Kerfuffle

I want to hug this man, and 86 year old WW2 verteran and lifelong Republican who spoke out in support of gay marriage equality

Recently I watched a boatload of YouTube videos related in some way to California's Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Several of us worked on a research project that looked at how people made their opinions known via YouTube.

None of the videos were as moving as this one from an old man speaking out at a public forum in Maine against their Question One ballot measure.

[thanks, Mike H. for the link]

Even the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal makes a solid case for gay marriage equality

I'm not usually a fan of the opinions expressed in the Wall Street Journal.  Its  conservative voice is often at odds with the progressive agenda to which I subscribe.  But not always.

Yesterday, in a surprising show of support, the WSJ carried about as well-articulated and direct an argument for gay marriage equality as any I have come across.  Some of the writer's key passages are worth highlighting:

The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership.
:::
...the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.
:::
Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.
:::
There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

The opinion was authored by David Bois, who with Ted Olson has brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex.

There will always be people who will not escape their own narrow-mindedness, find homosexuality abhorrent, and be steadfastly against gay marriage equality.  If you look hard enough, especially in rural and southern areas, and among people of lesser education, you can still find people who show visible disgust and disdain for interracial couples.  Things don't change overnight.  But they do change. 

As people become more informed, think more for themselves, and are exposed to the world beyond stereotypes, eventually gay marriage will be as common and acceptable an institution as traditional marriage.  I just hope it is in my lifetime.

[Thanks to my good friend Dan for the link to the piece.]

A few words of caution regarding your health and well-being before you visit Chico's Taco's in El Paso, especially if you happen to be gay

First, the place apparently needs guards... plural.  One security guard must not be enough to protect the honor and integrity of the Chico's dining experience.

Second, don't be a gay couple who gives one another a quick peck on the lips, because the guards don't allow "that faggot stuff" in their fine establishment.

Two men were summarily ejected, along with three friends for showing some monogamous affection, according to the El Paso Times...

Two gay men kissed at a Chico's Tacos restaurant, prompting guards to eject them and a police officer to endorse their ouster.

Civil-rights lawyers say the security staff was out of line. Police, though, contend that a business such as a restaurant can refuse service to anybody, any time.

In all, five men were ordered to leave the restaurant. They say they were forced out by homophobic guards.

"It was a simple kiss on the lips," said Carlos Diaz de Leon, a gay man who was part of the group.

He called police at 12:30 a.m. June 29 because he said the guards and restaurant had discriminated against the group after two of his friends kissed in public.

The police were apparently not too gay-friendly either...

"I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on, and he didn't want to hear my side," de Leon said. "He wanted to hear the security guard's side first."

Police declined to identify the officers who responded, but department spokesman Javier Sambrano described one officer as relatively inexperienced.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public. The five men, he said, were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct -- a law the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

That same year, the El Paso City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.

I wonder if one of the officers was heard to utter something like, "Laws?  We don't need no stinkin' laws!"  Hopefully not, but you'd think the police force would have some idea what the law is... or at least have the common sense to ask someone who does.  The chief might want to rethink that training program.

When asked by a reporter from KVIA-TV for a comment, owner Bernie Mora said. "We are here to sell tacos, not to offend anyone."

Bernie, say hello to Senior FAIL.

They sure aren't much for the gays down there in Texas, the state with the governor who thinks succession from the United States is an option.  Just last month, Fort Worth police did some serious gay bashing at a local bar, well timed to happen during gay pride week. Coincidence?  One wonders.

What I really want to know, though, is why would any self-respecting gay couple go to a dump like Chico's anyway?  Here's a sample of not-so-favorable reviews from Yelp (pre-homophobic "event")...

In a word, Chico's sucks.

El Paso is full of great Mexican restaurants and Chico's is definitely not one of them. Somehow it has become a local legend that if you are true homeboy you are supposed -- required -- to love Chico's, but don't fall for it.  There are a hundred better Mexican restaurants in El Paso.

:::

I think any place I have to eat at in the presence of rent-a-cops should be questionable. The women violate health regulations with the fake nails, huge earrings, and lack of hair nets, or something to pull their hair back. The tacos look like a welfare concoction of tex-mex. This is not mexican food but rather tex-mex. The only thing I can tolerate eating there is the grilled cheese. I try to avoid this place.

:::

What is the big deal with Chico's Tacos?  I grew up in El Paso - went to HS just down the street and if I could I would give them negative one star.  It's a gooey mess of greasy rolled tacos, supposedly beef,  with mounds of cheese and a soupy tomato mixture.  What gets me is these people who order extra tomato sauce ... some die hards will even drink it! Ewh!

Yum!  One stop shopping for homophobia, health code violations AND diarrhea!  Can't wait for my next trip to El Paso... which will be a few days after never.

With the alleged popularity of all those inane quizes on Facebook, maybe Kerfuffle should try to get a piece of that action. Here's a start

In keeping with the true social networking spirit, I totally stole -- I mean re-purposed -- this quiz from Bill in Portland Maine, one of my favorite Daily Kos front-pagers.  This comes from his Cheers & Jeers post this morning. (Since I have been drunk with Bill on exactly two occasions, I feel that entitles me to co-opt his work under the Budweiser-proxy-sorta-Fair-Use Doctrine.)

Let's play a game

All you have to do is figure out which of the following was said by a straight married couple, and which was said by a gay married couple. Ready? Go!

"Quit hogging the remote."

"It's your turn to take the dog out to pee."

"Hurry up or we'll be late for church."

"Be right back---I gotta pick the kids up from soccer practice."

"Happy anniversary."

"You're not wearing that to Jacob's Bar Mitzvah. Are you? Really?"

"I promise I'll be nice to your mother. For at least the first 15 minutes."

"You never, you always, why can't you, why don't you, why didn't you, how could you, why couldn’t you, why haven't you, why aren’t you...?"

"Our pastor married us. It was a great ceremony."

"We're not religious so we went to a justice of the peace."

"She voted for McCain, I voted for Obama. Let's leave it at that."

"Turn right, turn left, no the other left, now you've gone too far, gimme the map, you're speeding again..."

"I'm gonna cry at Rusty's graduation like a busted garden hose. You've been warned. Deal with it."

"Not tonight, I have a headache."

"Oh look! The underwear fairy made another deposit on the bedroom floor. How special!"

"I love you."

It's harder than you thought, no? 

Thank the Lord for Betty Bowers! At last, a concise explanation of traditional marriage, according to the Bible

Heathen that I am, I am reluctant to rely on Evangelical Christian explanations for much.  But fortunately we have Betty Bowers, America's BEST Christian to explain what is and is not OK as far as marriage goes... according to the Bible.

[mad props to Joe My God and intrepid reader Eric for this faith-based explanation.]

Gaywatch! What's new this week in gayishness, as reported by Jon Stewart

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Gaywatch - Marion Barry
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

His take on Washington D.C.'s one councilman not supporting the resolution in question is one of Stewart's best lines in recent memory, me thinks.

Maine joins the movement toward equality for all: Governor signs bill legalizing gay marriage into law

The great state of Maine gives us additional affirmation that the country is, indeed, moving toward general acceptance of gay and lesbian citizens as equal members of our society.

From the AP's Glenn Adams via WaPo:

AUGUSTA, Maine -- Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.

New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region's sole holdout.

The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.

Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn't previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage.

I find it to be a real credit to Governor Baldacci's sense of the big picture that he quickly signed the bill into law, even though he had hoped to stop short at the inferior "separate but equal" concept of civil unions.  He went along with what the people wanted, as demonstrated by their elected legislative representatives.  Good on him.

Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed "at the expense of the people of faith."

"You are making a decision that is not well-founded," warned Plowman.

How's that, Senator Plowman?  How will this change anything -- anything -- in how "people of faith" view, practice, and enjoy marriage (and it's companion, divorce)?

But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage.

"We respect religious liberties. ... This is long overdue," said Bartlett, D-Gorham.

Exactly. It changes nothing for people in terms of opposing religious factions.  Well, almost nothing.  It does strike a blow to their endeavors to impose their beliefs on the overall population.  But that's why the United States Constitution gives us all the right to follow our own religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are secular.

Fairness and equality... what a concept.  Thank you, people of Mane.

Today, while the right wing crazies are focused on teabagging, I offer a musical respite dedicated to the Iowa Supreme Court and the Vermont State Legislature

From singer-songwriter Matt Alber:

Matt Alber, a native of Wichita, Kansas, is a school teacher turned musical artist.  From his Facebook biography...

I grew up singing in choirs. I enjoy singing with other people with wide eyes and open hearts. I went to school to study music. The best parts were spent in a rehearsal room where we all trusted each other.

In San Francisco I sang with an acapella ensemble called Chanticleer directed by a quirky genius of a man named Joe Jennings. He taught me how to challenge a choir to leap forward and discover the miracle they already had in their hands. We toured the globe and made many records together. (2 of them won the Grammy even. How about that?!)

This year I'm pushing myself to improvise on stage and rearrange my songs continually. I'm also starting my own choir of gay and lesbian seniors, or rather, they might be starting me.

Alber's voice reminds me a bit of Rufus Wainright, with a hauntingly beautiful range and quality that makes it, to me, instantly likable.  His music is available at both iTunes and Amazon (who presumably has not blacklisted his Amazon rank due to "adult content" in their recent "glitch.")  You can also sample his recordings and videos at his MySpace page.

[h/t jbm]

Amazon makes a corporate move to keep gay-themed books off their best-seller list. Authors cry foul; I call bullshit (Updated with Amazon's "It was a glitch" excuse. Right)

Note:  Post is updated twice below.

Those who know me know I spend an inordinate amount of money with Amazon.com.  (Not as much as I used to, Tom.  I swear!).  That's one of the reasons this news, as reported on the blog Jacket Copy by Los Angeles Times writer Carolyn Kellogg, bugs me...

One of these books has been removed from Amazon's sales rankings because of "adult" content; the other has not.

"American Psycho" is Bret Easton Ellis' story of a sadistic murderer. "Unfriendly Fire" is a well-reviewed empirical analysis of military policy. But it's "Unfriendly Fire" that does not have a sales rank -- which means it would not show up in Amazon's bestseller lists, even if it sold more copies than the Twilight series. In some cases, being de-ranked also means being removed from Amazon's search results.

Amazon's policy of removing "adult" content from its rankings seems to be both new and unevenly implemented. On Saturday, self-published author Mark R. Probst noticed that his book had lost its ranking, and made inquiries. The response he got from Amazon's customer service explained:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude “adult” material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Here's what really bugs me.  Probst writes gay-themed historical novels for young adults.  These are the kind of books that teens and young adults who may be coming to terms with their sexual orientation might read to better understand themselves through relatively pedestrian fiction.  Similar authors of young adult gay fiction, such as Mark Roeder and Ronald Donaghe, were also dropped from the sales ranking system and thus prevented from popping up when searching popular titles.  I've read these authors' works, and they are hardly "adult" in content... not even close. 

From Probst's blog...

On Amazon.com two days ago, mysteriously, the sales rankings disappeared from two newly-released high profile gay romance books: “Transgressions” by Erastes and “False Colors” by Alex Beecroft. Everybody was perplexed. Was it a glitch of some sort? The very next day HUNDREDS of gay and lesbian books simultaneously lost their sales rankings, including my book “The Filly.” There was buzz, What’s going on? Does Amazon have some sort of campaign to suppress the visibility of gay books? Is it just a major glitch in the system? Many of us decided to write to Amazon questioning why our rankings had disappeared. Most received evasive replies from customer service reps not versed in what was happening. As I am a publisher and have an Amazon Advantage account through which I supply Amazon with my books, I had a special way to contact them.

He received the trite reply noted above.  Nice.

Amazon, this is bullshit.  Your classification of any and all gay and lesbian themed books, be they fiction or non-fiction, as "adult" content is an ignorant decision that smacks of the  bigoted and hateful mindset I'd expect from organizations like Focus on the Family and the so-called National Organization for Marriage... not from the largest bookseller and one of the few places to find self-published work.

What makes this new policy all the more ridiculous is are the titles that aren't being classified as adult (also from Kellogg's blog)...

Our research shows that these books have lost their ranking:  "Running with Scissors" by Augusten Burroughs; "Rubyfruit Jungle" by Rita Mae Brown, "Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic" by Alison Bechdel, "The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1" by Michel Foucault, "Bastard Out of Carolina" by Dorothy Allison (2005 Plume edition), "Little Birds: Erotica" by Anais Nin, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean-Dominque Bauby (1997 Knopf edition), "Maurice" by E.M. Forster (2005 W.W. Norton edition) and "Becoming a Man" by Paul Monette, which won the 1992 National Book Award. 

Books that remain ranked include:  "Naked" by David Sedaris; "Tropic of Cancer" by Henry Miller; "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis; "Wifey" by Judy Blume; "The Kiss" by Kathryn Harrison; the photobooks "Playboy: Helmut Newton" and "Playboy: Six Decades of Centerfolds"; "Naked Lunch" by William Burroughs; "Incest: From 'A Journal of Love'" by Anais Nin; "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean-Dominque Bauby (2007 Vintage International edition), "Maurice" by E.M. Forster* (2005 Penguin Classics edition).

WTF?  As the Times writer notes, many of these titles still ranked are hardly less "adult" in content than those Amazon has chosen to censor from sales rankings, providing no Amazon Rank for use in searches.  Very telling is that the Kindle e-version of "Unfriendly Fire" is still ranked , as all Kindle selections are -- at number one, no less -- in Gay and Lesbian fiction.  Yet the recently released hardcover version doesn't come up at all when searching.

Here I thought Amazon was a progressive company.  They apparently feel this algorithmic censorship, applied very unevenly and without any consideration to specific content, is somehow a good idea.  It's not.  It flies in the face of their history of good customer service, is potentially damaging to authors financially (especially those who self-publish) and is just plain ignorant. 

To founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, I ask: why?  Why are you doing this... especially in such an ill-conceived and uneven way?  I expect more from your company, Mr. Bezos.  And I especially never would have Amazon would be committing de facto censorship of gay and lesbian books in the 21st century.

Got homophobia?  Shame on you.

* Maurice?  Wow, how'd they let that slip by?  Horrors.  Two men kiss somewhere in the text. 

UPDATE I:  This is becoming quite the Twitter trend... @AmazonFAIL

UPDATE II:  Publisher's Weekly is reporting online that what was a classification decision is now a "glitch."

A groundswell of outrage, concern and confusion sprang up over the weekend, largely via Twitter, in response to what authors and others believed was a decision by Amazon to remove adult titles from its sales ranking. On Sunday evening, however, an Amazon spokesperson said that a glitch had occurred in its sales ranking feature that was in the process of being fixed. The spokesperson added that there was no new adult policy.

For most of the weekend on Twitter, in conversations with the hash tag "#amazonfail," users were discussing the fact that the e-tailer was removing the sales rankings for books that it deemed featured "adult content." Many readers, and writers, decried the fact that Amazon appears to be removing the sales ranking for titles that feature gay and lesbian characters and/or themes.

Uh huh.  There was a glitch all right.  But it was in the front office, not the server room.

When hysterical homophobic political communication meets really bad advertising: The National Organization for Marriage poops its rhetorical pants (UPDATED with video)

Normally, I don't like to drive any traffic to websites operated by crazy people, as it is either endorsing bad policy, encouraging idiots,  or, in this case, giving the site the false impression that people support them.  In this case, I have to make an exception.

A group of bigoted wingnuts pooled their money to produce a television spot that might be alarming to thinking people if it didn't seem to be a parody of bad issue advertising.  On first look, the fake lightening and poorly delivered lines scream Saturday Night Live.  But, no, it's meant to be straight (pun only partially intended) effort from the creepy National Organization for Marriage.

The NOM is ever so afraid of the gays, don't you know.  Gay marriage will apparently be the downfall of the institution of marriage.  Unfortunately for the NOMers, their attempt to make any sense of their untenable position was totally overshadowed by their laughable inability to defend their position.  This reached its pinnacle yesterday when the audition tapes for the spot's casting were leaked.  This development not only showed that the people portrayed as real Americans were actors, but that they were really, really bad actors.  (I'm guessing their casting call went to non-union actors from local church theater groups.)

Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle has a great take on this...

My favorite part has got to be the lightning.

The fake lightning, that is, flashing just off to the side, a cheap 'n' cheesy special effect that momentarily lights up the actors' faces in the most sweetly melodramatic way as they stand there against the dark 'n' stormy backdrop like devout Christian zombies, delivering delightfully weird and wooden lines about being openly terrified of those openly terrifying gay married people.
:::
The ads emphasize how the gays are moving closer to Christian homes, businesses, schools and genitalia, and many terrified citizens with souls the size of marbles clearly don't know what to do or how to protect their children -- or their crotches -- from the onslaught because, oh my God, I think I just saw two men kissing on the mouth! Help me, Jesus!

But something is different. Unlike the comparatively sophisticated Proposition 8 ads funded by huge amounts of Mormon "panic cash" here in California, these low-budget spots reek of something else, something a bit more briny and stale and, yes, ultimately enlightening.

Morford goes on to explain that that "something else" is desperation.  He's right.  The divide between the inclusionary and exclusionary, the tollerant and the intollerant are coming down.  All kinds of polls show that while the country is split over gay marriage, this is a generational issue.  As time marches on, more enlightened younger citizens will eventually overtake older, more socially ignorant citizens who just don't seem to get it.  This is not unlike the movement to give women the right to vote or to allow inter-racial marriage.

Interestingly, the NOM site doesn't mention a thing that I can find about divorce.  Seems to me that nothing kills a marriage more than... divorce.  Maybe they'll get on that after they turn back homosexuality. I won't hold my breath.

UPDATE:   Although the casting tape video got yanked from YouTube, it does live on in this clip from the Rachael Maddow show on MSNBC, beginning at about the 2:10 mark...

Calling those people "actors" is, indeed, very generous. Very, very generous.