Right now, I'm in the middle of rereading all the Madeleine L'Engle novels I own, which is almost all of them, I think, and I am having such trouble getting through A House Like a Lotus.
I haven't reread it since before I came to the full realization that I was a giant dyke, and it might be because of the thing that happens to Polly at the end of the book (but toward the beginning of the chronology of the story).
I was almost going to go into a long explanation, but let's just cut to the chase. Basically, Polly gets sexually assaulted by her mentor, a wealthy, sophisticated lesbian named Max. Now, Max is painfully dying of cancer (or some other wasting disease--I forget, and I can't bring myself to look it up right now), and she's out of her mind with pain when she attacks Polly, and Polly escapes into the arms of Max's partner, Ursula, but still. The predatory lesbian thing. It just...
I feel like Madeleine L'Engle has betrayed me. When I read the book for the very first time, I was too young and naive to even really grasp what Max had done. By the time I did, I wasn't really out to myself, and now...
I don't want to read my literary idol, my never-fail source of comfort, telling a story of the predatory lesbian, no matter what Max's excuse for her behavior might be. It hurts it hurts it hurts.
This all may seem melodramatic to you, but Madeleine L'Engle has had an enormous influence on me as a human being, and books in general can affect me much more deeply than anything else in the world can, and I just can't bear this kind of story coming from her--when she has no other positive homosexual stories to balance it out.
I almost feel like Polly does, unable to stand the thought of Max, even though she's brought so much good into her life and meant so much to her.
It hurts it hurts it hurts.
Showing posts with label pride. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pride. Show all posts
July 29, 2009
May 29, 2009
Justice Moreno gets it
Justice Carlos Moreno was the only member of the Supreme Court of California to stand up for us, and this is the best part of his dissenting opinion:
"There is no 'underlying' principle more basic to our Constitution than that the equal protection clause protects the fundamental rights of minorities from the will of the majority."
That does not apply only to the Constitution of the State of California, either. This is why we have constitutions; this is why we have a representative republic, not a pure democracy, because sometimes the majority will get carried away, and the minority needs someone to protect its rights.
Thank you, Justice Moreno, for understanding that.
"There is no 'underlying' principle more basic to our Constitution than that the equal protection clause protects the fundamental rights of minorities from the will of the majority."
That does not apply only to the Constitution of the State of California, either. This is why we have constitutions; this is why we have a representative republic, not a pure democracy, because sometimes the majority will get carried away, and the minority needs someone to protect its rights.
Thank you, Justice Moreno, for understanding that.
May 9, 2009
"Gayer than a plaid rabbit"
So the first time I read Wicked, I was all "OMG, Glinda is totally gay for Elphaba," but I was pretty sure I was just projecting. I project gaiety everywhere. But then I read Wicked again.
And OMG, you guys, Glinda is totally gay for Elphaba. I don't know how I didn't register this fully the first time I read it, but check this:
I can't really tell Elphaba's feelings--she's obviously fond of Glinda--but I'm pretty sure the only person she had romantic feelings for was Fiyero. Unless this means what I was projecting it to mean:
Oh, and then there was this one thing Nanny says to Elphaba later, "You were devoted to Glinda, you were. Everyone knew it." That's a little gay. No?
There's a lot of explicit gayness in the Wicked books, but it's almost exclusively dude-on-dude. Elphaba's pops, Crope and Tibbett, Liir. Glinda has that unrequited thing for Elphaba that she can barely even understand, and I really couldn't pick out any other lesbianish thing. And you know I'd be able to pick out all the lesbianish things.
That makes me sad.
While I'm here, my favorite thing Glinda ever did was speak to the Wizard for Elphaba, when she was all paralyzed in front of him. And then Elphaba deserted her, and I was sad. Again.
And OMG, you guys, Glinda is totally gay for Elphaba. I don't know how I didn't register this fully the first time I read it, but check this:
The Witch in fact alarmed her a little. It was not just the novelty of seeing her again, but the strange charisma Elphaba possessed, which had always put Glinda in the shade. Also there was the thrill, basis indeterminable, which made Glinda shy, and caused her to rush her words, and to speak in a false high voice like an adolescent.If that is not how one behaves around a girl one likes, then what the fuck else is it? Now this passage is from toward the end of the book, when the Wicked Witch of the West and the Good Witch of the North meet again after the Wicked Witch of the East has been squashed. Apparently, Glinda has always behaved like a doofus around Elphaba, but I hardly recall such a thing. Oh well.
I can't really tell Elphaba's feelings--she's obviously fond of Glinda--but I'm pretty sure the only person she had romantic feelings for was Fiyero. Unless this means what I was projecting it to mean:
[Glinda] could scarcely dredge up an ounce of recollection about that daring meeting with the Wizard. She could recall far more clearly how she and Elphie had shared a bed on the way to the Emerald City. How brave that had made her feel, and how vulnerable too.Here, again, it's obvious Glinda has a massive crush on Elphaba, but does "shared a bed" have the euphemistic meaning? The only thing that makes me think so is that last part: "How brave that had made her feel, and how vulnerable too."
Oh, and then there was this one thing Nanny says to Elphaba later, "You were devoted to Glinda, you were. Everyone knew it." That's a little gay. No?
There's a lot of explicit gayness in the Wicked books, but it's almost exclusively dude-on-dude. Elphaba's pops, Crope and Tibbett, Liir. Glinda has that unrequited thing for Elphaba that she can barely even understand, and I really couldn't pick out any other lesbianish thing. And you know I'd be able to pick out all the lesbianish things.
That makes me sad.
While I'm here, my favorite thing Glinda ever did was speak to the Wizard for Elphaba, when she was all paralyzed in front of him. And then Elphaba deserted her, and I was sad. Again.
May 8, 2009
Live Free or Die
"House Republicans said the Senate version had important flaws. ... They said it will lead to lawsuits against non-clergy -- those with strong religious beliefs that prevent them from participating in any phase of a gay marriage, such as catering or photography.
Rep. Peter Bolster, R-Alton, said, 'This does not protect the Christian conference center, the church with a social hall, or its individual members who run limousine or photographic services who may conscientiously object to participating in a same-sex marriage.'" --from the Union Leader
That is the dumbest god damn thing I've ever heard. Any self-respecting gay couple would not engage the services of someone who was so opposed to their having equal rights. A caterer isn't obligated to serve anyone's damn wedding, for whatever reason he or she likes. Homophobia is a nasty reason, but hey. It's a free country. Right?
I mean, really. I would find a gay-friendly caterer. Or a gay caterer. Come on. There are plenty of actual gay people working in the industries that serve weddings. Even in barely-civilized New Hampshire! No one is going to make anyone take part in a gay wedding.
I can't take this anymore. My heart is going to explode from frustration, hope, and disappointment.
I've decided. Ella es la mujer más hermosa en el mundo.
There was this part in Grey's last night that I can't stop watching. And it's not even the part with Sara Ramirez covered only by a bed sheet. It's this brief part at the wedding, in the montage of guests while Alex and Izzie make out at the altar (like, seriously, making out), when Baskin Robbins bumps Callie's shoulder and smiles at her, and then Callie leans over and kisses her cheek. It is adorable. And has finally converted me on Baskin Robbins.
Look, I loved Erica Hahn probably more than any lesbian who watched primetime ABC television, and Brooke Smith and Sara Ramirez were so hot together, but their story was a fucking disaster. Callie made the first move and then spent every episode after that freaking out and being weird and dicking around until the very end when she would finally tell Erica what her damn deal was, and then Erica would fix it. Because she is awesome. I had hopes that Callie would eventually get past the awkward part, and she and Hahn would be able to be cute like she and Baskin Robbins get to be, and from that interview with Shonda Rhimes from AfterEllen, I'm pretty sure the whole storyline with Callie's crazy dad was conceived with Hahn in mind as Callie's partner, so I swear they just subsituted (an allegedly) prettier, (inarguably) younger actress for Brooke Smith, and that's why I was mad.
But I can't hang onto principles when Sara Ramirez is kissing pretty ladies and getting naked on the tv. I just can't.
Okay, but now I need to talk about this. I get that Callie is upset because she has no money to go on nice dates with her girlfriend, but hello, why didn't she fucking tell her girlfriend before being dragged out to apparently the most expensive place in Seattle? They're dating. Baskin Robbins is sweet. She will understand. Which she did. She understood. And I know Callie's proud; she doesn't want to cry about her money problems, but Jesus. Be smarter than going to out to a fancy place just because your girlfriend wants to when you can't pay. No one who matters is going to think any less of you.
Especially because Baskin Robbins is, like, the reason you have no money. I know it's her father's fault, but he never would have cut her off if she hadn't started dating a lady. And Callie could have easily said fuck this and chosen her family and her money over this girl. She didn't. And Arizona already knew that! So why did she even take Callie out to a fancy restaurant in the first place? She was there when Callie told Cristina she couldn't afford the rent!
And what is Callie's issue with communicating? She can't do it unless she comes face to face with losing the girl. She played that game with Hahn, like, eleventy times.
Also, also, as far as we know, Cristina is not an heiress. She's even a few years behind Callie in her surgical residency. How can she afford half their rent, but Callie can't? Hmm?
This fucking show. It wasn't just because of Brooke Smith that I stopped watching...
Look, I loved Erica Hahn probably more than any lesbian who watched primetime ABC television, and Brooke Smith and Sara Ramirez were so hot together, but their story was a fucking disaster. Callie made the first move and then spent every episode after that freaking out and being weird and dicking around until the very end when she would finally tell Erica what her damn deal was, and then Erica would fix it. Because she is awesome. I had hopes that Callie would eventually get past the awkward part, and she and Hahn would be able to be cute like she and Baskin Robbins get to be, and from that interview with Shonda Rhimes from AfterEllen, I'm pretty sure the whole storyline with Callie's crazy dad was conceived with Hahn in mind as Callie's partner, so I swear they just subsituted (an allegedly) prettier, (inarguably) younger actress for Brooke Smith, and that's why I was mad.But I can't hang onto principles when Sara Ramirez is kissing pretty ladies and getting naked on the tv. I just can't.
Okay, but now I need to talk about this. I get that Callie is upset because she has no money to go on nice dates with her girlfriend, but hello, why didn't she fucking tell her girlfriend before being dragged out to apparently the most expensive place in Seattle? They're dating. Baskin Robbins is sweet. She will understand. Which she did. She understood. And I know Callie's proud; she doesn't want to cry about her money problems, but Jesus. Be smarter than going to out to a fancy place just because your girlfriend wants to when you can't pay. No one who matters is going to think any less of you.Especially because Baskin Robbins is, like, the reason you have no money. I know it's her father's fault, but he never would have cut her off if she hadn't started dating a lady. And Callie could have easily said fuck this and chosen her family and her money over this girl. She didn't. And Arizona already knew that! So why did she even take Callie out to a fancy restaurant in the first place? She was there when Callie told Cristina she couldn't afford the rent!
And what is Callie's issue with communicating? She can't do it unless she comes face to face with losing the girl. She played that game with Hahn, like, eleventy times.
Also, also, as far as we know, Cristina is not an heiress. She's even a few years behind Callie in her surgical residency. How can she afford half their rent, but Callie can't? Hmm?
This fucking show. It wasn't just because of Brooke Smith that I stopped watching...
April 21, 2009
Just in case you haven't seen this
I love this even more than Prop 8: The Musical. Thanks for being so ridiculous, NOM!
February 6, 2009
A film critic I am not
So when I was a senior at my Catholic high school, we actually got to choose which religion classes we wanted to take. Well, I think we all had to take one semester of some bullshit called "Christian living," but the second semester, we could choose between, like, the banality of evil or Christian themes in film. Guess which one I chose. Seriously, there were like twelve people who didn't take Christian themes in film, and they're all maroons. But anyway, this class was basically a regular film class, because you can find Christian themes anywhere. It was a grand class--I don't think I did any work except present my film (American Beauty), and I got an A.
Anyway, the point of this story was that it was in that class that I first watched Fried Green Tomatoes, and it was right at the time when I was like, "Ohhh, I am, maybe, possibly, gaaaay," and watching Mary Stuart Masterson and Mary Louise Parker together in that movie made me feel all funny. And that food fight, man. So. Gay. So after a few classes of watching the movie, the group who'd chosen it did their presentation or whatever, and I think it was actually our teacher who brought up the, "Are Idgie and Ruth more than friends?" question.
People said no! Can you even believe that? Okay, so yeah, high school students at a Catholic school aren't exactly all up ons the lesbian subtext, but I was still like, "Hello, that food fight?" And come on, Idgie is so gay. Apparently, though, in the movie Idgie is actually Ninny, the old lady Kathy Bates visits in the nursing home? I never got that. That just doesn't make any sense--that old lady is no way Idgie Threadgoode. In the book, Ninny married one of Idgie's brothers, and that's how she knows all about the Threadgoodes. Anyway, that is neither here nor there, really, except I didn't get that from the movie at all.
One of the girls in the presenting group put the debate to bed by saying, "Yo, in the book they're totally more than friends. Idgie's a big dyke, and Ruth falls in love with her." (I am, perhaps, paraphrasing.) And everyone was kinda uncomfortable, the end, I kind of forgot about the movie/book.
I finally read the book last year, and I totally loved it, and the best part for me was how much of a non-issue the whole gay thing was not only to Idgie's family, but to the entire town. My favorite part is when, I think, the mother of the Threadgoode clan matter-of-factly informs all the children that Idgie has a crush on Ruth and not to make fun of her for it. This story takes place in the deepest of the Deep South, in the 1930s, and Idgie never has to hide who she is. As impossible as that seems, it was still nice to see it like that.
Mary Stuart Masterson and Mary Louise Parker are lovely in the film, but the part with Kathy Bates just drives me crazy, which is why I've only actually watched the entire movie once, in my religion class.
Anyway, the point of this story was that it was in that class that I first watched Fried Green Tomatoes, and it was right at the time when I was like, "Ohhh, I am, maybe, possibly, gaaaay," and watching Mary Stuart Masterson and Mary Louise Parker together in that movie made me feel all funny. And that food fight, man. So. Gay. So after a few classes of watching the movie, the group who'd chosen it did their presentation or whatever, and I think it was actually our teacher who brought up the, "Are Idgie and Ruth more than friends?" question.
People said no! Can you even believe that? Okay, so yeah, high school students at a Catholic school aren't exactly all up ons the lesbian subtext, but I was still like, "Hello, that food fight?" And come on, Idgie is so gay. Apparently, though, in the movie Idgie is actually Ninny, the old lady Kathy Bates visits in the nursing home? I never got that. That just doesn't make any sense--that old lady is no way Idgie Threadgoode. In the book, Ninny married one of Idgie's brothers, and that's how she knows all about the Threadgoodes. Anyway, that is neither here nor there, really, except I didn't get that from the movie at all.
One of the girls in the presenting group put the debate to bed by saying, "Yo, in the book they're totally more than friends. Idgie's a big dyke, and Ruth falls in love with her." (I am, perhaps, paraphrasing.) And everyone was kinda uncomfortable, the end, I kind of forgot about the movie/book.
I finally read the book last year, and I totally loved it, and the best part for me was how much of a non-issue the whole gay thing was not only to Idgie's family, but to the entire town. My favorite part is when, I think, the mother of the Threadgoode clan matter-of-factly informs all the children that Idgie has a crush on Ruth and not to make fun of her for it. This story takes place in the deepest of the Deep South, in the 1930s, and Idgie never has to hide who she is. As impossible as that seems, it was still nice to see it like that.
Mary Stuart Masterson and Mary Louise Parker are lovely in the film, but the part with Kathy Bates just drives me crazy, which is why I've only actually watched the entire movie once, in my religion class.
January 8, 2009
Here are today's top stories
I know I'm probably the last lesbian in America (in the world?) to jump on the Rachel Maddow bandwagon, but that's because I can't watch cable news shows. Even hosted by someone I probably totally agree with. But I've seen enough of her to know that she's super extra smart, articulate, and totally adorable, in an "if Harry Potter were a lesbian" kind of way. (Uh, that's a good thing, really.) Anyway, the reason I am writing about her today is because I watched her appearance on The Daily Show, and I have discovered my favorite thing about her is not that she's a super genius or that she's a big lesbo with her own news show or even that she wears glasses. It is how hard she laughs at Jon Stewart. Like, he is funny, obviously, but she just lets go a number of times in this interview, like what he said is the funniest thing she's ever heard in her life. That is so endearing. And he obviously admires and respects her, and as fun as it is to watch him totally tear those he disagrees with apart, I love watching him talk to someone who's on the same side of the political spectrum as he is. I don't like political debating--it gives me hives to watch people fight, even in a civilized manner. In fact, uncivilized fighting is much more easier to stomach, because then there's always at least a small chance that someone's weave is gonna get ripped off! And that is nothing less than pure entertainment. No, I like it best when it's two liberals lightly ripping on conservative bigots. I know that's immature and biased, but I don't know how to let somehow have a differing opinion on important issues without wanting to hurl. I'm working on it, and in fact one of my very best friends in the whole world and I agree on almost nothing politically, but it still makes me crazy when I think about it too deeply.
Anyway, Rachel Maddow is adorable, and the way she laughs at Jon Stewart is utterly charming. I should really watch The Daily Show when it airs.
However! She doesn't own a tv! She claims she watches the good ol' Daily Show "on the online machine" (heeeeee), but is that for truth? At least she said she didn't own a tv without sounding like one of those snobs who think popular entertainment is beneath them. That's the other thing! This woman is so smart and so well-informed, but she's never come across as condescending. That's, uh, a minor miracle.
Okay. I am fully and utterly smitten starting right at this moment.
Anyway, Rachel Maddow is adorable, and the way she laughs at Jon Stewart is utterly charming. I should really watch The Daily Show when it airs.
However! She doesn't own a tv! She claims she watches the good ol' Daily Show "on the online machine" (heeeeee), but is that for truth? At least she said she didn't own a tv without sounding like one of those snobs who think popular entertainment is beneath them. That's the other thing! This woman is so smart and so well-informed, but she's never come across as condescending. That's, uh, a minor miracle.
Okay. I am fully and utterly smitten starting right at this moment.
December 31, 2008
Books of 2008
Best new book: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (runner-up: Ely and Naomi's No Kiss List)
Best re-read: The Hobbit (runner up: The Hero and the Crown)
Best book involving dragon-killing: The Hero and the Crown (runner-up: The Hobbit)
Worst new book: Twilight (might be the worst book of all time) (runner-up: Tales from Silver Lands)
Most disappointing book: Special Topics in Calamity Physics (runner up: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz)
Best new (to me) author: Margaret Atwood
Best book published in 2008: Passing for Black (It might be the only book published in 2008 that I read, but it was still good!)
Best hero*: Ely, Naomi and Ely's No Kiss List
Best heroine*: Idgie Threadgood, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe
Best new lesbian book: Girl Meets Boy: The Myth of Iphis
Most wasted lesbian potential: Wicked
Total books read: 54
*New books only. These two categories were tougher than I thought they would be, because much of this year's list is rereads, and there weren't that many main characters that could compete with the main characters of the books I'd read before. I need to read more new books next year. Also, more books about boys. I love boys, but this year's list was almost entirely female-centric. (Also, by "new," I merely mean books I haven't read before.)
Criss Cross by Lynne Rae Perkins
Farewell Summer by Ray Bradbury
The Night Watch by Sarah Waters
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
A Wind in the Door by Madeleine L'Engle
A Swiftly Tilting Planet by Madeleine L'Engle
Special Topics in Calamity Physics by Marisha Pessl
The Complete Stories of Flannery O'Connor
Andersen's Fairy Tales by Hans Christian Andersen
Girl Meets Boy: The Myth of Iphis by Ali Smith
Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris
Many Waters by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
Princess on the Brink by Meg Cabot
The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood
On the Banks of Plum Creek by Laura Ingalls Wilder
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
By the Shores of Silver Lake by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Shadow of the Knife by Jane Fletcher
The Long Winter by Laura Ingalls Wilder
The Blue Sword by Robin McKinley
Once Upon a Time in the North by Philip Pullman
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
The Hero and the Crown by Robin McKinley
Little Town on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder
These Happy Golden Years by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Forever in Blue: The Fourth Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
The First Four Years by Laura Ingalls Wilder
grl2grl: Short Fictions by Julie Anne Peters
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg
The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Giver by Lois Lowry
Gathering Blue by Lois Lowry
Messenger by Lois Lowry
Passing for Black by Linda Villarosa
The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Return of the King by J.R.R. Tolkien
Beauty: A Retelling of the Story of Beauty and the Beast by Robin McKinley
Pirates! by Celia Rees
Wicked by Gregory Maguire
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan
Naomi and Ely's No Kiss List by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan
Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Witch Child by Celia Rees
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
Sorceress by Celia Rees
The Tales of Beedle the Bard by J.K. Rowling
The Marvelous Land of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Tales from Silver Lands by Charles J. Finger
The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom
Ozma of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz by L. Frank Baum
Best re-read: The Hobbit (runner up: The Hero and the Crown)
Best book involving dragon-killing: The Hero and the Crown (runner-up: The Hobbit)
Worst new book: Twilight (might be the worst book of all time) (runner-up: Tales from Silver Lands)
Most disappointing book: Special Topics in Calamity Physics (runner up: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz)
Best new (to me) author: Margaret Atwood
Best book published in 2008: Passing for Black (It might be the only book published in 2008 that I read, but it was still good!)
Best hero*: Ely, Naomi and Ely's No Kiss List
Best heroine*: Idgie Threadgood, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe
Best new lesbian book: Girl Meets Boy: The Myth of Iphis
Most wasted lesbian potential: Wicked
Total books read: 54
*New books only. These two categories were tougher than I thought they would be, because much of this year's list is rereads, and there weren't that many main characters that could compete with the main characters of the books I'd read before. I need to read more new books next year. Also, more books about boys. I love boys, but this year's list was almost entirely female-centric. (Also, by "new," I merely mean books I haven't read before.)
Criss Cross by Lynne Rae Perkins
Farewell Summer by Ray Bradbury
The Night Watch by Sarah Waters
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
A Wind in the Door by Madeleine L'Engle
A Swiftly Tilting Planet by Madeleine L'Engle
Special Topics in Calamity Physics by Marisha Pessl
The Complete Stories of Flannery O'Connor
Andersen's Fairy Tales by Hans Christian Andersen
Girl Meets Boy: The Myth of Iphis by Ali Smith
Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris
Many Waters by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
Princess on the Brink by Meg Cabot
The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood
On the Banks of Plum Creek by Laura Ingalls Wilder
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
By the Shores of Silver Lake by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Shadow of the Knife by Jane Fletcher
The Long Winter by Laura Ingalls Wilder
The Blue Sword by Robin McKinley
Once Upon a Time in the North by Philip Pullman
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
The Hero and the Crown by Robin McKinley
Little Town on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder
These Happy Golden Years by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Forever in Blue: The Fourth Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
The First Four Years by Laura Ingalls Wilder
grl2grl: Short Fictions by Julie Anne Peters
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg
The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Giver by Lois Lowry
Gathering Blue by Lois Lowry
Messenger by Lois Lowry
Passing for Black by Linda Villarosa
The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Return of the King by J.R.R. Tolkien
Beauty: A Retelling of the Story of Beauty and the Beast by Robin McKinley
Pirates! by Celia Rees
Wicked by Gregory Maguire
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan
Naomi and Ely's No Kiss List by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan
Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Witch Child by Celia Rees
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
Sorceress by Celia Rees
The Tales of Beedle the Bard by J.K. Rowling
The Marvelous Land of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Tales from Silver Lands by Charles J. Finger
The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom
Ozma of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz by L. Frank Baum
December 23, 2008
The Florida Chronicles, Part Two
Okay. I gotta tell you about the Holy Land Experience. It's this Crazy Christian theme park of sorts in Orlando, and if you're coming from the west, you have to drive past all the Disney World and Universal exits, and can you even imagine being a kid and wanting to go to Disney World and having your parents drag you to the Holy Land Experience instead? Because Disney World is too godless? (Heh, I made that up--the Crazy Christians probably hit Disney World AND the Holy Land Experience, but oh man, it is such a depressing place compared to Disney World and Universal.)
Anyway, so yes. Crazy Christians. Apparently, people come from all over the continent to see this place--there were nutbags from Alberta, Canada, and I had never even seen an Alberta license plate before, and I've, like, driven around in Canada (yeah, so my driving area was confined to, like, an hour from the New York border, but whatever--still closer to Alberta than Florida!). Anyway, for all this it was kind of disappointing, but only because I was hoping it would be more absurd, but as far as Crazy Christian projects go this one was pretty even-keeled. I guess it's supposed to be, like, 66 A.D. Jerusalem, and there were various ancient-type buildings and people milling about in period dress. Also, statues of Roman centurions everywhere. I don't know why I found that odd, because, you know, Rome occupied that area at that time, but they were totally everywhere, these statues.
My favorite parts were the Crazy Christians in attendance (more on them in a bit) and the kiddie area, which featured Moses parting the Red Sea:
The whale that swallowed poor Jonah:
And Jesus walking on water:
This was the kind of absurdity I was hoping for in the whole park, but I guess they only crazied out for the young believers.
Okay, now onto the Crazy Christians themselves. There's this building there called the Scriptorium that features a tour of the evolution of the written Bible, and I guess curiosity got the best of us, because we waited in line for it, and while we were waiting one of the women who worked there was talking to this Christian fellow about all the snow that's happening--and about how it apparently snowed in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, and the man smirked, "Global warming, right?" which made Carlos and me roll our eyes at each other, and then the woman said, "God's obviously trying to get our attention," and I muttered, "Yeah, he'd like you to stop ruining this lovely planet he gave you," but no one heard me, which was probably for the best. And I don't know how, exactly, we got involved in this conversation, but the woman was like, "God will do whatever he wants to get our attention. Do you believe that?" And Carlos just said, "It's crazy," but he sure was not talking about the snow in Vegas.
Then, later, we were in a gift shop, and there was a fellow who was talking up this tallis, trying to sell it, and Carlos noticed he was holding it upside down, but he refrained from saying anything until the fellow actually came up to us, and Carlos, bless him, couldn't help himself and said, "You're holding it upside down." The man insisted he was not, but Carlos stood firm, and so the man just asked him if he had a tallis, and Carlos said no, he didn't have cause to use one much, and the man got all wise, like, "How can you not have one, but not use it much?" So Carlos explained that they keep tallisim in the synagogues for services, and the guy asked if he was a Messianic Jew, and Carlos said, "No, just regular type." Actually, he said that to me later, and we both giggled about it--what he really said to the guy was that he was just Jewish, and the guy was like, "Prove it! Read this!" So Carlos took the tallis from him, flipped it the right way up, and translated the Hebrew. While that exchange was a little awkward, it was still fun, because it involved schooling a Crazy Christian. And this: "Are you a Messianic Jew?" "Nope. Just regular type."
Okay, so. The Scriptorium itself was a big load, yo. It was so cheesy, all about how the Bible was first written down and transported and then translated and copied and all the attempts to destroy it and prevent it from being translated into the vernacular, and blah blah, all the crap Carlos and I already knew from going to a Catholic college, where we were required to take four semesters of the development of western civilization. But the thing that got to me was the dramatic narrator's insistence that through all this copying and translating and strife, the words of the Bible stayed entirely accurate, and that is just god damn impossible. First, the old stories, like those in Genesis, for sure, started out as oral tradition before finally getting copied down, and it is impossible to retell a story orally without changing it. Second, seriously, how many times has the Bible been copied out and translated, and you're telling me no one's made a significant mistake? Please. And then you get some monastic scribe copying the book of Judges or whatever, and he sees something he thinks is a mistake, so he corrects it, but what if it wasn't really a mistake?
I guess the Holy Ghost is supposed to keep the message pure, working through these scribes to inspire them to get God's word down right, or whatever, but come on. The Holy Ghost is useless these days, running around with a sheet over his head like he's in an episode of Scooby Doo. The Holy Ghost did not prevent inaccuracies in the Bible, just like he did not make the Catholic Church infallible. Just think of how many competing translations of the Bible we have right now--how did that happen, huh? If the Bible's message stayed pure through these thousands of years, how come the Christians and Jews can't agree on things? How come the Christians or the Jews can't agree amongst themselves?
But the thing about being in a place like this is that you are surrounded by people who totally and utterly believe this shit, and even with my Catholic school background, I was staggered by seeing this. (I guess because Catholics don't traditionally put a big emphasis on Bible-reading like the Protestants do.) There were people on this tour who were on the verge of, like, praising the lord for making sure his word was passed on, and I just had to laugh. Quietly. Behind my hand. I mean, this is all a bunch of crap, obviously, how the myths of one culture could possibly be the ultimate truth for all peoples, but I didn't feel the need to be rude, since no one was at that time advocating preventing me from gaining equal civil rights.
Anyway, I was just baffled by all this. I was always aware that millions of people think the Bible is, like, the only truth on earth or whatever, but I guess I was never actually confronted with it, face to face. I did not enjoy it, except to just laugh at the absurdity of it.
I kind of wish we'd gone to Disney World.
Next on The Florida Chronicles: manatees, beaches, and O'Boobigan's!
Anyway, so yes. Crazy Christians. Apparently, people come from all over the continent to see this place--there were nutbags from Alberta, Canada, and I had never even seen an Alberta license plate before, and I've, like, driven around in Canada (yeah, so my driving area was confined to, like, an hour from the New York border, but whatever--still closer to Alberta than Florida!). Anyway, for all this it was kind of disappointing, but only because I was hoping it would be more absurd, but as far as Crazy Christian projects go this one was pretty even-keeled. I guess it's supposed to be, like, 66 A.D. Jerusalem, and there were various ancient-type buildings and people milling about in period dress. Also, statues of Roman centurions everywhere. I don't know why I found that odd, because, you know, Rome occupied that area at that time, but they were totally everywhere, these statues.My favorite parts were the Crazy Christians in attendance (more on them in a bit) and the kiddie area, which featured Moses parting the Red Sea:The whale that swallowed poor Jonah:And Jesus walking on water:This was the kind of absurdity I was hoping for in the whole park, but I guess they only crazied out for the young believers.Okay, now onto the Crazy Christians themselves. There's this building there called the Scriptorium that features a tour of the evolution of the written Bible, and I guess curiosity got the best of us, because we waited in line for it, and while we were waiting one of the women who worked there was talking to this Christian fellow about all the snow that's happening--and about how it apparently snowed in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, and the man smirked, "Global warming, right?" which made Carlos and me roll our eyes at each other, and then the woman said, "God's obviously trying to get our attention," and I muttered, "Yeah, he'd like you to stop ruining this lovely planet he gave you," but no one heard me, which was probably for the best. And I don't know how, exactly, we got involved in this conversation, but the woman was like, "God will do whatever he wants to get our attention. Do you believe that?" And Carlos just said, "It's crazy," but he sure was not talking about the snow in Vegas.Then, later, we were in a gift shop, and there was a fellow who was talking up this tallis, trying to sell it, and Carlos noticed he was holding it upside down, but he refrained from saying anything until the fellow actually came up to us, and Carlos, bless him, couldn't help himself and said, "You're holding it upside down." The man insisted he was not, but Carlos stood firm, and so the man just asked him if he had a tallis, and Carlos said no, he didn't have cause to use one much, and the man got all wise, like, "How can you not have one, but not use it much?" So Carlos explained that they keep tallisim in the synagogues for services, and the guy asked if he was a Messianic Jew, and Carlos said, "No, just regular type." Actually, he said that to me later, and we both giggled about it--what he really said to the guy was that he was just Jewish, and the guy was like, "Prove it! Read this!" So Carlos took the tallis from him, flipped it the right way up, and translated the Hebrew. While that exchange was a little awkward, it was still fun, because it involved schooling a Crazy Christian. And this: "Are you a Messianic Jew?" "Nope. Just regular type."
Okay, so. The Scriptorium itself was a big load, yo. It was so cheesy, all about how the Bible was first written down and transported and then translated and copied and all the attempts to destroy it and prevent it from being translated into the vernacular, and blah blah, all the crap Carlos and I already knew from going to a Catholic college, where we were required to take four semesters of the development of western civilization. But the thing that got to me was the dramatic narrator's insistence that through all this copying and translating and strife, the words of the Bible stayed entirely accurate, and that is just god damn impossible. First, the old stories, like those in Genesis, for sure, started out as oral tradition before finally getting copied down, and it is impossible to retell a story orally without changing it. Second, seriously, how many times has the Bible been copied out and translated, and you're telling me no one's made a significant mistake? Please. And then you get some monastic scribe copying the book of Judges or whatever, and he sees something he thinks is a mistake, so he corrects it, but what if it wasn't really a mistake?
I guess the Holy Ghost is supposed to keep the message pure, working through these scribes to inspire them to get God's word down right, or whatever, but come on. The Holy Ghost is useless these days, running around with a sheet over his head like he's in an episode of Scooby Doo. The Holy Ghost did not prevent inaccuracies in the Bible, just like he did not make the Catholic Church infallible. Just think of how many competing translations of the Bible we have right now--how did that happen, huh? If the Bible's message stayed pure through these thousands of years, how come the Christians and Jews can't agree on things? How come the Christians or the Jews can't agree amongst themselves?
But the thing about being in a place like this is that you are surrounded by people who totally and utterly believe this shit, and even with my Catholic school background, I was staggered by seeing this. (I guess because Catholics don't traditionally put a big emphasis on Bible-reading like the Protestants do.) There were people on this tour who were on the verge of, like, praising the lord for making sure his word was passed on, and I just had to laugh. Quietly. Behind my hand. I mean, this is all a bunch of crap, obviously, how the myths of one culture could possibly be the ultimate truth for all peoples, but I didn't feel the need to be rude, since no one was at that time advocating preventing me from gaining equal civil rights.
Anyway, I was just baffled by all this. I was always aware that millions of people think the Bible is, like, the only truth on earth or whatever, but I guess I was never actually confronted with it, face to face. I did not enjoy it, except to just laugh at the absurdity of it.
I kind of wish we'd gone to Disney World.
Next on The Florida Chronicles: manatees, beaches, and O'Boobigan's!
December 17, 2008
Preach it
"But if nothing else, we can all look forward to the guest appearance of Lucy Lawless in the final season of the show. Chaiken may not ultimately deliver the peace, love and understanding that some L Word viewers may be seeking as the series draws to a close, but it’s hard to find fault with the decision to invite Xena to join the cast of the most infamous lesbian program in the history of television." --Karman Kregloe, AfterEllen
Now where's Gabrielle?
Now where's Gabrielle?
December 9, 2008
Why I won't "call in gay"
Look, shirking work for a charitable cause is not a bad idea, per se, but ditching work and refusing to buy anything in the hopes that the country will notice that a lot its citizens are gay seems weak and petty to me. I'll leave that as my opinion, because the thing here is that we cannot change anything overnight. One day of not working and not buying anything might make some people say, "Huh. Somethin' weird's going on." I don't think anyone is going to say, "Gosh, we'd better give these queers their rights because they have such a vital impact on the economy," especially because on Thursday, everything will be right back to normal.
The way I see it, if we choose to withdraw from society, society will find a way to get along without us--in fact, there are plenty of people who would prefer that, don't you think? Sure, we'll be missed for a little while, but there are plenty of people, especially now, to take our places in the workforce. And then we'll be the ones who are fucked, alienated and more on the fringes than ever before. I'm not saying that this is what "Day without a Gay" is advocating, but it is what it's symbolizing--removing ourselves from society. But we don't want to be separate--that's why we're so mad about the passing of Proposition Eight, why we want marriage, not civil unions, because we are not separate. We want inclusion, equal rights, responsibilities, and privileges, so why would we voluntarily withdraw ourselves? This day is symbolic, because it won't actually change anything, so why do we want our symbolic gesture to be removal of ourselves from the rest of society? That's poisonous.
What will cause change--gradually, unfortunately--is making sure the people who would deny us our rights know we're not going anywhere, know that we're their neighbors, their daughters, their nephews, their teachers, their doctors, their soccer coaches, their elected officials. That's how they'll realize how many of us there really are--if we just keep telling them and refusing to back down.
Our best weapon against ignorance and bigotry is coming out. I know it's hard, and it's awkward, and it's uncomfortable, and there's a very real possibility of negative consequences, but in the end, it's the only way to fix this. Do what you can to make sure everyone knows that we are here; we are queer; we are not going anywhere, even for one single day.
The way I see it, if we choose to withdraw from society, society will find a way to get along without us--in fact, there are plenty of people who would prefer that, don't you think? Sure, we'll be missed for a little while, but there are plenty of people, especially now, to take our places in the workforce. And then we'll be the ones who are fucked, alienated and more on the fringes than ever before. I'm not saying that this is what "Day without a Gay" is advocating, but it is what it's symbolizing--removing ourselves from society. But we don't want to be separate--that's why we're so mad about the passing of Proposition Eight, why we want marriage, not civil unions, because we are not separate. We want inclusion, equal rights, responsibilities, and privileges, so why would we voluntarily withdraw ourselves? This day is symbolic, because it won't actually change anything, so why do we want our symbolic gesture to be removal of ourselves from the rest of society? That's poisonous.
What will cause change--gradually, unfortunately--is making sure the people who would deny us our rights know we're not going anywhere, know that we're their neighbors, their daughters, their nephews, their teachers, their doctors, their soccer coaches, their elected officials. That's how they'll realize how many of us there really are--if we just keep telling them and refusing to back down.
Our best weapon against ignorance and bigotry is coming out. I know it's hard, and it's awkward, and it's uncomfortable, and there's a very real possibility of negative consequences, but in the end, it's the only way to fix this. Do what you can to make sure everyone knows that we are here; we are queer; we are not going anywhere, even for one single day.
December 3, 2008
Comedy is the only way to deal with this
I had this as the video of the moment in the sidebar over there, but then I decided I wanted to talk about it. Plus, it's better enjoyed full-size, and this way I can keep Tina the Bookaneer on my blog forever.
So, this video features Margaret Cho and Doogie Howser, but they are not the best parts. Oh no. No, no, no. Maya Rudolph! Allison Janney! Hello, awesome and criminally underrated. Allison Janney is always the best part of whatever she's in, and this time was the best time of all, because when Doogie Howser started singing, he pointed to her when he said "lesbian." Yup. Allison Janney is a fictional (albeit closeted) lesbian!
November 15, 2008
Politics and religion! Everyone's favorite topics for a blog post
Look, it's pretty clear I have no use for the Bible as some kind of guide to live my life, and for me it's basically a collection of ancient myths, which is what makes it interesting, but you know, that's just me. It obviously holds a much more significant meaning for millions of people, and that is just fine. But some of them take it far too seriously, and some of them twist its truth.
Anyway, I think every single Christian on Earth, especially those in America who have voted to legislate discrimination, needs to read John 8: 1-11. This story is my favorite story about Jesus, because he comes to the rescue of a skanky ho (ahem, I mean, an adulterous woman). If Jesus loved skanky hos, ain't no way he'd turn away from the fags. There are references to the unnaturalness of homosexuality in the New Testament, but never do they come from the mouth of Jesus. And Christians need to listen to Jesus, not to other Christians who may have gotten things a little bit mixed up. (I am looking at you, Paul.)
So don't use the Bible to condemn us. In fact, if you're Christian at all, you shouldn't use anything to condemn us. Condemning us isn't your job--it's your god's. And you know what else? In this religion, Jesus is God, so he is the only one who could condemn her. Does he?
According to Christianity, Jesus comes to the Jews to...revise the Law of Moses, to oversimplify things (as I do), which was much more strict than anything modern Christians follow. He gives them one commandment: Love one another. What a hippie freak. If he hadn't been turned into a messianic figure for a religion that brought about destruction and hate and division, I would love his ass. Anyway, since Christians no longer stone adulterers (and no longer follow, er, any of the laws laid down in Leviticus), I don't want to hear that book used to defend homophobia ever again.
It is November 15, the day to protest marriage inequality in the United States of America. Let's go, Americans. Act up. Fight hate.
Anyway, I think every single Christian on Earth, especially those in America who have voted to legislate discrimination, needs to read John 8: 1-11. This story is my favorite story about Jesus, because he comes to the rescue of a skanky ho (ahem, I mean, an adulterous woman). If Jesus loved skanky hos, ain't no way he'd turn away from the fags. There are references to the unnaturalness of homosexuality in the New Testament, but never do they come from the mouth of Jesus. And Christians need to listen to Jesus, not to other Christians who may have gotten things a little bit mixed up. (I am looking at you, Paul.)
So don't use the Bible to condemn us. In fact, if you're Christian at all, you shouldn't use anything to condemn us. Condemning us isn't your job--it's your god's. And you know what else? In this religion, Jesus is God, so he is the only one who could condemn her. Does he?
According to Christianity, Jesus comes to the Jews to...revise the Law of Moses, to oversimplify things (as I do), which was much more strict than anything modern Christians follow. He gives them one commandment: Love one another. What a hippie freak. If he hadn't been turned into a messianic figure for a religion that brought about destruction and hate and division, I would love his ass. Anyway, since Christians no longer stone adulterers (and no longer follow, er, any of the laws laid down in Leviticus), I don't want to hear that book used to defend homophobia ever again.
It is November 15, the day to protest marriage inequality in the United States of America. Let's go, Americans. Act up. Fight hate.
November 11, 2008
November 8, 2008
She got the hose again
So what do I say about the whole Brooke Smith debacle? I really can't figure out what the crap ABC was thinking. Basically, it is a little too coincidental that the news of her firing comes out days after her character realized she was "totally gay." Come on. How can you not expect us to draw that conclusion?
Dr. Hahn was one of the best characters on that show; she was a fantastic surgeon who took no shit from anyone, sometimes to her own detriment. But then she made a friend, and through that friendship we got to see the human side of Hahn. Maybe Hahn got to see the human side of Hahn, too. And then she had the gay revelation, and that whole speech about how falling in love with Callie was like when she got glasses for the first time was the single sweetest thing I have ever seen on television (However! Why have we never seen Hahn in glasses? WHY???). And Brooke Smith acted the hell out of it. I don't think anyone is saying that Brooke Smith's acting is the problem. And she certainly didn't cause strife on the set, like the fool she replaced.
So there are two options here. ABC told Shonda Rhimes to can her because Erica suddenly got too explicitly gay without any negative consequences, or ABC told Shonda Rhimes to can her because she's not conventionally attractive.
Both of which are absolute bullshit. Brooke Smith, while not everyone's cup of tea, is lovely, okay? And especially when she does Hahn's sweet smiles. The way she looked at Sara Ramirez while Hahn was falling for Callie was adorable. I watched that scene where she watches Callie in the elevator, like, twelve times. I don't... Ack.
And, oh, Shonda Rhimes's statement that of course they didn't get rid of Brooke because her character is a lesbian, and they still have a lesbian on the show is even more bullshit. Callie JUST realized she was bisexual in the last episode that aired. That is not the same thing as being a lesbian! What a load.
A few people have suggested that Brooke deserves an Emmy for the leaves speech, and I sure do agree. What're the chances she'll submit it for consideration? Not that those aged fools on the Emmy-giving committee would ever award her one, but still. She should stand up and submit it, because it was some damn fine acting, and it may have made my eyes wet. And I don't know what happened to Callie this season, but the reason I stayed invested in their relationship was because of Hahn. I've never been able to identify with a character more in my entire life. And now ABC refuses to let characters that bear any similarity to me on television. That's like a kick in the gut. I am not worthy to be represented in the entertainment world.
Needless to say, I am not watching Grey's Anatomy ever again, and thank GOD I didn't buy the season pass on iTunes yet.
Dr. Hahn was one of the best characters on that show; she was a fantastic surgeon who took no shit from anyone, sometimes to her own detriment. But then she made a friend, and through that friendship we got to see the human side of Hahn. Maybe Hahn got to see the human side of Hahn, too. And then she had the gay revelation, and that whole speech about how falling in love with Callie was like when she got glasses for the first time was the single sweetest thing I have ever seen on television (However! Why have we never seen Hahn in glasses? WHY???). And Brooke Smith acted the hell out of it. I don't think anyone is saying that Brooke Smith's acting is the problem. And she certainly didn't cause strife on the set, like the fool she replaced.
So there are two options here. ABC told Shonda Rhimes to can her because Erica suddenly got too explicitly gay without any negative consequences, or ABC told Shonda Rhimes to can her because she's not conventionally attractive.
Both of which are absolute bullshit. Brooke Smith, while not everyone's cup of tea, is lovely, okay? And especially when she does Hahn's sweet smiles. The way she looked at Sara Ramirez while Hahn was falling for Callie was adorable. I watched that scene where she watches Callie in the elevator, like, twelve times. I don't... Ack.
And, oh, Shonda Rhimes's statement that of course they didn't get rid of Brooke because her character is a lesbian, and they still have a lesbian on the show is even more bullshit. Callie JUST realized she was bisexual in the last episode that aired. That is not the same thing as being a lesbian! What a load.
A few people have suggested that Brooke deserves an Emmy for the leaves speech, and I sure do agree. What're the chances she'll submit it for consideration? Not that those aged fools on the Emmy-giving committee would ever award her one, but still. She should stand up and submit it, because it was some damn fine acting, and it may have made my eyes wet. And I don't know what happened to Callie this season, but the reason I stayed invested in their relationship was because of Hahn. I've never been able to identify with a character more in my entire life. And now ABC refuses to let characters that bear any similarity to me on television. That's like a kick in the gut. I am not worthy to be represented in the entertainment world.
Needless to say, I am not watching Grey's Anatomy ever again, and thank GOD I didn't buy the season pass on iTunes yet.
November 7, 2008
Processing
What if there were a ballot measure that would amend your state's constitution so that only white couples could get married? Or only people of the same racial background could marry each other? Or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could not get legally married?
Would you vote for it?
I still cannot fathom why we can even put civil rights to a vote. If you were to put desegregation of public schools to a vote back in the fifties and sixties, do you think it would have passed? Or even if you were to put those laws that outlawed biracial marriage to a vote, it's quite possible some of those laws would remain. Maybe even slavery would have withstood a vote to abolish it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it could have, because we had to fight a war with each other to abolish it.
Letting people vote on whether or not gay people deserve the same damn rights as heterosexuals is just as ridiculous as letting people vote on whether or not black people should have the same rights as white people. It's a forgone conclusion: of course black people deserve the same rights as white people, no matter what a majority of voters would say.
Which is why it really makes me sad that so many black and Hispanic voters supported Proposition Eight. I would never, ever vote for anything that would deny them the rights that white people enjoy. I would be just as incensed if Proposition Eight denied black couples the right to legal marriage. Because black people are no better or worse than white people. Gay people are no better or worse than straight people. We are all equal. Everyone says we proved that by electing a black President, but Proposition Eight says different.
The way things are in this country right now, we are not all equal.
But I have hope that President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama will help us change all that. I freaked right out when he actually stood up and recognized that gay people exist in this country in his acceptance speech. I've never heard any politician do that in that manner. And no one would have even given it a second thought if he hadn't. For the first time, a man we elected to lead our country has stood up and said, "I hear you too, homos."
I appreciate that from the bottom of my heart.
Would you vote for it?
I still cannot fathom why we can even put civil rights to a vote. If you were to put desegregation of public schools to a vote back in the fifties and sixties, do you think it would have passed? Or even if you were to put those laws that outlawed biracial marriage to a vote, it's quite possible some of those laws would remain. Maybe even slavery would have withstood a vote to abolish it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it could have, because we had to fight a war with each other to abolish it.
Letting people vote on whether or not gay people deserve the same damn rights as heterosexuals is just as ridiculous as letting people vote on whether or not black people should have the same rights as white people. It's a forgone conclusion: of course black people deserve the same rights as white people, no matter what a majority of voters would say.
Which is why it really makes me sad that so many black and Hispanic voters supported Proposition Eight. I would never, ever vote for anything that would deny them the rights that white people enjoy. I would be just as incensed if Proposition Eight denied black couples the right to legal marriage. Because black people are no better or worse than white people. Gay people are no better or worse than straight people. We are all equal. Everyone says we proved that by electing a black President, but Proposition Eight says different.
The way things are in this country right now, we are not all equal.
But I have hope that President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama will help us change all that. I freaked right out when he actually stood up and recognized that gay people exist in this country in his acceptance speech. I've never heard any politician do that in that manner. And no one would have even given it a second thought if he hadn't. For the first time, a man we elected to lead our country has stood up and said, "I hear you too, homos."
I appreciate that from the bottom of my heart.
November 6, 2008
I can't do anything about California, but
So in New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, we have civil unions. I wanna know how we go about making those civil unions marriages. Connecticut just did it.
How did you do it, Connecticut?
How did you do it, Connecticut?
October 24, 2008
So let her be a lesibaaaaaaan
Wait, wait, wait. Callie's the one who was bad at going down, and Erica was the one who enjoyed the sex?
HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
Unless Callie wasn't necessarily...bad...she just felt weird about the whole thing? Or Erica has never had sex with anyone before? Like, really! She cannot be this dumb. She can't!
Also, if you feel weird about, you know, your head in between another lady's legs, take it slow. Start with fingers! There are so many ways to have sex. Sheesh.
And! Going to Sloane for a demonstration? That is so fucking weird. I mean, even if he were another lady, it's still weird, because Callie is still having sex with someone so she can have better sex with Erica.
That's weird. And I just hope Erica doesn't find out about it. Because she will not react well, even if they are taking things slow and, you know, not going steady. She hates Sloane, and the girl she likes is still sleeping with him!
Oh. She is going to find out.
However! The lesbians got to have inappropriate sex in the on-call room! Just like everyone else. So yay for equal opportunity unprofessionalism.
But mostly yay for Sara Ramirez in a bra.
HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
Unless Callie wasn't necessarily...bad...she just felt weird about the whole thing? Or Erica has never had sex with anyone before? Like, really! She cannot be this dumb. She can't!
Also, if you feel weird about, you know, your head in between another lady's legs, take it slow. Start with fingers! There are so many ways to have sex. Sheesh.
And! Going to Sloane for a demonstration? That is so fucking weird. I mean, even if he were another lady, it's still weird, because Callie is still having sex with someone so she can have better sex with Erica.
That's weird. And I just hope Erica doesn't find out about it. Because she will not react well, even if they are taking things slow and, you know, not going steady. She hates Sloane, and the girl she likes is still sleeping with him!
Oh. She is going to find out.
However! The lesbians got to have inappropriate sex in the on-call room! Just like everyone else. So yay for equal opportunity unprofessionalism.
But mostly yay for Sara Ramirez in a bra.
October 15, 2008
Spooked
Forgive me for this rant, but all the news that supporters of Proposition 8 are gaining ground has really freaked me out. Like, really.
I don't personally know anyone who lives in California, except my dad's younger sister, but I'm not sure how to broach the subject with her--however I am hopeful she's opposed to Proposition 8. Anyway, I am almost more worried about whether or not California--the alleged haven of liberal hippies--amends their constitution to ban the gay marriages it just legalized than I am about whether or not Sarah (motherfucking) Palin becomes this country's first female vice president.
Listen. The California Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage was, like, fucking landmark, okay? Because it equated a person's sexuality with her race or gender or religion. Just as the governments of this country cannot discriminate against people based on those things, neither can they discriminate against people based upon their sexuality. That's what the legality of gay marriage is about: stamping out discrimination against one group of people for something that is as unchangeable as race or gender--and as little of the government's business as religious beliefs.
I just do not understand how, in this country, where one of our most prized founding documents proclaims all men created equal, there are so many fucking people who think it's perfectly fine--no, not just fine, but necessary--to make sure certain American citizens are relegated to permanent second-class status. This is not about whether you think butt sex is a sin. This is not about the "sanctity of marriage." That doesn't exist--and it never has. Why are we pretending that marriage is sacred? That people don't cheat and divorce and all that? I mean, ideally, sure, marriages are supposed to be lifelong and monogamous, but that is just not the reality, and it never has been. Humans are fallible. So that argument, as I am the child of divorced parents, too, really chaps my ass. All of these arguments are strictly religious--it's not the government's business how you have sex or whether you're faithful to your spouse, so--I don't know--shut up! This is not about forcing churches to marry two dudes or two ladies. That's the great thing about this country--you can believe in whatever you want to believe in. You, as a private citizen. But the government of the United States of America (and its individual state governments) can only believe in one thing: equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities for every, single one of its law-abiding citizens. Every. Single. One.
Marriage is not something that can only exist between a man and a woman. Marriage is for any two consenting adults who have decided to make a lifelong commitment to each other. And if a government awards special rights and responsibilities for heterosexual couples who make that choice then it absolutely must accord those same rights to homosexual couples who make the same choice.
That's all there is to it.
So let's go, California. Shoot down Proposition 8, and keep the gay rights movement moving forward instead of seventy-billion steps backward.
PS: Congratulations, Connecticut!
I don't personally know anyone who lives in California, except my dad's younger sister, but I'm not sure how to broach the subject with her--however I am hopeful she's opposed to Proposition 8. Anyway, I am almost more worried about whether or not California--the alleged haven of liberal hippies--amends their constitution to ban the gay marriages it just legalized than I am about whether or not Sarah (motherfucking) Palin becomes this country's first female vice president.
Listen. The California Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage was, like, fucking landmark, okay? Because it equated a person's sexuality with her race or gender or religion. Just as the governments of this country cannot discriminate against people based on those things, neither can they discriminate against people based upon their sexuality. That's what the legality of gay marriage is about: stamping out discrimination against one group of people for something that is as unchangeable as race or gender--and as little of the government's business as religious beliefs.
I just do not understand how, in this country, where one of our most prized founding documents proclaims all men created equal, there are so many fucking people who think it's perfectly fine--no, not just fine, but necessary--to make sure certain American citizens are relegated to permanent second-class status. This is not about whether you think butt sex is a sin. This is not about the "sanctity of marriage." That doesn't exist--and it never has. Why are we pretending that marriage is sacred? That people don't cheat and divorce and all that? I mean, ideally, sure, marriages are supposed to be lifelong and monogamous, but that is just not the reality, and it never has been. Humans are fallible. So that argument, as I am the child of divorced parents, too, really chaps my ass. All of these arguments are strictly religious--it's not the government's business how you have sex or whether you're faithful to your spouse, so--I don't know--shut up! This is not about forcing churches to marry two dudes or two ladies. That's the great thing about this country--you can believe in whatever you want to believe in. You, as a private citizen. But the government of the United States of America (and its individual state governments) can only believe in one thing: equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities for every, single one of its law-abiding citizens. Every. Single. One.
Marriage is not something that can only exist between a man and a woman. Marriage is for any two consenting adults who have decided to make a lifelong commitment to each other. And if a government awards special rights and responsibilities for heterosexual couples who make that choice then it absolutely must accord those same rights to homosexual couples who make the same choice.
That's all there is to it.
So let's go, California. Shoot down Proposition 8, and keep the gay rights movement moving forward instead of seventy-billion steps backward.
PS: Congratulations, Connecticut!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
