The Ryan Thomas Collection

Wednesday, November 5th began with darkness at the dawn of a new America. Excitement at Obama’s win of the White House soon faded with resutl of California’s Prop 8 passing by the slimmest of margins. I tried to look on the bright side of things. Though the battle for equality was lost, at least I could find comfort that the President-elect would bring a renaissance to the country. This worked for about an hour. As I walked to work, the visions of Prop 8 proponents reveling in their win came to mind and emotions took over.

I’ve been “that gay guy” since before I knew I was gay myself. Elementary school. Junior High. High School. Now. I’ve been openly gay for ten years. Despite the name calling, the glares and the injustices seen, I never felt like less of a person. I have deep faith in the Constitution and its ability to protect me and treat me equally. Even when the people around may not treat me the same, the governing document would. However, as I walked to work knowing that the California Constitution had actually been amended to treat me unequally. For the first time in my life, I felt like a second class citizen; and with that, less of a person. My faith in liberty, justice and the California Constitution beaten down. The highest of documents in the state would now be treating me unequally. The unknown feeling hurt deepl; pain and angst that it was actually happening. Today wore on and I found it hard to surpress these feelings, despite my desire to be strong.

Civil rights struggles have never been easy and they have never been quick. I had a strong belief that this time it would be different and to be proven wrong was more than disappointing. Where would I find the strength to believe again, feeling personally attacked by each supporter of Prop 8? Thinking about their smiling, joyous faces from their victory. Even though I do not believe in traditional ideologies of God, I wanted to believe as Jesus said on the cross, “God forgive them, they know not what they do.” This rhetoric provided no comfort.

With the evening upon me, I heard a vigil for equality was to be held at San Francisco’s City Hall. A group of everyday Californians gathered to remember how far we’ve come, be re-energized as a beaten people and find strength for the continued struggle to be endured tomorrow, next week and everyday after, until full equality for all is fully realized. The company of these like-minded individuals reminded me that it is not over. We shall overcome. Liberty and justice will prevail. Marching up San Francisco’s Market Street, blocking traffic, and chanting “What do we want? Equality. When do we want it? Now!” reinvigorated my belief and faith that equality will be won. The Constitution, both federally and at the state level, will be upheld and Americans will be equal.

I end the day having been beaten down, but now standing strong as a Californian and an American. The tide of change has come with our future President Barack Obama and the rippling effect his presidency will have shall bring us victory in the end. And so the fight goes on and I feel strong. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” I refuse to allow the hate mongers of Prop 8 to make me feel like a second class citizen. Obama has brought on a new dawn, a new day and a new spirit to us, the People of the United States of America, the People of California and so the beat goes on!

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% [?]

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: 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% [?]

A few minutes to enjoy Chelsea Handler make fun of Sarah Palin on her show Chelsea Lately.

Key Comedic Nicknames for Sarah Palin:

Governor Moose Bitch
Madaam Iceberg
Governor Moose Knuckle
Madaam Klondike Bar

Enjoy and leave a fun nickname for Sarah Palin!

Popularity: 9% [?]

Registration deadlines to vote in the next election in November are coming up. Make sure your friends know to register. Watch the video and tell 5!

Popularity: 7% [?]

Maverick. Energy State. Maverick. Energy State. Darn It. Maverick. Wink. Energy State. Darn It. Wink. A formulaic response by Sarah Palin in the VP debate. Intermixed with these words and actions were frustrating contradictions. Thankfully, opposing Palin was an intelligent leader, Joe Biden. The Vice Presidential debate included more passion and seemed more of a battle of ideas than the first Presidential debate last week.

Sarah Palin, through her use of language and talking points, sounded too plain and like Joe “Six Pack,” as she continually says. After eight years of this principle with Bush, the country needs strength and intelligence displayed by Biden. The nation needs to move away from this “folksy” attitude. Joe Biden’s answers had substance, depth and knowledge. Ideas with backing.

Sarah Palin is described as being able to connect with the “average Joe” sorts, but the Middle Class, which seems to be the focus of both candidates, are more intelligent than this. It doesn’t seem as though the Republican party is giving the Middle Class the credit it deserves. Palin’s winks and smiles are calculated, and clearly so. Her simiple answers and “folksy” vernacular underestimate the depth of knowledge the Middle Class holds. Biden, whilst continually referring to the Middle Class, spoke with grace and clarity, realizing that this group of voters understands what the problems are in the country.

The more troubling portion of this debate came during a discussion of civil rights for same-sex couples. Sarah Palin made commentary about gays choosing and deciding the relationships they have and expressing ideas that she “tolerant.” She brought up the fact that she has a gay friend and family members, who would “probably disagree” with her and her stance on same-sex marriage. The frightening part of Palin’s answer on the rights of same-sex couples came when she stated that by providing same-sex couples similar rights as heterosexual couples, a gateway to equal marriage rights is opened. Therefore, she cannot support a majority of them. “Contractual agreements” for property and hospital visitation have been cleared by her moral compass, but the road stops there. Palin’s sincere use of ”contractual agreements” was rather cheapening of the love gay American’s “choose.”

Joe Biden, on the other hand, gave a passionate answer about how the Constitution provides equal rights to same-sex couples. Biden brought up, specifically, that the Constitution supports equality among couples when it comes to various issues, including property and visitation rights. Biden did say he does not support same-sex marriage, but he also acknowledged that marriage is faith based, meaning the government does need to acknowledge and provide for these committed relationships. He understands that gay Americans are Americans, despite their sexual orientation. More importantly, Biden clarified that, in the end, marriage as it pertains to religion and the government are two separate issues. One could hear in his words his respect for liberty and equality for Americans.

Sadly, the topic of rights for same-sex couple ended with both candidates saying they do not believe in same-sex marriage.  To this the moderator said, “Finally something you can agree on.” This led to an uproar of laughter from the audience and candidates. Disheartening to say the least. It felt like gay Americans lost a piece of their humanity, as it was though no one was thinking of gays as people at this point. Agreeing on inequality of same-sex marriage isn’t exactly a laughing point.

After hearing Sarah Palin’s frightening conservative view on gays, she made two references in the debate about women’s rights and America being home of equal rights and tolerance. A contradiction indeed. In the end, Sarah Palin seemed to feed the conservative Right in the debate, particularly with her “folk” vernacular. Joe Biden seemed to be heavily focused on the undecided Middle Class Americans, and hopefully successfully so. Biden is trained in domestic and foreign policy. Palin knows about oil; she is from an energy state as she mentioned 100 times.

Popularity: 8% [?]

9.5 minutes of interview time between Katie Couric and Governor Palin is available on CBSNews.com. Watching this candid interview is exhausting, particularly for a Democrat, but more so as a voter. Couric did a splendid job in fighting a good fight for clear answers to her questions, but ended up doing so in vain.

Sarah Palin pretends she is a maverick and not big Washington, and yet she answers questions like the worst politician. Answering without answering. Talking longer than she needs to as means of completely avoiding a clear and precise answer. Couric had to ask Palin numerous times to clarify her answers. It is painful to watch her thinking so hard to create an answer that avoids answering a question.

Sarah Palin’s views, listed below, are rather disturbing from a figure attempting to hold the country’s second highest position. Her positions become increasingly frightening for a candidate trying to become Vice President. Lest we forget, the Vice President can be the deciding vote in a tie within Senate. Should a vote on gay hate crime legislation or equality, reproductive rights or climate change come to a tie in Senate, Palin would be the tie breaker should she become Vice President.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Here are some rather concerning roundabout answers Sarah Palin gave:

1) Global warming is in part caused by humans, but also caused dominantly by natural weather cycles. She says, “Doesn’t matter at this point as what caused it, it’s real and we have to do something about it.” Palin contradicts herself, for it doesn’t matter what caused it, how can it be fixed. If it is a natural weather cycle, how do you correct nature? Essentially, she sounds as though she knows global warming is caused by humans, but does not want to admit.

2) Abortions should never be done and the Morning After Pill counts as abortion. (On a side note, Palin does believe in contraception, some beacon of light).

3) Palin says, “I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions they make in their adult made relationships… She [her friend] made a choice and happens to be a choice I have not made.” In one sentence, Palin says twice that gay Americans have CHOSEN to be gay or rather have DECIDED to live gay lifestyles, to put words in her mouth. Words that aren’t put in her mouth are “decisions” and “choice” in her statement about homosexuality.

Popularity: 8% [?]