A friend sent me a question via Twitter today: “Do provisions in gay marriage laws that allow churches to deny bug you? Or are you ok with just being recognized by the gov't?”

I have no problem with religious exemptions in marriage equality measures. Do I get slightly offended that these exemptions keep coming up? Yes – but only because I don’t think they are necessary. Here’s why:

The government shouldn’t get involved when it comes to deciding who can get married in a specific church. That should be up to that specific church – that’s the reason we have the separation of church and state. In fact, certain churches and pastors actually deny some marriages to straight couples if they have been divorced or some other reason that conflicts with their religious views. And that is their right. And I would fight for that right to exist. (I read an article about this that had some specific examples. I looked for it – but haven’t found it yet. I know it’s out there. I’ll keep looking.)

I want a legally recognized marriage. My problem with these “exemptions” is that lawmakers hide behind them to maintain their close-minded views and deny me of my civil rights. If these religious provisions aren’t “strong enough,” we gays might just come and shut down their churches! Which – I’m sorry, but if you belong to a church that doesn’t want to host weddings for gay and lesbian people – chances are we don’t want to get married there anyway.

But, these religious freedom exemptions are also flawed in that they fail to hold water when the side is flipped. Religious freedom actually should push the need for marriage equality. Think about it this way: certain churches (especially here in LA) want to be able to host weddings for LGBT parishioners. (The Hollywood United Methodist church for one.) (http://www.hollywoodumc.org/) But they are denied that right of RELIGIOUS freedom because of STATE law. (Slight Tangent: I would propose the same argument about the “prayer in schools” debate. Christian fundamentalists are usually at the forefront of this battle – but would those same people stand up, fight, and defend a Muslim student trying to pray in the classroom? It just always seems to me like the religious freedom argument is only employed by one side.)  

(Here’s a video that goes into a bit more detail about the religious liberty arguments used by the anti-equality side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20)

So in a long, round about answer – I want to be married. And even though I would like to be married in a church or at least with a spiritual aspect to the ceremony, I want to be married “by law.” There are over 1,100 rights, privileges, and benefits that go along with a civil marriage – and I want each and every one of them.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)

So, in New Hampshire - even though a majority of the residents there are fine with Marriage Equality - the legislature is taking its first steps towards revoking that civil right from same-sex couples. Oh politicians, I love how quickly you forget that you were elected to represent that people... 

Anyway - my friend (and I'm throwing that term out there fast and loose because even though we're friends on both Facebook and Twitter, I'm sure he's blocked me) Jeremy Hooper who runs the blog "Good As You" caught the National Organization For Marriage (that opposes Marriage Equality) in the act of trying to forge support for this legislation. Click the picture below to read more: 

And Part Two: 

And then Rachel Maddow got wind of the story - and told the rest of America. I can't embed the video in here - but click the picture below to go to the site where you can see the video. It's worth it:

Thank you Jeremy for your amazing efforts - and thank you to Rachel for spreading the word. 

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice" - Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Alright, maybe she doesn't hate me - and maybe she doesn't even really know who I am. But dammit - I am really mad at her and now I’m making it a point to let everyone know why. 

Basically - it comes down to this: Rachel Maddow gave an interview to the Hollywood Reporter (I incorrectly said it was Entertainment Weekly earlier.) – in which she said that she was afraid marriage equality would be a risk to the gay culture. And her point was that… well - here's her quote: "I feel that gay people not being able to get married for generations, forever, meant that we came up with alternative ways of recognizing relationships," she said. "And I worry that if everybody has access to the same institutions that we lose the creativity of subcultures having to make it on their own. And I like gay culture."

And I seriously can't get behind this. 
  
Is she serious?

She is afraid of losing the creativity of subcultures having to make it on their own!?!?!

SHAME ON YOU, RACHEL!

Go ahead and create a stupid way of acknowledging your relationship with your wife. That's fine - but when (heaven forbid) she gets sick or hit by a car or something - and is laying in a hospital bed - your little subculture creativity isn't going to let you past the nurses who are only allowed to let next of kin into the room. Your little creative relationship acknowledgement isn't going to give you joint adoption rights with your wife. You wearing your little ring on your right hand because it’s part of your subculture won’t let you file joint taxes.

So keep pining for your subculture Rachel – I’m sure the Christians did the same thing when they were no longer forced to fight to the death in the Coliseum in Ancient Rome. I bet Jews thought that they would really miss their super-secret underground seders as they were walking liberated from the concentration camps. 

These might seem like extreme examples, Rachel – but LGBT people are being bullied – sometimes to death. Look at Uganda and its “Kill The Gays” Bill – government sanctioned extermination – do you think the LGBT community in Uganda is actually contemplating what they will do with their creative subculture if the social climate in their country shifts towards equality? I doubt it.

Does the label of “outcast” really hold such high regard in your book? I can’t honestly believe that.

While I thank you for the strides you have made for our community, I have to point out that this is nothing less than a step back for us. I think you’re a moron if you think that receiving equal rights will make you somehow less gay. Look at other groups who have fought for their equal rights. Have they lost anything that makes them any less of a culture? The only thing they have lost is the angst of not being equal. And I’m frankly pretty pissed that someone in such a prominent position would even think about publicly stating that they don’t think they deserve equal rights.

Listen Rachel, maybe I’m taking the quote out of context – maybe I should wait until I get a copy of the magazine and judge then – but I just think that in today’s climate, we don’t need any more mixed messages. I don’t know if it’s internalized homophobia or what – but please stop giving haters more ammo about whether or not we should be able to legally say “I Do” (or use our creative subcultural references like “Get it, girl!”). The choice should be ours, not theirs – and I can (unfortunately) hear Maggie Gallagher mooing something like: “Even they don’t think they want to redefine marriage.”

Alright - I get it. Obama isn't a dictator. He isn't a magician - he can't just wave his wand and make Marriage Equality the law of the land. I totally get that. But in my last post about Obama and his stance - I was just commenting that maybe his support would mean more strides in the community - and ultimately more commitment (at least from me) for his campaign. 

And I totally understand that he's probably not doing it because of needing votes to get re-elected. I get it. But at the same time, he's relatively  young - will he want to run for Senate again after his career as President (whether that's in one or five years)? And if so, will my equal rights still be a question of him wanting to get elected? And I'd rather my rights not just be a polling number to him - because they're more than a polling number to me. 

So that is why I was upset.

That and the fact that I don't think he's actually going to alienate anyone in his camp. Conservatives already think he's a crazy liberal and they already hate him for it - so I don't think that this will push them over the edge. They already questioned whether or not he was actually American - so I don't think him voicing support for marriage equality is really going to be the straw that breaks their little backs. 

So again, Mr. President, please come out for marriage equality. The closet is dark and lonely - but we're having a blast out here in the sun.

So President Obama said yesterday that he's still working on wether or not he supports marriage equality - and I really just can't understand that statement at all. 

What is he "working" on? Because my gut tells me it's the polling numbers. He's afraid to alienate anyone right now going into the election year. That's what I think.

Because in all seriousness - what is he working on? He either thinks it's right for the country and its people or he doesn't. I mean, is he actually doing ethical and psychological evaluations? Does he have a chalkboard full of data and a wall plastered with news articles about the effects of marriage equality - and it all boils down to one big question mark at the end? Is he using the same strategy I use when trying to avoid going to a pool party? I think if I can just wait to lose another five or so pounds - I'll go to the party and have a much better time - maybe he just wants to make sure he looks good when he makes the big announcement? 

Maybe he's waiting to be able to tweet it from his iPhone 5?

Who knows?

All I know is - it is driving me insane - because (like I mentioned before) I really think it's about polling numbers. I think he's scared. And if he's holding off on my equal rights just so he can get re-elected, I'll be pissed. And granted - I get it. He's clearly the best choice for LGBT people to have in the White House right now (since Fred Karger is still a long-shot, at best) - but he promised in 2008 to be a fierce advocate. And while he has done quite a bit for us - the fight is really just beginning (election year politics is a little ugly when it comes to LGBT issues - did you see the GOP debate where the gay soldier was booed?). And I do believe that if Obama were to actually come out in favor of marriage equality - not only would it improve the chances for the Respect For Marriage Act - but it would really rally his supporters in the LGBT community and its allies - AND, we wouldn't have to suffer through any more politicians hiding behind his ambiguous stance. 

Mr. Obama - Please stand up for marriage equality. 

Today marks the seventh anniversary that marriage equality started in Massachusetts. 

Happy Seventh Anniversary to those on the front lines. And thanks for helping to pave the way for the rest of us. 

So I had a crazy dream last night that this guy was shooting me with radioactive paintballs. So not only did it hurt that I was getting hit with paintballs, but they were also radioactive... I'm not sure what that means.

In other news - I hate wearing shoes. Hate it. But I have a meeting today with an HR Rep from another company to discuss HR-y things, and even though we're both in the entertainment industry, wearing flip flops is less than professional. 

Score one for Delaware! We'll see what happens with that. (I tried to put a link in here, but it didn't really work - so just do a quick Google search for Delaware Civil Unions.) 

Happy Birthday Anita! I can't wait for tacos at lunch! And then I'll go to the gym tonight to work out... HAHAHAHAHAHA! 

Rest In Peace Liz Taylor - I'm learning more about you now than I did while you were alive, and I feel bad about it. 


In other news - Indiana Sucks. 

And Michael Douglas and Matt Damon are preparing to have more than one on-screen kiss in an upcoming Liberace movie. 

The marriage ban is obviously upsetting - and I fear that the on-screen kiss might be disturbing only because of the actors involved. I feel like Matt Damon will just make it really awkward and Michael Douglas will just make it really old.