he would have been okay with men in drag. There is, after all, a long standing (sexist) tradition in theater of men in drag acting female parts.
I was also disappointed in Diane's response to this interchange. Rather than trying to encourage Albee to engage on the topic, she affirmed his statements and said, "Well, [caller] you've heard it from the source." So much for the journalist who asks hard questions of her guests. I guess if you're a well-known playwright you get a pass. At the very least she could have asked him to elaborate on what exactly the differences are as he sees them. I guess I'm going to have to see the play/movie now. Based on the synopsis I've read, I have a hard time seeing how the sex of the couple is even relevant.
I really felt for the caller. I'm sure the caller expected a playwright with a reputation writing plays that are "are considered well-crafted, often unsympathetic examinations of the modern condition" to be more open to the idea or at the very least to not completely shut down the conversation. I don't know enough about Albee's work to know if the caller's expectations were off base or not. Still, it just goes to show you that you never know how someone is going to react to the subject of homosexuality. In fact, in my experience, it's these types of situations that hurt the most. You go in expecting an affirming response—or worst case, a neutral response—and you walk away feeling sucker punched by hostility.
It also goes to show that even in our more "enlightened" age, there is still a lot of stunning ignorance, even among those we hope are our friends.
Quote of the Day
There’s no reason that the government should prevent homosexuals from entering civil marriages because some religions object to the concept, any more than the government should ban atheism because some religions object to it.
Lisa Pampuch
I don't know who Lisa Pampuch is. There are dozens of her on the Net. I couldn't find the original source of the quote either, but it's everywhere. I'm thinking it has something to do with how eminently reasonable it is. Of course, as this Lisa Pampuch points out, reason has little to do with the religious experience.
When asked what he would do if Camping* is wrong again, Rick LaCasse, who witnessed Camping’s 1994 failure, said: “I can’t even think like that. Everything is too positive right now. There’s too little time to think like that.”
UPDATE:This Lisa Pampuch, cited above, is the Lisa Pampuch who has thoughtfully provided links to the original article in the comments. Thanks, Lisa.
*Camping is currently predicting the rapture will occur on May 21, 2011. Obviously, it wasn't 1994.
Woo F***ing Hoo
Apparently the Mormon church set an official spokesperson to a public hearing on a non-discrimination ordinance that would protect LGBT people from housing and job discrimination. In a nutshell,
The Church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage. It is also entirely consistent with the Church's prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.(Deseret News
Oh, gee, thanks. In other words, we'll let the gays live and work as long as their presence doesn't threaten our "standards." We still oppose society officially recognizing their relationships, we can still call them sick and mentally disturbed any time we feel like it and we can still kick them out of BYU if the mood takes us, so it doesn't matter. Oh, and (bonus!) we have just upped the ante on our victim role because: See how nice we really are?
Oh, and Michael Otterson? The Managing Director of the LDS Church's Public Affairs? In other words a hired PR gun. Where was Monson? Packer? Anyone from the Twelve? Well, except Oaks. I'll bet you won't see him in the public spotlight again any time soon. Hell, even someone from the warm and fuzzy arm of the church, The General Relief Society Presidency, would have been better than Otterson. By sending Otterson the Church was making another statement. "This is just policy. This doesn't carry the weight of doctrine, so you can ignore it if you want." What do you bet most True Believing Mormons do exactly that?
Case in point: This isn't anything they haven't said before. The Mormon church said essentially the same thing during the Prop8 stupidity as well, but when it came time to actually pass legislation on the Hill in Utah, did Utah Legislators take statements of PR arm of the church as evidence that passing non-discrimination and equal protection laws was the right thing to do? Nope. Did the Mormon church send an spokesperson to the Hill to give legislators permission encourage legislators to enact said laws? Nope.
From “The Onion”
If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The Warmth And Compassion To Do So
. . . It's a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that way. Why is that so hard to understand?
Compassion, tolerance, understanding, basic decency, the ability to put myself in another person's position: God could have endowed me with any of those traits and yet—here is the crucial part—He didn't. Why? Because the Creator of the Universe wants me to demonize homosexuals in an effort to strip them of their fundamental human rights.
. . . So unless our almighty Lord and Savior decides to change His mind about my ability to empathize on even the most basic level—which I find highly unlikely—then everyone is just going to have to accept the fact that I'm going to keep on hating homosexuals. And I know that He will fill me with the strength to remain mindless and hurtful in the face of adversity.
You can find the rest here.
HT: MoHoHawaii
Concise if somewhat inaccessible
There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender… identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.
No idea where this comes from. Found it on a boy blog I follow. I suspect it's not original to the author of the blog. I see sentences constructed like this and know they are inaccessible to a large segment of the population. It's not that they couldn't understand it, but a first parsing doesn't bear fruit so they just check out. In the past I've found it necessary to translate statements in Ivory Tower Speak to be more accessible to my clients.
On the other hand, I think of right-wing buffoons like Beck and Limbaugh and have guilty fantasies of an aneurysm cause by intellectual overload to their atrophied and addlepated brains.
Repealing DADT
I finally got around to watching Obama's comments to GLBT leaders at the White House. I must say I was impressed. His comments about repealing DADT in "a way that will take" seem especially relevant and wise given the recent murder of gay Navy sailor August Provost. He was shot multiple times and set on fire...but it wasn't a hate crime. So, what? The perpetrator merely had a psychotic episode? August's mother says she found out about the details of his murder on TV and not from the Navy. Something stinks here and it isn't brine.
Obama said over and over (paraphrasing) "You can't just change policy. You have to change hearts." If what is happening at Camp Pendelton is indicative of the cultural climate in the military, you can repeal DADT, but that isn't going to make it safe for GLBT service members to serve openly and safely.