I Hate Being Right

Again... Good looking out, Perez!

Now for New Hampshire

The New Hampshire senate has passed a same-sex marriage bill in a 13-11 vote. This comes after the senate changed the original bill to remove gender-specific language. It is likely that the bill will come up for vote again in the near future do to other minor changes, before it goes to Gov. John Lynch.
New Hampshire joins Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut in legalizing same-sex marriage.

G.O.P Down With G-A-Y?

Well it seems that in an attempt to redeem itself after the devastating defeat of the 2008 Presidential elections, the GOP is changing its tune... at least on one issue. Gay marriage (let the collective gasp resound). It has been debated for the last few months that the GOP has fallen out of touch with the American public, and that disconnection played a direct role in the party's loss of the presidency. A party full of "good ol' boys" with "good ol' vaules" has found that the majority vote of today's America thinks it's just, well, old. In the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections one of the main talking points that the party focused on was the issue of gay marriage. I particularly remember the fear-tactics that were used to convince people that if voting against homosexuality was the only way to keep their families safe. But things are drastically different now.
The difference between voters views on homosexuality and same-sex marriages then and now can be seen in a poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News. The study found that 31% of respondents over 40 year of age were against same-sex marriage, while 57% of respondents under the age of 40 support it. Of the younger individuals polled, only 19% were against any form of recognition for same-sex couples.
But apparently Republicans believe numbers lie, because there are still members of the party who refuse to recognize just how out of touch they are with America's youths. Many Republicans simply believe it's a matter of the public's attention is focused elsewhere, on things more important than same-sex marriage. It's not that the public is really in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, or that they don't view it as morally wrong, it's just not a priority for them at this moment. Former Republican mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani says "Right now, people are not concerned about issues like gay marriage because they are concerned about the economy."
The truth is that the younger generations are growing up in a more tolerant world, and the number of people not closely connected to someone who is homosexual is growing smaller and smaller. The GOP is going to be hard press as time goes on to find someone who is not friends with/related to/work with someone who is gay. To those individuals the GOP's "good ol' values" are just going to seem insulting and discriminatory. Former strategist to Senator John McCain, Steve Schmidt explains the breakdown in the party this way: "Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become, over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters,"
Republicans need to wake up to the fact that if they want to continue to be a political force to be reckoned with they are going to have to catch up to the rest of the world. They may pride themselves on holding onto the values of yesteryear but the majority of their constituents are looking towards the next year.

Perez... More Harm Than Good?

I cannot be the only one who's tired of this story. Yet again another story about Miss California's tiara debacle and the backlash/fame that has come with it. I can't help but wonder if Perez Hilton actually did any good by asking such a question on that kind of platform, and then by making it such a big deal.
As someone who's in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage I was saddened by Miss California, Carrie Prejean's answer to the question of whether every state should legalize same-sex marriage. But I wasn't shocked. There's a whole movement of people who feel the exact same way that she does. And for a minute it seemed as though the voices of those shouting so loudly against marriage equality were losing a little of their volume. And then this happened. All this incident seemed to do was add more fuel to their fire. Now they can claim public persecution for their beliefs. One the bully they're not the victim. And they have a perfect symbol for their cause in the Miss USA contestant. Not only is the movement against same-sex marriage getting more coverage than movement for it, Prejean is getting so much media attention that she has the best platform to spread the message of inequality to a much wider audience. Nice going Perez! Way to help the cause!

Heavy Lies the Head that Doesn't Win the Crown

Ok, so I was trying to avoid mentioning this next bit of news. I'm not a fan of Perez Hilton (in fact I find really annoying that I even know who he is), and I'm even less of a fan of beauty pageants. So when this next bit of news popped up I was hoping that it would fall by the wayside fairly quickly. Imagine my chagrin when it was still being mentioned in some aspect or another on practically every news station yesterday. When beauty pageants and politics collide, the wreckage is hard to avoid.
During the Miss USA pageant, which aired April 19th, judge and self-proclaimed "Queen of all Media" Perez Hilton asked Miss California Carrie Prejean, a politically fueled question during the question and answer portion of the competition. Referring to Iowa's and Vermont's recent decisions, Hilton asked Prejean whether other states should follow suit and legalize same-sex marriage. There's been some debate as to whether the question should have even been asked of any contestant. Does politics belong in beauty pageants? But the most buzz has come from Prejean's answer:

"Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you could choose “same-sex marriage” or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think that it should be, between a man and a woman."

Her response caused a mixed reaction from the audience with some of those in attendance booing (the first for a Miss USA contestant) and some applauding, and a thinly veiled look of discuss from Hilton. That was just at the pageant, the reaction from the rest of the public has been just as diverse but on a much grander scale. Everyone from radio personalities to political pundits to soccer moms have been talking about it. Did her answer cost her the crown? Was it a fair question? Does politics belong in beauty pageants? Etc, etc.
I'm no expert on beauty pageants, but the question didn't seem all that out of place to me. In the past haven't contestants been asked about gun control/foreign relations/poverty? Those are just as political. I think the only difference is that this particular question has to do with an issue that is at the top of most media coverage. It's a big deal right now so everyone is paying much more attention to it. Events in Iowa and Vermont have been bogarting a large portion of media coverage so the public is more sensitive to anything having to do with the controvery of same-sex marriage and gay rights.
No one will really ever know if Prejean's answer lost her the crown. I have to admit I'd be disappointed if it did. In no way do I agree with her opinion (and I'm still confused as to what "opposite marriage" is) but that's my point. It was her opinion. Whether you agree with her or not she has every right to believe what she wants to believe. How ironic is it that in a competition to pick a woman who best represents America, a country which brags about the freedoms of speech/opinion/religion/etc its citizens has, a contestant could be penalized for holding an opinion that the judges/audience/public think she shouldn't have? I'm curious as to exactly how political these contestants are supposed to be. I think it would be a fair guess to say that these women are no more or less informed about politics than the average individual on the street. But is this competition supposed to be about their politics? I always thought the answer and question portion of the competition was supposed to be more about poise. How they handles such awkward and uncomfortable situations. If that's the case then I can see how Prejean may have lost. She wasn't exactly composed when forming her answer.
But my biggest problem with all this is how much attention it's getting. WHO CARES? It's a beauty pageant. This woman isn't some politician who's helping to form public policy. If people really want to complain about opinions like this why not go after bigger fish who's opinions can actually have a direct influence on the issue. Unless I'm mistaken and this young lady is the governor of a state that is in the process of deciding whether to legalize gay marriage, in which case the attention is well deserved.

*For the record, Miss North Carolina Kristin Dalton won the crown.

Has Amazon Kindled a Small Fire?

Amazon.com may have stoked a small fire in the gay rights movement. Sunday, April 12th, writer and blogger Mark R. Probst called attention to the sudden disappearance of the rankings of dozens of gay and lesbian themed books from the popular sites many listings.

The website offers customers several lists of suggested literature including Amazon.com best sellers, New York Times best sellers, best of the year, seasonal, and more. These lists often help produce more sales by giving authors (both popular and unknown) exposure to individuals who normally would not know of their work.

When Probst wrote to the site questioning the phenomenon he received a response from a Member Services Representative stating "In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude 'adult' material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists." Seeing as though this is not a new, although little known, policy there was not much argument left. Until CNET reported on that Amazon was also classifying the children's book Heather Has Two Mommies and Ellen DeGeneres' autobiography, My Point... And I Do Have One, as adult. All while books such as former porn-star Ron Jeremy's memoir, Jackie Collins, Zane, and a photography collection of Playboy centerfolds were still being ranked on the website's lists.

When this discrepancy was brought to Amazon's attention they were quick to admit that a "mistake" was made, and that a "glitch" in the company's ranking system had caused the error. Amazon spokesperson Pattie Smith told the L.A. Times that there was no bias and that the matter is being dealt with.

Despite the company apology the masses have not been calmed. Responses to Probst's blog are still flooding in. While some are convinced that Amazon simply made a mistake, more believe that the company simply got caught displaying their bias against homosexuals. I'm not sure who's right. Perhaps it was just a small mistake that happened at a very wrong time. I personally took it upon myself to check out some of the books that were reported taken off the rankings lists, as well as a few that I personally know are of an "adult" nature. The books are still for sale on the sight, though I couldn't find them on any of the lists. I also found nothing on the books' individual pages that offered any kind of warning or categorizing of its "adult" material. Maybe the categorization is just part of the company's way of doing things. But I would think that, being so concerned with not offending customers, they would make sure that searches resulting in such books let the customer know that it was considered "adult". I don't think Amazon was lying to cover their mishap, but I do think they need to tweak their system to make it more thorough.

First Goats, Now Mass Murder

When the push for gay rights really started to heat up in the last few years, I was sure the most far-fetched argument I would hear was the theory that if same-sex marriages were allowed, it wouldn't be long before people started demanding they be allowed to marry their goats. How homosexuality and bestiality are connected, I still don't understand. But just when I thought the arsenal of those protesting same-sex marriage couldn't get more ridiculous, they pull come up with something else.

Bob Peters, president of Morality in Media, has released new "proof" that the gay rights movement is directly linked to the mass murder. An article by On Top Magazine quotes the the press release, titled Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders as saying Peters believes that the "secular value system" or our post-Christian society is what is powering the push for gay marriage. To Peters support for homosexuality is just more proof of the decaying moral standards of our society.

One thing about this theory that stands out in my opinion is its similarities to a January 2008 press release by Peters titled Mass Murders by Individuals and the Role of Guns, Religion, and Popular Culture. In this press release issued only three months ago Peter does not mention homosexuality once as a instigator of mass murders. In that article his three reasons for an increase in mass murder are lack of respect for guns ("It is sometimes said that guns don't kill people, people do. And there is truth in that statement."), American youths' desertion and religion values ("Today, of course, ridicule of religion and use of ministers as comic characters or villains is commonplace... part of the good that religion brought is a commandment, 'You shall not commit murder.'"), and pop culture ("...the film industry now wallows in, glamorizes and celebrates murder, revenge and sadism...") Connecting the Dots... seems largely like a cut-and-paste job of Murder by Individuals... accept instead of blaming guns, religion, and pop culture, Peters blames decaying moral standards which manifest in the gay rights movement. Other than that the rhetoric is the same ol' same old.

I can't help but wonder what's going to come next. Is there any limit to what the religious right-wing will say to get the American people on their side. It just makes me think that they keep stretching so much because the real reason for their disapproval wouldn't attract as much attention as the sensationalized version. When you get down to it, many of them believe sex and/or marriage is between a man a woman, and anything else is an abomination and against God's will. I personally don't agree with it, but they have every right to believe that. But it's not as flashy as bestiality and mass murders. Oh well! I guess they'll do anything for to continue the fear mongering they apparently need to win any support.

Not So Fast!

Iowa's surprising move to legalizing same-sex marriages has both sides of the argument in a frenzy. Many of those in favor of the legalization are optimistic that more states will follow Iowa's (and Massachusetts, and Connecticut's) lead, and soon same-sex marriage will be legalized nationally. Opponents of the issue are trying to rally more support to rewrite state constitutions so that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and to keep the measure from reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't doubt that I wasn't the only one surprised by Iowa's decision. Not known for the liberal mindset that is typically associated with proponents of same-sex marriage, Iowa knocked many of those following the issue off guard. For the longest time gay rights seemed to only be issue for the "metropolitan" states to deal with, unless you count the rampant disapproval of states in the Bible Belt. It was always associated with places on the east coast or the west coast, the Midwest was never really thought about as being apart of the controversy... especially not Iowa. I think it was that status as a "nonentity" that made its decision have so much impact on both sides of the spectrum. Many people are seeing it as a sign of things to come. If some place as obscure as Iowa supports same-sex marriage, what will stop the rest of the country from following suit? The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has actually released a promo warning against the effects of same-sex marriage on American Society.

I think this optimism/fear (depending on which side of the issue you're on) is premature. In an article by Andrew Cohen on the CBS News website, there are several reason why the U.S. Supreme Court isn't ready to choose a side. The Supreme Court does not like to make a habit of solving issues until there's an absolute need for it, and at this point there doesn't seem to be any pressure for them to act. The nation is still equal split on the issue, with no clear indicator that the public is heavily in favor of either option. Until the public overwhelmingly chooses a side, the U.S. Supreme Court can stay safely out of the fray.

When I Think "Progressive", I Think... Iowa???

If I had bet on which state would be the first to legalize gay marriage, I feel confident that Iowa wouldn't have made it into my top 5. In fact I doubt it would have made it into my top 10. America's Midwest doesn't exactly conjure thoughts of liberal politics, gay-friendliness, progressiveness, etc. Sure there are certain cities like Chicago that are shining examples of many if not all of those things, but Iowa isn't one of them. Imagine my surprise when Thursday, April 2nd, the Iowa Supreme Court held that banning same-sex marriages violated the state constitution. Even more shocking was that the vote was unanimous. The state is now in the company of Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states to legalize gay marriage.

Not many people know that this isn't Iowa's first foray into the fight for equal rights for everyone. I myself had no idea that on one occasion in the 1800s the state refused to support slavery, and on another occasion refused to uphold a law banning women from becoming lawyers. In an article in the Townhall writer Ken Klukowski that these particular cases in the states history actually undermines the Supreme Court's decision. The Iowa Supreme Court insists that it came to the decision "dispassionately", but the comparison to previous judicial moves by the state shows the personal beliefs by the justices having some influence in the decision.

It also doesn't help Iowa's Supreme Court when it argues that it is following the example set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it did the opposite. The example referred to was the 1996 case of Romer vs. Evans in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "heightened scrutiny" (a stringent standard of judicial review that arises when 1) a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed or 2) when government action involves use of a "suspect classification") does not apply to gays. Iowa ruled the opposite and decided that heightened security was necessary for cases involving homosexuals.

A lot of people anticipate Iowa's move to be the first of many in the Midwest, but that is yet to be seen. While I think that it has opened the door for other states in the Midwest to make a move toward entering the debate of legalizing same-sex marriages, I think it's far from becoming a common practice. As discussed in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's newspaper, The Daily Cardinal, Wisconsin's recently amended constitution does not legal recognize same-sex marriages, and a state law actually makes it a crime for individuals to travel to other states for such marriages.

A Look Back at the Journey

According to an article in the Des Moines Register, an Iowa court decision will be made tomorrow morning that will tip the scales in the gay rights movement in the United States.

In the case of Varnum vs. Brien, six same-sex couples in Iowa were denied marriage licenses in 2005 by the office of Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien. The couples filed a lawsuit against Brien, and while Polk County District Judge Robert Hansen sided with the them, he suspended his decision until the case could be heard by the higher court.

If the Iowa Supreme court finds in favor of the six couples, Iowa will become the first state in the Midwest to allow same-sex marriage, and the fourth in the nation.

Here's a video to chronicle all the new strides in the gay rights movement.