|
|
Thursday, July 31, 2003
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.
-- papal bull (I use the term loosely) from the New York Times
So, leaving children in the care of two loving, caring, homosexuals is worse than leaving them in the care of one unsupervised, lecherous, homosexual priest? And what "experience" has shown him this? Does anyone know of a study that proves his wacko conclusions? Frankly, I was under the impression that just the opposite was true...
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Today, the New York Times published a complete transcript of W's Rose Garden press conference. Out of 11 webpages of text, three tiny paragraphs in the middle of page 5 somehow drew top headlines on both the Times' website and CNN. Why? Because in those 137 words, the Collander in Chief finally made a statement on gay marriage. Surprise, surprise: he's not in favor of it.
And yet, it's not as simple as that. W may be an idiot, but he's a crafty idiot. He's kept quiet on the issue of queer marriage for as long as he has because he wants to look compassionate and not alienate the soccer moms who got him (s)elected. Now, however, the polls show a fairly strong backlash against homos since the Supreme Court effectively legalized sodomy earlier this summer: not to bum y'all out or anything, but according to CNN
The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.
Ergo, W thinks its safe to swim in the waters of social conservatism again. (Or maybe he's just striking back at liberals after his lukewarm reception from the Urban League yesterday. Sour grapes.)
Still, all isn't lost. Like I said, that's one crafty dumbass we've got in that big ol' white house: by arguing against a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages and suggesting that there are other legal solutions to the "problem," W is essentially leaving open the door for a constitutional challenge to any law that he might propose. That's not so bad in my book. I mean, if you were a homo lawyer fighting for queer marriage--and who's to say you aren't?--wouldn't you rather argue against a measly law than a piece of the Constitution?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Pentagon's weird-ass plan to set up a worldwide betting parlor for freaks who like to wager on terrorist acts. As long as they include a special section for some of us to lay down our ducats estimating how many times W will say "newkewlur" or "'merkins" in his next speech (e.g. "My fellow merkins, we ain't found 'em yet, but I know that ol' Saddam had some newkewlur weapons in his toolshed.") or guessing which Republican senator will be the next to accuse a Democratic senator of infidelity or homosexuality or "rewriting history," I'm cool.
Monday, July 28, 2003
N.Y. to Open 1st Public Gay High School
Hmmm. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this one. I mean, I'm uncomfortable with the whole "gay ghetto" thing in the first place, and if anything reeked of ghettoization, this is it. I also try to steer clear of anything too "lifestyle-ish," and this easily falls into that category...but do I have the leisure to hold such views because I'm a quasi-privileged white faggot living in a quasi-gay ghetto in a relatively GLBT tolerant city?
In one of those strange alliances not seen since left wing feminists and right wing conservatives teamed up with Dworkin and McKinnon to fight Canadian porn, I find myself agreeing with conservatives--not because, as Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long argues, I believe GLBT kids should be forced to flounder about in the same failing educational system as their hetero counterparts, but rather because I feel young queers should probably be exposed to homophobic assholes like Long as often as possible so they don't experience any rude awakenings after graduation. Trial by fire, I guess you'd call it.
But then, they didn't ask me, did they?
Saturday, July 26, 2003
Well hello, nurse! It looks like one of America's hottest studs is back on the market. Get in line, boys!
Monday, July 21, 2003
I'm growing increasingly frustrated by the Bush team's accusation that folks are "rewriting history" simply because they're looking critically at information that was put forward by the administration to further its agenda. If you ask me, that whiny, Because-I'm-the-daddy-that's-why attitude is a big, fat cop-out. What's more, it's a rhetorical dead-end: in W's garbled lingo, asking questions of the administration's motives and/or actions is tantamount to high treason.
Maybe I don't read as much as some of you, but I have yet to find an article that really tackles this issue. I can't believe I'm the only one who sees the flaws in Bush's arguments. I mean, Maureen Dowd seems to loathe everything about Bush, and even she hasn't said anything about it. It's as though everyone assumes (a) he's right, and (b) there's something inherently wrong about re-examining "facts." Of course, given that a close inspection of the "facts" of the 2000 presidential election--not to mention the endless (and fruitless) investigations of former president Clinton--would probably prove disastrous for Bush and the Right, I'm not really surprised.
Yes, I know: I'm preaching to the choir. And yes, I know: politics are dull. But they pay me to sit at this desk, so I gotta look busy.
If the boyfriend and I were so inclined, we could hire a priest, take a couple of cornball photos, and the local paper would publish a full account of everything.... But of course, that's not really our style.
Friday, July 18, 2003
 Okay, I'm not saying old people can't drive--I have nothing against senior citizens--but the AARP had better get its lobbyists on the phone and ready for action. First, the Santa Monica incident, and now this lovely bit of mishegas on our corner. I'm betting dollars to doughnuts that more than a few states are gonna be gunning for driver's license renewal exams come fall.
To the several lusty lads (and one size queen) who dropped by for the 411 on that one: sorry, but I've 86ed the pics and undertaken a vow of silence. Desol�e, mais la bouche est ferm�e.
At least until he starts working for Madonna, which is about the time I'll be publishing my charmingly chatty memoir, B-Level Bimbo: My Sordid Sorties With the Semi-Stars (Cafe Press, $29.95).
Friday, July 11, 2003
Party Monster... Party Monster... Party Monster....
It's a funny thing to watch. Not, like, funny-ha-ha. More like: hmmm. Curious. At least that's the way it was for me.
The film hits close to home if you're a gay man of a certain age--my certain age, to be precise. I mean, not like I was ever really part of that world (though oddly, I did wind up with Freeze's dog after the whole thing was over), but I remember it vividly--the clothes, the music, the parties. Back when ecstasy was new and exciting. Back when we thought things could still be shocking. Back when Brittney was just a hot pink twinge in her mom's Zena jeans... That era, that moment was a zenith (one of several) of our queer generation's rebellion, and the movie does a good job of recreating it.
Additional selling points include dozens of beautiful shots, great colors, numerous disturbing moments, and an ending sprinkled with moral ambiguity. (Imagine a homo/clubkid, less tidily resolved version of Requiem for a Dream and you're on the right track.) I was concerned about the use of McCauley Culkin--for whom I have a remarkably low threshold of tolerance--but Seth Green helps compensate. And let's not forget the best part of the entire film: when Green starts twisting and mincing his way around the living room doing a supergay, high 80s dance. Take it from someone who was there: it's spot-fucking-on.
My one complaint about the flick is that it feels like a lot was left on the cutting-room floor (to use an antiquated expression). It's a big, sprawling story about a big, sprawling social circle, but the only characters given room to develop are the ones played by Culkin, Green, and hunkahunka Dylan McDermott. I mean, Chloe Sevigny and Natasha Lyonne seemed totally wasted (and not in the good way). But then, I guess, the movie would have been about three times as long...
I wanna see the director's cut.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
I'm feeling a little schizo.
See, part of me thinks, 'Wow! First we get a moderately kick-ass ruling from the Supremes last week, and now we're officially accepted adored acknowledged in the marketplace of the Moral Majority. The moon is in the seventh house, let the good times roll, we're entering a new era of queer equality!'
And then I stop to consider: the Fourteenth Amendment, which was intended to provide legal equality for people of color, was passed in 1868--a cool 100 years before I was born in a state still racked with racial tensions. And race relations remain so dicey that the same Supreme Court that handed us a victory also found Affirmative Action programs still necessary to ameliorate social inequalities. All of which is to say, as my grandmother might put it, "We got a long row to hoe." I mean, sure, we can knock boots in the bedroom, but there are bazillions of other rights we don't have yet--and unlike people of color, homos don't even have an amendment to constitutionally guarantee the ones they've been given by certain forward-thinking states, municipalities, and corporations.
And there's something even more troubling in Wal-Mart's decision--something that offers a glimpse into the distant-but-conceivable queer future. In choosing to (a) provide blinders for "provocative" magazines like Cosmopolitan (Reese Witherspoon is now provocative?) and simultaneously to (b) prevent discrimination against homos, Wal-Mart is folding the queers of this great nation into its own insipid morality scheme--a scheme which says, in essence, what we've known all along: that most homos are as dull and boring as any bourgeois, mall-walking heterosexual. And that's fine, I guess...but it's also very, very depressing. A nation of "we're-just-like-everyone-else" Log Cabin Republicans isn't exactly what I had in mind... But then again, it might help cut down on some of the bad Judy Garland impersonations.
Sorry to get all Cassandra on your ass. It's just the way I'm wired.
|
|
