The Ryan Thomas Collection

The time is now!

With just about eight days until election day, California’s Prop 8 continues to look more neck in neck than ever. Equal rights organizations up and down the state are depleting their saving funds to fight this. However, with fruitful contributions, Yes on 8′s funds are huge. The final push to get “No on Prop 8″ commercials flooding TV is vital.

The most recent No on Prop 8 commercial featuring California’s Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, fighting back against Yes on 8′s use of schools. It’s extremely important that this ad get out on television and inform California voters of the lies proponents of Prop 8 are telling.

I decided that with eight days before the election it was time to start the 8-8-8 Movement for No on Prop 8. What does this movement entail…three basic steps:

1) Tell EIGHT Californian voters to vote no on California Prop 8 and inform them on why. Ensure they know that a NO vote on Prop 8 means they support equal marriages rights for all Californians. It’s this confusion that is getting a lot of voters. Ask them to tell EIGHT people to vote NO and why.

2) Donate $8 or more to “No on Prop 8″ to flood televisions with vital ads, days before the election. Donations can be made via www.actblue.com/page/8-8-8-movement, which is the page I set up to collect funds.

This site is secure and the www.noonProp8.com official donation solution. $8 is one less martini on Friday night. One less lunch out during the week. The benefit could be equal standing under California law for all and hopefully a move eastward for such actions throughout the nation!

3) If you are a Californian voter, VOTE NO ON CALIFORNIA PROP 8, next Tuesday.

Here is the newest commercial that is helping spread the truth:

 

Now that the logistics of the “8-8-8 Movement” have been discussed, it is time to get into the real facts that can be used to counter various arguments “Yes on 8″ and ProtectMarriage.com are using:

THE MARRIAGE in CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS ISSUE

Proponents of Prop 8 have used Massachusettes’ education system as the backbone of their argument against same-sex marriage. There is a case in Massachusetts where two parents sued because same sex marriage was taught to their son in first grade, without their knowledge or consent, through the use of the book, “King and King.” Proponents of Prop 8 insist that this will happen in California and this is where the issue gets twisted and reconfigured by this group.

Prop 8 has no explicit mention of education in its text. It is important to recognize a few important aspects of California’s educational code that not only make the Massachusetts case inapplicable, but make the entire education issue a non-issue and “Yes on 8′s” use of children even more deplorable.

1) California’s education code already teaches tolerance of gay and lesbians as means of combating discrimination and violence against gay/lesbian students and staff. This occurred prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage in May, 2008. California schools have been informing students about gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years now. The important aspect of this California code is that the state does not determine how these issues are presented to students. This right is reserved for the local level. Marriage, whether gay or straight, does not fall into this discussion.

2) Numerous schools already use “King and King” in their curriculum as means of explaining the issue of homosexuality in schools, not specific to marriage. This had become a part of the curriculum for numerous reasons, but most importantly, according to school district lawyer, Laura Schulkind explains:

“The education code already has a high expectation that school districts are going to create an environment where respect for human dignity and acceptance of differences, including sexual orientation, are promoted. I don’t see how the legalization of gay marriage or the passage of Prop. 8 changes that obligation”

This again is not in regards to marriage between any two individuals. It specifically deals with teaching respect for all different people, not how they marry.

3) Marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, is specifically taught in conjunction with sex education. Parents are informed about sex education and are empowered to remove their children from such classes, if desired. Additionally, the right to decide how sex education is taught in California schools is again afforded to the local district. Students in different districts are taught sex education differently, based on how the locals prefer it.

4) The Associated Press quoted one kindergarten teacher, Wendy Robertson, saying no one has told her to teach marriage to her pupils in her 17 years of teaching. Voting no on Prop 8 will not change this.

THE IDEA OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL

Proponents of Prop 8 have put the face of children as their argument, utilizing their innocence for political means. Not to feed into this type of action, but to simply combat it, we must think of things differently. There are an estimated 52,000 children in California living in a same-sex household, not to mention the thousands of children being raised in an unconventional household, such as a single parent home. These are situations where there is not one mother and one father, which proponents insist is the best way to raise a child and same-sex marriage will work against that.

There are already 52,000 or more children in homes with same-sex partners and they will continue to live in that household whether or not Prop 8 passes. Don’t those children deserve the right to have their parents receive all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage that the straight parents of their playground friends enjoy. Doesn’t that child’s home life deserve the right to be included in teachings, rather than ostracized? Should Prop 8 pass, the discrimination that would take place in the California Constitutuion could find its way onto the playground where that child is trying to learn and grow.

Proponents of Prop 8 are using children to fight their fight, but in doing so, they are excluding a large portion of children. Essentially, these proponents are stratifying their children into a higher status level than children of same-sex parents. Amending California’s constitution to keep marriage between a man of woman, not only creates varying status groups for same sex and heterosexual couples, it essentially forces the children of these couples (whether they be gay or straight) into two strata.

What needs to be taken away here is that when a certain status is not denied to one class of people, the inequality effects everyone, whether it be directly or indirectly. This is why the Constitution’s equal protection clause is vital and must be upheld. This is why the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in May of this year. Separate, but equal is not equal and it effects EVERYONE, one way or another.

Civil rights and equality granted on a race level, in the 50s and 60s, have allowed us to have a great African-American presidential candidate, who is poised to win. Whether or not you’re voting for Obama, one most recognize the fact that he is a huge contender, despite his race, and this is a direct result of civil rights and equality laws being established forty years ago. Equality for all raises all ships. 

GO TELL 8 PEOPLE TO VOTE NO ON PROP 8! Let the truth be known and let “EQUALITY RING.”

TAKE ACTION & DONATE: www.actblue.com/page/8-8-8-movement

GET INFORMED: www.noonProp8.com

Popularity: 6% [?]

Quietly sitting in my apartment, I began to hear a chant from my window coming from a couple blocks away. Unable to make out the chant, I ventured out and found a protest outside KFC. Protesters, with painted faces calling for a boycott, filled the corner surrounding the local KFC. I spoke to one of the protesters and was told that major suppliers of chicken to KFC are torturing animals in a quest to mass produce chicken products for Colonel Sanders. The less than comfortable settings for animals on factory farms is nothing new. California Prop 2 attempts to set higher standards for farms in the state to help promote healthier production than those that KFC’s suppliers are accused of maintaining. Prop 2 focuses more on egg laying hens, than chicken meat farms. However, a step for California in this direction of healthier food production is the right step for food production and a reduction in animal cruelty.

According to the Kentucky Fried Cruelty movement, these farms feed chickens drugs that force them to grow so fast their increased weight cannot be supported by their own legs, forcing many legs to break. Careless workers often break the wings of chickens whilst throwing them into new cages, with some workers being caught “throwing them around like footballs.” Additional research has found that many chickens are still alive when thrown into boiling hot water to remove feathers.

Now, PETA is the promoter of the KFC boycott, and sometimes this group is rather intense in their efforts. Additionally, it is easy to believe this organization over exaggerates their claims. Such claims include that KFC’s suppliers actually cut off chicken beaks at birth so they do not peck. A result is that their natural instincts are not allowed to take shape. PETA has asked KFC to make efforts and changes to stop these actions, but nothing has been done. Based on literature, the call is not to stop eating meat (though the PETA page heavily promotes going vegetarian), it is simply asking a large chain of restaurants to use its power of purchase to change supplier ways.

Below is a video of the protest outside my local KFC and you may see it soon at yours. Additionally, a video, with Pamela Anderson, describes PETA’s findings on KFC’s suppliers. It is true that other suppliers of other animal products may participate and provide products to other chains or even supermarkets that you or I shop at. KFC is the one in the PETA hot seat at the moment. I don’t usually choose KFC as my choice fast food, but now there is no choice.

(www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com)

Popularity: 9% [?]

Chelsea Handler is a great comedian and her late night program, “Chelsea Lately” on E! is always good for a laugh. Chelsea has an assistant, Chuy, who is a little person and often the two do little segments for their show. The clip below plays off Chuy’s status as a little person to make a political point, discrimination is wrong.

Chelsea has been an advocate for equal rights and voting No on Prop 8. Like most comedians, she is intelligent and thoughtful, using humor to get the point across. The skit not only promotes voting no on Prop 8, it also indirectly plays off this idea of teaching “gay marriage” to small children. Even though defeating Prop 8 does not mean same-sex marriage will be taught in school, the skit makes one think that maybe parents should be discussing the issue with their kids a bit earlier in life, so that it’s not such a big deal. Anyway…have a laugh and enjoy the creativity Prop 8 is fueling and tell everyone you know, “NO ON 8.”

Donate and help get “No on Porp 8″ commercials on TV during the last days before the election: www.NoOnProp8.com

Popularity: 9% [?]

Cyndi Lauper appeared on BBC’s “Graham Norton” show this month (shown on BBC America this weekend) and showed that she is still as cool as ever. She is a well grounded musician that has taken numerous chances, including leaving her major record label in the 90s to independently produce music. Viewing her interview on Graham’s show, Cyndi continues to be real and very candid. Her commentary on the current Presidential race was comical as she mentioned that Sarah Palin doesn’t have time to study for her interviews with Katie Couric because she’s spending all of her time shooting moose and the last polar bears from her front door. She went on to say, “It’s like, “She has nice legs and I like those glasses. I think I’ll vote for her.” No, it’s so stupid.” AGREED!

Outside of all of this, the best part of the interview came from the following dialogue between Graham and Cydni:

Graham: “You came out with that iconic “Girls Just Wanna Have fun” look.”

Cyndi: “I got my revenge, didn’t I? All the people that threw rocks at me because of how I dressed were wearing the same clothes as me. [Turns to audience] Just keep that in mind. F*ck it! F*ck it!”

Cyndi continues to live by this mantra wearing her crazy clothing to this day. Some of her most commendable work is seen through her vast efforts for the Human Rights Campaign and GLBT rights. Cyndi has been a strong ally for the GLBT community for years now, raising funds and promoting equality throughout the country. Launching a year’s tour entitled “True Colors Tour,” Cyndi gathered other musical acts who supported equality and embarked on a national tour promoting equality and donated portions of the profit to the HRC.

Cyndi Lauper is one of those musical acts in pop culture that continues to produce great music, and also stand for something important to her. Her latest album, “Bring Ya to the Brink” is a fun, dance album. The talent displayed within this album should not be devalued simply because it is dance, which seems to be a common conception amongst many. Cyndi maintains her classic sound, whilst also incorporating modern beats and sounds, without needing to pretend that she is Britney Spears or Pink. She proves that she still has it. She’s still cool and she’s not going anywhere soon. That “F*ck it” attitude is alive and well!

Here is Cyndi Lauper’s latest single, “Into the Nightlife” for your viewing pleasure and look for reruns of her appearance on Graham Norton on BBC America:

For those looking for some classic Cyndi, “True Colors” is that touching ballad from the 80s that is without a doubt one of the prettiest and touching songs of both that decade and even today.

Popularity: 20% [?]

Many have wondered if Ellen DeGeneres was going to publicly step up against California’s Prop 8. Brief references have been made on her talk show, but no news had been released concerning any financial donations, even as Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg donated $100,000 each. News broke this week that Ellen DeGeneres has bought $100,000 in TV advertising time to promote “No on 8.” Ellen’s hope is to appeal to Californians’ compassion and sense of fairness. In August, Ellen married her long time girlfriend Portia de Rossi. Should Prop 8 pass, that marriage could be put in question.

Below is spot Ellen filmed appealing to Californian’s to vote no on Prop 8.

Some supporters of “No on 8″ are concerned that the negative connotation of voting “no” on something may confuse voters who actually support same-sex marriage, and would therefore mistakenly vote for the prop. Long time LGBT ally, Margaret Cho, filmed a spot to clarify that voting no on 8 actually means yes to equality. Watch the spot below:

Every couple of days, I like to visit the homepage of “Protect Marriage,” or as I’d rather call it “Yes on 8,” as the use of “Protect Marriage” is deceitful. It’s fascinating to visit their homepage and see what lies and deceitful ideas they are stewing to promote their cause. Why not, they are advertising on my site consistently, EVERYDAY, for the past couple weeks. In my lastest visit, there was a link about the defacing, theft and various other acts made against “Yes on 8″ signs and against Prop 8 supporters. I do not advocate or support such acts, despite the disgust I feel towards Prop 8. I am a fan of maintaining dignity whether or not an opponent is unquantifiably wrong. I have allowed them to keep their ads on rotation here in the name of political process.

“Yes on 8″ supporters created a YouTube video of their signs being defaced with such words as “Haters” and “Bigots.” Ironically, they play “Where is the love?” in the background of the video. The love certainly isn’t for equality and fairness.

Although I don’t agree with defacing of “Yes on 8″ signs, I find the last screen of text of this video hysterical. They call “No on 8″ supporters hypocrites, but when they end their video with “Most supporters [of Prop 8] are motivated out of love for families, not hate for individuals…But please be tolerant of everyone’s right to express their beliefs.” Really? REALLY? Yes, defacing signs is wrong because they do have the right to express their beliefs, but I really don’t believe “Yes on 8″ supporters have the right to use words such as tolerance and “rights.” They are fighting to remove rights granted by the California Constitution, and affirmed by California state courts. Take a look at this video for a few good laughs:

Popularity: 8% [?]

What a day Wednesday turned out to be, both in politics and pop culture. News released and prime time TV proved to hit all angles with Madonna’s divorce, a Presidential debate and Project Runway designers.

It is official. Madonna and Guy Ritchie are getting a divorce. Eight years ago, Madonna and Guy Ritchie tied the knot leading to eight years of marriage which included the arrival of their son Rocco and last year’s adoption of David, an Malawian orphan. The court battle with Malawian government gave favor to Madonna and the adoption was confirmed after a one year trial. Whether or not the divorce changes anything in the eyes of Malawian government is unknown.

The divorce comes with little surprise, as rumors have been hitting gossip pages for months about the topic. Gossip continued to hit the press concerning the two spending little time together and living in separate cities, whilst the Madonna camp continued to deny the news. However, listening to Madonna’s latest album, “Hard Candy” there are a few tracks that make one wonder if this was actually longer in the making than just the A-Rod scenario that fueled rumors months back. Listening to “Miles Away” upon the album’s release, my immediate response was problems between the couple. It sounds almost too explicit as she sings:

You always love me more, miles away
I hear it in your voice, we’re miles away
You’re not afraid to tell me, miles away
I guess we’re at our best when we’re miles away

So far away (Repeat 7x)

When no one’s around then I have you here
I begin to see the picture, it becomes so clear
You always have the biggest heart,
When we’re six thousand miles apart

There is little doubt that six thousand miles, which happens to be the approximate distance between Los Angeles and London, represents the two difference in lifestyles between these two individuals. Whether it be their careers that got in the way, the constant media attention or simply a fading love that divided this couple, the music tells a story onto itself. The “Devil Wouldn’t Recognize You” is another of the less dance focused tracks that has a introspective tone to it. This is another track that may have alluded to today’s announcement, particularly with such lines as:

It’s like over and over you’re pushing me
Right down to the floor
I should just walk away.
Over and over I keep on coming back for more
I play into your fantasy
Now that it’s over
You can ride on me right through your smile
I’ve seen behind your eyes
Now it’s over, the more intoxicating my mind

The family camp has asked the media for privacy in regards to the matter, as both sides attempt to settle the divorce outside of court. Things to be decided include custody of their children and the wealth accumulated through their marriage. The prenups must have been strong, but Madonna has recently signed a huge entertainment deal, and had three successful, revenue generating tours since their marriage. Here’s hoping this divorce settlement does not go to the courts and replicate that of Paul McCartney’s situation earlier this year.

Switching gears, Obama and McCain participated in the third and final Presidential debate of the election season. This final debate proved to be the most intriguing of the three, with both candidates appearing more engaged and ready for action. McCain, behind in all the polls, took the offensive, with Obama needing only to maintain his advantage by being even keeled.

The questions in this debate focused on domestic issues only, bringing up the economy, health insurance, education and abortion. The abortion question was answered in different manners, with McCain simply saying he is pro-life and accusing Obama of supporting partial birth abortion in the Illinois senate. Obama went a bit more in depth with his response, depicting his support of pro-choice, but explaining that the decision should be left to a woman to discuss with health care providers, family and religious figures. Obama’s response to partial birth abortions claimed that he supports the procedure only when a woman’s health is in danger.

Whether it be economic, energy or health insurance policy, Obama clearly points out elements of each of his plans. Details are given and elements of the plan sound more clear cut than McCain’s responses. In responding, McCain seemed to often grab at random buzz words, mixing them up into rather fluffy answers that answered the question, but lacked the same detail Obama provided. Overall, McCain seemed a bit snarky and evil, with his devilish smirks. Obama remained calm and collected, even when the Ayers issue arose.

In the end, too much time was spent discussing the negative campaigning each party is doing. Each candidate accomplished what they needed too, but it didn’t feel like there was enough accomplished to sway polls in a real dramatic way.

Lastly, the day ended with the finale of Project Runway’s fifth season (SPOILER ALERT). For the first season, all three contestants were women, each with very different styles. Hitting Bryant Park, the audience was presented with a fashion show, which featured a former America’s Next Top Model, if you watched closely. In a season that was far less entertaining than those prior, the final three contestants had three very different personalities, all which could be seen in the three very different lines of clothing displayed on the runway.

Unfortunately, Jennifer Lopez, who was to be the guest judge, could not make the fashion show due to a foot injury. Questionable? Yes, but it left room for Tim Gunn to step in and finally make a judgement call. Long overdue. It was well worth it to see the sense of fear Kenley had when she found out, because she had consistently given poor Tim a hard time each and every time he tried to help her. It seems as though her fear was justified, as she was the first eliminated. Consistently called a copycat, her designs lost to more original material. Kenley’s poor attitude and being incapable of receiving criticism sent her home. One most wonder if any buyer or design house will want to take on her big personality after watching this season. God knows I would not want to manage her.

Leeanne was named the winner of Project Runway. Leeanne’s designs throughout the competition seemed to be here and there. A quiet elegance, her designs brought her to the top. Her final line was inspired by ocean waves, and a mute color palette which consisted of a light blue, tan and white. Nina Garcia pointed out that the line had diversity including shorts, pants, skirts and dresses were all shown. This diversity is true, but the diversity of color and finesse that Korto presented in her line was more impressive. Throughout the season, Korto had displayed great creativity and style. Incorporating her African heritage, Korto infused color with experienced workmanship almost consistently, every week. Korto should have won, but thankfully Kenley did not.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Politics have been flooding the news and this site. It’s time to take a break, sit back and just indulge in the fun that the pop world can provide. It is what it’s there for, right?

Britney Spears has embarked on her mission to reinvent herself as the not so crazy pop megastar she once was about four years ago, depending on who you talk to. I pinpoint her downward slope beginning when she hurt her knee during the filming of the “Outrageous” video.  It onslaught is irrelevant now. The important thing is that the end looks like it is in sight.

The latest music video added to Britney’s archive is for her latest single “Womanizer,” off her soon to be released album, “Circus.” The premiere was on Friday on 20/20 of all shows, with a disclaimer that the video may be inappropriate for some ages. There is nothing extremely provocative in the video to substantiate that for a 20/20 audience. The video presents images of a fit, healthy and vibrant Britney. Take a look at the video now and read the critique below:

“Blackout,” Britney’s last album, was released at the height of her erratic behavior. The behavior the world witnessed devalued the content of the album. The music now goes underrated, as the album is actually a great pop album, fitting comfortably in her discography, if not surpassing some other releases. However, we all know that “Video Killed the Radio Star,” and thus Britney’s music videos suffered for ”Blackout.” Do not be deceived by Britney’s wins at the MTV Video Awards last month. These wins were simply industry alliances working together to promote her new image and increase ratings for the award show. All can agree the video for “Piece of Me” is far from the grandeur witnessed in videos such as ”Toxic,” “Slave for You,” and “Stronger.” 

The music video for “Womanizer” will hopefully prove to set the tone for this new album and Britney’s efforts surrounding it, ala future videos, appearances and perhaps, a tour. Scenes of Britney naked in the sauna flicker with close up shots that show a Britney who is ready to go again. The dance moves in the office scenes are sharper than those scene in Britney’s less than satisfying “Gimme More” live performance. Viewers can see she is taking a sense of ownership in her latest video. The action moving the film along is reminescent of “Toxic,” ironically, her last exceptional video.

The fact that Britney is actually highly present, active and dancing in the video should hopefully prove that she is back on her career track, re-engaged and ready to go. Looking back on videos for “Piece of Me” or “Break the Ice” (a cartoon) off the “Blackout” album, we witnessed simplicity and simple production. Often there were points where viewers had to wonder if there were body doubles or computer generated images. The “Womanizer” video, on the other hand, is Britney doing what she does best, captivating audiences visually for something other than a tragic personal display with Starbucks/Cheetos in her hand.

The “Womanizer” video is rather clever in its use of imagery supporting the theme of the song, that being a womanizing man. No surprise. A good portion of the video are various scenarios where the female character is subservient to the male position, whether it be in the office or a server of the restaurant. These scenes set up a male character that holds traditional roles of hypermasculinity, a sense of entitlement over women; roles of power over women or simply using women.

The last fourth of the video changes course and actually objectifies the male character visually, which is still rarely done in modern media. The male character is placed as the subject of lust, as seen in the stills . Close ups of the male physique and people grabbing at him in an advantageous way, rather than a worshipping manner, push the male character into this objectified role. Women have typically been placed as the subject of lust in cinema and even television. Therefore, the male character is pushed into a traditionally feminine role.

These images pushing the male into the subject of lust are also intermixed with shots of Britney in the nude touching her body in the same manner we see the male touching himself. The montage of images asks the viewer to place both characters on equal standing. This can be seen in the last shot in the sequence to the side. Both characters of the film are nude, and subjects of lust. Do note that the male seems to have a more revealing placement in the shot, maintaining his new role in the video.

The conclusion of the video shows a sexual Britney taking on the final dominating role of three women grabbing at the male, fear in his eyes. He is the object at their will and he loses. Placing the male in this role does not happen enough in pop culture. Typically this imagery is seen within products of gay culture, which brings the question; is Britney asking for the gay vote of approval with this new video? Every diva falls and brings herself back up by definition. However, if the gay population doesn’t support the revival, can she be revived? I’m not ready to provide a vote of approval, but I will provide a vote of confidence.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Despite what commercials say about Prop 8, same-sex marriage will not be taught to young children and more importantly Massachusetts’ case is irrelevant and inapplicable in California due to varying education codes. Prop 8 really has nothing to do about what is taught in school, but instead is about whether or not modern California is willing to create a different status for a group of people that is separate and unequal.

A San Franciscan lesbian teacher, Erin Carder, got married a few days ago at San Francisco’s City Hall with Mayor Gavin Newsom officiating. To Carder’s surprise, her 1st grade class from the Creative Arts Charter School took a field trip to the wedding ceremony and adorned their teacher with roses petals and bubbles as she left City Hall.

Justifying the trip as academic, the school’s interim director, Liz Jaroflow, told reporters that the event holds historical significance within the realm of civil rights. However, a parent of one of the students originated the idea to surprise the dedicated 1st grade teacher. Like all field trips, parents had to approve their child’s attendance and had the option of removing their children from the event. Two students did not attend.

Within weeks of Election Day, and the polls on Prop 8 moving back and forth as new TV commercials are released from both sides, this event is fuel for the “Yes on 8″ campaign. This campaign has consistently used children in their fight favoring Prop 8, consistently stating that voting down the prop would cause same-sex marriage to be taught in schools. Luck is on their side this week as current events have now provided them a real life example of the exact fear they are attempting to instill on Californians. The question is how fast they develop and release a commercial using this as an example? It is important to note that same-sex marriage was not taught in the classroom in this situation. Parents gathered their children and set this event up outside the school facility, but were able to use school time to attend the event.

“Yes on 8″ is over exaggerating a California code that states that if a school teaches sex education, they must compliment those teachings with comprehensive teachings of committed relationships and marriage. This is where same-sex marriage would be taught. This raises two questions for the “Yes on 8″ campaign.

1) Based on the California Education Code, same-sex marriage would only be taught simultaneously with sex education. If a student is old enough to be taught sex education, are they not old enough to understand the various forms of marriage that are legal? The images of gay citizens are portrayed throughout media and in everyday situations. By explaining these relationships, are we not providing students with tools of acceptance rather than hate?

2) If students are at the age of being taught sex education, it is likely that there are some students who are coming to terms with their non-heterosexuality. Do they not deserve to be taught that they too can have healthy committed relationships? A major issue for gay individuals as they come to terms with their sexuality are ideas that they cannot have the same type of relationships or future as their heterosexual counterparts. This is a direct result of years of media representations where gay characters have been portrayed as lonely, miserable and/or oversexed individuals. By teaching these students about both committed relationships between heterosexuals and between gays, all students are equally taught. Do young gay students not deserve the same right to equal teachings as their heterosexual classmate?

The overarching issue at hand is that same-sex marriage is taught in school only simultaneously with sex education, which parents can remove their children from. If students are at an age where they are essentially taught how to make babies, they should also have the capacity to understand relationships between same-sex partners. Therefore, teaching about both heterosexual and same-sex marriage creates an equal standing for all students. Schools currently teach and have consistently taught about homophobia for years and Prop 8 won’t change anything. Furthermore, all teachings on homophobia and sex/marriage education are decided at a local level, as described in California Education Code.

The “Yes on 8″ campaign is using first graders in commercials to manipulate the California Education Code, whereas, sex education is not taught to first graders. Without a doubt, this campaign will also manipulate the event in San Francisco, as it’s already the headline on their homepage. Put this 1st grade teacher’s wedding into perspective, and realize that in a year’s time, same-sex marriage will not be a historic event and so field trips won’t be taken. Furthermore, as residents of San Francisco, these 1st graders most likely have seen a plethora of images that are far more difficult to explain than a same-sex marriage.

Six year old, Nolan Alexander, sums up marriage perfectly, “[It is] people falling love. You stay with someone the rest of your life.” Looks like divorce hasn’t been taught in schools yet, but that would be counterproductive to Protect Marriage’s cause, so it must have been swept under the rug.

Vote No on Prop 8. Donate to No on Prop 8 and fight “Yes on 8′s” offensive offense on civil rights. Donations can be made at www.actblue.com/page/8-8-8-movement

Find more information about Prop 8 at www.NoOnProp8.com

Popularity: 9% [?]

A note to visitors:

Google AdSense is feeding “Yes on 8″ ads to this site. Although, this is disturbing, frustrating and unfitting, in honor of freedom of speech and exchange of ideas, it will be left untouched.

Should you choose to click the ad to investigate the site, what it has to say and how they are using fear and children to fight against equality, then please also visit www.noonprop8.com and donate to counter these vicious ads.

A warning to those who visit Yes on 8′s site: There are disturbing and misleading videos and information that will be found. Visit with caution as you may need to throw up from utter disgust.

Here is No on 8′s latest commercial to help fight the fear tactics of the opposing view:

On the alternate side, below is the new TV ad from the Yes on 8, “Protect Marriage” campaign. It is an unbelievable manipulation of lies and deceit. One would hope that the voters of California are too smart to fall for this type of tactic, but the scary fact is that many may not be. Ironically, after viewing the commercial,  a colleague simply said, “So…they teach gay marriage in schools. Is that really bad?” A valid point. As the free world continues its journey through the 21st century, and the image of the family continues to morph with it, one must wonder if teaching about the this changing image is really all that bad.

Here’s the video. Viewer be warned.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Two college clubs in San Diego are attempting to be provocative and creative, but failing miserably. The two gay and lesbian student clubs at two San Diego community colleges wish to advertise their groups as F.A.G.S. on campus. This acronym stands for Fellowship of Associated Gays Students, and has since been extended to include heterosexual allies with the addition of ” And Straight Allies.”

College officials have advised these groups, at both Mesa College and San Diego City College, that they are allowed to keep the name for now whilst student government sorts the situation out. However, school leaders are telling the GLBT group that they cannot emphasize the acronym, as many other students and faculty alike find it “patently offensive.”

The student group believes their free speech rights are being violated, as their advertising signs stating, “The FAGS are back.” were removed from campus. The gay and lesbian club states that they have three missions, the third being to redefine the word “fag” so that it no longer is a slur. Vice President of the gay and lesbian clubs on both community college campuses, Brande Faris, stated:

I thought it was a fabulous name. I think anything that challenges people’s paradigm and gets them to think outside the box, and at the same time reclaims what has been used as a hate word, is a positive thing.

The questions that arise from this include how these signs and the use of this acronym actually challenge people to think outside the box. Finding words that fit together to spell out this acronym may have challenged club members to think outside the box, but passerbyers are not really pushed to do the same. One also has to question how outside the box this student group really went. The actions of this group seem too easy and a cheap attempt for attention relatable to bigots who use the same word for their messages.

Whilst thinking outside the box, one also has to question their use of the word “fellowship” in their name, simply to get an “F” for the word. This word typically connotes a religious group, and yet this student club does not list discussing religion and being gay as one of their main missions. Yes, the word “fellowship” also describes any group coming together for a similar interest, but the common connotations of the word are typically that of religion. It sounds like this student group really had to stretch to get this acronym, which reinforces the idea that it was a cheap move for attention and controversy. Furthermore, the use of “fellowship” and “associated” next to each other is repetitious, for a fellowship has to be associated. There is no creativity in this acronym. I dare to question the “fabulous” status its VP declares it as.

It would have been more impressive if this student group thought outside the box in defending their choice in creating this name. Reps for the group ran to the First Amendment umbrella to take refuge, an easy move similar to the ease of using the word “fag” to rile people up. The First Amendment, however, does not necessarily protect taste and this naming choice is in poor taste.

Why the need to utilize such a hateful word? A word, that when yelled whilst physically attacking an individual, can help deem the crime a hate crime. Why reinforce such a dreadful word in the name of reclaiming it to make it a positive thing? A word that brings back disturbing memories for many of a time in life when bigots threw it out as means of tearing someone down. The student group’s effort are far from valiant and would be better placed in fighting the bigotry that supports this word’s use in society through more creative means.

Walking casually on a campus, the last thing people need to see is the word “FAGS” boldly placed across building pillars, notice boards and other common areas. GLBT individuals often have to work hard and on a very personal level to empower themselves against the use of this word. There is no need to expose them to it, whether it be an effort to own the word again or not. Why not let the the word simply die? This clubs efforts almost trivialize it rather than erase its background of bigotry. The violence that accompanies the use of the word “fags” are memories that do not need to be revived.

In the end, let the word “fag” die in a dark grave, with its death caused by a fight against the bigotry behind its use.

Popularity: 12% [?]