I hope that this post finds you all well on this election day. I have been to the polls and cast my first vote ever in a presidential election. I trust that all of you will get out and vote. Have fun!!!!
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Back for Gay Marriage and Elections
I hope that all of you who used to follow my blog actively have not written me off entirely. I have had my head in a number of other places, and I hope to try to keep up with the old blog again. I have updated the color scheme to new fall colors as well as adding an e-mail mailing list. If you sign up for the list I will keep you notified as I update the site. For those of you who have been checking religiously and finding no posts for many months. . . Thank you! I will do my best to offer more frequent musings from here on out.
Below I have posted an article from todays NY Times. As we sweep forward toward what seems to be a very tense election day, I have had the gay marriage issue on my mind a lot. I currently have no intention of getting married, nor is it something that I had envisioned in the near future. I do feel very passionately about my concerns in this issue.
Marriage is typically defined as a union between a man and woman, and even Webster's Dictionary uses that in the language of the first two definitions. The third Webster account is the one I like best "marriage- an intimate or close union." Our current president has made it abundantly clear what lengths he would go to stop the liberalization of the definition of marriage. The problem I see first is that saying he will ammend The Constitution to stop gay marriage implies that stopping gay marriage is unconstitutional. It says "I will change the language of the principles that founded this nation, to fit what I think is right." I think that the support of a constitutional ammendment is scary.
The conservative response for the demand of gay marriage is a loosely defined compromise for "partner rights." The problem legally is that as long as it is called something different than the union straight people have, it can be treated differently in litigation. Partner rights still means limited rights. So when I hear politicians say that they "take no issue with gay unions, but that it shouldn't be called marriage", it starts to sound like Orwell's 'Animal Farm' to me. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Even John Kerry has taken a very safe "love the sinner not the sin" sort of stance on the issue. His interview with the HRC (an organization which lobbies for gay rights) seems to have a pretty supportive tone, but when I watched the final debate I felt glossed over and let down. His record of support for gay issues is so much better than Mr. Bush's record that it seems like he doesn't need to fight for our vote. I sort of wish that "our candidate" would show up.
What Kerry actually said bout gay marriage is this:
"The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.
You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth."
I have to wonder if as a lawayer he could have overlooked the loopholes that are created by calling it Partnership Rights. To me it seems like a way of appeasing the people that want to get married while simultaneously making them second class citizens. I have to agree with Margaret Cho "that any nation that would deny a gay man the right to bridal registry is a fascist state."
Below I have posted an article from todays NY Times. As we sweep forward toward what seems to be a very tense election day, I have had the gay marriage issue on my mind a lot. I currently have no intention of getting married, nor is it something that I had envisioned in the near future. I do feel very passionately about my concerns in this issue.
Marriage is typically defined as a union between a man and woman, and even Webster's Dictionary uses that in the language of the first two definitions. The third Webster account is the one I like best "marriage- an intimate or close union." Our current president has made it abundantly clear what lengths he would go to stop the liberalization of the definition of marriage. The problem I see first is that saying he will ammend The Constitution to stop gay marriage implies that stopping gay marriage is unconstitutional. It says "I will change the language of the principles that founded this nation, to fit what I think is right." I think that the support of a constitutional ammendment is scary.
The conservative response for the demand of gay marriage is a loosely defined compromise for "partner rights." The problem legally is that as long as it is called something different than the union straight people have, it can be treated differently in litigation. Partner rights still means limited rights. So when I hear politicians say that they "take no issue with gay unions, but that it shouldn't be called marriage", it starts to sound like Orwell's 'Animal Farm' to me. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Even John Kerry has taken a very safe "love the sinner not the sin" sort of stance on the issue. His interview with the HRC (an organization which lobbies for gay rights) seems to have a pretty supportive tone, but when I watched the final debate I felt glossed over and let down. His record of support for gay issues is so much better than Mr. Bush's record that it seems like he doesn't need to fight for our vote. I sort of wish that "our candidate" would show up.
What Kerry actually said bout gay marriage is this:
"The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.
You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth."
I have to wonder if as a lawayer he could have overlooked the loopholes that are created by calling it Partnership Rights. To me it seems like a way of appeasing the people that want to get married while simultaneously making them second class citizens. I have to agree with Margaret Cho "that any nation that would deny a gay man the right to bridal registry is a fascist state."
Great Article
God and Sex
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NY Times 10-23-04
So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof?
That seems implicit in the measures opposing gay marriage on the ballots of 11 states. All may pass; Oregon is the only state where the outcome seems uncertain.
Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America - as when a Texas governor, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us."
I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.
Some scholars, like Daniel Helminiak, author of "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don't really buy that.
It's true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology," it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.
In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters.
Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). While homosexuality never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).
As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts ("do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth").
Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration.
Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan.
In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.
The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.
A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in "unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.
In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then move on to barring gay marriages.)
Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasize the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone," and allow gay lovers to marry.
Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best "to remain unmarried as I am." So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NY Times 10-23-04
So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof?
That seems implicit in the measures opposing gay marriage on the ballots of 11 states. All may pass; Oregon is the only state where the outcome seems uncertain.
Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America - as when a Texas governor, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us."
I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.
Some scholars, like Daniel Helminiak, author of "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don't really buy that.
It's true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology," it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.
In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters.
Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). While homosexuality never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).
As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts ("do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth").
Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration.
Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan.
In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.
The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.
A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in "unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.
In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then move on to barring gay marriages.)
Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasize the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone," and allow gay lovers to marry.
Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best "to remain unmarried as I am." So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?
Monday, May 03, 2004
Secret
The modern condition of the human race is such a disorienting place to be that sometimes I forget how marvelous every moment of breath can be. What ever spiritual or scientific explanation you choose to hold on to, you arrive in this world. And so before we even draw our first breath of oxygen every single cell of our body knows what it is to do. The mission is survival. Every fiber and sinew in our glorious bodies stretches and pumps and processes to keep us living. Our purpose on this planet is to live. If you happen to find joy in the doing, then you have truly unlocked the secrets of the ages. And should you find love, even the tiniest bit of love. . . then even the secrets of the universe seem to lose their luster.
I've got a secret. I am filthy rich with love.
I've got a secret. I am filthy rich with love.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Anniversary
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Nuyorican Poets Cafe
The announcer spoke: "You may have been to some of these copy cat poetry houses, but this is the real McCoy. The Nuyorican is to poetry, what Yankee Stadium is to Baseball, What Madison Square Garden is to Boxing. This is where it all happens"
Here I was again about to slam at one of the most life defining places one can ever read their poetry. The last time I had read here, I did not get the warmest of receptions. This time was different. The pool of poetic talent ran deep and rich. I saw what will arguably be called in my old age some of the best minds of my generation read. I placed second in round one and came in third in the finals. There just may be some hope for the NY slam team in my future after all.
Here I was again about to slam at one of the most life defining places one can ever read their poetry. The last time I had read here, I did not get the warmest of receptions. This time was different. The pool of poetic talent ran deep and rich. I saw what will arguably be called in my old age some of the best minds of my generation read. I placed second in round one and came in third in the finals. There just may be some hope for the NY slam team in my future after all.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Object Relations
Greetings Blogonauts!
I have officially moved. My internet is working and I have cable again. Awesome! On a side note- if your cable company offers a DVR box for as nominal of a fee as ours and you haven't ordered it yet you are crazy. I am no longer at the mercy of the schedule. I will watch American Idol when I damn well please.
So moving was AWFUL!!!!! I don't think there is a more humiliating, grueling, torturous experience available to the modern homo-sapien. I hemoraged money I don't have. I fell down a set of stairs. I poured over the contents of my life, and I'm still trying to sort stuff out here on the other end. I have had a brief haulting illness, but thanks to the miracles of cultured molds- I am well and kickin'.
Moving got me to thinking about Object Relations. The part of psychology that says we develope the way we do because of our experience of and therefore relationship to objects. I suppose that moving is like analyzing each echoe of these experiences. There is something oddly cleansing that happened for me. My old house held a lot of history for me. Including the last bits of my addiction- which were the darkest. I tried like hell to use this jarring rite of passage as a sort of skin-shed. I made an effort to analyze the objects I had in terms of purpose and sentiment. It turns out that there were literally hundreds of effects that had at one time or another seemed personally meaningful that really were just junk. As I packed endless boxes and filled bags of trash I took a journey that started with my move from Denver.
My time in New York has been such a wild ride. I have learned a lot about who I am, and have made a great deal of improvement on who that is. So I paired down the keepsakes of a fading childhood, of mis-fired love missiles, the mementos of days which left marks and rotting roots that still reach west. I picked through the touchstones of people I have lost and of people I still hold close. I stopped through moments of my life frozen in the photographic image. I came face to face with the voration of my own consumerism. I took an inventory of the objects that have turned my development to the course it is on, and I put it all in boxes.
I am officially a resident of NYC. The subway is right there. The objects I kept and moved are mine, they are me, and now I am set to the process of erecting my new life here. What an awesome step. I was terrified of making this move because I was so comfortable in my old environment. Now I am smittened with the new neighborhood, and the seemingly limitless possibilities that lie at my public transportable feet. The dogs are mesmerized with being city dogs, and all habits seem healthier on their parts. I don't think they have any idea why we take part of our morning walk in the car, I just can't explain alternate side parking to them somehow.
I am feeling hopeful, and unburdened. Comfort is a tricky little thing. A friend of mine works in therapy and believes that as soon as she gets comfortable in a job she has served that situation all that she can. I suppose Long Beach served me all that it could. I think that 2004 will be the start of great things.
I have officially moved. My internet is working and I have cable again. Awesome! On a side note- if your cable company offers a DVR box for as nominal of a fee as ours and you haven't ordered it yet you are crazy. I am no longer at the mercy of the schedule. I will watch American Idol when I damn well please.
So moving was AWFUL!!!!! I don't think there is a more humiliating, grueling, torturous experience available to the modern homo-sapien. I hemoraged money I don't have. I fell down a set of stairs. I poured over the contents of my life, and I'm still trying to sort stuff out here on the other end. I have had a brief haulting illness, but thanks to the miracles of cultured molds- I am well and kickin'.
Moving got me to thinking about Object Relations. The part of psychology that says we develope the way we do because of our experience of and therefore relationship to objects. I suppose that moving is like analyzing each echoe of these experiences. There is something oddly cleansing that happened for me. My old house held a lot of history for me. Including the last bits of my addiction- which were the darkest. I tried like hell to use this jarring rite of passage as a sort of skin-shed. I made an effort to analyze the objects I had in terms of purpose and sentiment. It turns out that there were literally hundreds of effects that had at one time or another seemed personally meaningful that really were just junk. As I packed endless boxes and filled bags of trash I took a journey that started with my move from Denver.
My time in New York has been such a wild ride. I have learned a lot about who I am, and have made a great deal of improvement on who that is. So I paired down the keepsakes of a fading childhood, of mis-fired love missiles, the mementos of days which left marks and rotting roots that still reach west. I picked through the touchstones of people I have lost and of people I still hold close. I stopped through moments of my life frozen in the photographic image. I came face to face with the voration of my own consumerism. I took an inventory of the objects that have turned my development to the course it is on, and I put it all in boxes.
I am officially a resident of NYC. The subway is right there. The objects I kept and moved are mine, they are me, and now I am set to the process of erecting my new life here. What an awesome step. I was terrified of making this move because I was so comfortable in my old environment. Now I am smittened with the new neighborhood, and the seemingly limitless possibilities that lie at my public transportable feet. The dogs are mesmerized with being city dogs, and all habits seem healthier on their parts. I don't think they have any idea why we take part of our morning walk in the car, I just can't explain alternate side parking to them somehow.
I am feeling hopeful, and unburdened. Comfort is a tricky little thing. A friend of mine works in therapy and believes that as soon as she gets comfortable in a job she has served that situation all that she can. I suppose Long Beach served me all that it could. I think that 2004 will be the start of great things.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Craaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzy
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Backstage.com
Our humble little company seems to be getting a good deal of attention rather quickly here in NYC. I'm so thankful to be a part of something that's got the theatre press buzzing.
Check out the article:
Backstage.com
In the meantime. I am officially a NYC resident. We have signed a lease, picked up keys, and we're shipping off to Queens on Wednesday. I will probably be away from the blog for a WHILE. Look for me from my new home in mid Feb.
Best wishes all!
Check out the article:
Backstage.com
In the meantime. I am officially a NYC resident. We have signed a lease, picked up keys, and we're shipping off to Queens on Wednesday. I will probably be away from the blog for a WHILE. Look for me from my new home in mid Feb.
Best wishes all!
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Unidentified Human Remains...
Unidentified Human Remains...
"Oberon Theatre Ensemble's revival of Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love is revelatory."
"The cast is exemplary."
"WT McRae is engaging and disarmingly youthful as Kane."
Another Opinion is in! I Can't believe this one!!!!! They Love Me The Really Really Love ME!
"Oberon Theatre Ensemble's revival of Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love is revelatory."
"The cast is exemplary."
"WT McRae is engaging and disarmingly youthful as Kane."
Another Opinion is in! I Can't believe this one!!!!! They Love Me The Really Really Love ME!
Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love
Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love
Here it is! My first actual NY theatre review. I think that this fellows opinions are uneven, but he seemed to enjoy me which I like. So the headline reads:
OOBR calls WT's performance "convincing and interesting. . .genuine and heartfelt."
I'll take it.
Here it is! My first actual NY theatre review. I think that this fellows opinions are uneven, but he seemed to enjoy me which I like. So the headline reads:
OOBR calls WT's performance "convincing and interesting. . .genuine and heartfelt."
I'll take it.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Cheeseburger Side of Karma
So lately I've noticed that I tend to seek the same kind of immediacy I have been trained to expect from not only fast food and high speed internet access, but from karmic justice. I find myself thinking things like: "I let those people in on the way over, maybe I'll get a good parking spot." or "Why is this happening?. . .I've been nice to everyone since lunch." I caught myself doing it yesterday and had a good laugh at my own expence. I think that karma is probably more relative. People that lead good lives, who make the effort all the time probably do get rewarded. I suppose if you are really understanding karma, then the bad stuff is part of it too. One who is really respecting the universe would look at the misfortunes as blessings because they bring lessons with them. Look at that! I'm still not as evolved as I'd like to think I am. OH well! Can I get a large humility with that?
Friday, January 16, 2004
Opening Night
OK!
An arduous process has come to an end. The set is up, the lights- hung and focused, sound cues ready and the whole project is in place. I haven't really slept in a week, and my toes may very well be frost bitten. NY is so cold I can't think straight. The puppies still pretend they want to be outside, but when they get snow between their little pads they can't take it and we come in. I am very excited to see what an audience thinks of this show. The piece is crazy! Nakedness and all. Tonight my rump will make its off-off Broadway debut. All I need is 2 ons and some pants.
An arduous process has come to an end. The set is up, the lights- hung and focused, sound cues ready and the whole project is in place. I haven't really slept in a week, and my toes may very well be frost bitten. NY is so cold I can't think straight. The puppies still pretend they want to be outside, but when they get snow between their little pads they can't take it and we come in. I am very excited to see what an audience thinks of this show. The piece is crazy! Nakedness and all. Tonight my rump will make its off-off Broadway debut. All I need is 2 ons and some pants.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Insanity
At Last! Insanity has been restored and life has returned to a post holiday roar. The season passed without a terrifying disaster and here we are. Mom and Dad landed in safety this evening back in Denver while I was in the midst of a somewhat terrifying Act II stumble through. For those of you who are unfamiliar:
Stumble Through- The exhilerating and often disastrous moment at which all of the individually crafted pieces of a play are put together for the first time, and the connective tissue (or lack there of) is discovered.
Tomorrow we begin running the entire show. I think it's going to be good. I sure am enjoying the work. Also tomorrow, begins the search for a new place to live. BA BA BUM. . .
Here is the link to: Our Show
Stumble Through- The exhilerating and often disastrous moment at which all of the individually crafted pieces of a play are put together for the first time, and the connective tissue (or lack there of) is discovered.
Tomorrow we begin running the entire show. I think it's going to be good. I sure am enjoying the work. Also tomorrow, begins the search for a new place to live. BA BA BUM. . .
Here is the link to: Our Show
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)