Lately, I have been obsessed with a YouTube video that shows a 10-year-old girl named Maria singing Lady Gaga's brand new single "Born This Way." Maria slows the song down and accompanies it with the piano, and her voice is incredible. And I love this song, so it just makes it that much better! Recently, Lady Gaga made a surprise appearance on a radio talk show to talk to Maria about the YouTube video, saying that she fully supports the young singer and even invited Maria to come sing on the stage with her at her concert in Toronto. However, the interesting result of this is that Gaga's endorsement of 10-year-old Maria has garnered much criticism from the gay community, and that news was one of the things in my Google Alerts this week. Here's their complaint: Maria omits a certain line from "Born This Way" in her version of the song. The line is "No matter gay, straight, or bi/Lesbian transgendered life/I'm on the right track baby/I was born this way". The blog that I looked at says that one of Lady Gaga's biggest fan groups, gays and lesbians, is turning against her in some instances because of this. They say that she is more concerned with publicity than gay rights, calling her hypocritical. I think this is so interesting, not just because I love this particular YouTube video but because I also wondered the same thing when I first saw the video. I thought, "She has to know that some of her lyrics are missing...". People are in so much uproar about Gaga praising a version of her song that cuts out "the most important lyric". I can definitely see where the criticizers are coming from, but I don't think that Lady Gaga endorsing a little 10-year-old girl should cause this much uproar and outrage from the gay community. (http://www.suite101.com/content/gays-turn-against--lady-gaga-a350396)
"Mark down Wednesday, February 23, 2011, as a crucial turning point in the movement toward equality for all Americans." That's a pretty powerful statement, and that's the exact sentence that began an article in the online San Diego Gay & Lesbian News. So what happened on this fateful day? The Obama Administration said it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as constitutional. Jon Davidson, quoted in the article, called this a monumental moment. I think this is pretty cool, as it is the first piece of news since I started this blog that has really gotten the gay community and gay rights movement excited and energized in a big way. This is definitely a victory around the nation! (http://sdgln.com/news/2011/02/24/change-heart-doma-marks-historical-moment-gay-rights)
On another note, in Kansas this week, a student published a column in his high school's newspaper about how same-sex relationships "just are not normal" and even quoting a Bible verse saying that people involved in gay or lesbian relationships shall be put to death. The article is coming under fire, with arguments from both sides of the controversy. I think that this article went too far and should not have been published. I thought that our school systems were past this by now, as it is clear that this is a form of hate speech, whether the student realizes it or not.
(http://www.kansas.com/2011/02/23/1732068/anti-gay-column-in-east-high-newspaper.html)
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
2/18/11
This week, there were many of the typical stories of celebrities endorsing gay marriage, but there was also a unique happening that you don't hear of very often when it comes to gay rights: on Valentine's Day on Monday of this week, there was a flash mob in support of gay marriage at the Iowa Statehouse. Out of nowhere, people started dancing to "All You Need is Love" by the Beatles in order to "deliver a message of love." This comes just two weeks after the Republican-controlled Iowa House approved a bill that seeks to add an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that bans any legal recognition of same-sex couples, including marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. I wanted to include this here because it's a change and something new. I love flash mobs, and I think it's cool to see that people are willing to just come out in a peaceful way in support of love and gay rights. It's nowhere near an image event, but the flash mob will probably get coverage in the local area where it took place and make people think about something new on Valentine's Day (http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7571&MediaType=1&Category=26).
Also on Valentine's Day across the nation, people from Marriage Equality USA, GetEQUAL, and Equality Action Now banded together to request marriage licenses from courthouses and county clerks' offices. Everyone knew they were going to get turned away, but it was the spirit of all these people gathering together on a day of love that was so inspiring. One person said, "marriage is a civil right, not a heterosexual privilege" (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/14/3400903/gay-marriage-advocates-make-push.html) and (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-rights-advocates-renew-push-sex-marriage-valentines/story?id=12911051)
Lawmakers in Hawaii passed a bill giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual married partners. It was an 18-5 vote from the Senate in favor! The bill must now be signed into law by governor Neil Abercrombie. The bill "extends the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union." It's not exactly gay marriage, but it's definitely a step, and this story especially means a lot to me because I grew up in Hawaii.
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gk0eQ8pzINpsUFY919Ms9C1RjHng?docId=CNG.68e525354daffd868eac000986513f10.221).
In Maryland, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted 7-4 in support of recognizing same-sex marriage. The legislation now goes to the full Senate for debate next week, and it is expected to be a heated and long debate. (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/02/senate_committee_backs_gay_mar.html).
Also on Valentine's Day across the nation, people from Marriage Equality USA, GetEQUAL, and Equality Action Now banded together to request marriage licenses from courthouses and county clerks' offices. Everyone knew they were going to get turned away, but it was the spirit of all these people gathering together on a day of love that was so inspiring. One person said, "marriage is a civil right, not a heterosexual privilege" (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/14/3400903/gay-marriage-advocates-make-push.html) and (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-rights-advocates-renew-push-sex-marriage-valentines/story?id=12911051)
Lawmakers in Hawaii passed a bill giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual married partners. It was an 18-5 vote from the Senate in favor! The bill must now be signed into law by governor Neil Abercrombie. The bill "extends the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union." It's not exactly gay marriage, but it's definitely a step, and this story especially means a lot to me because I grew up in Hawaii.
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gk0eQ8pzINpsUFY919Ms9C1RjHng?docId=CNG.68e525354daffd868eac000986513f10.221).
In Maryland, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted 7-4 in support of recognizing same-sex marriage. The legislation now goes to the full Senate for debate next week, and it is expected to be a heated and long debate. (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/02/senate_committee_backs_gay_mar.html).
Saturday, February 12, 2011
2/11/11
I got about 15 Google Alert emails about my social movement this week. AKA way more than I could ever write about. This definitely represents a shift from other weeks, as I have only gotten about 5 emails per week in the past. I don't think that this increase really has anything to do with one particular event happening, but for some reason everyone has decided to write about gay rights this week. I picked the ones that stood out to me:
This weekend, Valentine's Day weekend, the Reverend Billy and the "Church of Life After Shopping" will hold their second annual un-marriage ceremony for straight married couples who support gay marriage. This will occur in Central Park in New York City, and will include the couples getting "un-married," in support of the "no marriage until gay marriage" stance that many have taken on, such as Jason Mraz and Brangelina. The articles says that the purpose of this is to hold New York governor Cuomo to his promise: "I want to be the governor who signs the law that makes equality a reality in the state of New York" (http://www.revbilly.com/events/unmarriage-until-gaymarriage-2011). I found this interesting because I'm pretty sure this constitutes an image event. It's happening in a very popular and visible place and will undoubtedly be controversial and garner media attention. The only problem with this is that it most likely won't act as a mind bomb--most people are already aware of the "no marriage until gay marriage" stance because of its popularity among celebrities.
Another piece of news that I thought was very unique was about a 7-year-old boy named Malcolm who sent $70 to the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, along with a note that read: "I am sending you this money because I don't think it's fair that gay people are not treated equally" (http://www.passportmagazine.com/blog/archives/2328-Seven-Year-Old-Boy-Stands-Up-For-Gay-Rights.html). The article includes a precious picture of Malcolm and a picture of the actual note that he wrote. This event, although not an image event, definitely constitutes a visual argument, like we read about in Friday's reading. Seeing the boy's face and the picture of his 7-year-old handwriting writing about gay rights at such a young age will definitely hit people and make them think.
The last thing I'm going to talk about is an opinion article by Thomas Hale, a gay man who professes to be "saddened and angered by the state of gay rights in America," particularly the rate at which it has been progressing. Reading this article, I assumed it was written by an older person for some reason, but Thomas Hale is actually a freshman at Texas Christian University. I was very impressed with the article he wrote, and he even included, in his last paragraph, an allusion to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech. I won't summarize the entire article, because it basically just refutes a bunch of anti-gay arguments; one line in it article provides a good summary: "I fully support Democratic Iowa state Rep. Bruce Hunter, who said, 'Here's the funny thing about rights--they're not supposed to be voted on.'" I thought this article conveyed a very frustrated tone in the beginning, and ended with a hopeful tone. There have been both successes and setbacks in the gay rights movement, but big changes are much rarer. Hale mentions that the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was one of those big changes. But they need to happen much more often. (http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/opinion/gay-rights-progress-too-slowly-1.2461575?MMode=true)
This weekend, Valentine's Day weekend, the Reverend Billy and the "Church of Life After Shopping" will hold their second annual un-marriage ceremony for straight married couples who support gay marriage. This will occur in Central Park in New York City, and will include the couples getting "un-married," in support of the "no marriage until gay marriage" stance that many have taken on, such as Jason Mraz and Brangelina. The articles says that the purpose of this is to hold New York governor Cuomo to his promise: "I want to be the governor who signs the law that makes equality a reality in the state of New York" (http://www.revbilly.com/events/unmarriage-until-gaymarriage-2011). I found this interesting because I'm pretty sure this constitutes an image event. It's happening in a very popular and visible place and will undoubtedly be controversial and garner media attention. The only problem with this is that it most likely won't act as a mind bomb--most people are already aware of the "no marriage until gay marriage" stance because of its popularity among celebrities.
Another piece of news that I thought was very unique was about a 7-year-old boy named Malcolm who sent $70 to the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, along with a note that read: "I am sending you this money because I don't think it's fair that gay people are not treated equally" (http://www.passportmagazine.com/blog/archives/2328-Seven-Year-Old-Boy-Stands-Up-For-Gay-Rights.html). The article includes a precious picture of Malcolm and a picture of the actual note that he wrote. This event, although not an image event, definitely constitutes a visual argument, like we read about in Friday's reading. Seeing the boy's face and the picture of his 7-year-old handwriting writing about gay rights at such a young age will definitely hit people and make them think.
The last thing I'm going to talk about is an opinion article by Thomas Hale, a gay man who professes to be "saddened and angered by the state of gay rights in America," particularly the rate at which it has been progressing. Reading this article, I assumed it was written by an older person for some reason, but Thomas Hale is actually a freshman at Texas Christian University. I was very impressed with the article he wrote, and he even included, in his last paragraph, an allusion to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech. I won't summarize the entire article, because it basically just refutes a bunch of anti-gay arguments; one line in it article provides a good summary: "I fully support Democratic Iowa state Rep. Bruce Hunter, who said, 'Here's the funny thing about rights--they're not supposed to be voted on.'" I thought this article conveyed a very frustrated tone in the beginning, and ended with a hopeful tone. There have been both successes and setbacks in the gay rights movement, but big changes are much rarer. Hale mentions that the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was one of those big changes. But they need to happen much more often. (http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/opinion/gay-rights-progress-too-slowly-1.2461575?MMode=true)
Thursday, February 3, 2011
2/4/11
This week, I added the term "gay rights" to my Google Alerts, but I didn't get as many hits as I did for "gay marriage." I think this is because gay marriage has recently been such a hot-button topic and issue, more so than the more general "gay rights."
One of the big pieces of news this week (well, not necessarily big, but big in the gay rights world I think) was that Utah State Senate Minority Leader Ross Romero said in a YouTube video that gay rights is the civil rights challenge of our generation. Romero said this on Human Rights Day, and his purpose is to prevent suicide in the gay community. Some of his remarks were: "Remember, you are not alone and it gets better." (http://qsaltlake.com/2011/02/03/romero-gay-rights-the-‘civil-rights-challenge-of-our-generation’/) While not making an 'argument,' per say, Romero calls on specific people (the Utah governor and other legislative leaders) to join him in his effort to stop suicide among gay teens. This relates to the ad we looked at in class for wecansolveit.org. The We Can Solve It ad partly uses an innovative argument by saying that it's time for Americans to come together to fight climate change. I think that Romero's comments fall under this category as well: he has a nagging dissatisfaction with the existing order of inequality but yet faith in underlying norms and values.
I also found an op-ed article in The Baltimore Sun online which gave reasons for opposing gay marriage. The article's main question: Do children matter in Maryland? The author bases his entire stance that marriage should be left for a man and a woman off of this one question. The author argues that gay marriage has nothing to do with equality or even sexual orientation. Instead, the author argues, the issue is about whether "the birth and nurture of children remains a priority in this state." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-same-sex-marriage-20110201%2C0%2C2030527.story). The response, published in the same online newspaper, says that "nothing could better expose the utter emptiness of the anti-gay marriage position." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-gay-marriage-letter-20110203,0,3576861.story)
Although this is nothing groundbreaking and the original op-ed's argument was obviously very old and weak and easy to refute, I found it interesting that this argument is still being made as if it's new and that a counter-article was written in the same paper in direct response. The original op-ed definitely uses a Retentive argument, because he says in the beginning of the article that everything could take a turn for the worst if Maryland decides to "radically change" the definition of marriage in the state. The author wants things to stay how they are.
One of the big pieces of news this week (well, not necessarily big, but big in the gay rights world I think) was that Utah State Senate Minority Leader Ross Romero said in a YouTube video that gay rights is the civil rights challenge of our generation. Romero said this on Human Rights Day, and his purpose is to prevent suicide in the gay community. Some of his remarks were: "Remember, you are not alone and it gets better." (http://qsaltlake.com/2011/02/03/romero-gay-rights-the-‘civil-rights-challenge-of-our-generation’/) While not making an 'argument,' per say, Romero calls on specific people (the Utah governor and other legislative leaders) to join him in his effort to stop suicide among gay teens. This relates to the ad we looked at in class for wecansolveit.org. The We Can Solve It ad partly uses an innovative argument by saying that it's time for Americans to come together to fight climate change. I think that Romero's comments fall under this category as well: he has a nagging dissatisfaction with the existing order of inequality but yet faith in underlying norms and values.
I also found an op-ed article in The Baltimore Sun online which gave reasons for opposing gay marriage. The article's main question: Do children matter in Maryland? The author bases his entire stance that marriage should be left for a man and a woman off of this one question. The author argues that gay marriage has nothing to do with equality or even sexual orientation. Instead, the author argues, the issue is about whether "the birth and nurture of children remains a priority in this state." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-same-sex-marriage-20110201%2C0%2C2030527.story). The response, published in the same online newspaper, says that "nothing could better expose the utter emptiness of the anti-gay marriage position." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-gay-marriage-letter-20110203,0,3576861.story)
Although this is nothing groundbreaking and the original op-ed's argument was obviously very old and weak and easy to refute, I found it interesting that this argument is still being made as if it's new and that a counter-article was written in the same paper in direct response. The original op-ed definitely uses a Retentive argument, because he says in the beginning of the article that everything could take a turn for the worst if Maryland decides to "radically change" the definition of marriage in the state. The author wants things to stay how they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)