ahh, sweet monday
In search of Britney Spears tix for show tomorrow night. I want to go! Have missed her every other time she's been in San Diego. Just decided today that I felt up to it.

But since I'm cheap, I am having to be very creative in finding tickets.

Will tomorrow be the day? Will I get to see my pop princess live-in-the-flesh?

in heteroland
I was in one of the bastions of Heteromaleland, a huge classic car show (with, I must say, some of the most beautiful things I have ever seen on four wheels).

Got on the phone with a friend and we started talking about the most recent gay marriage developments, along with our opinions. I found myself immediately lowering my voice and looking warily around, suddenly concerned with what might happen if I was overheard.

I've been doing that more, because I wonder if there's going to be a backlash because of this, or if gays, as they become more open, will become more targeted. Remember what happened to some african-americans who were politically active during th e 60's-70's. Law enforcement was a problem (though since they are under such a microscope I doubt that they would do anything violent), but the public is more than willing to take matters into their own hands.

It's such a polarizing issue. But I hope that people will realize that this won't hurt them, and that the denial of rights and equality are affecting their family members, friends, co-workers, etc.

I keep telling myself that I'll write about something else. But this is such a major civil rights issue I can't leave it alone.

what a load of Bu**sh**
"Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," he averred. "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." GW Bush (as quoted in The Baltimore Sun)

Huh? There are, Mr. President, other civilized countries with gay marriage (Canada, the Netherlands which, by the way, has a rather low heterosexual marriage rate, Belgium), and their societies have not fallen apart or been weakened. I'd even venture that their rates of violence, teen pregnancy, and educational achievement are on a par with or superior to the US. Tell me, please, how Massachusetts and San Francisco have suffered on account of gay marriages. And don't give me any speeches about protestors. There have been fewer arrests and less violence than result from anti-abortion activists or world trade protests. And the economy? Well, I'd venture that these places are reaping economic rewards as people flock there to marry, or to fight for someone elses right to.

Gay marriage is, without a doubt, far less dangerous than guns, environmental risks, and war, and yet you are willing to let our society be exposed to these. And no arrangement can guarantee the safety and welfare of children. Abuse and neglect know no borders.

Who, really, is weakening us? Who is undermining our stability? I think it's safe to say that it is not two people of any sort who chose to enter into the legal ties of marriage.

s'pose it's a start
Ok, I want Bush out of office, as do many others, so I guess I can understand that a candidate who openly supports gay marriage is hurting his electability. So I can understand why the frontrunners are doing the "no gay marriage but civil unions are ok" and "no constitutional amendment" song-and-dance. And Kerry is smart to claim it's a states' rights issue, since his state looks like it is going to extend equal rights to gays and lesbians. This allows him both consistency in his message and election-year wiggle room.

And we now have Bush on record as not supporting equal rights for all, and wanting to limit the rights of some. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) put it well when he said the Bush will be remembered as the first President to try to write bias back into the Constitution.

At least the right is not still bellowing the "gays are asking for special rights" message. Or maybe it would be better if they did, and further showed the electorate how out of touch they are.

Of course, this is the same electorate that wants to keep rights from a certain group. Sadly, using some of the same arguments used to try to keep interracial marriages from happening. Decline of society, immoral, wrong, etc. Sorry, but I really don't see allowance of interracial marriages then, or gay marriages now, as descending us all into the crapper. I'd venture that network TV is far more distateful than people who decide to commit to each other.

the governator speaks
Text below, in quotes. What kind of BS is this? The people causing problems are those against the marriages, not the people who want them, who are being smart and standing in line, which BTW changes today-now you have to make an appointment to get license. But I really doubt this will deter people.

Later in this article there are calls for the governor to apologize. He should. In a big way. Why on earth would the people who want to get marriages start violence, when they know that that would give the whole cause a black eye. He also compared these marriage licenses with the idea that now mayors in other cities might, in defiance of state law, issues licenses for people to carry around AK-47s or sell drugs. That's nearly as bad as last year's remarks by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) equating homosexuals with child molesters.

I'm proud of these people. They are defying the law Martin Luther King Jr. style, peacefully challenging a law that they know to be discriminatory, in hopes that people will open their eyes and minds. I'd love to see people that fought the no-interracial marriage laws join this cause, because at the end of the day it is about equality.

Ok, I know there is occasional violence in civil rights demonstrations, including by overzealous police officers. But how sad it would be to have violence against people who just want to get married. Just like it was terrible to have violence against people who just wanted an education.

I think this beautifully sums up what people are fighting for: A couple (aged 81 and 79) that has been together for 51 YEARS finally being allowed to marry.

"All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don't want it to get to that extent,'' the Republican said in his first appearance as governor on a Sunday talk show.

A number of protesters were escorted out of San Francisco City Hall on Friday when they tried to disrupt the weddings, but no one was arrested."

Link: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/23/MNGJ7566RL1.DTL

Androgyny
Trying to figure this out. Nearly got run over the other day by a guy. I said "a**hole to the friend I was with. A few minutes later the guy in the car camr up to me and said, "What was that a**hole for?". I replied that he didn't stop when he saw me trying to cross, just kept going. He said he saw me, but too late to stop (completely untrue). I said fine, my mistake, held out my hand to shake his. He just walked away.

The point of this? From a distance or in passing, I looked like a boy. Baggy cargos, vans, hoodie. I wonder if that's why he came up to me, and would he have if I was obviously female. I can't think that a guy, particularly one with a girl (which he was), would approach a woman like that, especially with hostility.

I guess that's the downside of androgyny, that I find myself occasionally in situations that I probably wouldn't if I looked more like a girl.

is it news?
Why, with all of the events going on in the world. so we give a rat's a** what celebrity married who and how much some poptart made last year?

Because we are trained to. From birth we are raised with the cult of celebrity and trained to keep our eyes on them, disdaining them even as we try to be them, because they represent what most people consider success-material wealth and trappings, never mind that a lot of their personal lives are crap. Actually, because we love to see the mighty fall, we inwardly rejoice at their shortcomings, while living "the good life" vicariously through them.

And the media feeds it. Keep the people happy and distracted so that they don't get aware and angry at what is happening politcally and socially. No wonder average citizens are taking matters into their own hands--look at the current activity on the gay marriage front. It takes middle-class shock troups to rouse any interest in our apathetic populous.

Any discussion is better than none. Not speeches and rhetoric. Too much of that already. Discussion and debate, exchange of ideas and opinions.

Pry open the closed minds that are running this country.

getting my brain in gear
I finally got up at, oh, 11:30A. Guess I needed it. Sent one of my Betta fish to the Great Fish Bowl in sky. Yesterday a friend demonstrated to me the danger of repeating unsubstantiated information. She repeated to me something she heard on a News Channel, spoken by one of the Neanderthal conservatives who seem to be springing up like weeds. Potentially big news item. Went to look for it online, checked at least five different sources, nothing. Also googled for information. Nothing.

Rumours and innuendo--what to much of the media spreads. And what too many people repeat without checking the veracity or even asking themselves if it makes sense.

Our leaders and media hounds rely on this. And the internet is as much of a hindrance as a help- information and disinformation spread at equal speeds. Makes you wonder how much if the news is news.

moveon.org
Just watched a bunch of anti-Bush ads on this site, including the one that CBS refused to air during the Superbowl (maybe they knew that there would already be a flap over a boob-bearing diva and her marginally talented co-star). Besides the repetitiveness of the message, there were some very smart, pointed ads on this site, including some youth ones that peove that at least some young people in America have lives and interests beyond MTV and PS2.

But unfortunately, the one-note tone is something that Democrats are going to have to watch as the elections come up, especially with the seeming upticks in the economy. They can't rely on sound bites (yes, people like them, but they have to stay fresh) and old news...so far they have kept on top of issues, but if they slip into tired rhetoric, people are going to get bored, and boredom and apathy are the LAST things the Dems need if they are to have any hope of unseating Bush.

By choice or by birth?
One of the arguments allowing for discrimination against gays is "they choose to be that way". And the other side says "they were born that way. Ok, then, let's look at another set of "by choice or by birth" groups.

Race/ethnicity and religion are covered under anti-discrimination laws. Race is by birth. No one can choose their skin color or ethnic features. Religion is by choice. A person is not born to a religion...they can change it at any time, choose to be Catholic or Jewish or Buddhist. Both are covered.

So regardless if homosexuality is by choice or by birth, there is a precedent set. You can't apply a law to one group of people and not another. The US Supreme Court agreed with this when they struck down anti-sodomy laws.

Equal protection and equal rights should be just that-equal. Regardless of what your faith (which is a choice) tells you to believe.