Whedonesque : Comments on 18275 : Neil Patrick Harris in 'Prop 8 the Musical'.

That was so awesome!

flugufrelsarinn | December 03, 12:49 CET

That was indeed awesome,this still hurts though. I know America has bounced back from far worse setbacks from progress, but man this one stings.

On a side note,NPH is fast becoming one of my favorite performers ever!

Cyclopticxander | December 03, 12:57 CET

This is a bloody brilliant link.

gossi | December 03, 13:13 CET

In the end, it is all about money. How true ;)

NPH at the piano. Hello, Pretty! Does he just keep getting more pretty? *is jealous and crushing at the same time* I had to pause and rewind. And that shirt... *sigh*

Mirage | December 03, 13:14 CET

In a word ... brilliant!

MizBehavin1 | December 03, 13:19 CET

Awesome ! just when I thought I couldn't love NPH more.

I hope there will be another vote, and people won't be so stupid.

Nico-Angel | December 03, 13:28 CET

Obamanation... high-larious! Yes, NPH is a strapping fellow I say. I agree Mirage, NPH gets prettier every time.

RollingInKittens | December 03, 13:29 CET

Fabulous!

But kind of sad to think that in this so-called enlightened day and age, such a blatantly discriminatory law is allowed to be passed in the first place. Actually, I have a feeling that it was NPH as Barney in HIMYM who asked- 'Why shouldn't gay people have the right to be just as miserably married as everyone else?! '

missb | December 03, 13:41 CET

Further Whedon connections: It was directed, staged and co-produced by Adam Shankman and Anne "Mama" Fletcher was co-Choreographer. Both of whom were the choreographers for Once More With Feeling and "Mama" was the choreographer for Shindig.

Thanks for the link. Now I can see what activities are taking place and select the ones to participate in.

MacGuffin | December 03, 13:53 CET

Grr. Can't get it to play smoothly.

NM, reloaded and all is well. Excellent.

[ edited by C. A. Bridges on 2008-12-03 14:10 ]

C. A. Bridges | December 03, 14:04 CET

Ooh, I feel a 'Degrees of Shankman/Bacon' game coming on.

Self same Adam Shankman directed our Young Simon in 'Hairspray'.
Zac Efron is taking on Kevin Bacon's role in the new 'Footloose' remake.
Kevin worked with SMG in 'The Air I Breathe'.
Sarah was choreographed by Adam Shankman in 'OMWF'.

And round we go...

missb | December 03, 14:18 CET

This is hilarious. Some things keep remembering me why it's so important that TV, theater and stuff are more than just entertainment. Thanks, Andy!

Harridan | December 03, 14:19 CET

I love NPH. I liked him before I heard him sing, but I've loved him since. I Dug (digged?) the video.

theclynn | December 03, 14:49 CET

Brilliant!
And Neil really is a great performer!

maxsummers | December 03, 15:04 CET

Fabulous vid. Unfortunately, those who voted for the discriminatory Prop 8 in the first place are unlikely to be enlightened by it - way too subtle for them.

baxter | December 03, 15:14 CET

That was great! Very witty.

Giles_314 | December 03, 15:25 CET

Excellent! (And I was just coming here to post the link! Beat me to it!)

Kirochka | December 03, 15:49 CET

That was great! Jack Black as Jesus! John C. Reiley as the evil Prop. 8 guy! That was genius!

montresor | December 03, 15:52 CET

That was great. Not the role I'd've expected to see Jack Black in. :)

We will get prop. 8 overturned. I think too many people (including me) had their energies too focused elsewhere during the campaign. We'll be ready for the next round.

jcs | December 03, 15:52 CET

those who voted for the discriminatory Prop 8 in the first place are unlikely to be enlightened by it - way too subtle for them.

Because obviously anyone who disagrees with the right to gay marriage is an idiot. It couldn't just be that there are intelligent people who disagree with it on moral grounds.

Derf | December 03, 16:13 CET

Hilarious and I love it! Oh NPH! What a great idea and I love how all those celebs came together to put this on.

BUT: I hate to be Debbie Downer, but it's a little late for this now, n'est-ce pas? This is what bugs me about all this: they can grant gay marriage, then ban it, then allow it again, then ban it again, etc. It's something that'll be on the ballot every election. How do we stop this?

Linnea1928 | December 03, 16:30 CET

Neil is awesome and the cause is just, I just wish this had been made BEFORE November 4th (and I wish there had been more push back on the robo-calls which featured Barack Obama's voice but which misrepresented his views).

embers | December 03, 16:31 CET

Love.

Sunfire | December 03, 16:35 CET

That was really great, made my morning.

Succatash | December 03, 16:38 CET

It couldn't just be that there are intelligent people who disagree with it on moral grounds.

And what sort of 'moral' might that be? Moral is such a fluid thing ...

Harridan

Harridan | December 03, 16:49 CET

Derf: someone's moral grounds for something can still be profoundly unintelligent, their being "moral grounds" doesn't impugn that, despite that someone being perfectly intelligent in many or all other respects. There being intelligent people who disagree with gay marriage on moral grounds does not of itself show that their reasons are not or cannot be idiotic, and most of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage on moral grounds have been fantastically idiotic.

dzr | December 03, 16:52 CET

Linnea1928 it is going back to the California Supreme Court, on the very basis of whether a majority can in fact vote to rescind a recognized right from a minority. I think in the long run, this is more important than the original vote, because it is a very scary idea that a group of people can have the power to arbitrarily deny rights to another group. After all, if gays, why not deny the right to marry to all left-handed people, or all adults under 5'.

And Derf, you are completely right, there is no intelligent, moral defense of Prop 8. Because if someone is morally opposed to gay marriage, the solution is simple. Don't have one. And if a particular religion is morally opposed to gay marriage, their religious figures don't have to perform them, or recognize them within the religion. But there is no justification for denying the right of CIVIL marriage, which after all is a contractual agreement between two people, to others just because you personally don't approve of them.

It is worth remembering that at the time our current President-elect was born, his parents' marriage would not have been legal in many states. And sadly, a majority in those states had no problem with that.

barboo | December 03, 16:52 CET

And if a particular religion is morally opposed to gay marriage, their religious figures don't have to perform them, or recognize them within the religion.

Except not. See, for example, the recent ruling against eHarmony.

Rachelkachel | December 03, 16:57 CET

LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE.

MySerenity | December 03, 16:57 CET

Derf: But isn't unquestioningly accepting a moral code which preaches traditional, institutionalized hatred towards a minority equivalent to a kind of idiocy?

Some people treat religious doctrines as absolutes, ignoring the fact they evolve over time, just like any other human endeavor. This video points that out so succinctly. Do we still allow husbands to stone their wives? No. Do we still allow families to sell their daughters into slavery? No. Why? We evolved. We changed. We became more respectful of human rights, and more tolerant towards others.

Organized religion does good, but it also has a lot of bad baggage associated with it. Don't forget who silenced Galileo Galilei, and who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, for simply exposing the truth. Those are two famous examples in a long list of abusive history, all in the name of "organized belief."

This is an intolerant mindset which must be challenged, over and over again, until it yields to rational thought. As Buffy once said, "They used to bow down to gods. Things change."

quantumac | December 03, 16:57 CET

That was delightful. I recognized a lot of folks in it, but does anyone know where to get a full cast list?

Our country was ostensibly built on the principle that people should be able to freely practice their religious beliefs and not be oppressed by the religious beliefs of others. Codifying discrimination, particularly in the name of religion, is the least American act of which I can think.

OzLady | December 03, 17:05 CET

Glorious.

Has there ever been a mock proposition to ban shrimp cocktail? As a threat to traditional values?

Pointy | December 03, 17:14 CET

That was simply awesome.

Ameer | December 03, 17:18 CET

Folks, lets just remember to try to keep it civil and avoid judging anyone's intelligence for their opinion. You can do that all that you want privately, but it won't fly here. If you want to discuss prop 8 stick to legal and historical arguments of precedent and related issues.

zeitgeist | December 03, 17:20 CET

e-Harmony is a business, not a religion, unless we're defining "religion" in a way that I've not heard of before :) Pointy, one could certainly propose a ban on shrimp cocktail as it is a threat to shrimp. Actually, I would think that, if they were consistent, the people who want to ban gay marriage should also want to ban shrimp cocktail. The passage in Leviticus in the Bible used to justify religious discrimination against gay men (the wording is such that women are not addressed) is right between the Biblical injunctions against getting haircuts and shaving and between eating shellfish. All three are given the same weight. Mods, I hope this is okay. I am not casting aspersions on anyone's intelligence or religious beliefs, just commenting on text.

[ edited by Shapenew on 2008-12-03 17:26 ]

Shapenew | December 03, 17:23 CET

I completely enjoyed it and felt that it was a bold statement that brought home the issues. I am interested in seeing how this is handled by the CAL Supreme Court, because there are real constitutional issues there that go well beyond gay marriage. Can a simple majority remove rights from any group of people? Could the populace therefore vote to prevent interracial marriage or interfaith marriage, simly by winning 50.1% of a popular vote? Does this supercede constitutional protections written into law? My feeling is that this will not be upheld when it is evaluated. Which is all to the good.

Dana5140 | December 03, 17:24 CET

Pointy:

I think we should try to get that on the next ballot. I, for one, am sick of all these shrimp-eaters flaunting their alternative shellfish lifestyle in plain view of children.

If only there were a world without shrimp!

yamsham | December 03, 17:25 CET

Wow, I'm a tiny bit in love with NPH. That was amazing.

OzLady, the full cast is credited on the Funny or Die site, underneath the video.

deadnotsleeping | December 03, 17:25 CET

Freakin' Brilliant!

JustNick | December 03, 17:26 CET

Yes, we need a world without shrimp! 'Cause, you know Tara's allergic, and she's a sweetie. Neither Willow nor we would want to see her suffer those shellfish eaters.

quantumac | December 03, 17:30 CET

I could do with a world without seafood altogether. Shrimp are just one of many insects of the sea that people seem to enjoy. Some people juggle geese, though.

zeitgeist | December 03, 17:31 CET

That is just the sort of woolly-headed anti-seafood bias we've come to expect from liberals. Seafood = freedom ! Shrimp are like apple pie or Mom - hate them, hate America ! And puppies ! And what's more !

(seriously though, no seafood at all ? Not even fish ? Verily, thou art bonkers. Also, forsooth)

... why not deny the right to marry to all left-handed people, or all adults under 5'.

Because that would be really unfair on short people.

Saje | December 03, 17:40 CET

I can understand that some people are allergic to sea food, but I could NEVER live in a world without shrimp!

And the cast list is at that link, and here:
Cast (in order of appearance) California Gays and The People That Love Them Jordan Ballard, Margaret Cho, Barrett Foa, J.B. Ghuman, John Hill, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Rashad Naylor, Nicole Parker
Proposition 8'ers and The People That Follow Them Prop 8 Leader- John C. Reilly Prop 8 Leader's #1 Wife- Allison Janney Prop 8 Leader's #2 Wife- Kathy Najimy Riffing Prop 8'er-Jenifer Lewis A Preacher- Craig Robinson Scary Catholic School Girls From Hell-Rashida Jones, Lake Bell, Sarah Chalke The Frightened Villagers Katharine "Kooks" Leonard, Seth Morris, Denise "Esi!" Piane, Lucian Piane, Richard Read, Seth Redford, Quinton Strack, Tate Taylor
Jesus Christ Jack Black
A Very Smart Fellow Neil Patrick Harris
Piano Player Marc "Marc" Shaiman

edited to add: Of course I have to defend shrimps since I am a fairly short person my own self.

[ edited by embers on 2008-12-03 18:06 ]

embers | December 03, 17:59 CET

Shrimp are just one of many insects of the sea that people seem to enjoy.

*gags* Oh Lord, I'll never look at shrimp again without thinking that.

menomegirl | December 03, 18:07 CET

OzLady, full cast list just above the video... but here it goes:

Credits: Conceived and Written (six weeks later than he shoulda) by-Marc Shaiman Directed and Staged by: Adam Shankman Produced by Adam Shankman, Marc Shaiman and Mike Farah Edited by Bradly Schulz and Drew Antzis Cast (in order of appearance) California Gays and The People That Love Them Jordan Ballard, Margaret Cho, Barrett Foa, J.B. Ghuman, John Hill, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Rashad Naylor, Nicole Parker Proposition 8'ers and The People That Follow Them Prop 8 Leader- John C. Reilly Prop 8 Leader's #1 Wife- Allison Janney Prop 8 Leader's #2 Wife- Kathy Najimy Riffing Prop 8'er-Jenifer Lewis A Preacher- Craig Robinson Scary Catholic School Girls From Hell-Rashida Jones, Lake Bell, Sarah Chalke The Frightened Villagers Katharine "Kooks" Leonard, Seth Morris, Denise "Esi!" Piane, Lucian Piane, Richard Read, Seth Redford, Quinton Strack, Tate Taylor Jesus Christ Jack Black A Very Smart Fellow Neil Patrick Harris Piano Player Marc "Marc" Shaiman ---- Co-Choreographer: Anne "Mama" Fletcher Recorded and Mixed by Frank Wolfe & Greg Hayes Director of Photography: Michael Barrett Camera Operators: Jake Szymanski, Bradly Schulz and Drew Antzis Production designer: Nelson Coates Costume designer: Shanna Knecht Costume assistants: Leslie Schilling, Annalisa Adams, Elizabeth Abate Hair: Laura Sanchez Make-up: Shauna O'Toole, Atticuss Sharp Production sound: Bradford Craig Music editor: Lisa Jaime Music assistant: Brian Naguit Snacky: "Snacky" Special Thanks to Adam McKay for the nudge.

EDIT: And embers just posted too...

[ edited by maxsummers on 2008-12-03 18:11 ]

maxsummers | December 03, 18:09 CET

zeitgeist just insulted decent insects everywhere. I for one am enraged. I know many praying mantises who are upstanding citizens.

Has there ever been a mock proposition to ban shrimp cocktail? As a threat to traditional values?

There's a website. I have heard of some petitions to put propositions to ban divorce on state ballots, but I doubt those will go anywhere if they're not dead already.

ETA: Also there's these guys, whom I adore.

[ edited by Sunfire on 2008-12-03 18:13 ]

Sunfire | December 03, 18:11 CET

Couldn't haved loved that more! Kudos to everyone involved!

mongorules | December 03, 18:14 CET

Hey, isn't the big guy in the yellow zebra shirt one of Captain Hammer's groupies?

electricspacegirl | December 03, 18:23 CET

(seriously though, no seafood at all ? Not even fish ? Verily, thou art bonkers. Also, forsooth)

Saje - To paraphrase Monty Python; I am serious, and so's my wife.

menomegirl - its true! Look at crabs/lobsters as well.

zeitgeist | December 03, 18:24 CET

Those links = gloriouser, Sunfire!

Pointy | December 03, 18:24 CET

What I love most about things such as this, is that I suspect it somewhat flummoxes the other side.

They go through all the trouble and expense to beat down the forces of equality and fairness, and rather than get morose and, well, beaten down, the forces of equality and fairness go off and have fun making a musical.

The One True b!X | December 03, 18:30 CET

Hey, isn't the big guy in the yellow zebra shirt one of Captain Hammer's groupies?

Only if that guy changed his name to Andy Richter.

The One True b!X | December 03, 18:37 CET

But really, who isn't a Captain Hammer groupie nowadays.

Sunfire | December 03, 18:38 CET

There's a Facebook group for God Hates Shrimp:

No On Shrimp

Oh. Actually it turns out there are dozens. I've no idea if one is more official than others.

[ edited by dzr on 2008-12-03 18:53 ]

dzr | December 03, 18:52 CET

I have lovely photos of the anti-gay group God Hates Shrimp is based upon in my Flickr photostream, from their recent visit to Portland.

(And dzr, that FB group you linked to in fact is the one that God Hates Shrimp itself link to, so that would make it the official one.)

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2008-12-03 18:55 ]

The One True b!X | December 03, 18:55 CET

Yeah, that's actually Westboro in the photos on the shrimp site. The guy who runs that site just photoshopped the text on the signs to say shrimp. Original.

Sunfire | December 03, 19:00 CET

If God hates shrimp then I'd think he/she would be ok with us deep frying them and dunking them in a nice cocktail sauce.

ETA: Just watched. Awesome. (But nobody should have to see Andy Richter in orange shorty shorts. Like, ever.)

[ edited by NYPinTA on 2008-12-03 19:11 ]

NYPinTA | December 03, 19:06 CET

Shrimp are just one of many insects of the sea that people seem to enjoy. Some people juggle geese, though.

I've got to agree with zeitgeist. Just compare this to that.

I can see why someone had enough sense to ban eating something like that in holy writ.

I'm just sayin', is all.

Rebekah | December 03, 19:17 CET

Just loved that! And I have to add my voice to the NPH admiration society here. The guy's fantastic.

palehorse | December 03, 19:21 CET

I would remind everyone that the so-called right to marriage is
restricted in other ways; 1) minors, depending on their age,
have restricted or no marriage rights, 2) insane people may not
marry generally speaking, 3) you are limited to one partner.

This was going well until some well meaning people insisted
on calling it Marriage instead of Civil Unions or Domestic
Partnerships and insisting on including some items that were
less generally acceptable, mostly involving children.

JDL | December 03, 19:24 CET

Is that ironic or are you actually comparing gay adults to minors and the insane ?

Maybe we should stop gays buying cigarettes or alcohol too then ? Not to mention, y'know, voting.

Saje | December 03, 19:28 CET

. . . *crickets* . . .

m'cookies actual | December 03, 19:44 CET

"including some items that were less generally acceptable, mostly involving children."

Can you be more specific? What are you referring to?

Succatash | December 03, 19:45 CET

Ballots can't override protections that are actually in a cosntiution-type document. This was a judical opinion. And constitutions can always be amended.

A major hurdle is this isn't a settled principle. And trying to put it in place as if it were a settled principle and this is just an attempt to "recognize" it leads to backfires, like Prop. 8.

And some of the actions taken since then, like trying to shut down businesses of people who made small donations to the "yes" campaign, strike me as 1930's-style direct action.

DaddyCatALSO | December 03, 19:46 CET

Mod is watching you ;)!

zeitgeist | December 03, 19:47 CET

This was going well until some well meaning people insisted on calling it Marriage instead of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships and insisting on including some items that were less generally acceptable, mostly involving children.

It's not simply a matter of nomenclature. The concepts are different in very important legal and economic ways. They are not only separate legal regimes, but ones that are very, very unequal.

How is "marriage" different from a "civil union"?

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

I would also love to hear about how gays and children in the same family are "unacceptable."

BrewBunny | December 03, 19:50 CET

barboo: "And if a particular religion is morally opposed to gay marriage, their religious figures don't have to perform them, or recognize them within the religion."

Rachelkachel: "Except not. See, for example, the recent ruling against eHarmony."

Except they really don't, the irrelevant eHarmony notwithstanding. barboo's statement that "religious figures don't have to perform them" is 100% accurate. The original June court ruling that allowed gay marriages in the state of California specifically stated, "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

And as others have pointed out, eHarmony is a business, not a religion.

I would remind JDL that if they want to refer to "some items that were less generally acceptable, mostly involving children" they might want to get specific for the purposes of meaningful discussion - there was a lot of scare-nonsense spouted by the Pro-Prop 8 forces of the "Oh, god, will no one think about the children!" variety - but it was generally inaccurate and misleading. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to.

There's so much more I could say, but I probably won't, lest my passions run away with me here - I was very involved in the "No On Prop 8" campaign here in California. I will say this - not only are the same panel of judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage reviewing the three out of six Prop 8-related cases they've accepted for review (you can keep up on the status of case dispositions and sign up for alerts here), but Equality California is sponsoring state legislation to overturn Prop 8.

I believe we'll eventually overcome this last-ditch bigoted effort to roll back civil rights for gays and lesbians, but sometimes it feels like we'll have to wait for some of the older, prejudiced voters to die off.

And I'm all for "pink power" - the boycotting of businesses that gave money to "Yes on Prop 8" as a business. It's anyone's right to decide not to give their business to a company that has supported laws and policies that they disagree with. It's also very effective.

I loved this musical and all the performers in it. I think I've waited all my life to see 1) Jack Black play Jesus and 2) Neil Patrick Harris somersault and cavort onstage.

QuoterGal | December 03, 20:26 CET

It's not simply a matter of nomenclature.

Actually it is, and the comment that prompted this remark outs what this is really, in some ways, about: Had the civil institution not taken the same name as the religious institution, we might not be in quite the mess we are now.

If the state didn't offer "marriage", but offered the intended state benefit under a different name -- to EVERYONE, meaning the state doesn't do "marriage" at all, even for straights -- certain religious hardliners would ne unable rhetorically to get cranky about defending "marriage".

So, it is about nomenclature. And the answer is to rename state benefits to "civil unions", remove "marriage" from state law altogether.

The One True b!X | December 03, 20:29 CET

And I'm all for "pink power" - the boycotting of businesses that gave money to "Yes on Prop 8" as a business. It's anyone's right to decide not to give their business to a company that has supported laws and policies that they disagree with. It's also very effective.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, especially because in the months leading up to the election, "Yes on Prop 8" groups made a point of sending threatening letters to "No on Prop 8" supporters.

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

How ironic that now all the pro-8 groups are crying foul about finding themselves targeted for their own political donations.

BrewBunny | December 03, 20:37 CET

B!x, I disagree that it's simply a matter of nomenclature. The comment I was responding to made it clear that it wasn't just the name, but also "insisting on including some items that were less generally acceptable, mostly involving children" that led to the public pushback.

And as for "certain religious hardliners," I think you'll have to agree that such people will get cranky about any damn thing they please, facts and logic be damned.

BrewBunny | December 03, 20:41 CET

That was fantastic. I truly adore NPH and wish he were my gay boyfriend. :D

I also feel very, very strongly that the government has a duty to provide the same rights, not similar rights, to all of it's citizens. A civil marriage is a contract between two people, and as such, should be available to any two people of legal age who aren't already married. (The insanity restriction is a fuzzy gray area that I'm just going to ignore.)

It's not about religion. Religious folk can decide not to marry members of their own gender, if they so choose. Churches can choose not to hold or recognize the civil marriages of gay people. That is within their rights.

The government, however, has a responsibility to treat all citizens equally under the law. Full stop.

At my local Anti-Prop 8 Rally a few weeks ago, a gay friend of mine held up a sign asking, "Would you rather I married your daughter?" It was my favorite sign. :D

joni | December 03, 20:41 CET

OK, so instead of marriage, let's call it pairrage.

m'cookies actual | December 03, 20:43 CET

I didn't say it was simply or only about nomenclature. I said it was "in some ways" about this.

The comment you were responding to ("[t]his was going well until some well meaning people insisted on calling it Marriage instead of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships") would have been nearly impossible for them to post if the civil institution were not carrying the same name as the religious institution.

That was my only point. ;)

The One True b!X | December 03, 20:46 CET

@ m'cookies: Personally, I don't care what it's called, as long as it's exactly the same for everybody. ("Separate But Equal" does not and will not work.) But I'm not sure it's feasible to just change the name of the contract, though. Given the couple in CA that got all ticked off about their marriage license not saying "bride and groom" I would imagine that changing the title would cause even more trouble than just allowing gays to marry and sticking with the current nomenclature.

joni | December 03, 20:48 CET

I vote for "roger" as the new name, just because state sanctioned "rogering" between gay adults is never gonna get old ;).

ETA: Or ooh, ooh, "I'm off to get rogered by the state". It's easily the name with the most lewd joke potential, on that basis alone it has to be a shoe-in, surely ?

Churches can choose not to hold or recognize the civil marriages of gay people. That is within their rights.

Y'know, I was originally going to mention that I didn't think ministers should have to marry a gay couple but then I thought "What if the Roman Catholic Church decided it wasn't going to marry black couples or interracial couples, would that still be OK ?". It's a bit grayer than I originally thought (I think ;).

Mod is watching you ;)!

Sure but fish is brain food - if you don't eat that then I have doubts about your powers of concentration ;-).

[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 20:51 ]

Saje | December 03, 20:49 CET

I suggest reading this book:

Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles

WheelsOfJoy | December 03, 20:50 CET

joni, I'm under no illusion/delusion that they'd actually ever be able to pull off changing the name of the state benefits for everyone, and get the semantic issue off the table. I'm just saying that if both institutions weren't called "marriage", well, you know. Heh.

The One True b!X | December 03, 20:51 CET

Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles

I have no idea what this is, but this is the link for those wanting to follow the suggestion.

ETA that I now I know what it is, because I skipped to the end of the executive summary, which begins: "Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife."

So, now you know what it is, too.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2008-12-03 20:54 ]

The One True b!X | December 03, 20:53 CET

@Saje You make a very interesting point. It is a grayer area, but it would still be within the rights of the church to do that. It would be sad, and I imagine it wouldn't go over very well, but I don't think the government can or should force churches to perform marriages for any given couple.

joni | December 03, 20:53 CET

ETA: Yeah I get the whole church/state separation issue and agree in general but it does make you wonder about the extent to which large bodies can remove our "rights" at their whim.

"Ten Principles" sounds like it'd be easy to bullet point *cough* hint *cough* ;).

(or is there a movie ?)

[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 20:55 ]

Saje | December 03, 20:53 CET

"Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife."

See, bullet points folks, they're the future.

(I probably won't even sit through the movie now)

Saje | December 03, 20:57 CET

I have spammed this (It's SPAMALOT ... er no, it's Prop 8 The Musical) everywhere I can think of it's so awsome. Great find, Andy. I'm embarrassed I didn't notice Kathy Najimy until the 2nd viewing.

I feel as though they took that great speech of Martin Sheen's in West Wing directed at the Dr. Laura stand-in character and condensed it down, and still made awesome by Jack Black in song. I would still love to see that whole President Bartlet monologue put to music, though. Love, Love, Love that video. Possibly more than chocolate.

Tonya J | December 03, 20:57 CET

Wonderfully written. I love finding new writers to watch out for (new to me, obviously, since Marc Shaiman has been successful a long time).

I still want to know if "Snacky" is a person or a business. And if not a person, why the quotes? *wanders off muttering*

cabri | December 03, 21:02 CET

Sure but fish is brain food - if you don't eat that then I have doubts about your powers of concentration ;-).

Were you saying something? Its really about the Omega 3s, for which there are supplements :)

zeitgeist | December 03, 21:04 CET

I agree with b!X. If marriage is a civil union, then discrimination is unacceptable. If marriage is a religious union, then government has no business being involved at all.

As far as I know, churches are free to be as discriminatory as they like. (Nobody's forcing the Catholic church to allow female priests, for example.)

jcs | December 03, 21:07 CET

Re: Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles:

Since you're throwing that out there as recommended reading, can you please tell me how my own "traditional" man-woman marriage and socially-appropriate two children are threatened by the state of California allowing my gay friends to also enter into legally binding marriages that permit them to do things like taking care of each other when they're sick or create tax-revenue-generating economic enterprises together? How is that a bad thing?

On another note, every time I hear people talk about being "threatened" by gays and lesbians seeking marriage rights, I think that we ought to retire the Marines and instead attack Al Quaeda with a platoon drafted from the ranks of Queer Nation.

BrewBunny | December 03, 21:09 CET

I think that we ought to retire the Marines and instead attack Al Quaeda with a platoon drafted from the ranks of Queer Nation.

Well, they do hate us for our freedom.

The One True b!X | December 03, 21:10 CET

Well it can't be easy having to get up early, follow orders and do physical training, i'd hate us too.

Its really about the Omega 3s, for which there are supplements :)

Aha, interesting. You might've stumbled on a more peaceful solution to the coming zombie apocalypse. Not "Braiiinnnnnsss" but "Suplemennnnnnttsssssssss". And it still ends in a sibilant too, with all the creepy potential maintained. Yay to building zombridges !

Saje | December 03, 21:13 CET

I do love me some zombies (not physically, mind you... *counts down until someone mentions zombie marriage and the rights of undead Americans*).

zeitgeist | December 03, 21:14 CET

To make a comparison - we know Catholic doctrine doesn't recognize divorce. Any Catholic who is divorced and remarried is not married according to the Church, and is living in sin. That is a moral view. I have no problem with Catholics refusing to acknowledge a second marriage as legitimate within their Church. I would have a very big problem if anyone would try to restrict everyone else's right to divorce or remarry because to Catholic doctrine that is illegal.

Personally I think the government has no business in endorsing particular religious beliefs and vice versa, and for that reason only civil marriages should be legally recognized. Religions can still have their own ceremonies, their own definitions, their own restrictions, but those "marriages" would not be recognized by the state. If people want legal recognition they would have to also get a civil ceremony, which I believe is the situation in France.

"... why not deny the right to marry to all left-handed people, or all adults under 5'.

Because that would be really unfair on short people."

Well, yeah Saje. That's the point. (See since I am just 5' I am entitled to look down on anyone shorter).

barboo | December 03, 21:15 CET

Okay…I’m just going to come right out and say it…I am a Mormon.

Please be gentle. *Tentatively walking out under a white flag of truce.*

Let me just first say, I personally have no problem with any of the above mentioned rights or liberties being given to those in same gender couples. Furthermore, I have met many same gender couples who were much better parents, leaders, and over all citizens than countless number of straight couples. I cannot and will not accept that the entire content of a person’s character can be judged by what gender that person chooses to love.

That being said, I do have legitimate concerns about what happens to the laws that protect my religion’s choice to recognize, in a religious sense, same sex unions. I am not saying I think that those unions should not be protected under law—there are children, spouses, and families that should not be treated any differently just because the parents in those families are either both men or women.

What I worry about is if these laws were passed, then CONCEIVABLY my Church’s right to legally bind their own marriage ceremonies could be withdrawn. Why? Because under law, LDS authorities would have to accept and bind same sex couples in order to retain their license to marry traditional couples. The Prophet and his administrators would never accept those grounds, because they do feel the unions are morally wrong.

You see why it gets kind of sticky? There’s a cornucopia of religious, legal, and moral perceptions, feelings, and opinions involved with the real live logistics of separating Church and State. It’s not as simple to say just let same-sex couples have legal rights. If I condone then the LDS church could lose theirs.

THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN you might be thinking.

Well it already has.

An adoption agency in Vermont—it wasn’t even Mormon, it was Catholic—refused to allow adoptions to same sex couples because those at the agency did not religiously condone same-sex unions. The agency was shut down by the state, because it would not recognize legally married same-sex couples on religious grounds.

How would the rights of marriage be eventually treated any differently?

Is it right for me to defend my faith at the expense of others?

I don't know.

It’s not any easy issue, and I don’t think there are simple answers to the questions involved with it.

Rebekah | December 03, 21:15 CET

I love how everyone talks about the short people and ignores the rights of lefties (/rimshot). I kid, of course, because as we all know left-handedness is a sign of perfidy and malfeasance and other bad things.

Rebekah - I understand what you are saying, but if civil unions and religious marriages were kept completely separate then their would be a license granted by the state to perform civil unions and a license presumably given by your church to perform the religious ceremony. An adoption agency, whether an outgrowth of a church or not, is not the same thing as a church and slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

zeitgeist | December 03, 21:17 CET

Rebekah, the adoption agency situation isn't comparable, because adoption isn't a religious exercise, it's a civil one that just happened to be undertaken by a religious institution. When engaging in civil activities, even religious institution must abide by civil law.

But when it comes to marriage, there is a uniquely religious version of that institution, and no civil law can force a church to marry beyond its religious beliefs, or to religiously recognize such a marriage.

The One True b!X | December 03, 21:21 CET

"... why not deny the right to marry to all left-handed people, or all adults under 5'.

Because that would be really unfair on short people."

Well, yeah Saje. That's the point.

Heh, crossed wires barboo ;). You'll notice I conspicuously (I thought) didn't mention it'd be unfair to left-handed people - my (joky) point being it'd be OK to deny them the right to marry. I mean, they've the devil in them, right ? Surely we all see that ? ... * crickets * ...

ETA: Oops, What zeitgeist Said (kinda sorta ;).

[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 21:23 ]

Saje | December 03, 21:21 CET

Churches can refuse to marry whomever or under whatever conditions as they see fit. Some Catholic churches refuse to marry people outdoors. I only know that because several environmentalist friends have had long drawn out family dramas over wanting to have an outdoor ceremony with their lifelong church that wouldn't let a priest marry anyone outside the church building. Apparently you can have a deacon preside or something like that but not do the same fully formal ceremony with a priest if you want to do the barefoot-on-the-grass thing.

At least one Catholic church has in recent years refused to marry a paraplegic man because as they see it he can't consummate the marriage.

Rebekah, no one can force the Mormon church to marry same-sex couples anymore than they can force it to have a public ceremony after the formal temple sealing, invite non-Mormon guests to the temple ceremony, or force your clergy to seal a non-Mormon to a Mormon. That a LEGAL change would require RELIGIOUS change is very much a misconception. All this would mean is that churches that want to marry gay people now have it mean something in legal, civil terms. And it means any same-sex couple who wants can go to the courthouse and get a civil marriage certificate and have all the same rights as married straight couples. What the churches choose to do in their own congregations remains their own business, as always.

Sunfire | December 03, 21:21 CET

Heh, crossed wires barboo ;). You'll notice I conspicuously (I thought) didn't mention it'd be unfair to left-handed people - my (joky) point being it'd be OK to deny them the right to marry. I mean, they've the devil in them, right ? Surely we all see that ? ... * crickets * ...

Like I said above, Saje - malfeasance, perfidy, etc.

Rebekah - I'm glad that you felt safe to express your concerns and trust that everyone here will treat you with respect in responding (I trust anyone tempted to say something nasty caught the implied threat).

Sidenote for fans of Dan Savage.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-12-03 21:26 ]

zeitgeist | December 03, 21:23 CET

What I worry about is if these laws were passed, then CONCEIVABLY my Church’s right to legally bind their own marriage ceremonies could be withdrawn. Why? Because under law, LDS authorities would have to accept and bind same sex couples in order to retain their license to marry traditional couples. The Prophet and his administrators would never accept those grounds, because they do feel the unions are morally wrong.

Do you have any legal authority you can cite for your claim that LDS authorities would have to perform same-sex marriages or perform no marriages at all?

An adoption agency in Vermont—it wasn’t even Mormon, it was Catholic—refused to allow adoptions to same sex couples because those at the agency did not religiously condone same-sex unions. The agency was shut down by the state, because it would not recognize legally married same-sex couples on religious grounds.

What was the name of the agency? Was it actually "shut down" by the state or did the state just stop funding it? Because a state cannot legally fund an institution that implements discriminatory policies that a state cannot implement itself directly.

Sorry if you feel that I'm being picky about facts. But I've just endured an election season full of blatantly false advertising about the horrors of gay marriage and some of the claims you're making here sound eerily familiar.

BrewBunny | December 03, 21:24 CET

Here's a book that might be more helpful in understanding the key issue that I believe is driving the "Yes on Prop 8" forces.

And, yup, I agree - I think as far as the state is concerned, all marriages should be a civil union, and then churches/temples/whathaveyou can solemnize at will.

Rebekah, I don't think you can talk about all laws granting same-sex marriage rights as one thing - as I stated above, the California court ruling that permitted same-sex marriages in California specifically stated:

"no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

I don't know how that can be stated any clearer.

I don't know about the Vermont Catholic adoption agency case of which you speak, and I'll check into it, but I'd bet you it's a question of receiving government funds... one really doesn't get to practice prejudiced adoption policies - and get a check.

(Looks like many of you were there before me...)

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-12-03 21:27 ]

QuoterGal | December 03, 21:26 CET

Like I said above, Saje - malfeasance, perfidy, etc.

Aaargghhhh, cross-editing/postage meltdown !?! It's like Keystone weblog postings !

Saje | December 03, 21:27 CET

Its just like that, with fewer handcuffs and more hijinks.

zeitgeist | December 03, 21:29 CET

Loved NPH's somersault. but I really want to know why zeitgeist eschews fishies? No sushi? Ever? You don't also happen to be left-handed and insane, do you?

catherine | December 03, 21:34 CET

Eschewing is just one of the signs to watch out for *nods knowingly*.

Saje | December 03, 21:35 CET

I am neither left handed nor insane. I don't enjoy eating anything that comes from the sea and its not for lack of trying.

zeitgeist | December 03, 21:37 CET

Haven't seen this noted yet: "marriage" is not a religious term. It's a secular concept that has evolved according to cultural demands in different ways in different places and very different cultures around the world for millennia. Asserting otherwise is to ignore all of human social history.

Besides, even if you do claim that "marriage" is a religious term, which religion does it belong to? Different religions have some infamous differences of opinion between them about what, why, and how marriage is and between how many people. The Christian church wasn't even in the business of blessing marriages until the Council of Trent in medieval Europe. But what about other religions? Mormons? As far as I know, you can't even get married in a Mormon temple unless you convert. Legal gay marriage affects their freedoms only as much as legal non-mormon marriage does... which is to say, not at all.

orphea | December 03, 21:40 CET

In France you have to have a civil marriage service in order to be married. You are then free to have a religious service if you so choose and according to your belief system.

That seems sensible to me. One civil rite conferring the same civil rights to all . Separation of church and state and no issue with moral/ religious groups seeking to overturn the rights of any group.

BTW great link!!

California took a giant step backwards with this vote and the sooner it is overturned the better.

The rights of the minority should never again be subject to majority vote.

BTW, anyone wearing a garment made of mixed fibres, put down your shrimp cocktail and see me after class. I'm afraid that you are an abomination and need a good stoning.

debw | December 03, 21:42 CET

zeitgeist, Are you Ok with eating things that come from freshwater? If so, what is your position on spawning salmon?

BrewBunny | December 03, 21:43 CET

I don't enjoy eating anything that comes from the sea and its not for lack of trying.

Yeah, but have you TRIED it? ;). Also, does anybody know how to pronounce eschew? It's one of those words that I've seen but never heard.

And, um, good discussion here, too :)

catherine | December 03, 21:45 CET

Now that I've ~~skimmed~~, ahem, read through the thread, mostly (I'm letting political stuff just go hang today), I have to get in on the ban seafood conversation. I myself, am loving of the fried shrimp. And as sexual innuendo goes in art, the oyster (though not in the original version) gets its due in that famous (infamous?) scene in Spartacus put back in the restored version (Good Grief, censors of early Hollywood. If only you could have seen the recent HBO series Rome). So don't be dissing on the seafood, yo. This is a gem of a scene:

Oysters and Snails

Tonya J | December 03, 21:46 CET

catherine, I think it's like "eh, shoe" but with more flair. ;)

cabri | December 03, 21:46 CET

An adoption agency in Vermont—it wasn’t even Mormon, it was Catholic—refused to allow adoptions to same sex couples because those at the agency did not religiously condone same-sex unions. The agency was shut down by the state, because it would not recognize legally married same-sex couples on religious grounds.

It was Massachusetts, they chose to close rather than adopt to gay parents, and an adoption agency is not a religion. Some are run by religious groups, but that doesn't make the adoption agency subject to the same protections as an organized religion. If you get a state license to operate an agency that places children with adoptive parents, you have to go through accreditation and follow the laws of that state. Catholic Charities decided they were unwilling to follow state law based on religious reasons, but the Catholic Church is still free to teach what they want about same-sex relationships and to refuse to marry couples as they see fit. They are not allowed to run adoption agencies that do not follow the rules though.

Sunfire | December 03, 21:46 CET

Ha -- also m-w says... cheat sheet: \e-ˈshü, i-; es-ˈchü, is-; also e-ˈskyü\

ETA - I was using "from the sea" colloquially. Things that come from fresh or saltwater seas, not for me.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-12-03 21:50 ]

zeitgeist | December 03, 21:49 CET

Salon.com gave a little shout-out to NPH in their post about the video. :-)

BrewBunny | December 03, 21:52 CET

catherine, I think it's like "eh, shoe" but with more flair. ;)

Ah, that made me laugh!

And poor zeitgeist, it's your easy-goingness that makes us all think we're allowed to have a go at your dietary preferences ;).

catherine | December 03, 21:56 CET

So if the church/state separation worked in the case of adoption agencies, why did it fail so spectacularly over Proposition 8 ? Was it purely a matter of a big PR push by those with deep pockets and an ideological axe to grind ? Ah, democracy, never let it be called a perfect system ;) (and yet ;( ).

catherine, I think it's like "eh, shoe" but with more flair. ;)

Panache, even. I say it like 'atchoo' but with 'es' instead and easy on the 'ch'. In fact, it barely sounds like 'atchoo' at all, frankly I don't know why you all brought it up.

BTW, I think we may have a majority, I say we vote to revoke zeitgeist's right to not eat seafood. And would a sub proposal to make him left-handed be too much ?

Things that come from fresh or saltwater seas, not for me.

Apart from salt. Yes, now we see the argument utterly collapse, like a big floppy sea cucumber. *rests case*

...

I meant after it's ejected its guts into the water, you get that right ? Cos of the floppy.

Saje | December 03, 21:56 CET

@Saje: yes - I think that's a good summation. Let's vote you into office or something... I think one of my w-esque friends on twitter said you should be King of the Internet today...

I think zeitgeist's Merriam-Webster pronunciation is too sneezy; I like this one better.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-12-03 22:02 ]

QuoterGal | December 03, 22:02 CET

I do see the fallacy in my argument Zeitgeist. I will also admit I don’t actually know the full logistics of the Catholic adoption agency situation or the legal ramifications involved with it.

I will also concede BrewBunny that you are absolutely right, it was heard as more of a story rather than as cited research. I will also concede that those types of stories do tend to lead to unsubstantiated paranoia on both sides. I apologize.

I was just expressing a concern, unfounded though it may have been. I’m grateful no one bit my head off or tried to send me a pouch of proverbial white powder in protest. The Church headquarters, not five blocks from my house, was not so fortunate.

I will say that I didn’t know half of what was said here today, so I will pass that information onward.

I wouldn’t actually mind the French or European policy of Religious and Legal Marriages. It seems to make a lot more sense. Then no one can claim religious discrimination.

Rebekah | December 03, 22:02 CET

Rebekah, I, for one (and I think others here) would far prefer someone express the concern in open discussion, as you have, rather than just emptily parrot it, as so many did during the Prop 8 vote.

So, you're already ahead of a lot of others in being willing to ask about it, rather than simply proclaim it.

The One True b!X | December 03, 22:06 CET

Saje as King of the Internet? Can we vote for King?

I'm glad your head remains unbitten, Rebekah. It's a nice and very informed bunch here, generally.

Thanks all for clarifying (or really complicating) the pronunciation problem for me. I'm careful ever since discovering at the age of 18 that there was in fact no such word as "misle" (meaning "to deceive," past tense misled, long vowel i) and that I had been, heh, misreading misled all my life. I still feel sad about losing that word. And mainly I worry about a horrible mispronunciation around fancy people.

catherine | December 03, 22:11 CET

ETA: Bloody hell, more posts crossing. You can vote for King BTW but God gets to count the ballot ;).

So, you're already ahead of a lot of others in being willing to ask about it, rather than simply proclaim it.

And altering your opinion when new facts come to light goes a long way in my book too. I don't think anyone minds religious people raising their concerns it's when they cite dogma as "evidence" that it becomes ... irksome.

[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 22:14 ]

Saje | December 03, 22:11 CET

I’m grateful no one bit my head off or tried to send me a pouch of proverbial white powder in protest. The Church headquarters, not five blocks from my house, was not so fortunate.

Matthew Shepard wasn't so fortunate either. Neither was the best man at my parents' wedding who got his head smashed in with a concrete block by someone who didn't approve of his "choice."

BrewBunny | December 03, 22:11 CET

ooh, jinx Saje, you owe me a coke, king or not! Except I hate coke.

catherine | December 03, 22:12 CET

Rebekah, nobody knows who sent white powder to the Mormon church. It could be anyone, even someone who has a vested interest in stoking hatred and fear of gays. Besides, whoever it is who sent it surely doesn't represent everyone in every demographic s/he belongs to, whether that demographic be gays or Mormons.

orphea | December 03, 22:13 CET

BTW, I think we may have a majority, I say we vote to revoke zeitgeist's right to not eat seafood. And would a sub proposal to make him left-handed be too much ?

Right, but my eating habits aren't a democracy and I was speaking of living things from the sea. Sea salt is fine.

QG - I wasn't thrilled with the M-W pronunciation, either, it was just the site I thought of first. M-W didn't have a .wav for the third pronunciation, though it has to count for something that they do have it listed textually.

Saje as King of the Internet? Can we vote for King?

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ooh, jinx Saje, you owe me a coke, king or not! Except I hate coke.

Again with the white powder! Oh, you meant... never mind ;).

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-12-03 22:16 ]

zeitgeist | December 03, 22:14 CET

Is left-handedness still up for grabs though ? Er, so to speak.

Saje | December 03, 22:15 CET

Oops... jinx is for when you say the same thing, not when you say something at the same time. Forget that coke.

That's appalling about your parents' friend, Brewbunny, I'm so sorry. Your post popped up just after I'd sent mine, didn't mean to follow it with something so flip :(

catherine | December 03, 22:16 CET

Jeez, i've already sent it now. It's just chaos tonight, telling you.

And yeah, to be serious for a minute, real acts of violence bring it all home. Of course, with the best will in the world, you can pass all the laws you like, there're always gonna be people willing to do stuff like that, sad but true.

Saje | December 03, 22:18 CET

Is left-handedness still up for grabs though ? Er, so to speak.

So long as you're not too short to reach it ;).

Of course, with the best will in the world, you can pass all the laws you like, there're always gonna be people willing to do stuff like that, sad but true.

So, you're saying we should get something like they had in Minority Report, yeah? (JOKING)

zeitgeist | December 03, 22:19 CET

For zeitgeist.

Sunfire | December 03, 22:20 CET

Cheers, Sunfire. In a bit of cruel irony, the energy produced by the shrimp running on the treadmill was converted into heat and used to boil the water :(. Poor sea insect...

Yes, I made that up.

zeitgeist | December 03, 22:22 CET

Poor shrimp! That looked stressful.

catherine | December 03, 22:26 CET

If only there were some way to use that ability for good instead of YouTube...

So long as you're not too short to reach it ;).

Keeeeekkkkk, Keeeeekkkkk ! To me, my dolphin friends ! No problem, i'll ride on the back of Flipper, a simple half-pike, 3/4 twist will bring us within handedness reach.

So, you're saying we should get something like they had in Minority Report, yeah? (JOKING)

Dude, is that a trick question ? Of course we should get jet-packs, they're the future. S'what you meant, right ?

Saje | December 03, 22:26 CET

Fantastic video.

UnpluggedCrazy | December 03, 22:26 CET

Oh, ha. Thought it was a research vid repurposed by video editing hooligans. Turns out these shrimp are famous.

Sunfire | December 03, 22:27 CET

Yep, infamous almost. There's even a sex tape doing the rounds.

Fantastic video.

Oh yeah, I meant to say about 15 inanities ago, really cool, funny video. Like a piss-take squared, with singing ;).

ETA: My inanities I meant BTW, you lot are completely ... ane, as usual.

[ edited by Saje on 2008-12-03 22:34 ]

Saje | December 03, 22:31 CET

Orphea, you're right. No one does know who sent it.

Either way, Fanatical Mormon or Gay Marriage supporter with a grudge, they didn't represent either group very well.

Brewbunny, I do not even pretend to know what that kind of intollerance is made of. It is unconscionable.

Rebekah | December 03, 22:33 CET

The white powder was ill-advised, to say the least, no matter who sent it - and I don't think we do know... For the most part, everyone I've worked with on the NoOnProp8 campaign has been reasonable, kind, loving - and smart - but there are disturbed people on every side of every issue.

I do believe that the generality of the "YesOnProp8" continual & vague exhortations to "remember the children" and "protect your church's freedoms" is exactly what enabled them to win. One you get into specifics, their talking points melt away...

I'm with the others here, Rebekah, in that 1) I think that talking about it reasonably, as you did, is so much better than not bringing it up at all, and leaves misconceptions unchallenged on both sides and 2) you rock for taking in new info so well...

I don't like oysters, but I do like snails. My partner A has to leave the room when we drop lobsters into the pot, 'cause he swears he can hear them scream. I say, in the boiling lobster pot, no one can hear you scream. ; >

(Oh, and it's great to see Allison Janney again - I don't think I'm capable of separating her from her character C.J. I've tried, as in The Ice Storm - but all I could think was "C.J. is being so naughty.')

QuoterGal | December 03, 22:34 CET

Catherine, I'm starting to feel your pain here. My remark seems too somber after that shrimp clip. I nearly peed my pant that was so funny.

Rebekah | December 03, 22:37 CET

Oh, QG, I'm right there with ya. In Juno, I was like, "Why is C.J. talking with that funny accent?"

(And I haven't even seen a full season of The West Wing!)

UnpluggedCrazy | December 03, 22:38 CET

orphea, I was going to make a similar point. "Marriage" is one of those things that everybody thinks they know the meaning of, and when you actually try to pin it down, turns out to be many different things to different people. When I was just a little, baby anthropologist-in-training, one of the supposed universalities of the human condition that was regularly taught was marriage. That is, all human societies have some form of marriage, just as all human societies have some form of religion, art, language.

But the more I've learned about different cultures and different subcultures, the more I question that there is anything universally recognized as marriage. Is a culture where a married woman lives with her family of origin and is visited occasionally by her husband for sexual congress really experiencing marriage in a way we understand it? What about a ruler with dozens of official wives and concubines? Societies in which a woman marries a household of brothers?

It seems to me that there is really very little in these different configurations that would lead them all to fall under one category. What there are, in every society it seems, are rules - rules for what persons have legitimate sexual access to each other, rules for distribution of resources based on kinship, rules for the recognition of kinship for purposes of resource distribution etc. And it is somewhere in the intersection of those rules that we locate something we call "marriage."

This is a little far afield from our discussion perhaps, but the point is that even within our society, people regard marriage as very different things, even depending on where they are in their own life cycle. I've seen it said many times that marriage should be for the children, but my widowed aunt remarried in her 70s and she sure wasn't planning on having any children then.

barboo | December 03, 22:39 CET

"but all I could think was "C.J. is being so naughty.'"

Ha. Me too!

NYPinTA | December 03, 22:40 CET

Its a very creative piece of propaganda...

xerox | December 03, 22:44 CET

I want to vote for the word "'misle' (meaning "to deceive," past tense misled." catherine, that's a great word.

barboo | December 03, 22:48 CET

Rebekah, "That kind of intolerance" that leads to unconscionable hate crimes against gays and lesbians is nothing more than the logical extension of the kind of intolerance promoted by the LDS and Catholic churches (among others). Just this week the Vatican came out in opposition to a UN resolution aimed at countries which criminalize homosexuality with punishments that include death.

BrewBunny | December 03, 22:55 CET

I'm not sure how to respond to that BrewBunny.

When you put it that way, initially a defensive lump came up in my throat. But then I swallowed it.

Is the definition for disagreement synonymous with intolerant?

I'm LDS. Does that make me intolerant?

[ edited by Rebekah on 2008-12-04 01:42 ]

Rebekah | December 03, 23:17 CET

Rebekah, I prefer to think of intolerance in terms of institutions and religious leadership (for the most part) not individual church members. You are not the norm liberals usually envision, and are obviously very compassionate on this subject.

[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-12-03 23:42 ]

Tonya J | December 03, 23:20 CET

I think it's obvious that whoever sent the white powder was very angry at the Mormon church (just my opinion).

Many of the locals here in Salt Lake compared it to the mid/late 1970's, when near-riot protests and "terrorist" civil disobedience (bombs and bomb threats) were directed towards the Mormon church for their discrimination towards black people.

Succatash | December 03, 23:22 CET

BrewBunny - I dunno if I buy that its the logical extension of it. I know a lot of Christians who feel that being gay is morally wrong, but that the correct course is to "love the sinner, hate the sin" and "judge not". Being a Christian or LDS Church Member certainly does make anyone intolerant.

zeitgeist | December 03, 23:22 CET

Being LDS doesn't make you, personally,intolerant. I'm glad that you are debating here and taking other views on board.

I really hope that it's evident that , whilst you have every right to live by your belief system, your church and those of your faith do not have the right to dictate to those who do not share that belief system. If anyone was asking your church to conduct and sanction same sex marriage that may be cause for protest. However civil marriage is none of the church's business.

In my opinion for your church, or any other church, to campaign to deny basic human rights to people not of your faith is just wrong

And the fact that that campaign may well have influenced the vote is disturbing.

Of course what is most disturbing is that an existing right was ever put to the vote in the first place. America is multi faith and multi cultural and civil and legal rights should protect everyone regardless of race, gender, orientation, ability, age, belief or the absence of belief.

Once proposition 8 is overturned ( and it will be) steps need to be taken to ensure that no similar proposition can ever be placed on a ballot paper.

[ edited by debw on 2008-12-03 23:34 ]

debw | December 03, 23:29 CET

Rebekah, I appreciate that my comment was likely hard to swallow, and I appreciate even more your willingness to come here and advocate your views honestly. It's never fun being the minority voice in a heated discussion. And I do not believe that the fact that you are LDS makes you intolerant, nor do I believe that "intolerant" is synonymous with "disagreement."

But right now a number of very dear friends of mine are in danger of having their legal marriages invalidated because the LDS and Catholic churches could not be content to simply disagree about a matter resolved by the Supreme Court of California and instead felt it necessary to spend tens of millions of dollars taking away my friends' constitutionally protected marriage rights. I don't see how one could characterize that kind of activity as mere "disagreement." Your church, including many members who reside far away from the state in which I live, was one of the most active parties in trying to take something very important away from people I love. It was not political - it was personal. And those who defend the LDS and Catholic churches' participation in California politics need to take responsibility for that.

BrewBunny | December 03, 23:37 CET

We were not the only church involved with the protest, and certainly not all of us agreed with its involvement.

As I recall, former 49ers quarterback Steve Young, a very prominent Mormon, had family that was vehemently opposed to Prop 8. His wife’s brother is gay, and she campaigned on the opposite side of the issue.

“America is multi faith and multi cultural and civil and legal rights should protect everyone regardless of race, gender, orientation, ability, age, belief or the absence of belief.”

I agree. And if Mormons really read their own doctrine (See Book of Mormon book of Alma), they would agree with me.

Rebekah |

December 03 2008