Prop 8...Again

I had thought that if I heard one more word about Prop 8 in California that my head would explode. Turns out, that's not the case. Don't get me wrong; I do feel a wave of nausea come over me. But there is no cranial explosion, so that seems good. That doesn't mean that I have the stomach for some long and droning post, because I do not. That just means that I have the capacity to muse over a point that some guy who thinks his point matters is trying to make.

If you have been blissfully living under a rock or in a world where you don't have to hear about Prop 8 all the live long day, I envy you. But here's the scoop: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (probably related to Jimmie Walker...Dyn-o-mite!) essentially overturned California's ban on gay marriage, aka, Prop 8. And now a one Tony Perkins, who is the head of something called the Family Research Council, says that the judge never should have stayed on the case in the first place because of the judge's own alleged gayness.

A homo judge?! Blasphemy! Whatever. Tony Perkins (not Anthony Perkins; that was Psycho) says that Judge Walker "...should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality." Perkins was apparently on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday and said, "I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments...This is far from over."

Now, now, Tony. Let's just calm down a little. Try and keep your homophobia in check so that you can get your facts straight (no pun intended), all right? OK, then. See, Judge Walker is not openly gay. It's a rumor, but it's not an open secret and/or fact, depending on which moniker you prefer. Usually when there's a rumor that isn't true, especially if it involves one being gay, folks tend to speak out and set the record straight (pun totally intended this time). I'm not saying that means that Judge Walker is gay. I'm just saying.

And regardless as to how I feel about Prop 8, I really do hate it when something is voted on by the people and then it is struck down by a judge. That frustrates the hell out of me. Aside from the incredible waste of time and money, the right of the people to vote is kind of an important element in this country. Having it taken away or essentially nullified by one judge could be doing more harm than good. And I realize that the people can be as dumb as a box of hair a lot of the time. That isn't up for debate. What's up for debate is when people vote for something and then they're told by a judge that they can't do that. Well, if they can't do that then don't have them vote on it in the first place. Why don't you folks get those ducks in a row and stop spending my money on rearranging your ducks?

But Tony Perkins isn't the only one with his boxers in a knot. No, according to The Huffington Post the American Family Association called the decision "outrageous and unconscionable" as well as saying that it "...should never have been allowed to happen." They insisted that "Walker...should have recused himself "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Hmmm. Interesting.

OK, I get their point. But the problem here is that there point is coming from their interests and from what they want. Of course they think that a gay judge is going to rule in favor of the gay side of things. But why wouldn't the same litmus test be applied to the other side of that argument? If it had been a straight judge and the straight judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8, wouldn't gay folks be saying that a straight judge should have recused himself because his judgment would have been "clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity"? I think that's a fair argument to make.

The thing that the AFA and that Tony Perkins guy are overlooking is that Judge Walker is just that. He's a judge. It's right there in his title: Judge Walker. Part of being a judge is being impartial. That's the inherent underlying implication of being a judge. You're supposed to be impartial. I have no idea whether or not Judge Walker's alleged gayness had anything to do with his ruling. I do know that his ruling was 136 pages long and that seems a little meticulous for someone who is just flying by the seat of their pants.

But don't worry Tony Perkins and AFA folks. You're right. This isn't over yet. Of course it is going to go to a higher court. And after that court rules (and it won't matter either way because it will be appealed by the losing side) then it will inevitably end up with the Supreme Court. Is that a good idea? I don't know. I think it's poor strategy, personally. I think that the tide is slowly turning in California in regard to gay marriage. I think that there were several factors that contributed to Prop 8 being passed. And the majority of those factors could be eliminated or remedied at another election. Giving the whole thing time might have been a better way to go. This way, even though the judge has ruled Prop 8 to be a no-go, there still isn't gay marriage in California. No, it's going to be put on hold for years. Several years. And when the Supreme Court rules, there is a fifty-fifty chance that they're going to rule in favor of state's rights. And if it comes down to that, then it's done. It becomes a Roe v. Wade situation which will be highly and hotly debated for future years, but will never change.

In conclusion, I expect Judge Walker's ruling to be overturned by one of the higher courts. I base that on the basis of his ruling which is something called "rational basis". He said that there was no "rational basis" for Prop 8. From what I can tell, rational basis is one of the easiest rulings to overturn. Therefore, it will be. It won't be soon, but it will likely happen. And you know what will happen then? I'm going to have to figure out how to soundproof my walled-off compound because people will never stop talking about it ever when that day comes. Maybe I need some sort of a dome. Like in The Truman Show? I'm open to suggestions. All I know is I can't take much more of the incessant debating on either side. I just want it over already.

Sphere: Related Content

Um, The Election Is Over

So I keep hearing about and seeing all of these protests going on in various parts of California that are against Proposition 8. Groups of people staging protests, editorials in newspapers, TV interviews, petitions. People that are against Proposition 8 seem to be everywhere. What a great idea that is. Making your cause highly visible and always being in the public eye is a great way to get your message out when an election is approaching and an issue that you feel passionately about is on the ballot. They're going to do just fine if they keep up....the.....wait. What? Huh? The election was when? Last week?!?! Are you sure? Really? And they LOST?!?! What they doing? Where the heck were they last week? Or the week before that? Or the week before that?

Yeah, all of those things I just mentioned? Those would have made for a great strategy...if y'all had done it before the election was over! Perhaps that has something to do with why you lost! You're too late! It's over! (For now.) WHERE WERE YOU GUYS BEFORE THE ELECTION?!?!

And I've said it before, I'm all for a good protest and I'm all for democracy and the democratic process. But just remember that when you're protesting, you're going to be drawing attention to yourself. And when you have a bunch of other people watching you, people that may actually be able to be influenced by what you're doing, please don't do anything stupid. Please? Please just conduct yourself in a manner that is conducive with the goal that you hope to achieve.

Look, you can't go around declaring that those who are for Proposition 8 are haters and bigots. For starters, the word 'hater' is lame. Choose something a bit more grown-up, will you? Second, it's not all about bigotry and hatred. I had heated, yet positive, conversation a few weeks ago about what it was that fueled people to vote Yes on Prop 8. And the person I was talking with put it very simply that people are afraid to redefine what a marriage is and it was that fear that led them to vote Yes. (And I wish I could remember the specifics of her basis for that conclusion, but I think it had something to do with fear making people react defensively, which would make sense. And alleviating people's fears is something that is tangible and is do-able, and that was at least that was somewhat comforting.)

If you want someone to not be afraid of something, don't do scary things (like protest holding a sign with a swastika on it. There should be no Nazi comparisons. Trust me, if you were gay and the Nazis were in charge of you and the repercussion of it was that you only weren't allowed to get married, you'd be OK with that when you compared it to what the Nazis actually did to homosexuals. NO Nazi comparisons, folks.). I'm not saying the fear is justified, because I don't think that it is. But that doesn't change the fact that some of those, perhaps a lot of those, who are in favor of Proposition 8 are fearful of redefining marriage and they are fearful of what it may or may not do to children, families, communities and the entire existence of the world as we know it. (Yes, I realize that's a bit extreme, but so are the Yes on Prop 8 folks. Their reasoning for their opposition to gay marriage is extreme, not valid and misleading.)

Last weekend, an LDS Church in Sacramento had “No on Proposition 8” spray painted on the church's sign. In San Jose, “No on Prop 8” was reported more than once to have been spray painted on personal property. Also in San Jose, a couple with a Yes on 8 banner on their garage awoke to find an SUV parked in front of their house with "Bigots Live Here" wrote on the windows and an arrow pointing toward their home. Are you people kidding me? What in the hell are you thinking? Oh, sure! THAT will convince people that you're just like them and should have your right to get married! NO!! You jackasses! Tolerance? You think those who are supporting Proposition 8 are intolerant?! And that is your way of showing just how tolerant you are?! Nice job, jackasses. Sure, people are going to rally right around that sort of behavior.

Look, protesting in and of itself is one thing. But when you cross the line into accusations and harassment and then go a step further into vandalism, you're not doing yourself or anyone else who is gay any favors. Below we have a lovely sign from a protest in front of an LDS church in New York. That's not helping anyone. You can't protest the passage of Proposition 8 by attacking others! People are each entitled to their own individual viewpoint on matters (even viewpoints that you don't agree with), but you're not going to get them to see things your way by attacking them. When people are attacked (just like animals) they go on the defensive. This methodology is NOT helping!

Now the No on Proposition 8 folks are tracking down the donors who contributed to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign and making their lives a living hell. They're identifying donors online and they're staging boycotts of select businesses. Don't you see how backwards that is?! You're going about it the wrong way! Instead of spending all of your time and energy boycotting businesses or individuals who are against you, why don't you take that same time and that same energy and put it into supporting businesses or individuals who supported you? If you want someone to support you, show them what their support will mean to you! Support their business! Buy their products! Make a concerted effort to give back to those who are on your side! Why are you ignoring them and paying attention to the other side (who has already WON, by the way. For now, it is over.) Backwards. You're doing this all backwards.

The current approach fails in many ways. One example is given by the folks over there at ABC7-News in San Francisco. It would seem that a one Amy Kuschel, a wedding dress designer is an opponent of Prop 8. Well, that's good, right? Sure, "...but same-sex marriage supporters have been targeting her business on yelp.com" Why would they do that if she's against Prop 8? Apparently it was "one of her employees donated $2,500 to the Prop 8 campaign, not her." Nice job, folks. Here's someone who is on your side and you're taking her down for what reason? Because you didn't have your facts straight? Because you acted hastily and angrily? Nice. How much business have you cost her? She's one of your supporters!! How much damage have you done by just going out and attacking to get your point across? More damage than you would have done by NOT doing that at all, how's that for an answer?

Folks, just calm your asses down for a minute. You need to settle down or else you're going to do this more harm than good. You need to alleviate the fears that people have. You need to address the concerns that people express. You don't need to spew venomous hatred. You don't need to attack others for their (misguided) viewpoint. You need to take the points that the Yes on Proposition 8 folks have been using to mislead people and you need address them one at a time. You need to explain the difference between a domestic partnership and a civil union and a marriage and why they are all not the same. You need to support those who supported you. You need to have your actions speak for you in a positive manner.

And then, after you've done what you need to do, you can do what you want to do for YOU. It sucks that Prop 8 passed. I was surprised at my own disappointment, as I didn't really think too much about it as it applied to me and how I see my life going. But when it passed, it just made me really sad. Not just for me and not just for anyone else who's gay, but it made me sad for those who are so afraid of Prop 8 not passing because I really do think that fear was the motivator more than anything else was.

Maybe I'm too optimistic to think that it the passing of Prop 8 wasn't driven by hatred and bigotry. I could be wrong. (It wouldn't be the first time and it certainly wouldn't be the first time today, either!) It just doesn't feel that way. Intolerance? Perhaps. But hatred and bigotry, I'm not so sure about. Here's the thing: 70% of African Americans who voted, voted FOR Prop 8. 90% of Asian voters who voted, voted FOR Prop 8. 53% of Latinos who voted, voted FOR Prop 8. With Obama running for President, there were more African American voters that showed up at the polls than traditional numbers have shown. In another election, when there is not an Obama running for President, the number of African American voters that go to the polls would be expected to return to traditional numbers and to be significantly less, thus lowering the number of Yes votes overall. (And it's entirely possible that by simply riding it out and waiting until another Prop is placed on a ballot, the change in the ethnic demographics of voters alone might be sufficient to get it to pass. Just something to think about.)

Yet even with those voter statistics, I continue to see and hear about protests and attacks against religious organizations who were in favor of Prop 8. I'm certainly not saying that the No on 8 folks should be out attacking the African American, Hispanic and Asian voters along with the religious organizations. All I'm saying is that it's misguided. It's a waste of time and energy that isn't going to have a positive effect on what you want to accomplish.

But if the No on 8 folks keep going about things the way that they seem to be, future propositions on the ballot to legalize gay marriage in California could very well be defeated by hatred and bigotry and intolerance, but not from the side that would be against gay marriage. Future propositions could be defeated by the perception of the hatred and bigotry and intolerance that is currently being demonstrated by those in favor of gay marriage. And the irony will be if they end up perceived as being just like everything that they claim to be against. Do you really want that to be the sad, pathetic, ironic fate of gay marriage?

Just calm down people.

Sphere: Related Content

Lesbians and Missionaries, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The last time that I had inadvertently been in a location where California's Proposition 8 was being discussed and was unable to flee the room fast enough to avoid having to hear about it for the gazillionth time, the race was close and it seemed like the No vote would win. Just a reminder, Prop 8 is the one which would insert into the State Constitution an amendment that defines marriage as being between "one man and one woman", thus eliminating the possibility of polygamy, polyandry, people marrying dogs and gay marriage. Most of the people that are against this Prop are against it for the gay marriage part and not so much for the other ones that I mentioned. (I, of course, would still really like to see people marrying dogs. I think that would be hilarious. But once again, I think I'd be in the minority of people who believe that things should really be governed in whichever way seems more fun at the time.)

As of my writing this, the Prop 8 issue has not been decided yet, as all of the votes have not been tallied. But even with polling in the days prior to the election seeming to indicate that Prop 8 could be defeated (again, that would allow for gay marriage, but still not people marrying dogs), for some reason it seems as if Prop 8 might actually get through. Seriously, just yesterday it was looking like a defeat for Prop 8, so for it to be so close on Election Day makes me wonder if something changed or happened to sway people's opinions. Well, I shall wonder no more! Something did happen. Something did change. I don't know if it was stupid enough or brazen enough, but it just might have been. After all, people are morons.

The folks over in the No on 8 camp (pro gay-marriage) made an interesting choice. On Election Day they aired their new ad which is supposed to make people want to side with them and vote NO on the Prop. They might have wanted to think that one through a little bit more before airing their ad which depicts Mormon missionaries enforcing a ban on gay marriage by going to the home of two married lesbians and, a la the style of a weapon-less home invasion or the execution of a search warrant, proceed to shred their marriage license and take their wedding rings, making sure to comment to each other on the way out how easy it was and what rights can they take from people next. Wait. Missionaries? Doing what? Wait.

Correct. The No on 8 folks seem to be pretty annoyed with the Mormon church and all of the money that the church has poured into the Yes on 8 fund. The Grand Poobah of the Mormon church had also made it a point to get the word out to its members that they should vote against gay marriages wherever they are. A couple of things about the Mormon church: They have a lot of members and they have a lot of money. One of the requirements of the LDS church is that its members tithe 10% of their income to the church. So it's a group of folks who are used to and, oddly enough, perfectly OK with their church telling them what to do with their money. Go figure.

The strange choice for a Day Of The Election ad is below. Said ad was paid for by the Courage Campaign Issues Committee, a group I had not heard of being involved in this issue until I saw the ad. Again, go figure. As you watch it, keep in mind these folks are the ones who are angry that people who want to pass Prop 8 are intolerant of gays and gay marriage. I'm not so sure that the ad portrays the No on Prop 8 folks as being overly tolerant either. No, it kind of screams, "Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You're black!"

Nice, eh? The thing is, the Mormon church has not been an overly vocal or outspoken component of this issue. Yes, they've encouraged their members to vote against gay marriage and yes they have donated a boatload of money. And because they have a boatload of members, that can equate to a bunch of opposing votes and a bunch of monetary support for the cause. However, keep in mind that it's not the church itself that is responsible for all of the money coming into the Yes on 8 camp. It is the members of the church who are donating as individuals and all of the individuals are considered as one group, that of the Mormon church. A more accurate statement would be "Members of the Mormon church have donated 20 million dollars to help pass Prop 8." It's not like the Grand Poobah of the Mormon church cut a 20 million dollar check to Yes on 8. But to turn the support of Prop 8 into a Mormon church issue seems strange to me, especially since the most vocal and visible supporter group of Prop 8 has been the ProtectMarriage.com jackasses folks.

If they felt the need to go after an issue on the day OF the election, they should have gone after the Protect Marriage folks. They are shameful individuals who have twisted facts and portrayed hypotheticals as facts in order to frighten heterosexuals into believing that if gays were allowed to get married then every child in the public school system would be taught about gay marriage through sodomy courses. In Massachusetts, gay marriage is taught in public schools and parents in Massachusetts do not have the right to opt out of having their child receive that instruction. The Protect Marriage camp has vigorously gotten the word out that if Prop 8 fails, then gay marriage will be taught in schools and in Massachusetts the parents don't have a choice. See how they twist that? They have to because the California Education Code has a section which specifically DOES allow parents to opt out of having their child receive such instruction. So it's NOT the same as Massachusetts, but the Protect Marriage folks basically LIE and imply that it is. Nice. Nice tactic. Honestly, how do you people sleep at night? Very righteously, I'm sure.

Ads attacking churches with gestapo missionaries, Protect Marriage soft-heads lying and distorting facts, people stealing yard signs, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria has erupted, I tell you! What is wrong with you people? Have you all lost your teeny, tiny, soft-headed little minds? Can you not conduct yourself in a manner that is truthful and, yes, tolerant of the opposition even though you vehemently disagree with them? You folks that are so against the gay marriage thing, what are you afraid of? I understand that you're opposed to it, but I fail to see how it's any of your business, really.

And now I'm done and I still don't know how it turned out because they still haven't finished counting ballots yet, but from what it's looking like, it would seem that the Yes on Prop 8 folks are going to win and gay marriage will be banned in California via an amendment to the State Constitution. Oh, but don't worry. Prop 2, the one that makes it so that the chickens have room to move around, passed.

I had a brief conversation with a friend tonight whose 20-year old "politically conscious child that she raised" was rather upset about Prop 8 passing and sent my friend a text that said "It sucks that we care more about animals than people." (Which just goes to show that she not only raised a politically conscious child, she also raised a very smart and extremely insightful one.) She said that she explained to her that people are just really freaked out about redefining what a marriage is. (Which just goes to show where the kid got all the smarts and got all of the insight from.) The fact that something that seemed so complicated could be summed up in such a simple and accurate manner that was neither offensive nor intolerant amazed me because it's the first time I'd heard it put that way. This whole thing would have gone a lot smoother if both sides had taken a more straightforward, simple and logical look at it like my friend did and then just gone from there instead of trying to get the most shock value that they could at the expense of others.

Man, I'm glad I have smart friends. It restores what verrrrry little faith I have in the ability of the people to see things for what they are. Now if someone could just restore my faith in the ability of the people to act on those observations, then I'd feel a little bit better. But just the fact that the election is over, well, that alone makes me feel a whole lot better.

Sphere: Related Content

Hurry Up And Vote Already!

Finally! Oh, my God, finally! It is Election Day in the United States and I cannot say this loud enough, get out there and effing vote! Hurry! Just get it over with. Vote early, vote often! (Oh, but I kid! One ballot per person!) I read somewhere that Barry has been campaigning for right around 640 days. That means that you and I and everyone else had to read or hear about every single freaking one of those 640 days. And I for one am not thinking about making it 641. No way, I have had it! I am over this thing! The country could slip into a state of prolonged anarchy and I'd be OK with it as long as I didn't have to hear "My friends" or "Change" or "Lipstick" or (Seriously, where the hell is Joe Biden?).

And over here in the lovely extension of Mexico, otherwise known as California, it will mean the end, the glorious end to the Proposition 8 chaos that seems to have brought out the absolute worst in anyone who is willing to publicly associate themselves with it. Proposition 8 is the one that, if it passes it would essentially ban gay marriage. If it doesn't pass, then the legally sanctioned carnal fornication between homosexual couples will be allowed to continue.

I have to say I've been extremely disappointed by folks on both sides of the Prop 8 issue. Those who are in favor of Prop 8 (anti gay marriage folks) have been running ads, passing out flyers and spewing information that is bordering on fear mongering. They present their arguments as fact and as realistic possibilities when discussing the possible repercussions of Prop 8 failing and allowing gay couples to continue their hedonistic lifestyles. While I will credit them for expanding their focus wider than the tried and true "you're going to burn in hell" proclamation, they really should have not been so manipulative with their arguments.

And on the side of the folks who are against Prop 8, you folks just need to calm down. You can't be screaming at someone who is for Prop 8 that they are homophobic and anti-gay and full of, ironically, hate and rage and that they discriminate against homosexuals because they're bigots. First of all, don't scream. At anyone. It makes you look like an idiot. Second, just because someone is for Prop 8 doesn't mean that they're homophobic or that they hate homosexuals. Throwing around words like that when you are just angry only serves to make those whom you're hurling the words at angry. And a bunch of angry people who may or may not be either gay or homophobic is never a good thing. (Unless you need an angry mob, in which case it will work just fine.)

And both sides, listen up. Stop stealing each other's signs, for cryin' out loud! What are you? Ten? Don't steal their sign! What is wrong with you people? You want those who are not on your side of the issue to agree with you and the way that you do that is by stealing the other side's sign? Oh, I'm sure that's a great way to get them to see that you're perfectly reasonable and they should be clamoring to climb atop your soap box. No, not so much. This could be not pleasant after the polls have closed, I'm afraid. Regardless of which side wins, the side that does not win needs to keep it's head and act in a dignified way. Put the torches and pitchforks away and accept your loss under our fabulous and only slightly flawed Democratic system.

So vote how you want on Prop 8, but just be a grown up about it, OK? Next up...chickens.

Yes, chickens. Prop 2 is basically giving chickens that are raised for egg production room to move around. Apparently, some of these egg laying chickens are shoved into a little tiny cage where they can't even move their useless wings. That's just wrong. And I was implored yesterday by a very reasonable individual who felt very strongly that Prop 2 should pass so that the chickens can roam about the coop and continue to shoot out eggs all the live long day. (I'd really like the meet the guy who first ate an egg. How that guy had the guts to do that, I'll never know. Think about it. He's sitting there. He sees the chicken lay an egg. He thinks to himself, "Wow. Look at where that came from. I know, I'll EAT it!" Nope, the incredible, edible egg would have gone unnoticed had I been predestined to be the first egg eater, I'll tell you that right now.)

And it's not just chickens, though that's the easiest example to put out there. It's all animals that are involved in the production of themselves for food . They all need room to move around before we kill them and eat them. Think of it as our way of saying, "Sorry that we're going to be doing that to you in a little while, but you're so damned tasty, we really don't have a choice. But we'll let you move around a bit until it's time to off you." See? When it's put that way, it seems way more humane, doesn't it?

But aside from giving the little chickies and other animals room to move, it will ease the anxieties of my Prop 2 friend, who claims to be kept up at night, whether it be from not being able to sleep or from nightmares of chickens in squashed cages with a large Fagan-like character shouting at them to lay their eggs faster. You don't want any of those things. No squashed chickens. No yelling. No animal loving friend of mine kept up at night worrying about flightless fowl. It works out for everyone. (How'd I do?)

Now get! Get! Go effing vote already! It's almost over!

Sphere: Related Content

All Obligations Are Not Obligatory

In case you've been living under a rock lately, Ellen DeGeneres married her girlfriend Portia deRossi in California on August 16, despite the protests of people who think that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to things that will end up ruining society. (What's next? People marrying dogs?! A sight that I, personally, would love to witness the ceremony for. Anything after that, not so much. But a person-dog wedding? THAT is entertainment at it's finest.) And those who were protesting are continuing to do so with Proposition 8.

Knowing how you would vote on Prop 8 can be confusing because 'yes' means 'no' and 'no' means 'yes'. See, Prop 8 makes it so that men and only marry women and so that women can only marry men. Prop 8 basically says that if you're gay and want to marry the one who you're being gay with, well, you can't. So if you DON'T want same-sex marriage, you vote Yes. If you DO want same-sex marriage, you vote No. See, this one could go either way, not because of the public opinion but because people get confused in that little booth sometimes (it's the only way to explain that GW is a two term President) and with the wording for Prop 8 being like it is, who knows what California will end up with? It might just turn out that you can marry your dog if it passes! Who knows?!

But here's the thing that some people feel the need to point out and make a big deal about. (Oh, exactly what the "big deal" is, I'm not sure. I think it has something to do with some people not holding up their big, gay end of the whole deal, but it's really kinda foggy.) According to IN Magazine, Ellen and Portia have not made a financial contribution to help fight Prop 8 from passing. And I guess the article is implying that because they're gay and they got married and they're celebrities that they are somehow obligated or expected to fork over a chunk of cash for this cause. You know, since they're for gay marriage and all. Um, there are many flaws with that logic, but I'll get back to that.

The article continues to cite other gay celebrities who have also not upheld their end of all of the gayness by not contributing to the fundraising efforts to fight Prop 8. "Also missing (as of Sept. 10) from the rolls were: Rosie O’Donnell, whose Feb. 27, 2004, marriage to Kelli Carpenter was nullified; Sir Elton John, who tied the civil partnership knot with partner David Furnish in England; rock star Melissa Etheridge, whose domestic partnership/wedding to actress Tammy Lynn Michaels Sept. 22, 2003, was celebrated in In Style magazine." It went on to list other names of those who are "bad gays" because they haven't made a financial donation. It lists Paul Colichman, Greg Berlanti, Marc Cherry, Bryan Singer, Joel Schumacher and Gus Van Sant as having kept their own money to themselves. Um, who are those people? I know who Schumacher and Gus are, but the other ones? Never heard of them. But congratulations on all of the gayness and on all of the money that some people think that you should give away!

And just to hammer home the point, the article states that, "So while their visibility as openly LGBT celebrities and entertainment power players is important, their financial absence from the specific fight to save the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry is hurting." Really? Wow. They must be having a really hard time digging up cash to fight this thing and...what? How much? Over eleven million dollars? Are you sure? That's dollars? Not pesos? (Because with Mexico being so close and all and with half of their population living here anyway, it would be a mistake that I could foresee happening.) Dollars. Really? And eleven million of them? Huh. Well, then. Are you freaking kidding me?!

Look, I'm not an accountant, I don't play one on TV and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do know a thing or two about math and finance. Allow me to start with the most basic of the concepts here: Eleven million of anything is a lot of that thing. Eleven million dollars, contrary to what seems to be the norm these days in devaluing the value of anything of value, is a lot of dollars. How much money have the folks who are for Prop 8 raised? Sixteen million dollars? Again, NOT pesos, right? Dollars? So, five million dollars more than those against Prop 8. OK.

Again, I'll admit to knowing next to nothing about campaigning for or against something in terms of cost. But I do know that for eleven million dollars, you can do a hell of a lot and if you're saying that you can't, then you're probably right. YOU can't. But someone else CAN.

Aside from the financial logistics (which I could ramble on about for quite some time. Probably right up until all eight of you who actually read this had lost interest and vowed never to read again. That's why I'm not delving much further into that topic. You're welcome.), I need to get back to the bad gays, Ellen and Portia. Why anyone would feel that anyone else is obligated to GIVE AWAY their money to someone or something else is beyond me. And not just give it away, but give it away blindly (basically). I have very little to absolutely NO faith in almost any group doing fundraising in any sort of political arena that they will be able to efficiently regulate and spend that money in ways that will be the most productive for their cause. NO faith. None! You have no idea where they're spending the money, what it's going for, what it's already gone for. And you will get no promises as to what your money will be spent on when you fork it over (never to be seen again, mind you). But because Ellen and Portia are....? Celebrities? They're supposed to want to throw their cash into a pile for a cause that, while I'm sure they feel is worthy, may or may not use their money efficiently? I don't think they're supposed to feel like they should do that.

Ellen and Portia are celebrities who have taken a huge risk (though not as big of a risk as it was when Ellen used her TV show to come out with all of her gayness. That awesome revelation basically cost her her career for a few years.) to publicize their relationship with each other. You're going to get more publicity out of just that event in and of itself than you are with millions of more dollars. It's not all about the money. You'd think it was, but it's not. And Ellen and Portia are no more obligated to donate money toward fighting Prop 8 than any other gay individual is obligated to do so. (Morons.) And I find it bizarre that some seem to think that they are obligated.

I don't know, maybe it's because it's election time and the candidates are all fundraising at a pace normally only seen in meth freaks after they've been up for four days, but I'm pretty tired of always being asked to give my money away. And it's always as if that is what my money is for; to give away! Hey, news flash: No, it's not. And Ellen's and Portia's money isn't for them to be giving away either. And especially not just because they're gay.

And just because I don't want to give money to a bunch of fundraisers for something that I fundamentally agree with, doesn't mean that I don't care (even though sometimes, I really don't). It just means that people are expected just to blindly hand their money over, no questions asked, and feel good about it. That doesn't make me feel very good. And if I actually did it, I'd feel like a moron for doing so. Ellen and Portia don't come across as moronic. They come across as very smart, not to mention very gay and very happy together. And I'm sure that if the fundraising individuals who are sitting on that eleven million just put as much effort into stretching that money out as far as it can go instead of belittling anyone who is gay who hasn't donated yet, they'd end up being a lot more productive. Perhaps they should try it my way so we can find out.

Sphere: Related Content