A couple weeks ago my friend GB inspired this post about how same-sex marriage could potentially change the nature of gay relationships. The gist: marriage may "normalize" gay relationships by suddenly introducing societal pressure for gay couples to eventually...get married.
This sparked a mini debate between Angry Young Dem, GB and myself (one that we may pick up tomorrow when we all see each other in person).
As a follow-up, GB sent me this article from the Boston Globe. I think the lead really brings home the point that he was trying to make:
A significant majority of the 558 gay men and women surveyed said that since marrying, they feel more committed to their spouses, more accepted in their community, and more likely to be open about their sexual orientation at work.
The survey indicates that there is something universal about the legal protections and social advantages afforded by the institution of marriage…and it suggests…that a ritual once scorned even by many same-sex couples has the power to ease discrimination.
Ummm...right. Sorry, did the man not say that two weeks ago? Oh, and then there's this:
The biggest flaw with the study cited in this article is that it's not random, the sample size is too small for that. But it does anecdotally support what GB was saying and what I amplified. Thanks for this one my friend, it has given me a lot of prespective on this issue.Eight of 10 study participants said that being married made them more likely to disclose their sexual orientation to their coworkers and doctors.
"That suggests there's something powerful about that ritual, about that institution," Badgett said. "People feel more accepted by society."
In other same-sex marriage realted news, our old friends NOM are on the air with a new ad made just for New York, and guess what? It's all about the children!!! Our children are under attack by the gays!!! Head for this hills (and call your State Senator).
Can someone tell me why, in the middle of a great interview with Booker T. Jones, Liane Hansen had to take a question from Twitter?
I mean, I get the idea of asking for audience questions in advance of an interview. That's cool. And I am even cool that NPR uses Twitter to do this. But why do you have to MENTION Twitter? What if the question came over email, or phone?
This is one more reason to hate Twitter (in addition to the ones I have mentioned before). It is elevated to this g-d like level but really its just another channel. Its just like any other channel that we have available to us. We can use it to gather great information, but let's stop name dropping this site every two seconds.
In related Twit-hate news, A Mistake sent me a link via Urban Daddy to a site called Tweeting Too Hard where we can all vote on the most useless and self-important Tweets. If you have a few minutes this will make you laugh.
...on so many levels.
[Warning: Clip is maybe, possibly, kind of, slightly NSFW, but not really. In doubt? Read AdFreak's post first.]
Let me get this straight, actual advertising budget money was spent on this? Really? Did an agency work on this, because that is a briefing I would LOVE to be in. It may have gone something like this:
Account Supervisor (AKA "FAU"): OK guys, the client wants a series of Flash animation videos of men using Gillette products to post on YouTube.
Art Director (AKA "Wise Ass"): I know, let's do one of a guy shaving his nuts.
AS: You want an animated guy shaving his nuts on YouTube? The client will never buy that.
AD: How do we know until we try?
AS: I just know. They will never buy that, it's crude.
Creative Director (AKA "Wise Ass' Better Half"): This whole project is so lame. Didn't manscaping jump the shark with "The 40 Year Old Virgin"? Metrosexuals are like 10 years ago. And no one watches YouTube anymore, everyone's on Hulu. What's the point?
AS: The point is we are getting paid to...
Account Executive (AKA "The one who keeps us all in line"): And we have to have it done in three weeks.
Interactive Team (Note: there will be at least four of them in the room): What???? We need at least 15 weeks.
CD: And I need a month to think of ideas other than the pecker shave.
AD: No you don't, I got 'em. Ummmm...let's see...head shave, chest shave, back shave and under arm shave. DONE! Let's go to lunch, are we done here?
AS: What about face shave?
CD: Too obvious. Its been done.
AS: But the client specifically requested that one.
CD: Just post a video of a guy really shaving. It's not worth our time to do that one in Flash.
AD: Are we doing a version of this for chicks?
AS: OK, we're done.
Alright, maybe I exagerated a bit.
That's not MY agency, but it is not too beyond the relm of possibility.
As the New York State legislative session head to a close, time is running out for the State Senate to take up the same-sex marriage bill.
Given that the numbers out yesterday from Siena Research Institute show New Yorkers are now evenly split on the issue (46-46) my hopes for a floor vote are falling rapidly. As Sen. Smith’s do nothing approach continues, the people of the Empire State are now less supportive of same-sex marriage than they were just about a month ago.
The only silver lining I see is that an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers (78-15) want Smith to bring the bill to a vote, regardless of the outcome, so they can see where their representatives stand on this issue. It seems that they understand how a representative democracy works unlike some people that I know.
Meanwhile a new ad from same-sex marriage advocates continues to focus on “the children”, but the production quality is going down hill. Oh, and Queens Sen. George Onorato, a key swing vote, got the full on YouTube treatment.
*Sigh*
I suppose it could be worse, we could be dealing with the mess California is in on this issue. Or we all could be Gov. Paterson, everyone still thinks he stinks.
So the nominee is announced, and everyone has an opinion:
- John Dickerson thinks that we are seeing a pattern emerge in how the President makes these decisions (namely get a short list of options, have people you trust try to poke holes in those options, then go with your gut)
- Angry Young Dem says this is a milk toast (or turkey sandwich) nomination that conservatives will try to make into a controversy (he also says that Sotomayor is not a liberal legal lion and he has some great "inside baseball" points)
- Dahlia Lithwick basically repeats what AYD said, but she gets paid to do it (she also deconstructs the nominees two big "sound bite" gaffs and says they amount to nothing)
- Adam Nagourney doubts that the GOP will really want to fight it out over a not-so-liberal-once-you-think-about-it Hispanic woman with a great backstory
- YFSF likes that she is a Yankees fan and that she basically ended the baseball strike (what? I told you EVERYONE had an opinion)
Me?
I think that the GOP was going to mount opposition no matter who Obama picked (the largely over played and unneeded Alito fight all but assured that) so why not go with a historic pick and give it to the person on everyone's short list? It is both bold and practical at the same time, just the type of decisions that the President likes.
Plus, given that he is close to losing the media fight over national security he is all but daring the Republicans to oppose the first Hispanic nominee to the court. He would LOVE the PR hit they would take with that voting block.
The biggest disappointment that I have is that we will still have a SCOTUS made up entirely of former Appellate Court Judges, all of them from Eastern US. I would have love to see Obama pick someone with political experience or a Westerner (or both) so that we could get some intellectual and geographic diversity on the court.
A few weeks back, Slate's David Plotz compared judges (MP3 file) to the priesthood (a cloistered order that we mortals cannot understand or question) and it is a fair point. A non-judge pick would have been more unexpected and changed what feels like a very stale dynamic to our high court.
In Civil War, Woman Fought Like A Man For Freedom
Jennie Hodgers, masquerading as [Albert] Cashier, marched thousands of miles during the [Civil] war. She was at the Siege of Vicksburg and the surrender of Mobile. Her regiment took part in more than 40 skirmishes and battles.
I heard this segment on NPR yesterday and from the moment it started I found myself thinking two things: 1) how can I have a B.A. in American History and not know about this and 2) how has this not been made into a movie?
Let’s review what we have in the source material:
- Compelling human narrative
- Little known historical fact
- Underdog story
- Potential epic backdrop
- Struggles of nineteen century women
Best of all, after the war Hodgers remained living as Cashier, ended up in a soldier’s home where after a few years was her real gender finally discovered, at which time the newly formed Veterans Administration suspended her pension payments. This action prompted several of her comrades to rise in her defense.
This means that there is the potential for both epic battle scenes and a “trial” in the SAME MOIVE. This is Oscar gold. It’s Shakespeare in Love * (Glory + Cold Mountain) + Scent of a Woman. How can this go wrong?
Em thinks Hillary Swank should play Hodgers. I say she has two statues already (one for a sub-par film). Give it to Sarah Michelle Gellar -- Buffy as a cross-dressing Civil War soldier…brilliant.
Between Obama's pick for the high court and the California State Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8, NYTimes.com seems to be having...issues.
Come on guys, you couldn't have seen both of these things coming today?
Without too much pain and suffering on all sides, MLTU is now potty trained. It took us about four solid weeks of bribes and coaching, but we had only a few accidents and not too many tears.
I credit Em with how smoothly this went. Three key decisions she made a long time ago pathed the way for success: changing MLTU's diaper in the bathroom once she was too old for the changing table (teaching her that the bathroom is where you do your businesss), dumping all #2's from the diaper into the toilet so MLTU got use to flushing (and to reduce the smell), and allowing MLTU to be fully or patially naked in the house during potty training (removing a barrier).
Unfortunatly for me MLTU has latched on to the nudity part, especially now that it is summer. She turned to me the other day and said "Daddy, can I get naked?" When I told her I didn't think she should her response was "but it's such a nice day". Oh, well in THAT case...
And once naked, MLTU will go to the bathroom outside as well as on the potty. At first I didn't have a problem with this. It's our yard, she can pee outside if she wants (many of her friends do the same). But now she has started "reading a magazine" in the yard as well. And she has decided she can get naked and pee in anyones yard (even friends who are not so like minded).
Of course all this freaks me out. A three year old girl who is willing to drop trow anytime and even strip at her brother's birthday party is not fun for a father like me to watch. Em is more liberal with these things and has declared that three is "the summer of naked" and that MLTU is just expressing herself.
Indeed.
Em does agree that the world is not MLTU's toilet bowl and we are setting limits on where and what she can evacuate. But it seems that I am going to have to get use to coming home from work to find my daughter running through the yard in her birthday suit. Oh the joys of parenting.
AdFreak brought this Kettel One ad to my attention earlier this week:
Oy, where to begin.
A bunch of guys in back suits and Frech cuff shirts playing some form of cards and drinking Kettle One on the rocks? Hmmm...you know why it needs the tagline "Gentelmen, this is vodka"? Beceause "real men" don't know what vodka is.
Real men drink one of three things: whiskey (preferably scotch or bourbon), gin or beer. The only time it is acceptable for a "real man" to drink vodka is for breakfast. And that is really out of necessity (nothing else goes with OJ, grapefruit juice or tomato juice).
There is one other acception: authentically distilled Polish or Russian potato vodka's are OK every once and a while.
But if you are drinking vodka on the rocks you better be having a really bad day and find yourself with nothing else in the liquor cabnet or be on Atkins. Wait, strike that last one, if you're on Atkins you are NOT a real man.
Vodka on the rocks?? You might as well be drinking rubbing alcohol.
So is this why I have gotten more liberal over the last few years?
Really? Because I have a daughter I am more inclined to be liberal?
This seems a bit off. I think Bush/Cheney and the fact that the G.O.P. is going nutballs has a little more to do with my shift away from the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" than MLTU does.
Then again...A Mistake has a son and he seems to be moving towards the VRWC, or at least going Galt.
