The Ryan Thomas Collection

American Idol is down to nine contestants. I find myself watching American Idol every season (minus two – the first season and third season) and each time, my favorite contestant makes it to second place. The winner usually ends up being someone on the polar opposite of my taste. I always thought that this was because American Idol has only been a fixture on Fox during the Bush adminstration. I told myself, “Well, Americans don’t know how to vote for a good president. It makes sense that they can’t vote for the good AI contestant.” Now, Barack Obama is President and the American people finally got that right. This gives me hope that the American public will finally push a real pop idol into the winner’s circle of American Idol. A sign of this is that all country artists have been voted off. Country boy, George Bush, is no longer in office, no country artists are eligible to win AI. It is a good feeling!

We still have eight weeks after today, but I have my favorite and based on his continued performances, I want him to take the win. For too long has American Idol had lackluster winners, allowing contestants who fell off earlier in the challenge to bring in greater success than most of the winners. Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson are the only real stars who have won, in my eyes. I only say Carrie Underwood because she has record sales to back it. I find her and her country music to lack presence on stage. Not to mention, “Jesus Take the Wheel” made me cringe. I think Adam Lambert has the great potential to finally bring renewed credibility to a show.

Every week, Adam spices up the show. Each week this season has about two or three great performances and he is always one of them, if not THE one. He is creative. He is skilled. He is interesting. He is certainly a breath of fresh air for the show. I will not go so far as to call him “unique” because I have seen plenty of guys who fit into his look, but he is the “unique” one amongst the current AI contestants. He has not really done any of the cheesy ballads that so many contestants rely on and during country week (the week I alwayd dreaded), he took a country song and rearranged it into a fantastic performance that hardly resembled country. 

I do not lose sleep over who wins American Idol, but I am hoping that since the American people got the Presidential choice correct this time around, then hopefully, they will choose a contestant that feels like a star, ala Adam Lambert.

Who is your favorite to win this season?

Popularity: 47% [?]

Gays at a “straight bar.” What would you do?

Popularity: 43% [?]

Last week, Pope Benedict fired up the world with irresponsible comments about the use of condoms and the fight against HIV/AIDS. Protests sparked in France and now Facebook users are joining in, utilizing the networking/social site to organize action against the Pope for his continued stance that condoms do not help combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. Facebook users have pledged to send millions of condoms to the Pope to make their point clear. National governments of France, Germany and Belgium, as well as the UN, have spoken out against the Pope’s insistence that the distribution of condoms increases the spread of the virus, rather than fighting it.

 

The Vatican joins in the sex talk all too often. Decades, or rather centuries, of continued reliance on antiquated ideas of sexuality and sexual behavior have led to the spread of multiple STDs and unplanned pregnancies. It is extremely difficult to understand why the Vatican continues to insist on joining discussions on sexually related issues, when their track record proves their ancient ideas are flawed.

The Vatican is comprised of celibate men. Where does the audacity to dictate sexual behavior arise from when they have neither participated in the act, nor employed the opinions and ideas of women into their highest ranks? The patriarchal institution needs to step out of sexual morality and safety, and stick to topics where they can be more trusted. They are in no place to be an authority on decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa or anywhere else in the world. Statistics actually prove the Pope wrong in his stance against condoms, and reliance on abstinence.

President Bush and the Pope have something in common. The two figureheads rely on the idea of abstinence as means of fighting the transmission of STDs, in addition to preventing unwanted pregnancies. President Bush’s “ABC” program enforced ideas of abstinence first, condoms last in youth sex education. Recent statistics show an increase of teenage pregnancies. Correlation? Most likely. It is time the Pope gets out of the bedrooms of global citizens and stops dictating when we should have sex, who we should have sex with and what we should use when we have it.

The time has come for the Vatican to step into the 21st century and realize that people have sex. They have sex out of wedlock. They have sex with the same sex. They have sex with birth control. The insistence of maintaining 19th century ideals on sex is only making the Church more out of reach for global citizens. If the Pope and his Vatican minions would stick to ideas of peace and love, they could do far more good in the world than their current actions of ostracizing groups of people in the sexual arena.

In conclusion, when we are sick, we get medical advice from doctors. When we have a broken car, we take it to a mechanic. When we need sexuality advice, do we really trust the word of a patriarchal institution of abstinent men? Pope Benedict, and the Vatican alike, stay out of our bedrooms and leave the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS to those more qualified.

Popularity: 100% [?]

The Matthew Shepard Act is scheduled to hit the floor of Congress for a vote in the upcoming month. This vital piece of legislation, if passed and signed by President Obama, would finally include sexual orientation and gender identity under federal hate crime legislation. Currently, inclusion of sexual orientation within hate crime laws is a state by state fixture. The Matthew Shepard Act would bring this to a federal level. President Bush vetoed the first attempt by Congress to pass the bill, but President Obama has promised to sign it into law should it hit his desk.

The Matthew Shepard Act is named after Matthew Shepard, a young gay man whose life was taken in Laramie, Wyoming over ten years ago because he was gay. The two men convicted of the vicious torturing and murder of Shepard could not be prosecuted under federal hate crime laws that, as it stands, only coves crimes committed based on someones religion, race, creed or ethnicity. Crimes prosecuted under hate crime laws carry heavier sentencing and increased resources for investigation. The importance of passing this act goes beyond the actual punishment it would carry for those criminals convicted for acts of violence against a gay individual based on their sexual orientation.

Local resources for prosecuting crime are often limited with prioritization and crimes prosecuted varying state to state, district to district. If a hate crime based on religion takes place in a local district, local authorities can tap into federal investigative resources in bringing about justice. If a hate crime based on sexual orientation is committed without a state hate crime laws including sexual orientation, local authorities can decide not to investigate thoroughly or may not have resources to do so. Victims then are unable to go to the federal level for justice.  Gay individuals who have fallen victim to hate crimes based on their sexual orientation deserve equal justice under the law. It again comes down to equal treatment under the law.

Those who oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate crime laws have viciously lied to the public and Congressional members, telling them that such laws would remove people’s religious freedoms and speech because their anti-gay stance would fall under prosecution of hate crime laws. The American Family Association went so far as to broadcast an hour long program on TV attempting to persuade viewers that people of faith would be silenced and pastors would be jailed. These are ridiculous lies that need to be combated. These blatant lies take pure advantage of people’s lack of knowledge in First Amendment law, as well as the details behind hate crime legislation and the Mathew Shepard Act. Hateful speech, both symbolic and spoken, has consistently been protected by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment. There are limitations, such as if that speech is meant to incite immediate physical violence. However, the protections provided to speech are broad, strong and well protected in this country.

The KKK has been freely allowed to speak hatefully against African Americans without being subject to federal hate crime legislation. Individuals whose racist commentary against Muslims following 9/11 were not prosecuted under hate crime legislation. Individuals whose speak against gays will not be prosecuted under the Mathew Shepard Act. Acts of physical violence against a gay person where the evidence shows that the crime was committed solely based on the individual’s orientation fall under this act. The American Family Association has once again shown a pure lack of knowledge in our Constitution, and our laws. The fear based tactics used to fight same sex marriage are being utilized here. The outlook appears to be dim for them, as the Mathew Shepard Act gains more support in Congress.

This is long overdue for the United States. 15% of hate crimes in the nation are reported to be against the LGBT community, and yet, 15% of hate crimes in the nation are refused equal justice under current federal hate crime laws. It is time for equal protection under the law for all citizens of the United States.

Here are some avenues in which you can show your support for equality under hate crime laws:

* Visit http://www.hrc.org/endthelies/ and see who is spreading ridiculous lies about this topic and others affecting the LGBT community.

* Send a letter to your Congressperson through HRC’s Action Center: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/hate_crimes

Popularity: 43% [?]

James Neiley, a 17 year old from Vermont, testifies before the state legislature advocating for equal marriage rights for gays in the state. He draws the connection between marriage inequality and unequal treatment by his peers. His testimony shows that we are on the right track as a society, but we still have walls to break through.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Judge Judy tells Larry King that she doesn’t understand why people work so diligently to prevent gays from getting married when there are so many other problems that need attention.

Popularity: 14% [?]

The fate of California’s Prop 8 lies in the hands of the state Supreme Court as of noon, Thursday, March 5th. After three hours of debate, both sides of the proposition brought to the court their arguments as to whether Prop 8 is an amendment or a revision to the state constitution. The Office of the Attorney General argued that Prop 8 removes inalienable rights without providing strong enough reason that same sex marriage causes such a threat that this right can be removed.

With $18,000 in donations, Equality California, Marriage Equality USA and other gay rights organizations provided a jumbotron in San Francisco’s Civic Center outside the California Supreme Court. Hundreds of people,both proponents and opponents of Prop 8, gathered to demonstrate. The two sides intermixed outside the grounds of the Supreme Court in peaceful demonstrations. Supporters of both sides appeared to be equally represented in the crowd. A Northern Californian church, with a strong immigrant-Eastern European congregation, bussed in proponents of Prop 8, sporting red shirts and immense signs stating “Traditional Marriage” and a check mark.

These vast signs dominated the landscape outside the courthouse, often blocking views of the jumbotron. As I viewed these signs, I thought to myself, “Traditional marriage, check mark? What side are they really on ?” The founders of JointheImpact.com spoke and mentioned how their same-sex marriage is traditional and listed the stereotypical characteristics of a traditional marriage they participate in everyday, i.e. both spouses coming home from work, watching TV, going to bed at 10pm and doing it all again the next day. Traditional marriage is what same-sex couples want for themselves. On a bright side of this dismal issue, proponents of Prop 8 were unable to clearly display their opinion on a billboard sized sign. The sign’s design was not thought through and was easily discounted.

The happenings inside the courtroom seemed rather dim for those of us looking for Prop 8 to be overturned. The justices asked pointed questions and appeared to be skeptical of the idea of revision versus amendment. The idea arose that by striking down Prop 8 because of its removal of the inalienable right to marry, by default the court would be striking down the inalienable right of Californians to change the Constitution. This argument is weakened by the idea that opponents of Prop 8 were not arguing the initiative process, per se, but arguing that in this instance, the state legislature needed to bring about the issue and send it to the voters. I have trouble seeing how striking down Prop 8 threatens the inalienable rights of Californians to continue the initiative process. The initiative process should never be used to take away inalienable rights, and thus, if the process needs to be changed, then this is the perfect time for it happen. This type of precedent needs to be set and there is no better time than now to do so.

The fate of Prop 8 actually looks bright for its proponents after today’s arguments. As disheartening as it is to say so, the justices, overall, did not seem to take well on the idea of amendment versus revision. A glimmer of hope lies in that the justices did seem to support the idea that those same sex marriages signed during the “Summer of Love” should remain valid. In the end, despite the direction the justices decide to take, proponents of Prop 8 and discrimination against same-sex marriage have an expiration date in our society. It will be a dreadfully long wait for those of us who believe in equality, but the dawn of equality is on the horizon. It does not look like it will be within the next ninety days, but I have faith that we will see it in a decade’s time.

The slide show below are pictures from San Francisco’s Civic Center, home of the California Supreme Court and today’s arguments on Prop 8. Since the Prop 8 demonstrations began last November, the images seem to all look fairly similar. Today’s events were the first I’ve seen an even mixture of both sides represented. The peaceful characteristic of these demonstrations is a commendable aspect and one that refreshes my faith in the American system of liberty and justice.

Popularity: 17% [?]

Donate to EQCA to help keep the commercial on the air. www.eqca.org/hope

Popularity: 14% [?]

The countdown to California’s Supreme Court hearing the case against Prop 8 is well underway. With not only faith and hope in our hands, but also liberty and justice, March 5th shall bring to Prop 8 what the Ides of March brought to Julius Caesar, death.

Events are planned around the state of California to further our presence in the minds of our fellow Californians, and Americans. Wednesday, March 4th, is being called the “Eve of Justice” with marches and candlelight vigils planned to utilize the media momentum leading up to Thursday. Visit www.eveofjustice.com to find local information.

For television viewing of the oral arguments, visit http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8viewing.htm

Following Thursday’s oral arguments, the court will have 90 days to make a final ruling.

Popularity: 14% [?]