Embarrassing Things That Make Me Cry #4

Brazil Next?

In light of Argentina’s decision to endorse marriage equality with public support over 70%, I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of South America.

Although I earned a minor in Latin American Studies, I haven’t kept up much on the politics. That said, I came across a video that got me thinking about my mission. I had never thought about it in terms of sexuality, but Brazil is truly the most beautifully diverse place I’ve ever known.

If there’s one thing you need to know about Brazil is that it has a tri-racial culture. In overly simple terms, it is the embodiment of three continents in one—the European settlers, the African slaves (easily outnumbering the slaves imported to what became the US), and the Native Americans.

Although racism does exist, the ideal of coexistence and coalescence of these three cultures over the course of 500 years has arguably been an ideal much longer than the melting pot idea in the US. Having lived in Brazil and Chile, I found that a major difference between the two cultures is the role of race.

Chilean natives Americans are almost treated as a subculture while Brazilians tend to recognize the natives cultures as a significant (and living) part of the past. I think this type of awareness makes the idea of homosexuality much more understandable as there is an innate sense of diversity and acceptance thereof built into the culture. I would argue that to a limited extent this is what drove the Argentine debate culminating in equality.

Seeing this video (which brought tears to my eyes having served an LDS mission in Brazil) and reading that the level of support in Brazil is at a similar level to that of Argentina on Queerty, lead me to believe that equality in my second homeland may be much closer than I’d thought.

Laugh of the Day #21

In honor of the thousands of fabulous gay and lesbian weddings about to come to pass, a pair of videos as seen on JoeMyGod.

I guess these views are what keep us from entering the gay marriage pantheon….

Why Do We Like The Golden Girls?, Part 2

Reason #2: The “Foursight”

Even today, some shows remain pretty removed from the political side of things. We stand in awe of some shows like Glee or Futurama take on topics like homophobia and gay marriage—topics addressed by Dorothy, Sophia, Rose, and Blanche two decades earlier. This post will highlight just how ahead of its time The Golden Girls managed to be in the 80s and 90s.

In 1991, Blanche’s brother Clayton visited the girls in Miami to announce his commitment ceremony:

It speaks to the timelessness of this show that this scene still resonates and to the times that this message is still needed. That said, there are plenty of issues brought up on the show that seem rather dating based on the topics.

Here’s a list of topics and episodes both timeless and dated:

• Sexual harassment in “Adult Education”
• HIV/AIDS in “72 Hours”
• Age discrimination in “Job Hunting”
• Illegal immigration in “Dorothy’s Prized Pupil”
• Alzheimer’s Disease in “Old Friends”
• Transvestitism in “Ebbtide’s Revenge.”
• Subsidized healthcare in “Letter to Gorbachev”
• Relationship abuse in “Blanche’s Little Girl” and “The Bloom is Off the Rose”
• Artificial Insemination in “The Accurate Conception”
• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in “Sick and Tired”
• Drug Addiction in “High Anxiety”
• And, of course, lesbian crushes and Lebanon in “Isn’t it Romantic”:

I really wish conversations like this in Utah happened like this in Utah.

DOMA Defeated?

I needed something like this today:

More here.

Take that, Hawaii!

My Life in Charts: Figure #7

Threat Level

From the archives:

Since the publication of Fig. #7, other colors have been added, enhancing the marriage rainbow: Transgendered (more confusing), Polygamists (scary), and Polyamorists (scary-squared).

My Life in Charts: Figure #6

Another day of slacking thanks to applications and a certain three-hour conversation.

The Gay Agenda

In reaction to yesterday’s report by the Please Won’t You Think of the Children!? Foundation (PWYTCF) on the threat Gay Marriage poses, the Queer and Loving It Group (QLIG) conducted their own poll on the motives driving GLBT political action (see Fig. #6).

“Their findings were as sinister as one might expect,” Jason Ashbury of PWYTCF stated in reaction to the findings. “Sources in the Pentagon have recently uncovered gay plots to give the Statue of Liberty a makeover, have Lady Gaga rewrite the national anthem, and make What Not to Wear part of the standard middle school curriculum. This country is in unbearable danger of becoming exceptionally queerful if these menaces aren’t stopped.”

(Sometimes I think I should write for Weekend Update on SNL).

Back to a new series tomorrow I swear. This one is entitled, Le Gars de Chocolat Chaud. How’s everybody’s French?

My Life in Charts: Figure #5

So, it’s time for another cop out post. I’m preparing a pretty important application in the next week and it’s taking up more of my time than I’d considered.

Gay Marriage II

According to a recent threat assessment report by the Please Won’t You Think of the Children!? Foundation (PWYTCF), the looming threats of gay marriage are numerous (See Fig. #5).

The Feb. 22 report advises, “Save yourselves while you still can and move to one of the redder states in which textbooks clearly state that the earth is thousands of years old and your children will listen to Rush Limbaugh on the bus home from school.”

My Life in Charts: Figure #3

Gay Marriage

This debate has been flaring up for about a year now. I’ll eventually get to a set of posts on Prop 8 (as well as my family’s and friends’ reactions), but I found this diagram (Fig. #3) by comedian Patrick Farley pretty funny.

(Click to enlarge).

It really encompasses a debate that I internalized for a while (see these previous posts). I remember thinking things in some of the red hexes and some of the blue hexes, but overall, I came to the conclusion that discrimination is discrimination. Perhaps this stance is controversial, but I’d argue that discrimination is what has held this country back in the past and will continue to hold back its progress.

Think slavery and civil rights. Think Japanese internment. Think expulsion from Nauvoo.

Everyone should be allowed to be who they are and personally practice his or her religion.

Shame on You, America Forever

Today at work, I saw a colleague in tears over a hateful fax that was sent across the state of Utah today in reaction to the LDS church’s newly-proclaimed stance on non-discrimination laws.

The fax in question (visible here) spewed racism, libel, and downright hatred, preying on the weak-minded suggesting that “[e]ndorsing these lifestyles to the young of tender ages confuses them and causes violence to their mind, body and spirit.” americaforever.com (which I found on a list of Utah’s tax-exempt organizations) claims to have sent out 80,000 copies of the ignorantly-worded and shoddily-crafted document.

I am proud of my ex-boss who, upon receiving this fax, phoned these people up and announced to them that “[e]very time I receive a piece of hate with your name on it, I am going to donate $50 to Equality Utah.” I encourage everyone to take a stand and do something. Call these people (801.508.5380) and tell them you won’t stand for hate or email a complaint with the FCC (fccinfo@fcc.gov).

Thanks for listening. Hate is definitely one thing that should never be tolerated.

On the Protection of Civil-Rights

I had a difficult time reading Elder Oaks civil rights/Prop 8 analogy. Oaks, giving a talk at BYU-I (follow link to transcript here), likened the backlash against Mormons as a result of Proposition 8 to the hardships faced by those involved in the civil rights movement. Several comments have been made regarding the comparison (see SL Tribune commentary) and it has largely been seen as a gross misuse of the emotional and political significance of the civil rights movement.

A talented legal mind, Oaks drew on a number of different political movements. He praised the constitution as a document written "by wise men whom [God] raised up for that very purpose." He also cited the example of Oyun Altangerel, a Mongolian woman who performed a hunger strike and organized protests in favor of democracy. Oaks defines one of the roles of government as to "protect the health and safety of all." As anyone knows, the interpretation of the law is just as contentious as the actual laws themselves (if not more so). Who is to determine what needs to be protected or saved? That is the foundation of democracy and civil protest.

One statement that stands out in Oaks' speech is the section title "Religious Freedom Diluted by Other 'Civil Rights.' " The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is indeed one of civil rights with which the LDS Church and other religious groups disagree on the basis of freedom to practice religion (…at least the way they define it). Defined in terms of protecting health and safety by the right, gays and lesbians attempting to marry have been demonized in this debate.

We have been called everything from heathens to pseudo-victims and "deniers of free speech" to "opponents of democracy" as Elder Oaks insinuates. I believe differently from Elder Oaks and find it hypocritical not only for him but also others to demand their civil rights to freedoms of belief and speech yet use it to deny ours. If all men were created equal, then why should one man or woman be denied a right because his or her religious beliefs do not fall in line with those of the majority? That is why we life in a democracy with protection of Civil Rights despite the differing opinions of the majority—that is what makes this country great.

One cannot simply state that someone's beliefs are inferior because they are based more in religion or convenience or reason. This argument hinges on the biggest hot button of the entire debate: What is the family and does the government need to protect it? Is this a matter of health and safety?

The one man, one woman definition of the family is based in belief and tradition that is preserved at a cost. In 2006, half a million children in this country were in foster care. 250,000 were under the age of ten. Of those half million 50,000 (10%) were adopted (See US Dept. of Health and Human Services report). The foster care system of the country has been investigated by a number of journalists for certain abuses, and despite the good that many of these foster parents do, study after study has shown that a stable situation is a more conducive atmosphere to child development. Which only leaves one question: can gay/lesbian couples provide that type of environment? Given the right to marry, they could provide a stable atmosphere albeit one with a different set of religious beliefs.

Also, how can the government really protect its citizens' health or safety by denying the right to marry to same-sex couples? I suppose the implication here is STIs. Granted, the prevalence of these diseases is higher in the gay community; however, I think that this is more a result of the civil rights issue than a discouragement. Were straight couples not given the right to pledge fidelity to one another, would they be expected to pair up and remain monogamous for the rest of their lives? No. The promiscuity and instability of gay culture stems from the fact that we are denied a very basic right to be anything more than a couple and NOT an evil desire to destroy others' beliefs.

Although Elder Oaks drew connections between the Civil Rights movement and Mormon activism in California's Prop. 8 debate, a paradox surfaces that civil-rights and persecution—if anything—are two-way streets. Respecting others' beliefs means respecting the rights of others not only to believe but also to do—despite difference.