Thursday, April 23, 2009
Weathering the Storm
Here's another video with the "storm" theme, but this one approaching it straight (no pun intended) and telling it like it is. No reverse psychology. Just shining the light on the truth. Which is stronger? This or the one below.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Another Video For Gay Marriage?
This is another video from the Hollywood group, "Funny or Die," who after Prop. 8's passage did a video about the hysteria of the conservative right, and now they've gone along the same theme with this about "A Gathering Storm." I have to say, this video is a little more funny than the last one, but I don't know why people think the only way to sell a message is to do the opposite? Yeah, it shows how silly the conservative right is behaving, but it just doesn't seem so convincing if you are the conservative right.
Anyway, at least we get a chance to see the hunky Jason Lewis, and I didn't realize Alicia Silverstone is still around!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Ellen Lives in Her Own World
I'm a regular viewer of the "Ellen" show. In fact, I tape it every day and watch it when I get home. But something Ellen said yesterday on tax day (April 15) really bothered me.
Ellen DeGeneres and her longtime partner, the actress Portia de Rossi got married in California last year during that brief few months when same-sex marriages were allowed by the courts. Since her wedding, Prop. 8 has placed her marriage and thousands like hers in question as well as banning other gay couples from seeking marriages in the state.
But on her show, Ellen always acts as if she's a happily married couple. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure she's happy in her relationship with de Rossi. What I don't get is how she can pretend that her marriage isn't under attack?
For example, guests arrive and they always congratulate her on her wedding. That's nice of them, but it would be more honest if Ellen would correct them and say that she would be happier if her marriage wasn't revoked.
Then yesterday, on April 15, she joked about how she filed for the marriage exemption on her taxes. She wanted to show how she's like any other married couple now. But I seriously doubt that she filed for a marriage exemption, especially on her federal returns, because her marriage is not recognized by the tax collectors.
So either Ellen needs to be more honest with her viewers so they can recognize the second-class citizenship she lives under or she has a really bad accountant.
Ellen DeGeneres and her longtime partner, the actress Portia de Rossi got married in California last year during that brief few months when same-sex marriages were allowed by the courts. Since her wedding, Prop. 8 has placed her marriage and thousands like hers in question as well as banning other gay couples from seeking marriages in the state.
But on her show, Ellen always acts as if she's a happily married couple. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure she's happy in her relationship with de Rossi. What I don't get is how she can pretend that her marriage isn't under attack?
For example, guests arrive and they always congratulate her on her wedding. That's nice of them, but it would be more honest if Ellen would correct them and say that she would be happier if her marriage wasn't revoked.
Then yesterday, on April 15, she joked about how she filed for the marriage exemption on her taxes. She wanted to show how she's like any other married couple now. But I seriously doubt that she filed for a marriage exemption, especially on her federal returns, because her marriage is not recognized by the tax collectors.
So either Ellen needs to be more honest with her viewers so they can recognize the second-class citizenship she lives under or she has a really bad accountant.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Vermont Brings Change in Marriage Laws
This has been a good couple of weeks for same-sex couples — on the East Coast! First the courts in Iowa (technically more the Midwest than East coast, but you get my drift) struck down a ban against same-sex marriages, and today Vermont’s Legislature overturned a veto of the Republican governor on a bill establishing gay marriages.
Several media outlets have pointed out, and rightly so, that Vermont’s action is unique because it was done by political leaders on their own beliefs in equal rights and not as a reaction to the courts. I find this incredibly heartening because as a resident of Hawaii, the Hawaii courts ruled it discriminatory to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses and that state’s Legislature went into reactionary mode to develop laws to write a same-sex marriage ban into the state books. That reactionary tone as been duplicated in many state houses across this country.
So in the past while it has been the courts that have been shining the light on this injustice in society, Vermont’s case shifted the courage to the legislature. One day, hopefully, the populist will finally cry out for equality for all.
(The Vermont law goes into effect Sept. 1. Time for some fall weddings.)
Links to news stories:
Gay Marriage Passes, Burlington Free Press
Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal, New York Times
Vermont Legislature Gives Final OK to Gay Marriages, Los Angeles Times
Vermont Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, San Francisco Chronicle
Several media outlets have pointed out, and rightly so, that Vermont’s action is unique because it was done by political leaders on their own beliefs in equal rights and not as a reaction to the courts. I find this incredibly heartening because as a resident of Hawaii, the Hawaii courts ruled it discriminatory to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses and that state’s Legislature went into reactionary mode to develop laws to write a same-sex marriage ban into the state books. That reactionary tone as been duplicated in many state houses across this country.
So in the past while it has been the courts that have been shining the light on this injustice in society, Vermont’s case shifted the courage to the legislature. One day, hopefully, the populist will finally cry out for equality for all.
(The Vermont law goes into effect Sept. 1. Time for some fall weddings.)
Links to news stories:
Gay Marriage Passes, Burlington Free Press
Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal, New York Times
Vermont Legislature Gives Final OK to Gay Marriages, Los Angeles Times
Vermont Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, April 3, 2009
They Got it Right ... in Iowa?!
While California Supreme Court mulls over the question about a same-sex ban, the high court in Iowa has overturned that state's same-sex marriage ban, calling it, rightfully so, unconstitutional.
As a minority in this nation (Asian and gay, double dings!), I'm comforted to know that the courts will protect the rights of all, not just the loudest or popular. But then again, hateful voters will just cause more trouble in the ballots. If we let them. Please spread the word to any of your friends and family in the Midwest that Iowa got it right this time and they should be applauded, not made to feel ashamed.
Now if only California can be the leader like how Iowans have shown the way.
Link to news reports:
"Iowa Court Voids Gay Marriage Ban," New York Times
"Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage," Los Angeles Times
As a minority in this nation (Asian and gay, double dings!), I'm comforted to know that the courts will protect the rights of all, not just the loudest or popular. But then again, hateful voters will just cause more trouble in the ballots. If we let them. Please spread the word to any of your friends and family in the Midwest that Iowa got it right this time and they should be applauded, not made to feel ashamed.
Now if only California can be the leader like how Iowans have shown the way.
Link to news reports:
"Iowa Court Voids Gay Marriage Ban," New York Times
"Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage," Los Angeles Times
Friday, March 6, 2009
It's Not Over Until The Fat Lady Sings
OK, so the morning after reports on yesterday's arguments before the California State Supreme Court don't look promising for an overturning of Proposition 8, the ban against same-sex marriages. Many in the media are predicting, based on the questioning of the justices in yesterday's closely watched hearing, that the court will uphold the voter-approved Prop. 8 but may also maintain that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place prior to Prop. 8 should also stay in tact.
This was a hard struggle to begin with, and I'm still not really sure if it was the best legal approach to focus on a technicality--the fact that Prop. 8 is more a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, which needs just a simple majority vote compared to a two-thirds vote and the involvement of the legislature for a revision. I actually like state Attorney General Jerry Brown's approach, which is basically that whatever Prop. 8 is, it should be judged on whether it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Let's not focus on the technicality but on the legal implications of the proposition.
I think what the hearing really showed is the fact that California lives under a very flimsy constitution that can be altered often by the populace. One of the justices even noted that the constitution has been amended 500 times! Come on! Give me a break. Should such an important document be changed so often? I'm not a big fan of the proposition process because it's really placing the burden to developing laws on the people when we already have the process of electing officials to do that job.
The ruling should come out in the next 90 days (probably close to May) and it looks like the movement for same-sex marriages will have to go back to the people. And although many people woke up after the November elections to the fact that an injustice occurred, polls still show a slim majority banning same-sex marriages. It's sad to me that people around me still think that as a gay man, I am "different" and that I do not enjoy the same life experiences that they do.
Yesterday, a co-worker sent out an email video of his new baby boy. He and his wife gave birth to their first child on Sunday. He was so happy in his email and said how proud he was of his wife and the love she had with their new baby. He was a proud father and a proud husband. And this life experience just reminded me how sad it is that I can never experience that. Sure, I'm still single so I have that against me. But if I fell in love, we could adopt but I would never be someone's "husband." We would just be two guys with a baby in other people's eyes.
Links to new reports on the court hearing:
"California Supreme Court looks unlikely to kill Proposition 8," LA Times.
"Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8," San Francisco Chronicle.
"California Court Weight Gay Marriage Ban," New York Times
This was a hard struggle to begin with, and I'm still not really sure if it was the best legal approach to focus on a technicality--the fact that Prop. 8 is more a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, which needs just a simple majority vote compared to a two-thirds vote and the involvement of the legislature for a revision. I actually like state Attorney General Jerry Brown's approach, which is basically that whatever Prop. 8 is, it should be judged on whether it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Let's not focus on the technicality but on the legal implications of the proposition.
I think what the hearing really showed is the fact that California lives under a very flimsy constitution that can be altered often by the populace. One of the justices even noted that the constitution has been amended 500 times! Come on! Give me a break. Should such an important document be changed so often? I'm not a big fan of the proposition process because it's really placing the burden to developing laws on the people when we already have the process of electing officials to do that job.
The ruling should come out in the next 90 days (probably close to May) and it looks like the movement for same-sex marriages will have to go back to the people. And although many people woke up after the November elections to the fact that an injustice occurred, polls still show a slim majority banning same-sex marriages. It's sad to me that people around me still think that as a gay man, I am "different" and that I do not enjoy the same life experiences that they do.
Yesterday, a co-worker sent out an email video of his new baby boy. He and his wife gave birth to their first child on Sunday. He was so happy in his email and said how proud he was of his wife and the love she had with their new baby. He was a proud father and a proud husband. And this life experience just reminded me how sad it is that I can never experience that. Sure, I'm still single so I have that against me. But if I fell in love, we could adopt but I would never be someone's "husband." We would just be two guys with a baby in other people's eyes.
Links to new reports on the court hearing:
"California Supreme Court looks unlikely to kill Proposition 8," LA Times.
"Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8," San Francisco Chronicle.
"California Court Weight Gay Marriage Ban," New York Times
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
No Rain to Stop This March for Justice
Tonight I went to the San Francisco Eve of Justice rally and march. This was one of several similar events occurring across the nation as we all prepare for tomorrow's court hearing on the case against Prop. 8 before the California Supreme Court. Here are some photos from tonight's rally and march, which started in the Castro and then marched along Market Street to City Hall. (Oh, and yes that's actor Hal Sparks of "Queer As Folk" half way through the slide show.) I'm glad there wasn't any rain, which we've had for the last few days in the Bay Area. So that made for a nice turnout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
