SwimFinsSF

On Marriage

A friend of mine just pointed me at this article entitled Holy Matrimony: What’s really undermining the sanctity of marriage? By Dahlia Lithwick on Slate. She has done an outstanding job of distilling down the issue in a clear and meaningful way. Many of the arguments I’ve heard a number of times but and still ring true. However this part of the article really hit the nail on the head for me:

Here’s why marriage will likely survive last week’s crushing decision out of Massachusetts: Because despite all the horrors of Section 4, above, human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.

What really gets me about these arguments is the tone they take. Those who support basic human rights for gays and lesbians (marriage, domestic partner benefits, or whatever) consistently do so with clear logical arguments which seem to be presented with calmness and dignity. I was pawing through the archives that our GLTB group at work kept on the process of lobbying for DP Benefits back in 1992. After reading the justification, the research that backed the presentation, as well as watching the video tape of the presentation I couldn’t imagine any opposition to its adoption because they made it clear that it was just the right thing to do – from every angle.

Those who oppose these basic rights seem to base their arguments on historical dogma that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and they do it with a very thinly veiled contempt (and hate) for those who don’t share their beliefs. I’m the FIRST to admit I’m clearly biased on this issue, however I would be very interested to read an opposing position that was introspective, well thought out and divorced from prejudice. Even if I didn’t agree with the points making I could at least respect the case presented. As it stands these arguments come across as thinly veiled justification for bigotry using the same arguments that have been used throughout history against numerous other groups of people. There’s a good reason why the keep finding the way they do – because they have to. The arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny.

I won’t even START on this Constitutional ammendment thing – I need breakfast and don’t need to get riled up.

Anyway… Enough preaching…

Yesterday / Hell Ball

So after I wrote yesterday I spent the day with Matt, Brian, and Kevin getting ready for Hell Ball.. Matt and I ran errands while Kevin and Brian went to Crafts stores to buy supplies… Then we all got together and had what was essentially a little craft party.. The theme for the party was ‘El Dorado – Lost City of Gold’ and Kevin’s all about costume parties with themes so he ran with it.. They got blue fabric and gold edging and we made what turned into essentially kind of glorified togas and we had masks and paint to along with it.. I was impressed – it turned out very well…

The party was a LOT of fun… It was definitely a standard San Francisco circuit party – lots of half naked guys and lout music – but this one is kind of fun because of halloween. Most everyone comes in costumes of some sort but, because its a circuit party, people tend to find creative ways of wearing close to nothing… LOTS of cowboys and indians (cuz you can’t throw a rock in the castro without hitting someone who owns at least one pair of chaps)… A few Gladiators… The requisite drag queen or two.. One guy who was dressed as what he described as a ‘worn out whore’ ( and the fact that he was stumbling drunk and smoking a cigarette from the wrong end without knowing it just added to the image)… There were also a handfull of people who didn’t dress up but they all looked like they were embarrased that they hadn’t.. The DJ was really good (and pretty hot) and they had a couple of performers including Kevin Aviance who was really good (he’s usually really New York pots and pans type stuff which I like on occasion but is a little too angry for me – but I really like it last night)..

Overall we had a lot of fun… Didn’t get home till super late so today was a day of rest and recovery – but that kind of thing on occasion can be fun…

now off to bed for me – its a school night! 🙂

Fun W&G News

Some fun news brought to you by the go fish

McDermott cast in Will & Grace

The Twinkie Defense

In reading on bloggy about Rev. Phelps’ picketing of the Harvey Milk School in NYC ( I’ll spare you my rant on THAT ) I saw a link to snopes about the Twinky Defense. For those of you not familiar, back in 1978 Dan White (a former SF city supervisor who had recently resigned) broke into city hall and shot then Mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk to death. When the case went to trial the defense team was rumored to have used White’s consumption of twinkies as an argument for diminished capacity. When White was ultimately charged with manslaughter instead of first degree murder (purportedly based on this defense) the gay community in San Francisco freaked out and there were riots throughout the city which became known as the White Night Riot.

According to snopes, this wasn’t entirely accurate:

White’s defense was that he had been suffering from a long-standing and untreated depression that diminished his capacity to distinguish right from wrong, and thus he was not capable of the premeditation required to support a charge of first degree murder. Dr. Martin Blinder was called as a witness by the defense to testify that the conversion of the previously health-conscious White to a diet of Twinkies and other junk foods was evidence of his depression.

Very interesting. Regardless of this the city had a right to be outraged but it is always interesting to find that a story that you’ve heard and have been re-telling isn’t entirely accurate..

Anyway – thought I’d share.

So Dissapointed…

Was SO hoping James would choose Brian. Brian seemed like SUCH a sweet guy. Ah well.. Least I pegged Franklin as the straight Guy.

And with a Perspective on Gay Marriage

I found this fun read from Alex Frantz at Public Nuisance. Following the logic of those using the Bible as the foundation for the definition of a ‘traditional marriage’ the following must also hold:

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.¹ Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.²
  
• A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.³ Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.⁴
  
• Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce.⁵
  
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.⁶

1. Gen. 29, 17 – 28; II Sam. 3, 2 – 5.
2. II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21
3. Deut. 22, 13 – 21
4. Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 – 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30
5. Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6. Gen. 38 6 – 10; Deut 25 5 – 10

And yes – the argument is fairly absurd. But so is trying to use literal interpretation of the text of the Bible as a justification for or against any number of things…

For those of you that haven’t seen it I’d recommend picking up a book called The Bible Tells Me So – Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture by Jim Hill and Rand Cheadle. Its a fun read that does a fairly good job of showing the examples throughout history of peoplpe using the Bible as justification for everything from Slavery to Capital Punishment to Medical Science. (and almost as fun is to read the Customer Reviews of the book on Amazon.)

Anyway.. It all gave me a chuckle so I had to share.