Gay Rights, Renaissance Humanism, and Lady Gaga. Get Excited.

This has really nothing to do with my Italian adventures, but I feel just as strongly about it as I do our Italian chef Bruno!

All joking aside, today begins the trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case in California that could overturn Prop 8. I am of the opinion that Prop 8, despite its supporter's fervent denial, is the cloak superficially covering years and centuries of homophobia. This case certainly has the sociopolitical implications that Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade had in the past- and is THE civil rights struggle of our generation.

This issue is being viewed through a myriad of social lenses- some relevant, some not so relevant. Perhaps being in Europe, with all these crazy socialists, has made me even more adamant about same-sex marriage rights, but I am continually disappointed by some American's inability to realize the importance of civil rights as well as the consequences of this decision.

Natural human habit never changes- ultimately, we will always fear what we don't understand. You can pollute the issue with billions of court cases and studies and bible quotes, but these socially highly regarded formalities cannot veil what is teeming just beneath the surface- the uneasiness people feel towards homosexuality. It's easy to watch old white men on C-SPAN and trust that they oppose gay marriage not because they are homophobic, but because it "protects our children". Well that sounds great, I'd love to protect our children! That statement evokes the morality of raising our children right! We need to listen closer. We need to listen closer to what pro-Prop 8 groups (as well as any other "pro-family" groups) are saying. In their "About Us" section, the Protect Marriage organization fails to mention exactly what they think Prop 8 will protect their children from. They say,

"Because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between any two persons rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of marriage." (http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/why)

I have many problems with this. Namely, they ascribe to a long standing and incredibly effective literary tool: That of dancing around what you are really trying to say. This animal is known in the wild as "bullshit".

What Protect Marriage is conveniently leaving out is that they do not want their children to know that gay people exist, because if they know gay people exists, that means the idea will be planted in their head and that they could become gay. This is the most bigoted, inaccurate, and disgusting thing that is somehow accepted that I've ever heard, and it makes me sick. However, many people who don't support same-sex marriage are not wholly bigoted, unlike those who never want their children to "find out" about homosexuality. Many people are just uncomfortable with homosexuals, and hop on the bandwagon because they were raised in a time in which only heterosexuality was tolerated. These people are not immoral, rather just ill-informed. Ignorance has too long been covertly disguised and accepted in our society.

When I use the term "ignorant", I do not use it derisively, but rather seek to employ the true definition of the word; that of a state of unawareness. I think older generations are largely unaware of the significance of equal rights for same-sex couples and homosexuals in general. In a nerdy English major move, I can't help but think of Shakespeare when he said "This house is as dark as Ignorance, though Ignorance were as dark as hell" (Twelfth Night, Act IV, scene ii). I believe our house has grown dark, and I believe we will find the power to lighten it.

As Monte Neil Stewart found in his Harvard Study of the arguments for and against same-sex marriage,

"The successful constitutional arguments advanced in support of man-woman marriage succeed because they are ultimately premised on the factually accurate broad (or institutional) description of a complex whole—the marriage institution—that guides individual activity, sustains identity, gives sense and purpose to the lives of its participants, and thereby produces valuable social goods."

Now, Harvard is one of the greatest educational institutions in America and I'm sure Monte Neil Stewart owns many leather-bound books, but we are not a society dependent on the success of a nuclear familial unit to sustain our economy or infrastructure. Left and right (pun intended), heterosexual marriages are falling apart, with and without progeny. Nor are gay couples plagued by purposelessness, being attracted to your own sex does not strip your life of meaning. I'd also like to point out that "sustaining identity" could be a bad thing, such as sustaining one's identity as a bigot, felon, or tyrant. In short, Stewart's analysis short changes marriage, considering it only as a tool for a government or society- a government or society that could theoretically be morally bankrupt and corrupt. Stewart assumes the government serves all its members equally; but as history shows, governments generally fail in providing equal rights for all of their people. More often than not, all governments become oligarchical, serving only a small group. In America, this group consists of Upper-middle class, straight, Christian white men. Historically, marriage has been a tool for procreation, sustaining familial ties, founding alliances, and convenience. Our society is not dependent on these values. We have outdated our definition of marriage. Marriage, in a free society like America's, should be about love. Positive feelings toward another human being, including sexual love.

As Stewart confirms, yes, heterosexual marriage is useful to our society, but so was slavery. Slavery fueled the cotton and tobacco economies that boosted this nation to its (now increasingly waning) financial supremacy, but it is inherently immoral. W.H. Beveridge, in his book Full Employment in a Free Society (1944), points out that "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."

As Americans, we cannot afford to allow this pervasive ignorance to continue to plague our fight for civil rights. America was founded not upon religious doctrine, but upon an inextinguishable hunger for liberty. Liberty in the face of a nameless and blameless monster that is the collective misguided public. I believe this hunger will eventually be sated, but it should be sated today, not in five or ten years. We cannot wait for those in the dark to "warm up" or "come around" to the idea of same-sex marriage, which so obviously just makes many uncomfortable. An alarming amount of people are still uncomfortable seeing an interracial couple, but that uncomfortable feeling is largely unacceptable to advertise in our society. So should the uncomfortable feeling of seeing two men holding hands down the street, or two women in the mall with their child. I believe Jack Nicholson's character in Scorsese's The Departed hit the nail on the head when he said "No one gives it to you. You have to take it". Interestingly enough, his character was also discussing civil rights, that of black Americans (although he uses less than savory vocabulary).

People ask me why I'm an English major- and truly, it's an impossible to define in a sentence. In a larger sense, it's easier to identify my concentration with the Humanities. My interest in English goes beyond my veneration of literature. For many people, the humanities are considered irrelevant, which is a travesty. I think it's important to relate the humanities to the idea of Renaissance humanism- which encompasses a bevy of ideas and schools of thought, but namely includes a passionate concern with "human interests and welfare, stressing the inherent value and potential of human life" (Oxford English Dictionary). It seems like quite a jump for same-sex marriage to Renaissance humanism, but it is wrapped up in the holistic view of education and philosophy. In my English classes we examine and analyze every aspect of the human condition, which sounds hokey and pretentious and airy, but ultimately can lead to my favorite thing to be led to- clarity. Clarity of history, clarity of meaning, clarity of significance.

For many, same-sex marriage is a confusing issue, convoluted with bias and tangled in never-ending politics. Boiled down however, it is in the same vein as every other civil rights issue. The emancipation of slaves in the late 19th century, the sufferance of women in the early 20th century, the Black Civil Rights and Feminist Movements in contemporary society, and now it's a different monster. People have a way of ignoring history and historical example. Despite all the cliches, history is in fact, condemned to repeat itself. For too many the issue of same-sex marriage is tossed aside as a frivolous foray of the idealistic and liberal. That is also what people thought about the entire doctrine of democracy in ancient societies. For a society to maintain its liberty, it needs to be looking forward. Not necessarily a doctrine of "progress for progress' sake", but rather progress for liberty's sake. In general, we are lucky to be citizens of America, fortunate enough to be guaranteed rights many citizens of the world are denied. America needs to be a beacon; not in a financial or militaristic capacity, but as a society that successfully acts in defense of basic human rights.

At this point I will hearken to a previous post, about negative reactions to the pop artist Lady Gaga. People think what she does is "out-there". What does "out-there" even really mean? It means something outside the boundaries of people's comfort zones. Lady Gaga wears outfits considered strange by our society- GASP! She must be Satan. Some people are attracted to their same sex- Grab your torches and pitchforks! Martin Luther thought religion should be free from corruption- Kill all the Protestants! Sadly, the last two are/were much bigger social issues, for which hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of deaths in history serve to evidence. Just like Luther's ideals challenged the Papal authority, gay activist's ideals challenge the authority of "the norm". It was the fact that Luther was undermining the theocracy- the power. I believe that gay activists undermine the power of the oldwhitestraightguy, and it unnerves them. However, we cannot afford to stroke egos, we are dealing with an issue larger than some people being "weirded out" by homosexuals.

Same-sex marriage is a question of freedom. America guarantees rights to its citizens, and in denying those rights fails as an institution. Our voices can turn the tide and work against ignorance. In whatever way you can, lend your support to the overturning of Prop 8, without which we cannot make progress for LGBTQ Civil Rights.

my new obsession: obsessions

I don't know how well known she is, but after having seen her first video on perez a couple weeks ago I've been obsessed with the woman behind Marina and the Diamonds. Her name is Marina Diamandis, and she's a London-based singer/songwriter/diva extraordinaire. She's half Greek and half Welsh, which is officially the ethnic cocktail jackpot because she's gorgeous. The song of hers I first heard was the much more mass appealing pop song on her record dropping in February of 2010, The Family Jewels. It's called Hollywood, and it's a very tongue-in-cheek parody of the ridiculous and campy nature of American popular culture.

After further research, I realized her musical style gets way cooler. Marina reminds me of a kind of marriage between Lady Gaga's fashion aesthetic, Imogen Heap's deep voice, Shakira's kind of bipolar voice, and some other vocal quality making her completely unique. You can tell immediately how distinctive her voice is- it's almost a Tracey Chapman moment in which you are like "wait is this a tranny?". Marina also does weird pops in her singing voice reminiscent of Michael Jackson's trademark hiccup noise thing with a cool Welsh twist on it. And just when you are lulled into the velvety, sumptuous deepness of her voice Marina will surprise you by taking her vocals to a truly impressive and almost unbelievable soprano register.

Accompanying her awesome vocals are fresh composition and innovative, non-cliched lyrics. She has the ever-impressive ability to compact really big ideas into delectably concise statements, such as the apt "Hollywood" lyric, "I'm obsessed with the mess that's America". My clear favorite so far is her song called Obsessions (really cool song that strikes me as a comment on the insincerity of some relationships, relationships solely based on the indulgence of obsessions versus real mutual love, compatibility, etc, using a cool metaphor about crackers), but the close second is the delicious American campiness and 4th of July porn of the video for Hollywood. Also, her song I Am Not A Robot is pretty great. I clearly cannot get enough of her. Also clear at this point is the fact that I've just learned how to post a link in this blog. One small step for man!

Marina Diamandis is really kind of the full package- I find it hard these days to find solo female artists that don't piss me off in some way. I look forward to seeing her continue to make music and grow as an artist (I sound like a proud parent).

Moving on to more pressing issues- I've been bombarded by deep, conflicted, and philosophically revealing conversations concerning Tiger Woods. Obviously when I say I'm being bombarded I mean I'm purposely bringing it up with anyone in the three foot vicinity. I've been called out a couple of times on my point of view concerning Woods being horribly sexist (I'm okay with that). I do think, however, that Wood's indiscretions are an obnoxious flowering of the irrepressible seed of man's God Syndrome. Guys like Tiger, despite how humble their beginning are, after reaching a certain height of fame and wealth, are not satisfied with absolutely anything.

Really, nothing will do.

World: Oh Tiger, how about being arguably the most famous and highest paid contemporary athlete? Do you want to make $90 million a year from endorsements? Here's a Swedish supermodel!

Tiger: Sure! Thanks! I will take all that, while simultaneously covertly contradicting my humble, down to earth public image of a devoted family man by letting the power go straight to my head and refusing to deny myself any sort of instant gratification despite the latter urge involving horribly unsavory women and rampant terrible decision-making. Also, I will bank on the public never finding out to preserve said image/endorsements. Bye!

*three years, one wife, two kids, 89 billion dollars, and 90 million mistresses later*

Tiger: Fuck.

I'm counting down the days until he comes up with the perennial excuse that somehow for reasons that are beyond me garners sympathy from the public, that of "sex addiction". Last time I checked, Eric Benet/David Duchovny/Colin Farrell/Jude Law, that is called the "asshole disease", involving not a pathological need for intimacy resulting in unbridled promiscuity, but an inflated ego and inexhaustible ability to sleep with almost anything. I'm sure there is a legion of psychological professionals that disagree with me, and god knows they are way more informed and reliable than I am, but really, stop being a pansy and own up to the fact that you're kind of a douche bag. I think I'd respect that a lot more than a celebrity going to extremes to justify his behavior when everyone knows at least eight other guys who play that same game without needing try to excuse it. For instance, Charlie Sheen just plays it real and does him. Maybe it's my love of Two and a Half Men , but because he doesn't give a shit I can still stomach him. Also, Denise Richards is an undeniable psycho hose beast. Step one for guys would be just try not to make an ass out of yourself to begin with, but if you can't deny your inherent, insatiable desires, don't try to cry your way out of it.

I'm not trying to say that women at the top don't do anything immoral (re: Angelina Jolie's stealing of Brad Pitt, umireallycantthinkofanyoneelse,weird) but I really think men are like 84x more likely to do some stupid shit, just because they are bored enough to the point where nothing impresses or satisfies them and think they can get away with absolutely anything.

Oh Ali, you are so terribly sexist/biased/jaded/......................correct.

namesake

I create this blog in anticipation of next semester which will feature me cavorting about Europe. This has yet to really sink in and I go around saying "i'm going to florence next semester" in the same way that most people say "i think i'll have a nap". having never been to Europe, it still seems unreal. Ironically, I recently realized that by the end of this semester I will have earned a European Studies certificate. My college education has become so passive that I am literally unknowingly attaining minors in addition to my focus in English (which I also tend to forget about sometimes).

will someone explain to me the appeal of bangs that are between 1/2 and 2 inches long? Why? Among others, these thoughts plague me. Attached is the namesake of this blog, an excerpt from a really great American Indian narrative novel written by Minnesota's own Louise Erdrich.


" 'You lie,' she said. 'You're cold. There is a wicked ice forming in your blood. You don't have a shred of devotion for God. Only wild cold dark lust. I know it. I know how you feel. I see the beast... the beast watches me out of your eyes sometimes. Cold.' " -Love Medicine, Louise Erdrich