Raymond Burr

---

Raymond Burr was a handsome second-string actor who started his career in the late 1940s. He evolved into a movie villain (as in “Rear Window"), and then a heroic TV actor (as in “Perry Mason,” and later “Ironside”). He was handsome and broad-shouldered, with a deep gruff voice. He gained weight in the 1950s and 1960s, but it gave him gravity.

Also, he was gay.

He met an actor named Robert Benvenides while working on the “Perry Mason” show. They fell in love, and spent the rest of their lives together. Hollywood couldn’t endure this, of course, so the studios created a fiction about marriages and children. (Raymond was married to a woman for a while, back in the 1940s, but it ended in divorce and no children.)

He was reputed to be very generous. IMDB reports the story that Errol Flynn told him that, if he died with ten dollars in his pocket, he wouldn’t have done his job. It inspired him to be philanthropic, and he always helped his friends.

He died in 1992, and Benvenides was his sole heir, but Raymond’s family contested this. They failed, thank goodness.

How times have changed! Look at George Takei! And Neil Patrick Harris! And Ellen de Generes!

Partner and I have talked about marriage. Sadly, we’d end up paying more income tax married than we would as two “single” people. But our mutual employer, Brown University, regards us as Domestic Partners, so we enjoy some advantages that way. Also, we have not found any local institutions that discriminate against us. Lately (with all my health-related adventures) I simply introduce Partner to my doctors and nurses as “my life partner,” and he’s welcomed immediately.

How easy we have it, and how difficult Raymond Burr and his partner Robert Benvenides had it, only twenty years ago.

The world is moving in the right direction.

Slowly.

---

Gay marriage in Rhode Island

---

Wonderful news! The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations has become the tenth state of the Union to legalize gay marriage!

It’s a great day. It’s not a universally great day, of course; the federal government still doesn’t recognize gay marriage, which means we’re still in the turbulent state-by-state era in which interracial couples used to live. (Imagine: it used to be illegal for black people to marry white people, and states – well, hmm, Southern states – could still forbid it. Imagine!)

Will Partner and I marry? I don’t know. Largely it will depend on whether the pros outweigh the cons. Will it have tax advantages? Maybe yes, maybe no. Will it guarantee us the right to visit one another in the hospital when we’re sick? Almost certainly yes. (This is a big plus, because we’re both getting older.) What about the rights to inheritance, and to determine what happens when either of us passes away? (Another big plus, and I don’t need to remind you once again that we’re getting older.) And if it isn't confirmed by Federal law, the whole thing can still be thrown out the window.

But don't worry. If we decide to get married, I’ll be sure to announce it well in advance.

And I warn you that I expect very lavish wedding gifts.

---

Allies

---

The Supreme Court heard arguments about two gay-marriage issues last week: California’s Proposition 8, which declares (by popular vote) that gay marriage is out of the question, and the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by the usually-smarter Bill Clinton, which declares that (for federal purposes) marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman.

 

 

The passage of Proposition 8 implies that voters can grant or deny civil rights.

 

 

DOMA creates a situation in which married gay couples can still be denied federal benefits.

 

 

You can guess (if you don’t already know) where I stand on both issues, but here are some thoughts:

 

 

-         Can a referendum really decide a civil rights issue? I’m fine with the voters electing representatives, and deciding on bonds issues, and so forth. But I’m pretty sure that, if civil rights for black people had been put to a vote in the sovereign state of Mississippi in 1964, the vote would have gone badly for black people.

-         Much has been said and written about “marriage.” Isn’t “civil union” enough for gay people (in the states which grant it)? Well, not so much, since “civil union” almost never grants the same rights as “marriage.” If Partner and I were in a civil union, most or all of the local hospitals would be within their rights to deny either of us the right to visit the other. (Most or all of them don’t – Rhode Island is surprisingly gay-friendly – but the law permits them to be far more restrictive than they are. And the Catholic Diocese of Providence is extraordinarily gay-unfriendly.)

-         Someone on Facebook suggested “holy matrimony” as a substitute for the Catholic / Baptist / etc. word “marriage.” After all, pretty much every City Hall grants “marriage licenses,” and City Hall is no place for religious ceremony. So: if the Holy Roman Catholic Church doesn’t like gay marriage, it doesn’t have to perform them; that would be allowing two men to enter “holy matrimony.” But it must acknowledge that two men are civilly and legally “married,” just as they acknowledge Protestant marriages and Jewish marriages and Muslim marriages and purely-City-Hall marriages.

 

 

Over the past few weeks, a lot of my straight Facebook friends have posted pro-gay marriage messages and images. People at work whom I’ve known casually for five, or ten, or twenty years, have suddenly come forward and hugged me. (Partner reports similar behavior in his office.)

 

 

These are “allies”: straight people, people whose rights are not in question, who are coming forward to say that they support our right to marry.

 

 

I thank all our allies: Mary, and Diane, and Paul, and the rest. They are wonderful people.

 

 

And who cares what the Supreme Court decides?

 

 

We know we’re right.

 

 

And we will win in the end.

---

 

The American Christian politician

---

Todd Akin, last week, made his concession speech in the name of God. I think his point was that God is allowing America to become more and more sinful, so that he (God, not Todd Akin) can destroy it with impunity, a la Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

 

I picked up a local Christian newspaper last week, just to catch up on the Good News Today. I used to enjoy these papers: they have cute features, like Bible riddles (Who’s the shortest man in the Old Testament? Bildad the Shuhite!) and little homilies about grace and forgiveness.

 

 

But this little newspaper was full of vitriol. Mostly it was about abortion and gay marriage. These are the two worst things happening in the United States, in case you’re wondering.

 

 

Do you remember Jesus, in the New Testament, doing anything or saying anything about either of these issues? He did not. He fed people, and healed people. But apparently health care and world hunger are not important issues for modern fundamentalists.

 

 

I am so sorry that, for so many modern Christians, “social issues” consist of abortion and gay marriage. Why don’t they address health care, and hunger, and housing, and poverty? Their Saviour addressed all those things.

 

 

I don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God. But Jesus the man, as depicted in the Gospels, had a lot of good ideas. 

 

 

Such as: Don’t worry so much about how sinful your neighbor is.

 

 

Just make sure he’s fed and housed and warm.

 

 

Let the rest take care of itself.

 

---

 

Lessons from the 2012 Presidential campaign

---

It has taken me a little while to compose myself after Election Night 2012.  Now that I’ve stopped screaming with joy, however, I’ve jotted down a few things I’ve learned over the past few weeks and months.

 

 

As follows:

 

 

Probably you shouldn’t try to redefine the word “rape.” It doesn’t make you many friends. (Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock: hear me?)

 

 

Money doesn’t necessarily win elections.  When it’s quite evident that you’re trying to buy a House/Senate seat (McMahon in Connecticut, Hinckley in Rhode Island), you will probably lose. And Donald Trump publicly mocked Karl Rove for wasting millions of dollars of PAC money on candidates who lost. (As a Tumblr commentator said: Who knows more than Donald Trump about wasting money?)

 

 

Lying is very traditional in American presidential elections, but it’s getting easier and easier to disprove a lie. Probably people should try to lie less (or at least more cleverly). And they should not openly flout the fact-checkers.

 

 

In a state where people traditionally hate and fear state troopers (like Rhode Island, for example), the opposition party shouldn’t nominate a state trooper as their candidate. (Bye-bye, Brendan Doherty.)

 

 

Don’t make fun of your opponent. It makes you look small. (This one goes out to former Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who insisted on belittling his opponent Elizabeth Warren as a liar, as ugly, as untrustworthy, as a “college professor.” It didn’t work, did it, Scotty?)

 

 

Do not, in your concession speech, imply that God made your opponent win in order to make the Apocalypse happen sooner. (Okay, Mr. God-be-the-glory Todd Akin?)

 

 

Don’t assume that gay marriage is a passing fad. Before Tuesday, every popular referendum on gay marriage had failed, and the Republicans / social conservatives were convinced they had a failsafe way to defeat gay marriage: bring it to a popular vote. Well, on Tuesday, four states voted, and three (Washington, Maine, and Maryland) upheld gay marriage. You can be sure the GOP will be less confident in future about this particular strategy. (So Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee can take their Chick-fil-A sandwiches and jam them up one another’s asses. And they can make sure those sandwiches are up there real tight, too.)

 

 

And finally:

 

 

The country is changing. We are more diverse, and more tolerant, as a whole. (A commentator in 2008, shortly after Obama’s first election, said that bigotry and intolerance in the USA would decrease over time, but (like seawater evaporating) they would become more concentrated and intense. I remember thinking this was a very wise thing to say. Now, after four years of concentrated intense vicious hatred of Obama and the liberal agenda, I see how prescient he was.) But we are not Sarah Palin’s America, and we are not Mitt Romney’s America (whatever the hell that was supposed to be about). We are a multicolored America. We do not care to be ruled by Christian law, or Sharia law, or any kind of religious law for that matter. We like our marijuana. We like being married to our common-law partners. We like Planned Parenthood. We like knowing that, if we become ill, we will not go into bankruptcy if we go to the doctor. We have no problem with electing women, and gays, and differently-abled people; in fact, we’re proud to be represented by them.

 

 

Let the right-wing nuts shriek about socialism and the Death of America, kids. They’ll tucker themselves out in a while, and we can have some peace, maybe even through Inauguration Day.

 

 

And I’m sure the 2016 campaign won’t begin before June or July of 2013.

 

 

(I plan to vote for Hillary. How about you?)

---

 

Chick-fil-A: the aftermath

---

I wrote in July and August about Chick-fil-A and gay marriage. I thought it was a passing trifle. Lo and behold, the story continues to evolve!

 

 

Let me tell it from the start, in stages:

 

 

1)  The provocation. Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, talked about the chain’s contributions to various anti-gay-marriage causes, clucking and smirking about his Christian values (“We’re all still on our first marriages,” he said).

2)  The backlash. The Henson company pulled out of a marketing deal with them. Boycotts were called.

3)  The backlash to the backlash. Various conservatives, led by those two intellectual giants Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, declared their solidarity with Chick-fil-A, and invited their fellow True Believers to come eat a chicken sandwich on the first of August. Thousands responded. (It turns out that it’s easier to get people to get involved in politics if there’s food involved. I think we should start letting people vote at McDonalds and Burger King and KFC; participation would go through the roof.)

4)  The backlash to the backlash to the backlash. Gay activists had kiss-a-thons at Chick-fil-A. These were less well attended and not much covered by the media.

5)  The political reaction. A number of northern and western localities, including Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco, declared that they would look very carefully in future at any applications made by Chick-fil-A, questioning whether a business that had self-importantly declared itself intolerant should be allowed to open a franchise in those cities.

6)  Now it’s a freedom-of-speech issue! “They can say and believe anything they want,” one side said. “You can’t forbid them to do business just because you don’t like what they believe.” “Oh yes we can,” the other side said. “They have the right to freedom of belief and freedom of speech, but they have no right to open a store in this or that place. We’ll see about that.”

 

 

The whole thing simmered for a while, and was almost forgotten, except that a few people realized that eating a chicken sandwich isn’t quite the same thing as making a political statement.

 

 

Then suddenly:

 

 

7)  Chick-fil-A redefines its policies: “’The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,’ Chick-fil-A spokeswoman Tracey Micit said in the statement. ‘Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.’” They also say they are reevaluating the contributions being given to anti-gay-marriage groups. (Why? Because they want to expand their business beyond their traditional Southern base, and they’ve suddenly discovered that it might not be good for business to be known as “the chicken place run by bigots and homophobes.”)

8)  Chick-fil-A’s conservative / Christian supporters suddenly don’t like them so much.  

9)  Da capo. Dan Cathy (see #1) says nothing has changed since this summer. 

 

 

And so forth.

 

 

Maybe sometime I’ll tell you all about the CEO of Papa John’s Pizza griping about how he has to pay for his employees’ healthcare!

---

 

 

Chicken sandwiches, gay marriage, and freedom of speech

---

I wrote last week about Dan Cathy, CEO of fast-food chain Chick-fil-A, who made a big contribution to an anti-gay-marriage organization, and bragged about his morals as he did so. (He made a comment about “all of us here being on our first marriages,” which I think is pretty comical.) He and his company promptly got dumped upon, most publicly and most appropriately by the Henson Company, which broke ties with Chick-fil-A (Henson used to manufacture toys for their children’s meals).  The Hensons then contributed the money they’d received from Chick-fil-A to GLAAD, a prominent gay organization.

 

 

All of this I love.

 

 

The next part becomes more complex.

 

 

Leaders in four American cities – Denver, Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago – have talked about forbidding the expansion of the Chick-fil-A chain in their cities. Is this okay? I’m not sure. I dislike homophobes and prudes, of course, but I can’t forbid them to own businesses, and I’m not sure if I can justify zoning them out of whole cities.  If they were openly flouting the law – refusing service based on sexual preference, or something like that – I might think differently.

 

 

This is the lovely thing about America. You can be as ridiculous as you like, and no one can really tell you to shut up about it. You can be against gay marriage, or women’s suffrage, or the Emancipation Proclamation if you like, and you can even put up big banners in your place of business announcing your political beliefs.

 

 

You’d just better be prepared to lose quite a bit of business.

 

 

To be sure, the homophobes are rallying around the chicken place. Mike Huckabee, the Christian zealot, and Rick Santorum, the animated sweater-vest, have encouraged other zealots and bigots to join them at Chick-fil-A on August 1, to show their “support.” (It’s like the Civil Rights Movement in reverse: lunch counter sit-ins to deny people their rights!) I also saw a lovely photo of Sarah and Todd “Secede From America” Palin picking up their chicken sandwiches and smiling pretty for the camera. (CNN played Pink’s song “Stupid Girls” as background as they relayed the story. Excellent commentary.)

 

 

The natural response for the gay and gay-friendly communities is to boycott Chick-fil-A. Some organizers, more interestingly, are organizing “Gay Day at Chick-fil-A,” to be held on the same day as the Huckabee/Santorum hate rally. This will create, um, an interesting dynamic.

 

 

Myself, I’m with the boycotters. This will be easy for me, because there are no Chick-fil-A franchises in Rhode Island.

 

 

(I was never much for chicken sandwiches, anyway. I’m more of a burger queen.)

 

 

Sally Ride, gay marriage, the Muppets, and Chick-fil-A

---

I was saddened when I read that Sally Ride, first American woman in space, passed away a few days ago. She was a role model, certainly; back in 1983, science and engineering were still distinctly woman-unfriendly disciplines. (The Russians had Valentina Tereshkova all those decades ago, but never really closed the gender gap.)

 

 

Astronauts were never really my heroes. They were too bland. When I was a kid in the 1960s, I used to be irritated when all those Gemini missions kept preempting my favorite programs. And then – these guys went into space, and came back, and never had anything interesting to say!

 

 

Then, the other day, I learned that Sally was in a relationship with a woman, Tam O’Shaughnessy, for the last 27 years of her life.

 

 

Now I’m interested.

 

 

The astronaut business was intensely macho. The original astronauts – Mercury, Gemini, Apollo – were mostly test pilots and Air Force hotshots, and most of them were insufferable boors. (My favorite reference text on this subject is Michael Collins’s lovely book “Carrying the Fire,” about his own time as an astronaut. He was the guy who circled the moon back in 1969 while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were traipsing around in the Sea of Tranquility.  He describes the psychological tests, and the physical training, and the sometimes-not-very-friendly sparring between the astronauts.)

 

 

 

Now: imagine being Sally Ride, competing in that macho environment.

 

 

I would have wilted in five seconds under that pressure. In the words of Tony Kushner, daisies would have sprouted out of my ears.

 

 

But Sally made it. She even married (for a few years in the 1980s) one of the other astronauts, Steve Hawley, who seems nice enough.

 

 

But she ended up with Tam O’Shaughnessy, who lived with her for over two decades, and worked with her, and co-authored several books with her, and was with her through her final illness

 

.

Bravo to her.

 

 

And what does Tam get?

 

 

Why, nothing! No death benefits. The U. S. Gummint don’t recognize non-traditional relationships.

 

 

(Mitt Romney recently posted a fatuous/obvious comment on Twitter about Sally being a “pioneer.” Here’s how that went:)

 

 

 

Which brings me to Chick-fil-A.

 

 

We don’t have this particular chain in Rhode Island, thank goodness. I say “thank goodness” because Dan Cathy, the company’s CEO, recently made a large donation to an anti-gay-marriage cause, and made some nasty comments to accompany his contribution.

 

 

The Jim Henson Company, which made toys for Chick-fil-A’s kids’ meals, broke with them over this. They made a wonderful statement about it, and they gave the money they’d earned from Chick-fil-A to GLAAD, a gay organization.

 

 

Tee hee!

 

 

And here’s a pictorial version of the victory:

 

 

 

 

All of this means we still have a very long way to go.

 

 

But there’s light on the horizon.

 

 

Maybe.

 

 

(Rest in peace, Sally. Tam: best wishes, and stay strong. Lisa Henson: you go, girl. Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A: go to hell, rapidly, now.)

---

 

Teaching children to belittle gay people

---

John Jackson, the president of Bishop Hendricken High School in Warwick, Rhode Island (which describes itself on its website as a “Catholic, all male, college preparatory high school”) wrote a letter to the editors of the Providence Journal the other day.

The letter contains no real surprises. Jackson (in line with his church) condemns gay marriage, and says that President Obama is assisting in the continuing moral decay of our great country by countenancing gay marriage. He calls gay activity “disordered and immoral.” He resorts to the old “hate the sin, not the sinner” ploy: same-sex love is okay, but gay sexual activity is not, since it doesn’t lead to procreation.  He ends the letter with this grave pronouncement: “As the song goes, ‘God is watching us,’ and I can assure you he is not happy.”

 

 

(How does he know this? I wonder. How do these bejeezly idiots always know for sure what God is thinking?)

 

 

Anyway:

 

 

Well, this Church flunky is getting his face rubbed in it. Parents and alumni of Hendricken are slamming him in print and on Facebook. The point made most often is that his letter comes pretty close to hate speech, and that he is helping to create a negative atmosphere for gay students at Hendricken. (Assuming, of course, there are some. Gosh! Do you think that’s possible?)

 

 

Jackson, on Saturday, apologized for the tone of his letter. Not for his message, mind you, but for his tone.

 

 

The Church still doesn’t understand a thing. They don’t realize that “Catholic priest” has become a virtual synonym for “pedophile” in the public mind, and that Catholic prelates, as portrayed in movies and TV these days, are shown in the same way that Nazi officers were portrayed back in my childhood: stupid, pompous, mindlessly bureaucratic, and cruel.

 

 

Jackson thought (I assume) that he was helping reaffirm morality and good behavior. He did nothing of the sort. He showed himself to be a bigot. And I tell you, if there are any incidents of anti-gay bullying on the Hendricken campus this year, we will hear about them, and little Mister Jackson will be roasted properly. (He will probably be protected by his Catholic-prelate bosses, up to a point. But he’s a layman, so they’ll probably toss him out on his ear if it goes too far.)

 

 

(This is a link, by the way, to the song he referred to above, with the lyric “God is watching us.” It’s a beautiful lyrical song, sung by Bette Midler, about how local and sectarian differences break down when viewed from far away, and that God looks down from Heaven and loves us all. Funny how Jackson got a different message from it.)

 

 

Finally: let’s remember (as Stephen Colbert reminded us recently) that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament said not word one about homosexuality.

 

 

The Jesus of the New Testament did, however, say the following:

 

Mark 10:14 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 

Mt 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 

Mt 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Mr 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 

Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. 

 

 

Now let us think about the Church’s record on pedophilia, and the way in which they continue to protect pedophile priests, and the way they treated young girls in Ireland. Let’s add to the list the fact that John Jackson, President of Bishop Hendricken High School, is telling his students - children! - that gay people are “disordered and immoral,” thus encouraging a hostile environment for gay students at his school.

 

 

He is teaching children to hate other children.

 

 

Better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck.

---

Bristol Palin, defender of the traditional family

---

I do not write about the Palins much, but this was far too delicious to pass up.

 

 

Bristol Palin – the little Alaskan hillbilly girl who did so well/poorly on “Dancing With The Stars,” and who had a baby out of wedlock by someone named Levi Johnston, but who now (for some reason) thinks that she’s the ideal spokesperson for teen chastity / traditional values – put this forth on her blog the other day (I give you the whole thing, straight from Patheos.com, and I feel strangely filthy for even having visited the site and given Bristol one more blog hit):

 

 

Is anyone really surprised by the fact that President Obama came out of the closet for gay marriage? What was most surprising is when he explained how his position (supposedly) “evolved,” by talking to his wife and daughters:

 

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

Let’s pause for just one second.  When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission.  Once, Michele Bachmann, for example, was asked during a debate, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

 

People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval.  (I should add female Republicancandidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)

 

So are all those reporters who feared excessive family intervention in the White House all up in arms over the President’s announcement yesterday?  Um.  Not quite.

 

Liberals  everywhere are applauding him for his bravery and his wisdom.

 

So let me get this straight – it’s a problem if my mom listened too much to my dad, but it’s a heroic act if the President made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters?

 

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads.  In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.  Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.  Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.

In this situation, it was the other way around.  I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.

 

Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking.  In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.

 

Let’s see if we can pick some main points out of this morass:

• -        President Obama changed his mind on gay marriage just because he didn’t feel like rationalizing traditional marriage to Sasha and Malia.
• -        In other words: President Obama is a big pussy who lets his kids push him around.
• -        Watching “Glee” makes you gay, or at least gay-friendly.
• -        Babies are best brought up in a traditional mommy-daddy household.
• -        Michelle Bachman would make a terrific president.
• -        Tradition is always the best guide for determining social norms.
• -    Bristol is very up-to-date on Dora the Explorer.  I like to think I keep up with children's programming, and I never even heard of Swiper the Fox.

 

Take a moment to absorb the delicious irony of all of the above.

 

 

Now let us turn to some very funny celebrity retorts to Bristol’s blog:

 

 

JWoww: "Bristol should keep her uneducated ignorant mouth shut... If Ur living in the past u wouldn't have a kid w/out marriage #hypocrite. It's 2012!” And later: “My best friend will get married one day and not just have civil union with his man. Stop hating people."

 

 

Sherri Shepherd: "Sarah Palin educated Bristol... and not blaming Bristol, but I'm blaming Bristol being young & not exercising good judgment."

 

 

Samantha Ronson: "'We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.' really bristol palin? how's your kid doing?"

 

 

Lo Bosworth: "Bristol Palin - you so silly, girl."

 

 

Perez Hilton: "‏I think I need to give Bristol Palin a good massage. Girlfriend needs to RELAX!!!"

 

 

Amber Riley, cast member of “Glee”: "We support you @BarackObama and commend you for taking a stand. #equalityforall #loveislove #gleesupportsObama"

 

 

To which fellow cast member Lea Michele responded: "Amen."

 

 

To which I add my own little “Amen.”

 

 

(Bristol, babe: your mother is giving you bad career advice. You're way out of your depth here. Go home.)

---

 

Gay marriage, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney

---

So many thoughts swirling round in my head right now on this topic. Let me see if I can cough up some bullet points:

 

 

-        Good for Joe Biden, and President Obama, for speaking up on the subject of gay marriage. It’s about time. But they were brave enough to say the right thing. All the pundits (including Chris Matthews on “Hardball” the other night) were saying: oh, Joe, you blew it. Let Obama get elected, and then let him bring up the issue in 2013. Well, Chris, you know what? Phffft.

-        You know another thing? Obama may lose the election on this issue. But (if I were him) I’d rather take a stand on an important issue, so long as I know I’m right, even if it means I’m going to lose. Because it means I’m going to win in the long run.

-        Some other Democratic politicians are following the President. Stalwart Jack Reed, our senior Rhode Island senator, came out immediately after the President’s statement to voice his agreement. God bless you, Jack; you can count on my vote next time you’re up for election.

-        Even some Republicans are warning that declaring war on this subject may be a non-starter. Republicans run a very real risk of being painted as dinosaurs and bigots, behind the curve.

-        (No, Partner and I are not getting married anytime soon. But it’s nice to know we could get married if we wanted to. I hate thinking of the nightmare scenarios: being forbidden hospital visits, things like that. This is an important issue.)

 

 

And then there’s Mitt Romney.

 

 

Mitt Romney has spent the last couple of days squealing and quacking about gay marriage, and civil unions in general. They’re just un-American. Households are just one man and one woman! And I love the way he expressed this: "I have the same view I've had since, well, running for office."

 

 

Now, just for a little spice, please look at this link from a 1994 issue of the New England gay newspaper Bay Windows, headlined: “Romney: I'll be better than Ted [Kennedy] for gay rights”!

 

 

Is the top of your head steaming right now? Mine is.

 

 

Let’s continue, shall we? Mitt Romney is a Mormon. He has stated unequivocally (to Piers Morgan!) that he is not a spokesman for the Mormon church, and I accept that. However: can you think of any unusual stances on marriage that the Mormon church has taken over the past hundred years? Well, for one thing, Mitt’s great-grandfather had five wives.

 

 

Mitt has (magnanimously) stated that his Mormonism is not that of his ancestors. Certainly he has had fewer wives than his recent political rivals (Gingrich, for example, who has been married three times – serially, of course – although his sexual relationships with partners #1, #2, and #3 appear to have run concurrently in some cases).

 

 

I don’t know. Maybe we need a new definition of “marriage”: two adults who agree to set up a household partnership with each other, sharing all assets, etc. No mention of gender. (I know, this allows incest. I’m not sure how much of an issue this might be, as I have never once wanted to marry any of my relatives, and I don’t know many people who like their relatives well enough to marry them. Naturally there will be exceptions to this rule. We’ll have to work on that.)

 

 

This is a work in progress, kids. Stay tuned.

 

 

And vote Obama.

---

 

Point of etiquette

---

So I get a big fat envelope in the mail on Friday from the Pacific Northwest, where I have friends and family. What could it be? Then I notice the cutesy little bride-and-groom stamp on the back of the envelope. Ah ha! A wedding invitation! But from whom?

Ah ha.

My Christian conservative nephew.

The invitation was addressed only to me, not to me and Partner, by the way. And I have been informed that, back in 2004, this kid registered to vote solely because he wanted to vote to forbid gay marriage in Oregon.

I get it. He probably doesn't want me at the wedding, but he figures I won't fly cross-country for his nuptials in any case. But they'll maybe get a gift out of me.

Okay. First question. What should I get them? There was a cute little note included with the invitation, cheerfully informing me that they're registered at Target.

Terrific! I can just pick up a People magazine and a Three Musketeers bar and some batteries at the local Target checkout counter and send them along to the happy couple, now that I know they're registered there.

But that would be too easy!

How about a gift in the names of the bride and groom to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation? Or ACT UP?

How about a year's subscription to “Out”? Or “Lusty Bears Monthly”?

Second question. I wasn't planning to go to the wedding, but maybe we should go after all. What do you think? Would drag be too much? Or how about if we show up dressed as Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

And third question.

Why are people so damned dumb?

---

Mazel tov, George and Brad

---

The legendary Lana Turner was fortunate enough to count the handsome Lex Barker, one of the movie Tarzans, among her husbands.  (He was quite a specimen, if you can't quite remember him.)  After their wedding, a reporter asked Miss Turner (only in Hollywood are you still “Miss” immediately after the wedding): “What’s the first thing you’re gonna do on your honeymoon, Lana?” 

And Miss Turner, gloating over her brand-new cutie-pie husband like a glutton over a bucket of fried chicken, said: “I’m just gonna look at him for a while.”

Trust me, I am the last person in the world to believe in Hollywood romance.  I was born just before the whole Eddie Fisher / Debbie Reynolds / Elizabeth Taylor fiasco, and I think there must have been something in the air in those days that conferred immunity to studio publicity.

But I get all mooshy when I see photos like the above.

You’ve got to understand that gay people have never had the opportunity to see nice pictures of our favorite gay stars cavorting down the steps of the Elvis Chapel after getting hitched.  Heaven knows we didn’t even have “favorite gay stars” (although we know very well now who was who and what was what – don’t we, Tab Hunter?).

I am the last person in the world to insist on Rita Moreno’s Law (“Stick to your own kind”).  Gay people can act straight and vice versa.  I am in a paralysis of joy when I watch the oopsy-daisy delicacy of Eric Stonestreet portraying Cam on “Modern Family.”  And Neil Patrick Harris is satisfyingly straight ‘n sleazy on “How I Met Your Mother,” and did an adorable straight ‘n sentimental in the “Dr. Horrible” series.

But it is immensely satisfying to see gay people on the screen, and point at them, and holler: “Comrade!”

So, when I see Neil Patrick Harris arm in arm with his partner David Burtka, and David Hyde Pierce with Brian Hargrove, and Alan Cumming with Grant Shaffer, and Jane Lynch at the Emmys with her new wife Lara Embry, I shed a genuine tear of joy.

I have no illusions that these are perfect relationships.  There ain’t no such animal.  But I rejoice that we get to see those incandescent moments of happiness, those brightly-lit newlywed photo ops, for gay couples too.

Finally we – gay people! possessors of a genetic predisposition for movie appreciation! – get to moon over romantic Hollywood photo spreads and say: “Don’t George Takei and his husband look nice in their white tuxes?”

The above picture, with its double punch of domestic bliss and Star Trek nostalgia, hits me with a double whammy. It's delicious. It's a moment of pure perfect bliss in an ocean of Tea Party insanity.

I'm with Miss Turner. I'm just gonna look at it for a while.

---