Ask the Gay Guy!

Great Debates
401

Thanks for de-lurking. Stay and play a while. :slight_smile:

You’re not spouting nonsense. The Hawaiian lower courts felt the same. They stated that current marriage laws were a form of gender discrimination. However, the state then passed an amendment before the case could reach the state Supreme Court. The amendment removed marriage out from under the Equal Protection clause of the state Constitution. (I’ve always wondered if that state Amendment would hold up to US Supreme Court review).

Soe the Hawaiian Supreme Court had no choice but to dismiss the case.However, they let the lower court rulings stand, which were:

Quoted from Lambda Legal website.

So essentially, it was a loss in Hawaii, but is an indication that the sexual discrimination point of view might work in other states.

Also, I have often heard the argument about the Equal Protection clause in the US Constitution. Which is that homosexuals have the equal right to marry…the right to marry someone of the opposite gender just like everyone else.

I have thought that a way to counter that argument is to say that I have the right to marry a man, but Esprix doesn’t. Esprix has the right to marry a woman, but I don’t.

402

Sorry for the double posts. I always seem to try to post just as the board is going down.

403

Actually, the ONLY reason I’d care about state-sponsored marriage is for the material (and other concrete) advantages. Anything else is smoke and abstraction, which I can easily get on a religious basis.

I fully agree with this and I’ve been saying it all along. We shouldn’t get equal rights because we can’t help it, poor dears. We should get equal rights because we’re HUMAN. If we argue that we can’t help it, we’re implicitly accepting the argument that it ought to be helped.

404

Hey Gay Guy,

The MoJo Wire (Mother Jones on-line) has an interesting article about the MMOW at
www.motherjones.com/reality_check/mmow.html

The article (and several interviewees) trashes the March as a corporate marketing ploy and notes that there are no political issues being raised. So the question is: do you think these companies care about the rights of homosexuals, or are you just a new
market demographic? Is this a bad thing, or do you like the fact that companies are
noting you exist and exploiting you just like they exploit the rest of us?

BTW, Gay Guy–you rule!

405

Hey Gay Guy,

The MoJo Wire (Mother Jones on-line) has an interesting article about the MMOW at
www.motherjones.com/reality_check/mmow.html

The article (and several interviewees) trashes the March as a corporate marketing ployand notes that there are no political issues being raised. So the question is: do youthink these companies care about the rights of homosexuals, or are you just a new
market demographic? Is this a bad thing, or do you like the fact that companies are
noting you exist and exploiting you just like they exploit the rest of us?

BTW, Gay Guy–you rule!

406

With few exceptions, companies don’t give a damn about anything except their bottom line. So, yes, fags and dykes are nothing more than a market to them. They want the pink dollar and that’s about it. (grrr…)

407

Thank you! I’ve been waiting for a straight couple to point this out, as I’ve been saying it all along. I don’t imagine you or your spouse will be at the altar thinking, “Damnit, this is all so meaningless since that gay couple next door did it! What a sham!” :rolleyes: Nice to know someone else sees through this silly argument.

Can we talk about the divorce rate, too? :slight_smile:

How amusing. :wink: A friend of mine also insists on using the phrase “gaily forward” instead of “straight” when giving driving directions.

What beaker said. :smiley:

Esprix

Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!

408

What are you doing reading Mother Jones? {wink} Great article, BTW.

Well, to start off, I am going to the March, but only because Dr. Boyfriend twisted my arm (he’s going for a one-day queer medical student conference, so he already had the hotel room, and when he waved the tickets to the Equality Rocks concert - with George Michael, k d lang, Melissa Ethridge, maybe Elton John, and GARTH BROOKS {ahem} - I allowed my arm to be twisted enough to say yes). I went to the march in '93, and it was just too much of a zoo for me (I’m getting a bit cranky in my old age).

The article makes a very good point - we’ve no specific agenda, it seems. Oh, sure, we’re going to talk a lot about Vermont, and civil rights legislation around the country, and AIDS funding, and “Boys Don’t Cry,” but there really doesn’t seem to be anything specific, as we’ve made a lot of strides lately (not that the fight is anywhere near over yet) that we hadn’t made in '79, '87 or even '93.

And I have noticed within the past 7-10 years or so an increasing number of corporate sponsorships that never existed before. Hell, even Coors sponsors stuff, like the AIDS rides, and the gay community had started boycotting them back in the '70’s, and Coors made no secret of wanting to change their image in the gay community since they’d reformed (which in and of itself is questionable).

Let’s face it - the PC 90’s has had a profound effect on Madison Avenue. Should the gay community benefit from this? Or should we concentrate more on grassroots activism? No one has the answer, but as long as we’re in the US, I think it seems obvious which track will more readily prosper, for better or for worse.

To answer your questions specifically, do these companies care about gay issues? I’m inclined to think most actually do (certainly some more than others), or are at least open to the idea (you don’t see Charleton Heston doing any promo spots, after all), but, like all good business, they wouldn’t be doing it if they wouldn’t make money, so no matter how altruistic we might want them to be, their bottom line is their bottom line, no matter how much they care.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a bad thing, and I don’t mind being recognized as another market to exploit ( :)), mostly because I benefit from this. I am, however, not happy about any grassroots or politically-motivated activist groups being felt excluded - if anything, we need them there, now more than ever, to help keep our feet on the ground, to keep us a little balanced away from all this corporate sponsorship and at least somewhat focused on issues rather than circuit parties.

Why, thank you. :wink:

Esprix

Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!

409

[Beaker looks into her sack lunch]

I’ve got a twinkie and a “Right to Marry a Man” card that I don’t want. I think I saw a “Right to Marry a Woman” card poking out of your lunch sack. Wanna trade?

The right to swing my fist ends
where the other man’s nose begins.
–Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)

410

Having just finished up a paper on the history of the SSM battle (which if anyone wants I will email but I make no guarantees that it will survive transmission), I know of several cases in which this has been argued, going back to the first major SSM case, Baker v. Nelson in 1971/2. The Minnesota Supreme Court was not persuaded that there was an equal protection claim. The US Supreme Court has found marriage to be a fundamental right under both an equal protection and a due process analysis. The USSC has ruled (in Bowers v. Hardwick) that homosexuals do not have a right to engage in “sodomy” under a due process analysis but later in Romer v. Evans Colorado’s Amendment 2 was stricken by the Court under an equal protection analysis. ALl of the Court’s marriage analysis has been in the context of mixed-sex marriage; it’s very much an open question whether the Court would apply it equally to SSM. Indeed, one federal court (in Dean v. District of Columbia has ruled that SSM is “impossible” so by definition no law restricting it can infringe upon anyone’s constitutional rights.

I’m thrilled, BTW, that my paper is already outdated. I turned it in Monday with a statement about VT’s bill being pending. Tuesday the final version passed the House and Wednesday the governor signed it. As of July 1 same-sex couples will be able jo be joined in civil union in the state of Vermont.

I don’t do twinkies. Find me a man with some hair on his chest and we’ll talk.

411

DAMN this slow board!

Dear Gay Guy,

Now that this topic is getting into its ninth page and takes a year and a half to laod, what do you think of the idea of locking it and opening “Ask the Gay Guy! II”?

Cheese Log, Cheese Log, cylindrical and yellow!
Cut the Cheese Log and I’m a happy fellow!

412

That hardly seems fair does it? You get a card and a man. All I get is a card and I’m still stuck with the damn twinkie.

Tell you what, I’ll get you furry man of your dreams, you find me a woman, and then we’ll talk. BTW, I like the Janeane Garaofolo type of women.

413

Hi Gay Guy!

What a lovely & enlightening topic you have here :slight_smile:

Since you’ve mainly be covering sociological topics the past few pages, I was wondering if we could drag it back into the plumbing for a while…

So, how common is it for two men to have simultaneous orgasms? I assumed that it is easier for the M/M combination than for M/F or F/F but I never had anyone to ask before :wink:

414

matt_mcl wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, that’s as it should be. Money changing hands creates wealth, in the form of Consumer Surplus. Companies are motivated to encourage money to change hands, so unless they’re lying in an attempt to make something sound like it’s worth more to you than it actually is, they’re increasing overall prosperity.

415

I dunno. There’s just something distressing about going from civil-rights campaign to marketing demographic.

416

I dunno. There’s just something distressing about going from civil-rights campaign to marketing demographic.

417

Heh. Welcome to the same advertising treatment we hets get. :wink:

418

Why thank you. :slight_smile:

I would tend to think it’s just as common as any two people having sex - why would M/M be any easier? It all has to do with who is involved, what gets them going, and how well the other person does it. Frankly, I find the timing to be very difficult to achieve under even the best circumstances.

Esprix

419

I just think y’all should know that this week’s The Onion’s man-on-the-street poll topic is “Vermont OKs Gay Marriage”: http://www.theonion.com/onion3616/wdyt_3616.html

420

Well, I went, and survived (albeit more than a little sunburned).

Left Friday afternoon, got caught in mondo traffic (what should have taken about 2 took 7.5 hours), and finally met up with Dr. Boyfriend at the hotel late Friday night (Yay!). Saturday I spent the day at the Air & Space Museum, but the Festival was open both Saturday and Sunday (the MMoW was divided into the March, the Rally and the Festival).

Saturday night we went to the Equality Rocks concert, and let me tell ya, it does. :smiley: The bad side was that the sound system at RFK Stadium sucks, even as much as a mic going out on more than one performer (it’s very disheartening to see a singer performing their guts out and not a single note is being heard past the first row in a stadium that had 45,000 people in it). Aside from that, though, it was pretty kick-ass. Lots of celebrity introducers (not unlike the Oscars, including Nathan Lane, Ellen & Betty DeGeneres, Anne Heche, Kristen Johnson, Kathy Najimy, and, yes, Tipper Gore), and the list of performers was impressive (Albita, Rufus Wainwright, Chaka Kahn, Michael Feinstein, The Pet Shop Boys, k. d. lang, Melissa Etheridge, George Michael, and Garth Brooks).

As the Washington Post pointed out, the mood swung between party and activism, particularly since the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, who was the main sponsor of the weekend, interspersed the sets with their own commercials. George Michael also spent time talking about “clinics” that desperate parents send their gay children to in hopes of “curing” them - very sad indeed. And the biggest somber moment, but also the biggest high, was when the stage held Matthew Shepard’s parents, along with the family of the black man killed in Jaspar, TX, one of the children who survived the Jewish daycare shooting, and the family of a Philippino man killed in the same attack. We all took a moment to remember why we were there, and I took a moment to remember my friend, Randy.

Then again, the damn place rocked, and I’m sorry, but Melissa is a babe! She did her own set, she came out and did a duet with the Pet Shop Boys, and she came back at the end to lead the finale (“Celebration” and “The Times They Are A-Changin’”, with Tipper Gore on drums no less). She really kept the show cohesive (not to mention making sweet love to her guitar at one point), as each performer only had about 20 minutes and maybe 3-4 songs apiece (and fortunately most of the mic/sound problems were worked out about halfway through the show). Alas, I was rather disappointed in Garth, the last performer of the evening. Although he dueted “Freedom” with George Michael, his set was 3 low-key numbers on acoustic guitar, none of his kick-ass banded numbers (like the rest of the performers, except poor Michael Feinstein, who was woefully out of place, even with a pop-y big band/60’s type number).

All in all, a great show, even when 45,000 people tried to cram into the same Metro stop afterwards. :wink:

Sunday was the March itself. Dr. Boyfriend and I walked the whole exhausting 4 blocks with the gay doctors group (with the lesbian contingent behind us chanting, “We’re here! We’re queer! Let us do your pap smear!”). Once we got to the Rally, we decided to skip it altogether and headed over to the Festival ($5 to get in), with food and vendors and way too many people for my tastes (and I did buy a t-shirt, got in some two-stepping, and saw a few friends I didn’t expect to see). Surprisingly, I was unimpressed with the overall prettiness of the crowd, even the Asian boys (perhaps Dr. Boyfriend is growing on me after all ;)), and I only saw one topless woman (others in our merry band claimed to see as many as 5). By 3:30 we were beat, so we went back to the Rally on the Mall, listened to a few speakers (including the president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. John Breuhens, my personal fav, and Clinton’s videotaped address), and we all left at 4:30, when I met the friends I drove down with. I got home around 9:30.

So, was it worth it? Eh, yeah, I guess, but it’s not my first choice for the way I ideally like to spend my weekends. The only thing that made it worth the trip, frankly, was getting to see Dr. Boyfriend (he’s still got 2 more weeks in Atlanta before he comes home). And boy did I get sunburned! I felt ill on Tuesday and actually had to take the day off. :frowning: And there was lots of talk about what we’ve accomplished (Vermont, etc.), but lots more talk about how the battle’s not over (ENDA, etc.). Was there one specific “goal” of the weekend? Well, no, but then again, when I think about it, I can’t think what specific thing we were ever concerned about before - it’s always been a review of what’s been accomplished, and a list of what still needs to be done. Was it over-commercialized? It certainly was more than it ever has been before, and paying $5 just to get in was a bummer, but it’s nothing I haven’t seen before for just about any other cause, including local gay pride festivals. Still, the turn-out was fairly low - only 200,000, compared to '93’s 300,000+ - so I think it had an effect on people.

Anybody else go? Thoughts?

Esprix