Manhattan Chowder, Back in the Big Apple

Post Election, SNL Goes Right Down the Tubes

Getting lots of mileage off of the country's recent election along with the talents of the incomparable Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, Saturday Night Live has enjoyed some of its best ratings in years over the last couple of months. But now that Amy is gone on maternity leave and Tina is back at 30 Rock, what remains on SNL is bleak, sophomoric, homophobic crap.

Yesterday Scott and I met some friends on the Mall here in DC where we marched through the wind and the rain in protest of the passage of Prop 8. You can see the photos for yourself below. We listened to the stories of gay men and women whose lives and families have been unjustly and adversely affected by Prop 8 and others like it around the country. By time it was over we were tired and soaking wet, but we hoped that maybe, just maybe our efforts along with those of thousands of others across the country might help the cause for equal civil rights for the LGBT community.

When Scott and I climbed into bed after our exhausting day and flipped on SNL for a few laughs, we were assaulted in sketch after sketch with homophobic jokes. First there was a family sketch, based on one joke: that they all kissed each other inappropriately. Of course the biggest "punchlines" (if you can even call them that) were based on the male/male kisses. The audience laughed and groaned at what I suppose was the absurdity of men kissing.

Next was a sketch about juvenile delinquents who were being lectured by an ex-con about the horrors of prison, almost all of which had to do with the threat of gay sex. Isn't that hilarious? What could possibly be worse than gay sex??? There was another sketch with four guys in a car swapping tales of woe and singing Ricky Nelson's "Garden Party", again with almost all of the punchlines revolving around some incongruous gay sex reference. There was a sketch about two men painting each other naked whose art was so repulsive it made an entire room of art lovers vomit en masse. There was an appearance by "gay" cartoon characters Snagglepuss and the Great Gazoo who were supposedly gay-married. And finally the stupidly unfunny Justin Timberlake crashed a skit with Beyonce in which he played a mincing, lisping stereotypic male dancer.

THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why shit like Prop 8 gets passed. As long as our love and sex lives are the punchline to every joke on late night TV, we will never be taken seriously. Shame on SNL. Of all days...

UPDATE: Apparently I wasn't the only one who noticed SNL's offensive "gay minstrel show" the other night. Read about it at After Elton and Defamer. Also, there was one other homophobic sketch involving two male parking lot attendants who like to have sex in the mensroom together which was just as bad, but I switched the show off after the Beyonce sketch.

Labels: Gay Culture, Gay Politics

posted by Michael @ 11:58 AM 4 comments

City Snapshot: The Human Rights Campaign

I live not far from the Human Rights Campaign Headquarters here in Washington. One of my instructors here at school told me that he was an intern many years ago for HRC back when their offices consisted of two rooms in an old building down near Eastern Market (then an unfashionable neighborhood) where space was so crowded they kept a file cabinet in the bathtub of the restroom. As you can see, they've come a long way. The HRC is one of the biggest gay rights lobbying groups in the country right now but they haven't lost some of their old grass roots ideas.

On one of my first weeks in town I passed a guy on a corner wearing a sandwich board. Yes, an old-time advertising sandwich board with the message "Human Rights Campaign Bake Sale! 1 Block. Vegan baked goods!"

At first I thought the idea was quaint. But then it also explains why they don't seem to have much power if this is one of their fundraising tactics. (Otherwise Don't Ask Don't Tell would have been repealed long ago!) And selling vegan baked goods? Yeah, ought to get the dough rolling in. (pun intended)

But I kid. I believe in the HRC and what they stand for. I haven't always been thrilled with the way they operate or some of the candidates they've endorsed in the past, but in the struggle for LGBT rights, every organization we have advocating for us is deeply needed and appreciated.

Labels: City Snapshots, Gay Politics

posted by Michael @ 11:43 PM 1 comments

Random Musings

I've been trying to figure out all day what to blog about, but I got nothing. So I'll just subject you to my random thoughts and musings of the day.

1. The big story over the weekend is the Obama Sweep in Democratic primaries and caucuses. He now leads Clinton by several states but somehow still lags behind in delegates. The delegate thing is kind of making me crazy. It would be one thing to just calculate the delegates for each state proportionately by the voting percentages, but then you have to figure in super-delegates. What the hell is a super-delegate anyway? Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but near as I can figure out these are extra delegates reserved for Washington insiders and elected officials that somehow count more than normal voter delegates and are pledged before the actual primaries. Also super-delegates are not obligated to vote with their constituency. Something about it seems crooked to me. But then if Obama was ahead in the delegate count I'd have no problem with super-delegates. And I freely admit that.

Labels: Blogging, Current Events, Gay Politics, Politics, Pop Culture

posted by Michael @ 8:29 PM 6 comments

Thank You, Senator Craig!

You may be wondering how I could possibly let the whole Larry Craig debacle go by without comment here on Manhattan Chowder. Well, to be honest, I was waiting for the story to come to some kind of conclusion before I remarked on it. But it seems the story keeps lingering, in part because Craig himself does not wish the story to die. Every week we are subjected to this delusional man’s next step in the story: First he’s guilty, then he’s not, then he’ll resign, then he won’t, etc. Craig has suffered much criticism from both the gay and straight community for not only his handling of the situation, but also, for allowing himself to engage in this kind of behavior to begin with. But to Larry Craig, I say THANK YOU!

Thank you, Larry Craig, for showing us what the darkness of the closet can do.

Thank you for providing a generation of gay self-help authors with the perfect example for the chapters in their books titled "Don’t Let This Happen to You."

Thank you for illustrating so vividly that a man, gay or straight, who owns his sexuality can have nothing taken away from him, and that a man who lies about it has no credibility about anything in his life and is doomed to become a laughing stock and a scape goat for others to push around.

Thank you for showing us how powerful self loathing can be that a man with a career of almost 30 years in public service can self-sabotage it all for a quickie in a men's room.

Thank you for showing us how shame and envy can result in the harm of others who live openly and proudly by trying to legislate us out of existence by voting against gay marriage or protection against hate crimes simply because you’re not man enough to face who you are.

Thank you for showing us that lying about one’s sexuality can lead to a whole host of other lies (wide stance?) each more ridiculous and implausible than the last.

Thank you for showing America that the majority of the men who engage in this kind of unseemly anonymous sex in public places do not, in fact, identify as gay, but are closeted individuals often with wives and children.

I don’t know whether Larry Craig will actually resign or if he will be successful in overturning his guilty plea. But the damage is done. His career and probably his marriage are over. Let's learn what we can from this and move on.

Labels: Gay Politics, Homophobia, Politics

posted by Michael @ 11:16 AM 6 comments

Life after Merv

At the risk of making my blog read like an obituary page, you'll notice I didn't give Merv Griffin an "In Memoriam" post. Actually, I only do those posts for people I like. Although I missed Beverly Sills, but that was because I was having computer drama, not because I don't like her. (Don't take it personally, Bubbles.) But as for Merv, I've been mulling over the decision on whether or not I like him.

I am a bit too young to really remember his show as anything but an adult talk show, over my head when it was in its heyday. But what would life be without Jeopardy (a show I still watch daily) not to mention the Jeopardy theme song? And would American pop-culture be quite the same without Pat and Vanna? While these are important (ahem) contributions to Americana, one wonders what the face of our struggle for human rights in the gay community or the treatment of AIDS might have looked like if Merv Griffin, whose gay lifestyle was an unspoken "secret" in both private and public circles, might have used his considerable money and power in those areas. But sadly, he remained silent. Ironically The Merv Griffin Show served as a prototype and its closeted homosexual host, a mentor, to such talk show successes as Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres, two out, proud lesbians.

Apparently, I'm a not alone with my mixed feelings about Merv. Joe.My.God also wrote a post that more succinctly expresses both my views and his on the subject. Click here to read his post.

Labels: Gay Culture, Gay Politics, Pop Culture

posted by Michael @ 10:42 AM 6 comments

Got Pride?

There has been a lot of talk lately on many of the blogs about whether New York City's Gay Pride celebration has run its course. Has it lost its importance? Many of the blogs site a New York Observer article cleverly titled Goodbye Mr. Chaps which examines the issue of the dwindling popularity of the Gay Pride Parade among white, affluent gay men in New York. While I question the reporter's choice to survey patrons of Chelsea's G Lounge, a bar that has always appealed to a very specific kind of elitist crowd (why not walk around the corner to Rawhide or down the street to Gym for a more accurate sampling?), he makes a point about a certain indifference among New Yorkers toward Gay Pride. And to a large extent it's true, I understand his point.

You see, we're lucky in New York. We live in one of the easiest cities in the world to be Gay. We're everywhere, in every neighborhood, we don't have to hide, we have laws protecting us. In a sense, we've achieved what those rioters at Stonewall wanted back in 1969. So, maybe our inclination to wave a flag is not quite as enthusiastic as it once was, simply because it doesn't need to be. Also, New Yorkers exhibit pride in different ways. When we can freely sit at a sidewalk cafe sharing a romantic dinner with our partner, or mix at a straight cocktail party or discuss our lifestyle freely with co-workers without fear of prejudice, are we not proud?

The article also goes on to say that the Pride Parade has become increasingly ethnic and that's what's keeping the rich, white gay folks away, essentially calling them racist. I'm not sure that's quite the reason. But could it possibly be that gay men and women in communities of color experience more prejudice than those in white mainstream culture do nowadays and therefore feel more of a need to come out and celebrate their Pride than their white counterparts? The parade was once almost exclusively white, but now the movement has spread to other communities. So isn't that a positive thing? New York Pride also attracts a huge tourist demographic. Gay men and women from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Delaware or other places where they can't be as visible as we are lucky to be here in New York come out to express their Pride as well. For many of them, it's the only time of year they can really do so.

Also in his article, John Koblin waxes nostalgic about the days when the gay community had a unifying cause to bring us out to Pride. Another valid point. In the 70s and early 80s the Pride Parade was simply about visibility: We're here and we're not going away. After we established that, in the late 80s and 90s we had AIDS to unify us, once again, to make ourselves visible to a government who was ignoring the issue and later to march for those who were no longer here to do so. But due to major advancements in AIDS treatment and medications, thankfully, this cause is not quite as pressing as it once was for the gay community. So, our focus has shifted to another cause, that of gay marriage. The difference between this cause and the other two is that marriage is about assimilation, not visibility. We are now fighting to live our lives quietly and peacefully with the same legal rights as any other tax paying American. It's not about flag waving.

One other piece to this puzzle is that New Yorkers are curmudgeons. We have a parade for everything around here. If it's not St. Patrick's Day, it's the Puerto Rican Day Parade, Columbus Day or Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. To many New Yorkers parades mean crowds, noise, garbage and traffic jams. We're jaded. It's kind of our job. I'll admit I'm one of these New Yorkers. I usually plan to be out of town for Pride weekend. But I lived on Christopher Street for 7 years in the 90s. I hosted the brunches, had people hanging off my fire escape to watch the parade and even did the Pier Dance. In a sense I feel like I've done my Pride thing.

Now I choose to go to New Jersey's Pride Parade in Asbury Park. There's a fledgling gay community still taking shape there. In a sense I feel they need the support more than New York. Gay Pride is still about visibility there. Also, I was lucky enough to attend the True Colors concert with Cyndi Lauper at Radio City this week. The event benefits the Human Rights Campaign, and therefore I feel like my support there is going to a group who will further LGBT causes (although I've had some issues with the HRC's actions in the past.) There was a tremendous sense of community pride at the concert that night, one I haven't felt in years at the Gay Pride Parade. So the point is there are many, many ways to celebrate gay pride these days. We don't all necessarily need a brass band. Or go-go boys.

Labels: Gay Culture, Gay Politics

posted by Michael @ 7:52 AM 7 comments

Romney Grows Some

In an interview with the Associated Press yesterday regarding a portion of his campaign tactics he calls "Ask Mitt Anything," Romney had this to day about his stance on gays.

"I don't think that a person who's running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs is immoral or not immoral." Separation of church and state? What a concept!

"What you look for in a leader is someone who will welcome and treat with respect people who made different choices and have different beliefs in their lives and have differences. I have nothing but respect and feelings of tolerance for people with differences from myself and feel that way with regards to those who are gay...I oppose discrimination against gay people," Romney said. "I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that's not me."

I have to say I'm impressed. He then went on to say that the reason he spent the last year of his governorship in Massachusetts trying to overturn the court's decision on gay marriage was because it wasn't in the best interest of children. Well, of course! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children! In any event, these remarks all but seal Romney's fate of never getting the Republican nomination in a million years.

Labels: Gay Politics, Politics

posted by Michael @ 8:40 AM 8 comments

Just Go Away!

Labels: Gay Politics, New Jersey, Politics

posted by Michael @ 11:09 AM 12 comments

Speak No Evil

As you may have noticed I've remained mum on the subject of Don Imus' racist and sexist remarks aimed at the Rutgers Women's Basketball team. I don't need to rehash the incident, what was said, or the team's response here. I assume you've all seen the news and the reports ad nauseum on the subject. His remarks have landed Mr. Imus out of a job having been dropped from both CBS radio and MSNBC.

While I applaud these major news outlets for taking a stand, I can't help but wonder if their decisions are based on true anti-hate speech principles or the loss of sponsorships for Mr. Imus' show. Call me cynical, but as a gay American who has to filter out homophobic remarks from the media on a daily basis even from some of my favorite programs (See red7Eric's comment on yesterday's post), the swift and immediate response to Imus' remarks have left me scratching my head. Why start having principles now? Why over these particular remarks? Why Don Imus?

Don't get me wrong, I think what Imus said was despicable, inexcusable and a painful reminder that no matter how much women or minorities achieve they are still reduced to the basest name-calling and insults by old, white men. But what's different this time? It's been a bad year for hate speech, so is Don Imus simply a victim of bad timing? Why the call from the black community (and others) for the immediate dismissal of Mr. Imus from his media outlets, yet when Isaiah Washington uses an ugly gay epithet he is not only allowed to keep his job on one of the top rated TV shows, he is then awarded an NAACP Image award of all things!

I guess I was waiting to hear the whole Imus debacle discussed from a gay point of view before I commented. Surely I'm not the only one to be confused and disappointed by the duplicitous behavior on the part of the American public and the media over this particular hate speech. Thankfully, leave it to Harvey Fierstein in today's New York Times Op Ed piece to sum up not only his own feelings on the subject in a most eloquent and succinct manner, but mine as well. Here's a quote:

The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.

Labels: Corporate America, Gay Politics, Pop Culture, Sports, Women

posted by Michael @ 12:47 PM 5 comments

Dissension Among the Ranks

Labels: Gay Politics, Politics

posted by Michael @ 10:31 PM 7 comments

Young Republicans

You may have noticed much discussion on the comment section last night as to whether or not Republicans or Democrats truly have the interests of gay Americans at heart. As I said, I think the voting records of both parties speak for themselves, but just to be somewhat "fair and balanced" I'd like to report that perhaps there is hope for the future when hopefully gay rights will no longer be an issue.

From the Jackson Hole Star Tribune , an articled on 27 year old Republican State Representative Dan Zwonitzer says:

Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, spoke out in a legislative committee against a measure that would have allowed Wyoming to deny recognition of gay marriages granted by other states or countries...Zwonitzer told the House Rules Committee on Feb. 22 that he needed to publicly oppose the measure -- even if it cost him his seat -- because he believed that was the right thing to do. He told the committee that gay rights were the civil rights struggle of his generation."I will tell my children that when this debate went on, I stood up for basic rights for people," he said.

Labels: Gay Politics

posted by Michael @ 10:09 AM 5 comments

Oh, the Irony!

Well, it's been quite a week for irony. Yes, indeed boys and girls. Let's see, where to begin? How about with one of my favorite people: Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington. Somehow, the NAACP has decided to honor Mr. Washington at this year's Image Awards for best actor in a Dramatic Series. Interesting. I had no idea the "image" the NAACP was trying to promote involved anti-gay epithets. If you click on the link for the Image Awards you will notice that the words "The ideals of civil and human rights" flash across the screen. If those ideals involve hate speech, I suggest the NAACP aim higher.

Next, we have Matt Sanchez of the US Marine Corp. who has been paraded around on all the conservative talk shows as the poor put-upon corporal who has been unjustly taunted for his service in Iraq by those ne'er-do-well radicals on the Columbia University campus where Sanchez, 36, is a junior. You can click here to watch a clip of his tale of woe. Well, it seems our military hero has quite a past--in GAY PORN! Yes, bloggers like Joe.My.God. and Tom Bacchus first reported on the story yesterday. Sanchez also appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week where Ann Coulter made her now infamous "f*ggot" remarks. At the event Sanchez posed for photos along side such champions of family values like Newt Gingrich, among others. Sanchez, who also works as a New York City escort, uses the nom de porn Rod Majors. Ironically, one of his credits includes a compilation video titled Patriot Ass.

Finally, you may remember Andrew Giuliani as the annoying fat kid who stood next to the podium and made funny faces while his father, Rudolph Giuliani, made his inaugural mayoral address back in 1994. Now it seems that there is bad blood between father and son, and not over the funny faces. The younger Giuliani has stated that he will not participate in his father's presidential campaign, placing higher priority on his golf game and says that he and his father have been estranged for quite some time. Rudolph attributes the tension to a strained relationship between his children and his current wife, Judith Nathan. Perhaps that tension originated when Mayor Giuliani tried to move Nathan, his then mistress, into Gracie Mansion with his children and wife, actress Donna Hanover, before the two were divorced. The city (and common decency) stepped in saying the move was inappropriate. Giuliani then moved from Gracie Mansion and into the home of some friends--a gay couple. Rudolph Giuliani hopes to become the Republican Presidential nominee, the party that claims to uphold conservative family values.

Labels: Current Events, Gay Culture, Gay Politics, Politics, Pop Culture

posted by Michael @ 11:54 AM 14 comments

Dragon Lady Spews Venom--Again

Mercifully we haven't heard much from dragon lady Ann Coulter since the story broke about her committing voter fraud in Florida last year. However, it seems the miserable hag has crawled out from under her rock to spew more of her hate filled rhetoric at the Conservative Political Action Conference this week. By now you've undoubtedly heard her charming remarks regarding John Edwards saying:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘f*ggot.’"

Here's a link to the video of her saying it if you actually want to see her in action. Just don't look her in the eye while you watch lest you turn into stone. What is chilling is the audience's reaction to it. First they gasp, then break into applause as if to say "Did she really say that? I can't believe it. But ya know what? Edwards is kind of a f*ggot, and we HATE f*ggots! Yeah, GIVE IT UP FOR ANN COULTER--WOO HOO!!!" It's very, very creepy. All of the major Republican presidential candidates were on hand for the remarks with the exception of John McCain.

Labels: Gay Politics, Homophobia, Politics

posted by Michael @ 6:32 PM 4 comments

Cosi Update

Well, as much as I'd like to believe that it was MY email that made the Cosi corporate big wigs reverse their decision regarding the Family Photo Album exhibit, apparently there was quite a rally outside the New Rochelle location yesterday at noon organized by the Empire State Pride Agenda that might have had a little more influence. Today on their website the Pride Agenda is claiming victory saying:

We commend Cosi restaurants for re-evaluating its decision and deciding to adhere to the terms of it signed contract to keep the exhibit up for one month. We thank all of you who contacted Cosi corporate to let them know about your unhappiness with their initial decision and we thank our local partner, The LOFT (the LGBT community center of the lower Hudson Valley) for all the work they did turning out local supporters.

Cosi's Chief Marketing Officer is also quoted as saying that they realize that they "had done the right thing."

However, this sentiment is slightly different from the email I received from Cosi corporate last night in response to my initial complaint on the subject. They cite what amounts to a technicality as the reason they took the display down in the first place. Here' s what they told me:

Recently, one of Così's stores allowed artwork to be displayed without following its established policy and procedure for approval of such displays. Così allowed the artwork to remain on display for its debut showing Monday evening, but advised the display organizer that it would be removed the following day and could be resubmitted through the proper application process. After an expedited review of the application, a decision was made to permit the artwork to be displayed within Così's guidelines.

Hmm. Does anyone else see a discrepancy here? According to the Empire State Pride Agenda, it sounds like the correct contract was in place all along. But I guess it doesn't matter how or why the display was taken down and then put back up, just that it was put back up and will remain there in the New Rochelle Cosi till the end of the month. And operating on the theory that there is no such thing as bad publicity, this display will probably reach more people than if no flap had been made about it in the first place.

Just as the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is being challenged once again and will likely be repealed, people are speculating as to whether it's the result of years of LGBT activism paying off or the military's current dire straits that will bring about the change. In the end does it matter? A generation from now when gay men and women are allowed to proudly serve their country without fear of dishonorable discharge simply for who they are will they know the reasons that brought about the change? Probably not. All they will know is that they can serve and that's all we really want, isn't it?

Labels: Corporate America, Gay Politics

posted by Michael @ 11:29 AM 1 comments

Cosi Fan Tutte

Yesterday on Good As You I read a story about the New Rochelle location of Cosi restaurant who had recently installed a display, a traveling photo album if you will, meant to put a human face on the fight for marriage equality. The exhibit is intended to be taken to Albany in May for a lobby session to show support for gay marriage in the state of New York. The hope is that we may soon catch up to neighboring New Jersey and Connecticut in providing some kind of legal recognition of gay relationships.

Sounds good, right? Cosi is so cool, so hip, so urban and progressive, after all they have 16 locations in Manhattan alone! Well, think again. After a "flood of emails" complaining about the display (it is suspected that they were not necessarily from New Rochelle patrons) the corporate powers that be at Cosi ordered the display taken down. (Insert descending tones of muted trombone here.) It was then that the Empire State Pride agenda instituted an email writing campaign (in which I participated) to tell the Cosi big-wigs just how we feel about being eighty-sixed at their New Rochelle location.

Lo and behold, when I logged on to Good As You today there was a follow-up story with a comment from one of their readers which says:

"Great news! Cosi agreed to let the pictures go back up; when I left the restaurant about an hour ago, they were there with hammers, remounting them. Thanks so much to everybody who called and wrote in - we did it!"

The irony is that I met Scott for lunch in midtown today and we actually considered going to Cosi but decided against it because of yesterday's news. Now it looks like we'll have to drop in for a pannini real soon. In fact, I think I'll be visiting them a lot more often in the future.

If you'd like to express your gratitude to Cosi for coming to their senses and making the right decision you can email them here.

Labels: Corporate America, Gay Politics

posted by Michael @ 3:16 PM 4 comments

Proud to be a Jersey Boy

While New York is usually ahead of the curve on most things over my home state of New Jersey, not so with civil unions. Last Fall the NJ Supreme Court voted to guarantee gay couples the same rights and privileges as straight married couples, making it the third state in the country to do so. Today was the first day NJ granted such civil unions. Couples started lining up last night at various municipal offices around the state for the stroke of midnight to be among the first to participate.

Below meet couple number one, Steven Goldstein and Daniel Gross, who tied their legal knot in Teaneck, NJ just after midnight. Mazel Tov, boys!

Update: Asbury Park, NJ's city manager, Terence J. Reidy: “Come to Asbury Park, baby, where it all happens.” Check out the NY Times article on the history of NJ Civil Unions.

Labels: Gay Culture, Gay Politics, History, Jersey Shore, New Jersey

posted by Michael @ 10:08 PM 4 comments

Hardaway Learns the Hard Way

Labels: Gay Culture, Gay Politics, Homophobia, Sports

posted by Michael @ 11:40 AM 7 comments

The Homophobe Bowl

Well, sports fans, with all the computer trouble I've been having lately I haven't had a chance to comment on this year's celebration of neanderthalism and lowest common denominator dumb jock ideals, the Superbowl, or as I call it, the Homophobe Bowl. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new when I say that American football is filled with ignorant, grossly overpaid and grossly overweight "athletes" who are deified by the public and live in a vacuum where being openly homophobic is perfectly acceptable.

This attitude has apparently spread to one of the Superbowl's sponsors, Mars, makers of Snickers bars, who launched not only an unbelievably offensive and homophobic ad campaign ("The Kiss" pictured above), but established a website (which has since been pulled) where viewers could watch alternate endings to the ad and vote on their "favorite." Perhaps Mars was trying to measure exactly how homophobic their consumers are for future offensive ads. In addition to this poll, there were clips of NFL Players watching the ads and showing their open disgust at the sight of two men kissing. I assume the players were okay with their images out there on the web for all to see as a kind of public record of their hatred and disgust toward the gay community. Apparently this was supposed to be funny as if to say "Look how much these guys hate fags! That's HILARIOUS! I'm laughing so hard I might wet myself!" Well, hardee har-har, Mars. Thank you.

And I really liked Snickers bars, too. Humph.

Thankfully, after complaints from GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, Snickers has pulled their ads from the air and the web and have released a statement to the the NY Times in which they defend the ads and explain that humor is "subjective" (as in, you have to hate gays to get it) but no where do they apologize for offending the gay community or perpetuating violence against them. We're still waiting for that apology, Snickers--the sooner the better. Then you can all head off to rehab.
To add insult to injury, the winners of this year's Homophobe Bowl were the Indianapolis Colts headed by Coach, Bible Thumper and Chief Homophobe, Tom Dungy who openly attended and was even "honored" at an event by the Indiana Family Institute, one of the leading proponents of the gay marriage ban in the state of Indiana. On Sunday's win Dungy credits God as the MVP proving that he is one of those misguided Christians who thinks God actually cares who wins a ridiculous sporting event. Sorry Tom, but something tells me He probably has bigger fish to fry, like, I dunno, AIDS in Africa, genocide in Darfur--all that jazz.

Dungy made history this year as the first African American coach to lead an NFL team to Superbowl victory. It is a shame, however, that such an accomplishment should be marred by his openly homophobic views. Once again, as in the case of Isaiah Washington, one can't help but notice the irony of an African American man's apparent bigotry and hatred toward another group striving for equal civil rights. It boggles the mind.

Labels: Gay Culture, Gay Politics, History, Homophobia, Sports

posted by Michael @ 1:52 PM 8 comments

Mary's Blessing from God

From the NY Times, Mary Cheney on her pregnancy:

This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz! Oh, sorry, Mary, thank you for playing. Good answer but you rang in after the buzzer--you needed to ring in before the 2000 election. You know, before you campaigned for your father and the Republican party which has done everything in its power to keep people like you from becoming parents. And forgive us, indeed what bad taste it is to use children as political props--at least your child anyway. It was in bad taste when the Christian Right did it and its still bad taste.

Okay, next question: What about the thousands of "blessings from God" languishing in foster care? Are they deserving of parents even if some godless same-sex couple wants to adopt them even though everyone knows queers don't make good parents?

Sorry? What's that you say, Mary?

Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents; what matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz! Ooooh, sorry, Mary, once again great answer, just after the buzzer.

And that concludes this round of "Day Late and a Dollar Short." But don't worry Mary, we have some lovely parting gifts for you: a lifetime membership to the NRA, 10 years of newsletters from Focus on the Family and tickets to Pat Robertson's 700 Club for you and Heather--that woman you live with. Enjoy!

And so it seems the apple doesn't fall far from the tree--Daddy Dick isn't responsible for answering Wolf Blitzer's questions on the subject and neither does Mary have to own up to why she would support a political party that actively campaigns against her own interests. It's just more of the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of the Republican party headed by a couple of guys who've never seen battle in their lives but continue to wage an immoral war at the cost of billions of dollars and the death of thousands of other people's "blessings from God."

If you'd like to read more on the hypocrisy of Mary Cheney, check out Dan Savage's colorful response. He's spot on and nails the situation completely.

Labels: Gay Politics, Humor

posted by Michael @ 4:22 PM 4 comments

Sign the Petition

From a NY Times article this week on the Isaiah Washington scandal:

The (ABC) executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because company officials were instructed not to go beyond a prepared statement, said that Mr. Washington’s behavior could be considered grounds for dismissal under Disney’s corporate antidiscrimination policy.

Does Washington deserve special treatment? If you think he should be fired sign this petition and send a message to ABC.

Labels: Corporate America, Gay Culture, Gay Politics

posted by Michael @ 10:16 AM 3 comments