Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage
Here’s an interesting question for you today: what do you think is next for the Gaystapo now that SCOTUS has redefined the word “marriage”?
Remember that pushing “Marriage Equality” has been very big (and lucrative) business for a lot of professional “gay activists” for a long time. It’s been a thriving cottage industry for the last 10 years (or more). Now starts the first week post SCOTUS ruling…and when the euphoria of the pride parades and the taunts at Christians for “winning” have grown tiresome, the people who’ve been employed for the last decade as professional “marriage equality” activists are going to need a new cause.
These people don’t just fold up shop and disappear or get “real jobs”. Instead, they pivot to a new “cause”…much like the staff of one political campaign pivots to a new candidate of for the next election. And, much like a political campaign staff, these professional “gay activists” tend to stick to the same sort of issue and the same sort of push (which is similar to the campaign staffers finding another candidate very much like the candidate they used to (until very recently) work for).
I am very curious where all the Gaystapo agents are going to go now that SCOTUS declared gay marriage to be a thing coast to coast. I see two ready options today:
* Continue the push to redefine marriage even further…to include threesome, foursomes, or any other number of people besides two
— OR —
* Invent a new gay-themed cause that doesn’t have anything to do with marriage, but is instead the new “cause” that can be used to rile gay people up and keep them voting Democrat now that “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and “Gay Marriage” are over as fundraising tools and pot-stirrers
The Party of Stupid is pushing for a gay marriage ban in DC.
Oddly, this reminds me of something my boyfriend Justin does every time he comes to Buzzquarters and sees all the Hillary 2008 campaign memorabilia we have everywhere on the walls. He can’t spend five minutes in my room without blurting out something about Hillary “killing that man, Vince”, though he never remembers his last name. We’ve been dating since before Thanksgiving and this happens EVERY TIME he’s here. I can actually see the thoughts bubbling up inside him, like water boiling in a tea kettle, until he finally blurts this stuff out, Tourette’s style, because at home in Arkansas, growing up in a conservative household that hated the Clintons, this is what his parents talked about at the dinner table all the time. “That man Hillary Clinton murdered”. And, I add, they talked about it as if she in fact murdered him with her own two hands, while dressed in a black ninja suit, cackling the whole time.
No matter how many times Justin comes here, or how often we talk about how non-murderous Hillary Clinton is, he just can’t stop doing this because he can’t unlearn everything he was taught…no matter how crazy it is.
This is the same thing with the Republican Party and gay issues. They are so programmed to handle these things in the worst way possible that they make themselves look like the Party of Evil as much as they act like the Party of Stupid.
Justin and I are both gay, but neither of us believe in “gay marriage”…any more than we believe in “gay baptism”, “gay communion”, “gay confirmation”, or “gay confession”. “Marriage” is a religious ceremony and it is a religious word.
Unfortunately, the state has stolen this word and repurposed it for a civil contract.
The state should not have the ability to marry anyone. Period.
The state should have the ability to join two willing, consenting adults in a contract that forms a civil union between those two people. That is the right job for the state.
Churches can decide to marry whomever they choose, based on their religious traditions, which the state should be separated from in all things.
If Republicans were smart, they’d change gears and throw Democrats off by putting an end to the senseless attacks on gays that relate to this crusade against “gay marriage”. The GOP has never been able to hire a decent PR and branding firm, for whatever reason, and keeps making the same stupid mistakes because that’s just what they’ve always done and it’s programmed into them for some bizarre reason.
If they wised up, they’d instead launch a crusade against the term “gay marriage” itself, and they’d find a way to call the Left intolerant for trying to jam the church and state together. That’s a very interesting and winning angle, making the Left the bad guy that wants to force religion into civil matters.
Republicans should clearly affirm as loudly as possible that “marriage” is a religious term and that the state should not be using that language ANYWHERE, for ANYONE. All actions the state performs are civil in nature, by definition of that word. The joining of two people in a legal contract is a union. Therefore, the state’s joining of two people is a civil union. That is what should happen at a court house, where a “civil union license” is issued…NOT a “marriage license”.
Marriages should only happen in churches, just like baptisms, confirmations, first communions, and other ceremonies that churches have but the state does not.
This is how the Party of Stupid could smarten up and take away from the Left one of the key wedge issues that prevents gays from voting in their own economic best interests, which would mean they’d vote conservative.
The reason gays DON’T vote conservative is because the Party of Stupid keeps falling into the Left’s trap by appearing evil and single-mindedly bigoted against gays, when in reality the uproar about this issue is related to the usurpation of a religious word for a civil function, which was wrong to begin with and needs to be corrected across the board.
What think you?
Last night at Sidetracks, during the Retro 70s portion of the night, The Captain & Tennile came up on the screen and a big, bearded guy who may or may not have been Zach Galifianakis (or possibly the recently deranged Joaquin Phoenix) shouted, “Hey, lookit, it’s Kiki Dee!”, so proud of himself that he “knew” who that woman was.
Uh, no. That’s not Miss Pink Overalls A Singin’ With Elton John In Her Bowl Haircut. That’s Toni Tennile. But, does a 70s, female singer by another name sing any less sweet?
This kind of thing happens all the time at Sidetracks, but usually during Showtunes night, because so many of the women in those old musical clips have been dead for decades, and guys in their 20s and 30s have a hard time differentiating between Esther Williams, Ethel Merman, Kate Smith (whom they call “Kate Bush”, we think because it’s the “God Bless America” clip and Ronald Reagan’s in it from one of his war movies, so hence the “Bush” brain-fark), and even Shelly Winters (for crying out loud).
Their performances stand the test of time, no matter what they end up being called by the assembled gays (and their fairy’s princesses) in the bar. For those who know who Esther Williams is, they’ll never make the mistake of calling her Ethel Merman…and no one seems especially inclined to make a big deal of it and correct the younger gays who can’t tell the two apart.
Which got us thinking about verbiage, the power of words, and lines drawn in the sand with naming conventions.
Sidetracks is owned by Art Johnson, who we consider to be Chicago’s Harvey Milk. The man’s just plain awesome, even if we don’t agree with him on everything. He’s humble, and doesn’t do very much press, but he’s the heavy lifter here in Boystown…always putting pressure on corporations in Chicago to support LGBTQ charities and for the big name politicians and celebrities to come out for our fundraising events. He’s the driving force behind Equality Illinois, and is one of the people who are dead-set on accepting nothing other than “gay marriage” as terminology for marital equality.
This is where we disagree with Johnson, while remaining so grateful for all he does for the community.
Equality Illinois, and other gay organizations coast to coast, don’t realize the problem with their initiatives is the word “marriage” being co-opted by the gay community when it has an existing meaning to people in the religious community. “Gay marriage” is a problem for many because of the second word, not necessarily the first.
In the year 2010, we think you’d be hard-pressed to find many Americans who don’t accept the reality that some men are going to live with other men and some women are going to live with other women, and no one is going to be able to change that. This has, actually, always been reality…but it’s pretty hard to hide from this and deny it these days. That’s thanks to gay pioneers in the 70s and 80s, and people in Johnson’s generation, who came out of the closet and in many cases dragged others with them, so that gays were visible to mainstream America.
Just as visible as interracial couples, and all the other pairings that were censored out in the days of black and white movies and visually restrictive media.
Where we think that generation above us fails is in adapting to the modern age and quicksilver culture, especially in terms of brand management and market research. Equality Illinois is an organization that shouts itself blue in the face demanding “gay marriage” in a blue state like Illinois, but makes little ground because it’s not listening to mainstream America…which keeps sending signals that it accepts male-male and female-female couples (even if it doesn’t think those are any more ideal than interracial pairings) but is averse to the word “marriage” being used for these unions.
At Sidetracks last night, we thought about all the words that are made up in the gay community all the time, to describe things that don’t exist in the larger straight world.
For instance, the aforementioned “fairy’s princess” is a word we ourselves started using a few years ago because we didn’t like the pejorative-sounding “fag hag” or “fruit fly” to describe straight women who like to hang out in gay bars (and then wonder why they are single). There was clearly a need for a word to describe these women, and things that rhyme are usually the easiest to catch on…hence we were stuck with “fag hag” for so long…and those poor, misguided girls had to be “hags”, when they are almost always anything but. “Fairy’s princess” hasn’t caught-on nationwide, yet, but we hope it does at some point. This way no one has to be a hag or a fly to be around us, and instead those women can be princesses whenever they enter our magical little world of strong frozen drinks in rainbow colors and endless homage to a pantheon of divas up on the video screens.
There’s also a “fruit loop”, which is a term for what you do when you first walk into a gay bar to ascertain what’s going on that night, who’s there, and which bartenders will give you the best drinks. You step inside, then do a complete loop of the bar, hitting every room, saying a quick hello to people you know (but not doing a stop-and-chat, or the gay equivalent, which is a block-and-hug…because you literally block the aisle so other people can’t walk passed, while you are busy hugging Frederick or Blaine or whomever, oblivious to how rude you are being), making sure you know which bartender you are going to get your drinks from (because he/she is either really good at what they do, gives you your third drink free, or doesn’t have a long line at his/her bar), and generally scoping out where you and your friends are going to sit or stand. You end up back at the front at the end of your loop, at which point you then head to wherever you’ve determined would be the best place to hold court that night. Periodically you re-loop to see who else has made it to the bar, and if you have any exes you either want to mess with or ignore, the latter happening if you look especially good that night.
So, we gays are great at coming up with names for things that need names, but have never been dubbed this, that, or the other.
Why hasn’t the gay community done this with:
(1) What to call two men in a civil union?
(2) What to call two women in a civil union?
Because two straight people in a civil union are called “married”, in that they have then gone on to have a “marriage” ceremony in a religious venue. That’s called “marriage”.
Two strictly non-religious, or usually religious-averse, straight people (typically of a Leftist bent) proudly call themselves domestic partners or common-law spouses when they want to avoid the religious connection to “marriage”. We know quite a few straight couples, legally joined, in California who make this firm distinction because they want no connection with a church.
Sometimes, you hear “life partner”, “special friend”, “lover”, “boyfriend/girlfriend”, or just “partner” used for two gay people in a committed relationship, whether or not they have any legal paperwork backing that up.
We think there should be terminology coined to differentiate gays who have taken those legal steps, and have drawn up the contracts and other paperwork to commit to each other.
We think those words should be something FABULOUS, because typically when these gay guys and lesbians take this step, they have an awesome party that’s better than Showtunes night at Sidetracks, where everyone dresses up and a huge amount of money is pumped into the special events economy.
Typically, in dressing up, these men and women go all-out, and wear their best new Armani, Dolce & Gabanna, Vera Wang, you name it.
So, it occurred to us there’s a potential for taking those designer brands, and the occasions they are worn at, and solving the whole “gay marriage” impasse by co-opting some of these labels.
Maybe two guys who commit to each other and have a big ceremony for the joining could be “Dolce&Gabanna-ed”, or just “gabannaed”, for short.
Maybe two lesbians could be “BadgleyMischkaed”, or just “mischkaed”.
You know damn well something like this could indeed catch-on, because the gay community is all about the labels and the cute.
“Hey, did you hear? Tony and Todd got gabannaed over the weekend. It was so choice. Primo everything. I got so drunk, I thought I was Liza Minnelli”.
“Did you get the invite in the mail yet? Lisa and Becky are getting mischkaed. They’re registered at Home Depot, of course. I don’t know what they will ever do with all those power tools, but God love the two of them”.
Maybe “gabannaed” and “mischkaed” won’t be the FINAL terms, just like we hope “fag hag” and “fruit fly” will eventually give way to “fairy’s princess” or something even better, but we think purpose is served by using these made-up words to take the debate away from the sensitive wording of “marriage”.
What a lot of gay people don’t understand is that feelings are hurt when “marriage” is seemingly taken away from people who believe in God and their Church and don’t want to see their traditions co-opted by others, and made into something it is not. One of the most disgusting and obnoxious things we ever saw was back in the 90s when one of us was an event planner in Cleveland, and a white, hippy, overindulged, middle-aged pair from Shaker Heights decided to get married…and have a big, Indian style wedding with the bride in a sari and the groom in a giant Captain Nemo turban.
It was ludicrous. They had a groom’s cake shaped like one of the Hindu elephant gods, with the main wedding cake a vanilla Taj Mahal, served an Indian buffet that also included a briskett (because the bride was Jewish and her relatives demanded it), and just cherry-picked whatever they felt was “Indian” and looked pretty for their wedding.
Having been to an actual Indian wedding, where Indian people were married according to their traditions, it was absurd to watch these two whiter-than-white hippies flounce about making a mockery of Indian culture.
The equivalent would have been to have a “black wedding” with everyone eating watermelon and fried chicken, everyone in the pews raising their hands and “testifying” excitedly, and the bride and groom dressed like gangsta rappers — because this is what ignorant people would think was the flashiest cliff’s notes of the black community, and most interesting for a big party.
And this is what we try to tell the gay community it’s doing when it takes “marriage”, which is a religious sacrament, and tries to twist and pervert it into something it is not, to the chagrin and offense of the millions of people who love God, His Church, and everything that means to them.
We’ve yet to meet a truly religious person who would ever deny any of us happiness in life.
We’ve yet to meet at truly religious person who would ever say we have to live alone, never have anyone special in our lives, or have to forfeit property we worked hard for, because we can’t secure it legally with a person we chose to spend our time on this Earth with.
No one who loves God would ever stand in the way of someone else’s true happiness or prevent them from knowing joy, peace, and comfort in this world. That’s not what Jesus taught, and it’s not what God communicates to His children today. That is most certainly not what the Bible means or stands for.
But, we don’t think it’s appropriate for two big, bearded bears to nance around in a mock cathedral wearing big, flouncy, Princess Diana wedding dresses while the Chicago Gay Men’s Chorus sings “Going to the Chapel”. We don’t think two lesbians should dress up in tuxes and demand all the trappings of a Catholic wedding, when that’s not what the sacrament of marriage involves.
We also don’t think the gay community has a right to take baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, and last rites and cherry-pick what they want from those sacraments, creating chimeras of existing traditions and whatever the gay community wants to do that day.
Though many won’t want to admit this, religion, especially the Catholic Church, is mysterious and exotic…maybe more so than India was to those hippies. Most Americans grew up with some sort of religious tradition, and those of us who grew up Catholic had a heaping portion of that…which never leaves your DNA. Elements of this exotic religious past seem destined for any ceremonies gay couples would have…just like a lot of things Americans do have roots in British tradition. There has to be a way for gays to get the cultural, exotic, and symbolic elements they want without being offensive to those who remain part of the religion these things are borrowed from.
The stars and stripes have elements similar to the Union Jack, but the American flag is decidedly different, has a different name, and does not carry any impression it is masquerading as or attempting to mock the flag flown over Britain.
And that’s where this verbiage impasse comes in.
That’s where our “gabanna” and “mischka” terminology plays its part.
Brainstorm other words in the thread below, or go on a whole other tangent if you want. For too long now we’ve been fighting the same culture wars over and over again, where the Leftist Media pits the religious community against the gays, and vice versa over the word “marriage”.
We think we could play a role in ending the impasse by getting creative…and hope you can play a part in that too.
We’ve written before about the issues some people in Boystown have with bachelorette parties hitting the bars on the strip. There are a few camps on this issue, with most people generally falling into a category that doesn’t particularly like these girls coming to gay bars to have their parties, but understanding that they do spend SOME money in the bars, and that’s a great thing in the Obama Economy (where we are all STILL waiting for that hope and spare change we were promised).
Some guys actively hate the bachelorettes and want them banned, because in many cases these girls seem to be more trouble than they are worth. They come into a bar, scream and shout, are loud the entire time they are in there, and leave after having one round of shots and taking as many pictures as they can of the guys in the bar. This makes a lot of gay guys feel like they are animals in a zoo being gawked at – so much so that bars like Cocktail, Charlie’s, and others have a no-bachelorettes policy because of this.
Personally, we like seeing 90% of these girls out and about. It’s very rare for us to encounter the obnoxious, stomach-turning, point-and-gawk suburbanites who prompted the negative reaction against these parties. Usually, the girls who come to Boystown for their bachelorette party are either mousy, had-no-better-idea girls with friends or cousins who hang around with a lot of gay dudes (what we call a fairy’s princess, but some of you might still refer to in the pejorative as a “fag hag”) or they’re cool girls, elegant, with a sense of humor who are out for a Sex and the City sort of night and they’ve made Boystown one of their stops — a highlight — but not the be-all, end-all of the adventure.
That last batch of girls can be amazing, actually, especially when they dress up. Either dress to the nines and look better styled than girls off a magazine shoot, or dress up ridiculously, like as variations of Lady Gaga or where they each dress like a different 80s singer and go out for a theme night. Love. Those. Girls. They are a lot of fun, and never make anyone in the bar feel awkward, and never scream and shout and annoy other patrons.
Now, none of these women tip well. Ever. So it is a pain for the bartenders…or, worse, the strippers, in Boystown. As we’ve talked about before, the standard tip in bar is a dollar a drink. Anything less than that and you shouldn’t be going out. Save your money until you can afford to show courtesy, because the bartenders work really hard. It’s not an easy job. Trust us on that. Bachelorette parties tend to be incredibly high maintenance, time-consuming, and attention-demanding…but with no compensatory tip at the end to make it a bartender’s worthwhile. Worse, the girls at a bar will drive other paying customers a way, so not only are they not taking care of their bartender, but they are costing him business just by being there, since older gay men in particular don’t want to be around the bachelorette parties. And, of course, the older guys are the ones who actually tip…a lot…so it’s a multiple-whammy for the staff when these girls hold court in a bar on a Friday or Saturday night (AKA, the nights service industry employees make all their money for the week).
Strippers get hosed by bachelorette parties because they expect all these guys to be Chippendales’ dancers, and to do acrobatic tricks on the stage, and to dote on them, when that’s not what happens in a gay bar. Guys, especially older ones, will tip a male go-go dancer well for just standing there in his underwear. He doesn’t have to move at all and he’ll make $25 in fifteen minutes up there on the stage. If he knows a few moves and can keep time to the music and work the crowd, he’ll do much better. But, he doesn’t have to break a sweat to get tipped well by guys. Women expect him to be what they’ve seen on TV, but they won’t reward him for the effort. While guys will slip him fives (or even tens, for some of the grandpas who are making up for all the years they lost playing it straight), women will begrudgingly give him a single or two, screaming and yelling the whole time, and once again chasing away the actual, paying customers. Guys also buy the strippers drinks, which they like, because contrary to popular belief the bars don’t supply drinks for free. Women in gay bars just don’t take care of the staff, but expect the staff to cater to them, to the detriment of actual, paying, gay, male customers. Which the bars were opened to cater to.
So, that’s part of the backstory with why bachelorette parties aren’t especially loved here in Boystown. Some people will tell you that there’s a big political unspoken issue regarding gay marriage in this too, but that’s nonsense. It’s all about money, folks. The women in gay bars don’t tip well, they don’t treat the staffs of other patrons well (in general), and they drive business away. No one is jealous these women are getting married. None of us want to be in their weddings. None of us wish we could have a “bachelorette party” too. Because, frankly, we can have any sort of party we want, any day of the week, and it’s guaranteed to be fabulous. There’s a better chance than not that Cyndi Lauper or Liza Minnelli would stop by, or even perform, and the whole thing would be like an elaborate photo shoot for Vogue. No one is stopping any gay from having a party and calling it whatever he wants. And no one is stopping any of us from getting “married” either — because we know of about five “married” gay male couples who had a commitment ceremony, and a big party, and did gay “bachelor” parties too. A good lawyer, the right paperwork, and legally binding contractual agreements can give two guys (or two women) the same legal rights that Britney Spears had with that guy she was married to for about fifteen hours. It might take more work, and more creativity on the part of a good lawyer, but if a gay can dream it in this world, he can use some of his magic to make it happen.
There just needs to be another word invented for it than “marriage”, because we think that word should be reserved for people who had a religious ceremony. Everyone should have to go to city hall and file paperwork for a civil union…and then people who belong to churches or temples or whatever can get “married” in a sacramental ceremony of their choosing. Just as we all get birth certificates, but the religious then get baptized afterwards. The state does not baptize, and the state should not marry. It should only join in legal unions…of which any two consenting adults of legal age should be able to enter into together.
“Partnership” is not a good word, because it’s already taken by lawyers and others in business relationships. “Spousehood” is something we’ve tried to use, but it’s so awkward. One day, it will hit us like lightning what a word for two guys together, legally joined would be…and what a corresponding word for two lesbians would be. Then, there would be correct verbiage for all possible variations on the them: marriage, for straight people who had a religious ceremony…domestic partnership for straight people who are joined by the state but who did not have a religious ceremony…”X” for two men joined by the state…and “Y” for two lesbians joined by the state. Maybe two more options would be created for two men and two women who go on to have some sort of religious ceremony of their own in the future, after the state joining. You could spend all day obsessing over verbiage and semantics like this, and it’s honestly too gorgeous of an end of summer day to do that.
But, we did want to note that something happened last night at Roscoe’s here in Boystown that actually made us feel that angst, frustration, and insult that we’ve always heard some people felt towards those bachelorette girls, but which we’ve never personally felt on our own.
And it took a bachelor party hitting Boystown to make us feel this way.
“Bachelor Party” in the traditional sense, with an obnoxious frat boy, man-child, straight guy and his buddies who decided to come to Boystown to “see the fags” and raise a little Hell in an environment in which they thought they’d get the better of everyone.
They appeared right around the same time as a large trolley full of drunken bachelorette girls rolled down Halsted, making a brief stop in front of Cocktail so the girls could flash their breasts at the windows and generally establish how drunk they were. When no one paid them a bit of attention, or indulged whatever exhibitionistic fetishes they were trying to work out, the disappointed bride-to-be and her entourage pulled away, no doubt heading for Wrigleyville where they could flash away and get all sorts of freebies all night as a result. This is, quite frankly, where these sorts of antics belong…on Chicago’s version of Bourbon Street, just a block west of Boystown.
We never saw the bachelor party enter, so they must have done so during the trolley’s commotion, but we couldn’t miss them once they were inside. The bachelor was late-20s, and the sort of guy we imagine works as a day trader or something else professional and testosterone-fueled downtown. He wore a neon-colored shirt somewhere north of chartreuse, emblazoned with RIP 10/01/10 on his back…the date we presume he’s either to be married, or executed (or, a little of both, depending on your position on marriage). He’s the sort of guy who has to announce his presence in every room he enters so even the blind and deaf person in the back corner knows he’s there. We can’t imagine he’s much different starting work every morning, because guys like this only allow alcohol to amplify who they typically are…but no amount of booze can really turn a naturally nice, decent guy into a jackass. He has to be a jackass to start with, but one who keeps it under control most days.
The bachelor’s buddies were all tools — late-20s as well, and probably a mix of some guys he went to college with (frat buddies, most likely) and guys from the office. Absolutely all of them were as straight as straight could be, and were dressed hideously in mismatched checks and stripes, like they’d been shopping with Michelle Obama at the Men’s Wearhouse or J.C. Penny’s. They had a white sheet of paper with them that was some sort of scavenger hunt checklist, and they drafted a girl who looked like Jersey Shore’s Snookie to help them fill in a few of the spaces. It was a photo scavenger hunt, so they had to take pictures of the bachelor doing various things…like walking a stranger’s dog, talking to a cop, kissing a fat girl, etc.
And, yes, they actually did go up to a large woman in Roscoe’s and asked to take their picture with her. About the only thing we’ll give these guys points for was the fact they were dead honest about everything they were doing: they were upfront with the girl and told her they needed a pic with a “fat chick” and they accurately surmised this particular girl would have no problem with the label. She thought it was a blast, in fact, and took the pic with no problem. Everyone in the bachelor party laughed, and the “fat chick” laughed with them, but the rest of the people in the bar got more and more uncomfortable the longer these clowns were in there.
For the first time, we understood what those people were talking about when they said they felt the bachelorette parties made them uncomfortable, as if the girls were visiting the zoo.
We saw the bachelor and his friends looking down their lists, then scoping the bar to see if there were any other potential scavenger items to snap off. They must have had a cigar store Indian on the list, because they took a picture of themselves with one that’s positioned prominently in Roscoe’s front window (with Roscoe’s essentially being a cross between a TGI Friday’s and your grandmother’s attic in terms of decor). Maybe that’s what drew them into the bar in the first place (though Blue Havana, an actual smoke shop, is just a few streets away, and it has SEVERAL of these Indians they could have photographed themselves with).
The bachelor kept going in and out of the bar to puff on a big, fat cigar, while his friends nervously followed him in and out. The bachelor was being overly gregarious, talking to everyone who was walking by, though few of them wanted to talk to him. He made a big show about how much he didn’t have a problem with being in Boystown, showing how straight he was by how loud and boisterous he was being, but how open-minded he was that he was there on his bachelor party night.
The whole thing was weird, really.
Security kept watching the group like hawks, to see if they said or did anything that would warrant booting them. They didn’t buy any drinks, and were just milling around, looking at items for their list, when finally Sebastian said he’d had enough of this and was going over to end it.
So, he took off his shirt, and strode over to the bachelor on his last trip back inside. Bast, shirtless, then proceeded to flirt with the guy and test how much he could take. Remember, the guy was making a big show of how cool he was with being a bachelor in Boystown, and how gregarious and cool of a guy he was in general, and Bast maneuvered this against him.
It lasted about a minute, where Bast asked him if he was marrying a guy or a girl, and when the bachelor said, “Uh, duh, a girl” Bast asked him “Well, what are you doing here, stud?”. “Because if you’re spending your bachelor party here, chief, maybe your fiancee needs to know a thing or two about you before the wedding night”.
The bachelor had to laugh, that strained, nervous sort of laugh straight guys use when they are embarrassed…and he waited until the next song started playing before he decided he wanted to leave, so it didn’t look like he was being run out of there, but that pretty much did it.
He and his buddies poured out of the bar, and high-tailed it to the cars they had parked in the 711 lot across the street. They headed north, to points unknown, but for all we know they could have been going to Crew, Wild Pug, Jackhammer’s, Touche, or even Man’s Country (a favorite of at least two married men who currently work in the White House).
If a bachelor party starts off in Boystown at Roscoe’s, there’s no limit to the amount of gay bars it could end up.
The whole thing was just bizarre. And a very effective deployment of a shirtless Sebastian to solve a problem, yet again. We were going to use Panda, but that would have been overkill. And it could have resulted in a bachelor-shaped hole in the wall near the door as he tried to make his escape.
It was a damper to the night feeling like these straight guys had come out to make fun of the guys who were out at Roscoe’s. But, on the same note, it was such a puzzle these guys would WANT to come down to Boystown to do something like this in the first place. Every once in a while, there’ll be a carload of little suburban punks (who must have just gotten their license) that will roll through Boystown, with all but the driver shouting “FAGS!” as loud as they can. They’re all intensely stupid, of course, because 70% of the population of Boystown spends 3 hours a day in the gym, doing cardio and heavy lifting, so shouting something like that results in a couple dozen bodybuilders chasing your car down the street. We’ve never seen what happens when guys catch up with a car like that and let those inside have it, but we bet it wouldn’t be pretty.
This isn’t 1980 anymore. It’s 2010, and this is not a zoo for straight people’s amusement or a place for little punks to come and shout pejoratives. Boystown should be a safe place to come and have fun, with the goal of an evening never being to see how many people you can make fun of.
It’s sad if any bachelor or bachelorette would want to start their marriage off by being cruel to anyone, even strangers, and gays in particular. We can’t imagine what sort of union would follow a beginning like this…but maybe that explains the high rate of divorce amongst punks like these.
The first, of course, to cry about the “sanctity of marriage” whenever gay couples want to commit…and do it in a way that does not involve a scavenger hunt through Wrigleyville making fun of anyone.
Here’s a surprisingly good read in, of all places, MSNBC (which is like finding treasure in a sewer drain).
It’s an article talking about the rational, measured, well-planned psychological tactics anti-spousal rights forces use to defeat “gay marriage” initiatives every time they are on the ballot.
There is an actual cottage industry of consultants who do nothing but move from state to state running essentially the same campaign to rile voters up to vote against LGBTQ equality.
They focus on fearmongering involving children and driving black voters out to gleefully cast their ballots to oppress and discriminate against gays.
They are very, very effective…since they have, essentially, a well-tuned remote control that pushes buttons and gets the desired effect every time.
All of this works so well because the LGBTQ community refuses to change their approach.
The other day we wrote about “spousal rights” being the verbiage that should be used if the real goal is to achieve equal rights for same-sex spouses. We were excoriated for that in various places, because very loud, very myopic individuals on the left insist we need to entrench ourselves to the word “marriage” and “not settle for anything less”.
We have a friend who is like this, and she’s like talking to a brick wall. Especially when it comes to labels. If it’s not Jimmy Choo or Donna Karan, she won’t wear it. She MUST HAVE that designer label. MUST. And she would rather remain barefoot than wear anything that doesn’t flash the brand name she covets.
Us…well, we just want a damn pair of boots as winter’s coming. Whatever you want to call those boots is fine with us. They could be labeled “Gap”, “Banana Republic”, “H&M”, or “Payless” and we wouldn’t care: our feet are bare, the coming snow will be cold, there’s a lot of glass and dog feces all over the streets of Chicago, and we want a pair of boots.
That’s our want, that’s our desire, that’s our endgame.
Our friend, however, has several wants, desires, and endgames going on…and unlike our strictly practical one, here’s are steeped in emotion. She refuses “to settle for anything less than Dolce & Gabanna” or “lower herself to wearing something off the rack”. It’s couture or nothing, baby, and she’s willing to keep heading up to the register time and again with armfuls of unobtainably expensive duds…knowing she’s going to have her credit card declined again, just because she refuses to come with us to Ragstock or the Brown Elephant or to consignment shops to meet our practical needs…but following a path we know will actually work.
It’s really as simple as this:
(1) If the LGBTQ community wants to achieve parity as coupled men and coupled women with heterosexual couples of all colors, creeds, stripes, and backgrounds, then the LGBTQ community has to understand what it is up against: a well-funded, clever, practiced machine of opposition that knows how to use the buzzwords “gay marriage”, “same-sex marriage”, and “gay marriage taught in schools” to energize the bigotry and fear in voters to defeat any LGBTQ measure built upon the “gay marriage” verbiage.
(2) Doing the same thing but expecting different results is the very definition of insanity. LGBTQ activists have attempted to put “gay marriage” on the ballot 31 times now…and have failed 31 times. It is time for a new and more effective strategy that does not use the words “gay marriage”.
(3) The trap we all seem to be in is that “gay marriage” is a term that energizes the Right to take down equality measures. “Civil unions”, however, prompts a knee-jerk irrational reaction in the Left — because the low information contingent of our community starts shouting “separate water fountains” and “back of the bus” whenever “civil unions” are mentioned. The LGBTQ community comprises some of the most determined, unthinking parrots we have ever encountered: once “a friend of mine who is smart” tells them something is bad, like “civil unions”, and tells them “that’s like having a separate water fountain”, there will never be any way for you to get them to stop repeating that. The ONLY way to resolve this impasse is to stop using ALL emotionally charged words. We have suggested “spousal rights” for this purpose…because rebranding efforts like this have been successful every time they have been used.
Here is one example of the above we like to use, and hope one day it can be read and understood by those who have a knee-jerk impulse to just reject the re-branding idea out of hand:
Chilean Sea Bass vs. Patagonian Toothfish
*Goal = restaurants and fishmongers wanted to sell more Patagonian toothfish, which were a delicious and profitable catch, but regular, average Americans didn’t want to order “toothfish”…it conjured up images in their minds that they did not like, and restaurants could not pay people to even try the dish.
Instead of rolling around on the floor demanding Americans accept “toothfish” and becoming emotionally invested in the word “toothfish”, restauranteurs wised up and rebranding what they were selling: the name change worked because Americans did not have an automatic visual to associate with “Chilean sea bass” that was unpleasant to them. They, thus, were able to get passed the verbiage and knee-jerk emotional block to “toothfish” and actually try the dish…and see, ultimately, that it wasn’t so bad, and the world didn’t end because they were eating “toothfish”.
On every site that criticizes us for suggesting the rebranding as “spousal rights”, we’re villainized because we do not believe fighting over the word marriage makes any more damn sense than rolling around on the floor having Al Sharpton-esque fits over “Patagonian toothfish”.
We want equal rights.
We know Americans are easily manipulated by powerful and well-funding consulting firms each election…firms that make a LOT of money to work a side of an issue.
We see clearly that these consulting firms are so good at painting an unpalatable visual of “gay marriage” that it will never, ever pass on a ballot of its own…chiefly (and this gets everyone mad at us too, but it’s true) because black voters in even the most blue of states will always be the spoiler on this issue. That’s what happened in California, whether the MSM wants to admit it or not. Religious people cannot be blamed there, when Dr. Utopia carried that state so impressively…and yet bigotry passed with flying colors as well.
A “spousal rights” initiative will not energize low information bigots to head out of their homes on cold days to vote against someone’s equality.
“Gay marriage” in a push for the same legislation is guaranteed to summon every bigot in a thousand mile radius, like fresh cerebelum drawing all the zombies to the town square for brunch.
If LGBTQ groups would wise up, they would do two things:
(1) Ditch all “same-sex”, “gay”, “marriage”, and even “equality” buzz words from their efforts…and stick to generic, low-emotion, unfamiliar and bureaucratic sounding terms like “spousal rights”. The fewer weapons the LGBTQ community hands to the marketing firms hired to defeat these spousal rights measures, the better.
(2) Strategically, in concert with the above, these spousal rights initiative should be scheduled for cold months with bad weather…where everything possible can be done to discourage bigots from turning out. Alternatively, they should be scheduled on days when bigots are doing something else…like a big Festival of Hate or something going on, so they wouldn’t have time to vote against the gays again that day.
The point we will continue to make…and that we will sincerely start speaking out about in person, on panels, and Hera willing on the radio, TV, and wherever else we can is that Maine should be the last time the LGBTQ community should try to ram “gay marriage” through to voters by doing the same things they have always done expecting different results.
Rebranding works every day in the corporate world, where it’s understood that nothing is ever wrong with a PRODUCT, but just wrong with the marketing if the public does not buy it.
Good, creative salesmen can sell ANYTHING…so it’s ironic and sad the arguably most creative community in the country is so myopic and stubborn in its insistence on two words that have sunk every marketing campaign they’ve engaged in.
If the goal is winning equal rights…and if equal rights won’t be won using those two words (as has been proved 31 times)…then chucking those two words to get what you want is what needs to happen.
Miss California didn't say anything wrong. We support Carrie Prejean's right to have her own opinion.
Miss California answered honestly a question posed to her, and is being savaged for it.
Of course, the Left is calling her all sorts of misogynistic names, because that’s what the Left does. No doubt, here in Boystown, places like Sidetrack (that seem to look for any excuse whatsoever to weaponize the “c-word” and direct it gleefully at women) will be rolling relentless attacks against Carrie Prejean on Comedy and Showtunes nights.
Just like they did that to Sarah Palin, Cindy McCain, and Hillary Clinton. Because, frankly, Sidetrack really is the place to go in Chicago if you’re gay and hate women and think it’s fun to drink way too many frozen cocktails out of frosty mugs and make a complete ass of yourself on any given night.
Beauty contests are incredibly stupid.
Unless they involve Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Rudd, Jude Law, and whatever speedo-related shenannigans our imaginations can conjure for the best swimsuit competition since last year’s Market Days at Hollywood Beach here in Boystown.
Carrie Prejean is not stupid. She’s honest. Wholly ignorant of her surroundings, and the fact that her crown’s in the hands of people who would give her big, Oprah-sized zeros for speaking her mind, but honest nonetheless.
And it’s acceptable that she does not support “gay marriage”. This is still America, despite attempts by Janet Napolatino, Eric Holder, and the current President to change that. Prejean can support, or not support, whatever she wants. After all, 80% of the people who voted for the current President did NOT support “gay marriage” in California (including almost ALL of his black supporters: the absolute largest group of voters to support Proposition-8 by demographic).
We keep telling you that the term “gay marriage” is the problem, not Prejean and Democrats who voted for the current President while deciding to institutionalize discrimination in the Golden State. As long as the word “marriage” is used, people will make statements like Prejean’s.
There is no doubt in our minds that Prejean is a good woman. We believe she would never actively campaign for any sort of discrimination in matters financial, healthcare related, involving pensions, or otherwise. But, the word “marriage” conjures a knee-jerk response in many people — including those millions of true blue Democratic lockstep voters who helped pick the current president while backing Prop-8.
Do you remember when “dried plums” were called “prunes”?
And prune sales were stagnant, so marketers decided to rebrand the product so people who had knee-jerk negative reactions to it would give prunes a chance, as “dried plums” instead.
Same product, better PR, increased acceptance.
The Left, being as slick as it is in all things marketing and branding, suspiciously doesn’t seem to grasp this concept…which makes us believe they have no real intention of ever securing equal partner benefits for all LGBTQ Americans. Allowing the word “gay marriage” to quash all attempts at true equality is poor public strategy. The only explanation for this stupidity is that the LGBTQ community, at large, really doesn’t want this to pass anymore than the black community ever wants its main issues to be resolved. What happens then? There’s a multi-million if not billion dollar grievance industry in this country. Successfully achieving equal partner rights, or successfully admitting racism as described by the Sharptons, Clyburnes, or Holders of this world no longer exists, would put an awful lot of well-established Leftist hucksters and clowns out of business. All the fun these people have screaming and yelling and attacking people would be lost.
Look at how delighted so many are to attack Miss California right now. It will be literally years before Prejean falls off the Sidetrack comedy playlist. Nobody beats a dead horse more gleefully than balding, aging, queens.
Except maybe Al Sharpton.
Tangential to the above, isn’t it odd that solidly blue states like Illinois and New York don’t have marriage equality, despite being in firm Democrat control, but Iowa just ruled against discrimination this week.
Every day, the LGBTQ community in Illinois and other “true blue” states should ask what Democrats have done for them lately. If the LGBTQ lets Democrats take them for granted, we guarantee they will.
One of the greatest strategic mistakes LGBTQ groups made in recent years was to couch things in nebulous terms of “gay marriage”, and not in specific terms of financial and legal equality for all Americans. Period.
“Marriage” is a charged term that opens up all sorts of unwanted flood gates, while attracting crazed loons like Fred Phelps (pictured above, along with Larry Craig, Ann Coulter, Sally Kern, and Pat Boone’s guitar), and simultaneously alienating good people who would otherwise support the cause of equality, but have knee-jerk reactions to what they perceive as an assault on their traditions.
“Gay marriage” is terrible marketing. “Partner benefits” is where we would have went with this issue, years ago, and we doubt we’d be where we are today with things like Proposition-8.
We ran across the above painting by Paul Richmond, who created it for a gallery show in San Francisco called “Sweet & Low: Optimism in a Pessimistic Age”, and it made us think about something that gets us in trouble from both sides of the aisle, but is worth talking about anyway: our take on the partner benefits issue.
Notice we didn’t say “gay marriage”, because we don’t want any part of “marriage”, but one day would like the right to financial and legal security, if ever any of us here ends up in a longterm relationship and decides we want the same rights other people take for granted (including those rights that allow celebrities like Britney Spears to marry and divorce in a period of 24 hours or less, because marriage is a sacred thing that should never, ever be drunkenly rushed into and annulled the next day. It’s sacred!).
Because, really, that’s what’s at stake here — and it’s a much less interesting thing to depict in paintings. It’s property and inheritance rights, as dull and colorless as that really is on stacks of legal papers. Ultimately, all of this comes down to financial planning, probate, and being able to have the same futures and opportunities that other people have just because they’re heterosexual, but we aren’t (and can never be, no matter how much some of our families want us to be).
During the primaries, Hillary Clinton appeared on Ellen Degeneres’ TV show and told the story of the gay couple in Arkansas her parents befriended when they lived in a condo there. One of the men got sick, and the hospital wouldn’t allow his partner to visit him; worse, the sick man’s family decided to use this moment to make his illness and subsequent death all the more traumatic for all those involved, by refusing to acknowledge his partner, or treat him with basic human dignity and respect. They actually banned the man from his partner’s bedside, making the last day’s of his life an absolute living Hell — all because they didn’t like or accept that their son was gay, and so they punished him to the end, making him die alone in a dreary room instead of allowing his partner to comfort him.
Because they were religious people, don’t you know.
It was a story Hillary Clinton used to illustrate the importance of equal rights for all Americans, because if your partner is sick and dying in the hospital, you should be able to visit him or her, and his or her family should not be able to override a couple’s wishes (when this would not be allowed to happen to a heterosexual pair), no matter how “religious” they are (or how woefully they missed all those parts in religion about love, decency, and treating others with grace and goodwill).
That’s what we are ultimately talking about: basic human kindness and decency winning out over ugliness and vengeful retaliation.
On this site, we’ve talked about our dear friend Lionel who is battling prostate cancer. In his situation, Lionel’s family is very accepting of him, and has embraced his partner Todd as their son-in-law (“marriage” be damned). Todd is Lionel’s caretaker and will be with him through the end. Here in Chicago, the hospital treats Todd like any other caregiver, and allows him as much access as a wife would have, if Lionel was married to a woman, and not committed to Todd. Lionel’s family does not intrude on the decisions Lionel and Todd are making for his care and treatment, just as they wouldn’t intrude if Lionel was married to a woman. Lionel’s family is, in a word, great.
And Lionel sure is lucky to have them.
There are those of us here whose families would lock Todd out of the hospital, pretend he doesn’t exist, and wouldn’t bother to invite him to the funeral, when it came to that. One of us has a mother who refuses to admit her son is gay, and instead tells neighbors, relatives, and friends he has girlfriends. She has, in fact, invented an entire annotated fantasy world in a parallel universe where everything he does is straight, straight, straight (and the lies are so strange and elaborate, that instead of doing freelance marketing work in the fashion industry, his mother tells people he works in marketing for the Cubs, Blackhawks, and Bears…because “fashion” sets off too many warning bells for people back in Cleveland and Pittsburgh, but everyone thinks sports are fabulous).
It’s crazy. It’s wrong. And it’s what we have to deal with…on a daily basis.
Though no one alive should have to deal with something like that, or imagine the horror of laying near death in a hospital bed, not being able to stop your parents from taking over the remainder of your life and locking your partner out of it…making you die alone, so your mother could pretend you have a girlfriend somewhere (no doubt so devastated by your illness that she no longer appears in public, and that’s why no one has ever met her).
Partner benefits are important for this reason — but we have a problem when it comes to “gay marriage” as depicted by the far left, as we feel uncomfortable aping someone else’s traditions.
We are officially on record as a bunch of guys in Boystown who have absolutely no desire to ever have a wedding on a beach, dressed all in white, officiated by Miss Foozie, with drag queens as bridesmaids and a labradoodle as a flower girl. Not that there’s anything wrong with that if it’s what you want for yourself, but we’re tired of people insisting we should want such a spectacle just because straight couples make Bridezilla such must-see-TV.
Growing up gay and Catholic, with most of us serving tours of duty as altar boys, we all went to plenty of over the top elaborate weddings and have to say, honestly, that one of the great perks of being gay is never having to deal with any of that drama or wedding-planning stress. Contrary to popular belief, not all gay men are big fans of the dramz (and not all of us dream of wearing Vera Wang on “our big day” either). And we certainly don’t want to imitate straight couples and conform to molds we successfully resisted and escaped from years ago.
Our lives long ago veered off the paths taken by our straight classmates. Facebook is now a rogue’s gallery of sorts, with cautionary tales of all those who repeatedly honored the sanctity of marriage, on their “big days”, and then divorced, remarried, and divorced again, sanctity be damned. Some of these people still live in Versailles, Pennsylvania or Dubuque, Iowa, on the same street their parents raised them on, or in some new pre-fab suburb that makes Revolutionary Road look like the feel good movie of the year.
That just wasn’t for us, folks. We’ll take a bad day in Boystown over a bad marriage in Dubuque any day. And we realize it actually takes a lot of guts to admit we’re secure in defying society’s expectations, because society’s a formidable thing to defy (especially when your family insists on pretending otherwise).
So, you might understand when we say it rings hollow for use to want to create some weird, watered-down version of a wedding, on that beach, and say we’re “almost as good as straight people, lookit us!” by doing so. Let Susie and Billy Sunshine have their “big day”. We’ll be happy to cater it and do all their seating arrangements, admire their cake and eat a half of a half of a half of a slice, and snark on the hideous Scarlet O’Hara bridesmaids dresses later, after one two many cucumber mojito truth serums. There’s nothing else about Susie and Billy’s suburban lives that we especially covet, so their “big day” holds no allure for us either.
And we look heinous in white. Truly ghastly. So don’t even go there.
But, it would be nice to finally be able to afford to buy a decent apartment, instead of renting for the rest of our lives, and the likeliest bet of that ever happening in a market like Chicago is one day taking that real estate plunge in a longterm serious relationship, where we could join forces with someone else the way married couples do, and enjoy all the legal options and protections marriage affords them (that are currently denied to us). There’s a sense of security in what Susie and Billy get on their wedding day that’s more important and covetable than anything wrapped in powder blue and tied up in white ribbon on the gift table from Tiffany’s. The older we get, and the more challenges we face single and on our own, the more we can appreciate how much easier the world is, in practical and realistic ways, for the Susie and Billys. Especially when friends like Lionel remind us of our own mortality, and how alien the world can become when you’re too sick to fight for yourself, and the person you’ve shared everything with could so easily be estranged from you by relatives you haven’t spoken to in years.
The fact that something like what Hillary Clinton described on Ellen can happen in America, in this day and age, should give us all pause. We know it scares the heck out of us. And we honestly have families who would do something like that, if allowed by state law.
So, when we think of partner benefits and whatever you want to call the issue surrounding “gay marriage”, it doesn’t conjure up images of Ellen and Portia releasing doves into the world under showers of rainbows. It’s not colorful or in-your-face or any sort of assault on anyone’s traditions. None of us wants to put on a dress and ape the sacred and beautiful ceremonies that define “marriage” to so many.
We just don’t want to never be able to buy property. We don’t want to pay inheritance taxes straight couples get to avoid. We don’t want to be penalized in any way because we don’t date women.
So, for us, it all boils down to basic accounting, and the very boring and gray world of equal rights in all matters real and practical, extending in unfortunate cases to all matters life and death as well.
And people who get so caught up in waves of emotion over this issue lose sight of all this. Proposition-8 passed in California because Obama did not take the time or initiative to explain to his voters that voting for him but backing Prop-8 was discrimination against the civil and property rights of certain members of the taxpaying public. The emotion should have been taken out of the issue, because at it’s heart this isn’t a matter of the heart, but the pocketbook, and the estate planning portfolio. Whatever boring terms you want to put it into, because that’s what it’s all going to boil down to in the end, anyway.
So, it’s a travesty of marketing that brought us to where we are today, and unfortunate nomenclature that keeps fueling an issue that should truthfully be a non-issue by now. What happened to Hillary Clinton’s parents’ friends at the hospital took place in the 80s. Why on Earth is something like that still happening somewhere today, when most decent Americans would agree it’s just downright cruel for the state to separate two people who want to be together, just because one of their families’ doesn’t like the idea of them as a couple.
Just imagine if YOUR in-laws could do that to you. How would you feel?
And remember that the next time you’re sitting in the home you own with your spouse, listening to someone talk about gay marriage one way or the other, and realize that there are those of us who’d like to own property the way you do, and have a sense of the financial security that you do, even though we don’t ever want to pretend to be you, or ape what you have and thereby, somehow, threaten the traditions you hold dear.
We don’t want to become you, or make you become us.
We just don’t want to get kicked out of the hospital and rent our apartments forever.