Opponents of same-sex marriage to look to states

View article if you like at www.advocate.com.

Opponents of same-sex marriage to look to states

Here is what I don't get, why do people want to ban love? That's what this is really about. Thousands of homosexual couples all over the US fall in love every year, yet they have adamant hate groups trying to prevent them from loving each other. This fact makes me realize that the ban on same-sex marriage is not only about heteronormativity, compulsory heterosexuality, and mono-normativity rather it is about preventing structural and institutional recognition of marriage's that don't involve reproduction. This group wants the nation to prosper and they believe that it won't if they allow same-sex marriage. They fear complete disregard for moral values because if one moral code is broken, then more and more of them will be.

I am so proud to have the Democrats controlling Congress again and I am glad that this fact pushed groups to lobby state legislatures, because it means that they are truly being challenged and they are scared shitless of what the future holds. The group "Alliance for Marriage" is such a horrible name for a group who is adamantly pushing for a constitutional amendment that would prevent marriage and love. Why call yourself Alliance for Marriage if you aren't for marriage? Additionally I think that a federal amendment that divides society into those who are deserving of rights and those who are not is a federal amendment of hate. Besides that fact, I want to know how marriage is under attack? They are calling for a " Marriage Protection Amendment" but doesn't "protection" assume that their is a threat?

Baby steps people, baby steps!

According to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center:

(www.gaycenter.org)

"As a result of the holiday card campaign (Center Happenings, February 2007) spearheaded by the Center, homeless domestic partners will no longer have to face the unfair choice of being cold or being alone. Starting February 1, 2007, any couple in a domestic partnership relationship, regardless of sexual orientation, that applies for family shelter from the [New York] Department of Homeless Services (DHS) will only have to supply as much documentation that is required of married couples. DHS has stated that the policy change will be conducted on a six month “pilot” period."

In the midst of the political and ideological debates around gay marriage and civilian unions, I find this small step forward by one organization a breath of fresh air, especially in light of the fact that it is a government organization and that it is a center for people generally considered by hegemonic culture to be one of the lowest forms of American citizens, often stereotyped as lazy, uneducated or irresponsible alcoholics. (FYI, I don't consider them to be the lower forms of citizens)

However, I can hear the opposition now..."if every homeless person or single person who is unable to get support individually claims that they are in a domestic partnership, then they'll be able to get benefits too! They need to stay where they belong." Or "If homeless people receive rights as domestic partners, what's next, adoption rights for domestic partners, shared health insurance plans? The world is going to hell" Sound like something Bill O'Reilly might say? Surely not even he would stoop that low, or would he.?

Blatant forms of Bigotry permeate the media!

View Clip First: Billy O'Reilly's Response To Gay Asylum

The scoop: In L.A. immigration judge John D. Taylor who previously denied homosexual Jorge Sota Vega 's 2004 asylum bid on the grounds that he could conceal his sexual orientation if he returned to his native Mexico reversed his decision on January 31, 2006. Judge Taylor allowed Vega to remain in the U.S. stating that gays shouldn't be required to dress or act a certain way to avoid persecution. Based on evidence provided by Vega's attorney, Taylor determined he would be at risk if he was deported. Previously Judge Taylor had denied Vega's application for asylum, saying that Vega could live safely in Mexico because he did not look gay and could hide it.

My critique: Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly’s commentary on the February 14 episode of the O'Reilly Factor.

Before I even begin my analysis I recognize that Bill O'Reilly's commentary is regularly laced with bigotry, misogyny and homophobia. Yet I can't help but fall into a pattern of constantly critiquing his incessant ignorance. Additionally, I think the way this commentary is staged is manipulative because Megyn and Bill are presented as if they are going to give a valid debate on the subject, yet the entire video clip shows Bill in an aggressive position with Megyn staged as if she is attempting to dispute his opinion, when in reality she refutes it in blatantly passive manner, mocking the court’s decision . It’s setup up to tell the audience from the very beginning that Bill’s points are more valid then the alternative.

O'REILLY: OK. Does this have any merit? It's a 9th Circuit Court of Appeal again trying to impose its wacky view of the world on us.

O'Reilly is implying that liberal equality driven values are absurd--which if he didn't occupy so many positions of privilege he might think twice about.

KELLY: Amazingly, it does have merit. And this guy Soto Vega is not the only one. This has been happening for years. There are hundreds of people who have gotten asylum in the United States based on the fact that they are homosexual.

Wait Megyn, why is it amazing? Is she suggesting that someone being persecuted for being gay in their own country and seeking refuge in a land where their sexuality would be less discriminated against is not worthy of the courts consideration?

KELLY: What happened in this case was this guy grew up in Mexico. He immigrated -- well, he was an illegal immigrant here in '88 --

Megyn is othering here, be rephrasing her initial statement of his immigration into a language of criminality—making it a point that Vega was “an illegal” immigrant

O'REILLY: Right.

KELLY: -- went back home. Came back to the United States and said, "You know what? I'm going to try to do it legally this time and I'm going to ask for asylum because I was persecuted for being gay while I lived in Mexico."

So, the immigration judge said, "Nice try, but no." And the -- his reasoning was, "You don't look gay. You don't sound gay. You can pass for being straight. So, go back to Mexico and do that." Well, he appealed to the 9th Circuit, saying, "What? What kind of standard is that? Why should I have to act heterosexual in order to get asylum?"

This last statement is confusing to me, I am not sure if Megyn misspoke and should have said “homosexual.”

Well, he -- the 9th Circuit agreed and said, "That's not the standard." They said the standard is if you were persecuted in the past, then you have a reasonable likelihood of being persecuted in the future.

O'REILLY: Well, what happened to the guy in the past? What did he bring in to prove he was persecuted?

Bill is reframing the direction of the discussion in order to deny the credibility of someone he obviously considers unreliable on the basis that he is 1) Mexican 2) gay and 3) a non-citizen

KELLY: He says that the police beat him with a flashlight because he was gay.

O'REILLY: OK, does he -- does he have any proof of that?

Proof? Why would someone go through all the trouble if they hadn’t been persecuted or if they didn’t have a valid testimony?

KELLY: Yeah, the -- even the immigration judge said his testimony was fairly credible on the persecution he had suffered.

Kelly is mocking the court by using the words “even” and “fairly”, if she had said “the immigration judge said his testimony was credible on the persecution he had suffered” her blatant bias would have been removed.

O'REILLY: But it's just his testimony.

Bill implies that a testimony doesn’t count as evidence. Yeah Bill, because his testimony is valid, it’s just his testimony.

KELLY: Just his testimony.

O'REILLY: I didn't see a shot of the policeman beating him. Did you?

Yeah, because there are always an abundance of camera’s filming during violent hate crimes. Rodney King’s testimony probably wouldn’t have been valid then if there weren’t camera’s filming his violent beating using this logic.

KELLY: No. No.

O'REILLY: Did you see bruises?

What kind of a question is this? When did the violence take place? I know whenever I’ve experienced violence the bruise has gone down in a matter of days. Is Bill suggesting that if there were not bruises at the time of the court hearing then Vega must not have been beaten up?

KELLY: No, I saw nothing.

And yet Megyn does nothing to argue with Bill’s irrational questions. She just validates Bill’s implications that Vega had no real proof.

O'REILLY: Did you see doctors' testimony?

KELLY: Just the guy's testimony.

Again, use of words changes the statement... using “Just” affirms that the testimony shouldn’t have any merit.

O'REILLY: OK. So he comes in and goes, "Hey, somebody beat me up." Now, if this is the standard, then every gay person in the world –

KELLY: Yes.

O'REILLY: -- can come in and do this.

Bill is missing the larger point here that people are being persecuted for their sexuality. Then he implies that every “gay person in the world” will now try and use this excuse to try and force themselves into the country, as if that’s the goal of all gay people in the world. By using this language he is reaffirming and institution of fear for the homophobic and anti-immigration community.

KELLY: Yes, and it's happened. People from Iran, people from Lebanon, people from all over the world have sought –

O'REILLY: But you'll get beheaded -- you'll get beheaded in Iran. And I'm serious --

KELLY: Yeah, yes. Right. That's true.

O'REILLY: -- because you can get killed. It's a different thing when you're a homosexual and you get killed –

Wait Bill, you’re saying the threat of being killed is a completely different thing then threat of being ostracized and violently attacked. Both the threat of ones livelihood and the threat of serious bodily harm seems should be a consideration.

KELLY: Well, that's true.

O'REILLY: -- than this guy, because, with all due respect to this guy, he might have spit on the cop. He might have done anything to the cop. Look, if you go to Mexico -- have you been?

1) Spit on the cop? Why would Vega have spit on the cop? In general, I don’t think people spit on policemen, in any country. Bill is dehumanizing Vega into an unclassed, uncivilized and repulsive being.

KELLY: Yes.

O'REILLY: All right. If you go to any of the resort areas, Cancún or Acapulco, as I mentioned, Puerto Vallarta, any of them -- come on, it's gay parade time. Don't tell me they're being persecuted.

2) And then to essentialize all of Mexico as being like the resort areas is ludicrous because those areas are set up as tourist zones that welcome everyone with money. They don’t resemble all of Mexican culture.

3) A Gay Parade? Okay Bill, that’s going too far.

4) And then to assert that gay citizens of Mexico aren’t being persecuted based on that fact that resort areas appear accepting and open to gay tourists doesn’t even make sense.

KELLY: I don't recall that.

O'REILLY: There's gay bars; there's gay restaurants; there's gay everything.

Gay everything? What the hell does that mean Bill?

Megyn seems a little surprised by this assertion, but doesn’t aggressively dispute it.

KELLY: Well, Bill -- Bill --

O'REILLY: Don't give me this.

KELLY: Not just in Mexico. There are plenty of gay people here and anti-gay people here in the United States. That's the thing is that the United States is not just this, you know, welcoming country where there are no homophobes. I mean, there are anti-gay –

O'REILLY: No, that's right, he could get beat up here –

Good for you Bill for realizing that connection, yes, it’s very possible that he could get beat up here. Hate is rampant in the US, especially against homosexuality. Intolerance steers practical people into hysteria.

KELLY: -- there's anti-gay discrimination in this country, as well.

O'REILLY: -- but here's what I'm worried -- here's what I believe happened here. I think the immigration court made the right decision, basically saying, "Look, you could be anybody. Just go back there and don't wear a dress" –

Wear a dress? Is O’Reilly implying that all gay men dress in drag? Go back to where you belong he says, go and pretend to be something that you aren’t. Well I say Bill, go back to where you belong too then. What gives you the right to say that a man seeking refuge and reprieve from ideological persecution doesn’t belong here in the US. What if Native Americans had prevented Christians from getting in the country because they were Christian or because they were European, despite their hopes for a land where they could live free from persecution? Beliefs, sexual orientation, political beliefs, race…all of them should not be considered as reasons why someone shouldn’t be able to become a US citizen.

KELLY: Yeah, but to say you've got to --

O'REILLY: "and you'll be OK" --

Riigghht.

The message from Bill is, don’t wear a dress, don’t act gay, don’t sleep with the man that you love, deny who you are and "and you'll be OK," go back home to where you belong! Wow, what ignorant words from a supposedly intelligent man. Blatant forms of Bigotry permeate the media! It is hard for me to understand how Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly are supported with their hate.

Political Climate of Hate

Upon contemplating the current political rhetoric in America illustrated in the cartoon above, I think that I am going to push for a separation of the nation. A split-down-the-middle. It appears the people of this country are torn when it comes to many issues. The "hot button" issues are what they call them. I call them issues of division. It's strange to me really that so many can be in disagreement about so many things. The biased side of me wants to tell the "opposition" that they are ignorant. But then who’s to say I'm not ignorant. We all are. Because until we can all come to some agreement on how to deal with all of these society dividers its just going to continue to be a massive cultural war, and we are going to continue to see only black or white. And still as I say this, I just don't see eye to eye with my opponents. I can't understand how it is that one can support "the family" while simultaneously supporting war, the right to bear arms, capitalism, environmental degradation and racism. How can they not support reproductive freedom, affirmative action and more stringent death penalty regulations? It just doesn't make sense in my head. As for homosexuality, I don't understand how this can even be an issue. The freedom to choose who your partner is- it's a basic right, and I see it as a human right. Well, they say "God Hates Fags" and you know what I say, okay, if that is true then get off your damn soap box and let God handle it. They say it's a disease...well what does science tell you about that theory? They say it's a choice, and you know what I say, why would anyone want to choose to be the subject of discrimination, social out casting and the object of so much hate? And the idea that Aids is a cure for homosexuality is criminal. Aids is a real disease that would kill anyone....Aids doesn't discern evil...it's not picky, it doesn't care who it kills...it just kills. It doesn't matter if your black, Christian, white, Asian, gay or republican...if your infected you die.


In order to come to terms with this mess we've gotten ourselves into, I propose the nation become two halves. The good and the bad...just kidding...but really why not split it down the middle- the progressive line will be drawn beginning between the borders of North Dakota and Minnesota on down thru Oklahoma and everything west. Texas and everything East will be the conservative’s side, except New York and D.C. go with the progressives. This way we can have our little nation and they can have theirs. They can regulate their television and their industries and we will regulate ours. Solution? Nah, just a new form of othering. I don’t know what the answer is.

God Hates Fags on Tyra Banks Show

I've been following the Phelps family for years...

Tyra Banks hosted a show recently with part of the Phelps family. I've been following this family for quite a few years. My interest was sparked at first in October of 1998 when two men, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, lured 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, a gay student from the University of Wyoming, away from a bar in Laramie. They drove him to a remote area and beat him until he was unconscious. He was left to die in near freezing temperatures. He hung there for 18 hours before being discovered by a passing cyclist. He died four days later. It was the first time I began to experience strong emotions for those who experience hate crimes. My passion was enraged when during Shepard’s funeral while more than 800 mourners attended the funeral in Casper, Wyoming, a dozen antigay protesters from Kansas and Texas stood outside the funeral holding protest signs stating "God Hates Fags" and “Matt in Hell.” They were the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) a controversial conservative right wing organization from Kansas led by Pastor Fred Phelps. The WBC picketed outside holding signs stating “Matt in Hell” and “God Hates Fags”. This controversial tactic sparked nationwide attention, because essentially Phelps was welcoming murder.

Phelps and his group are known world wide for spreading their message of hate. They adamantly espouse the belief that god hates homosexuals, using manipulative tactics such as picketing the gay community at events worldwide and the funerals of gay people.

I did a research study in the Summer of 2004 to find out how these types of belief systems can have an effect on public policy and I found that often policies can come into being through religious influence.

For the five-year anniversary of Shepard’s death, Phelps had sent plans to the city council of Shepard’s hometown Casper Wyoming to erect a monument that would be 6 feet tall and made of marble, bearing a bronze plaque with the image of Shepard and an inscription

The inscription stated "Matthew Shepard, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."


His proposal was based on the fact that a Ten Commandments monument was displayed on public property, which essentially meant that according to law it must also allow monuments with views of other religions or political groups on that same property. Though the council voted to remove the commandments monument, Phelps was relentless to get his plaque in place.

In his goal of spreading his message of hate and placing the shrine to Matthews’s murder in a public place, Phelps targeted dozens of other cities in the US that had Ten Commandments monuments.

I did my study on the rise and fall of this policy item in Boise, Idaho. Boise had a public display of the commandments monument that was donated in 1965 in a public park. In my study I interviewed the key players involved in the controversy that led to the removal of the commandments. My analysis was also developed through analyzing newspaper articles from the time the issue began in Wyoming..

One of the things that always shocked me about the WBC was that it consisted of the Phelps family and but a few other members related mostly by marriage. Phelps has bred an entire family of lawyers who work adamantly to advocate that gay people are going to hell. Twelve total family members still practice in Phelps Chartered. Tyra Banks was obviously as enthralled with the family as I have been. She invited three members of the family on her show and you can see the hate in their eyes. They grandchildren of Phelps are so filled with rage and intolerance, I wonder if they are even sane. They call anyone who supports homosexuality “fag enablers” and they don’t even realize that they are preaching hate. They are brainwashed. I don’t know what twisted bible studies classes these cats were taking, but from my understanding God never said go out and picket those who were murdered. God also never told these people to “hate thy neighbor”. These people are obviously very lost and confused. And to top it off they continue to spread their hate by breeding miniature haters who will carry on their message. It’s quite possible that Fred Phelps is mentally ill. He was disbarred for his bad legal practices and 4 of his 13 children have disowned him due to the massive child abuse they endured growing up. So Fred Phelps is an intolerant, bigot, who beats his children…and yet he and his family continue to practice law and spread the “word of god”.

Ford Motor Company Sponsors LGBT Agenda

(Click image for the episode that Ford supported)
Apparently I've been in the closet because I did not know that Ford Motor Company is a continual sponsor of the LGBT agenda, nationally and internationally. I find this refreshing. I haven't been paying much attention to Ford prior to now, but American Family Association and nearly 3 dozen other Christian groups certainly have- and my interest has been sparked. Their organization has been boycotting Ford for quite some time. They have an entire website set up for it. They go so far as to link drops in sales to supporting homosexuality. AFA believes that since they began boycotting Ford sales have plummeted. They don't even consider other variables. . Maybe consumers are switching to vehicles from foreign companies whose vehicles emit less pollution and get better gas mileage, or because other companies vehicles have qualities people are looking for like reliability -correlation does not equal causation AFA.

AFA also appears disgruntled by the fact that Ford withdrew a previous committment to no longer support controversial issues and "stay neutral in the culture wars". I am suprised and ecstatic at Ford's move. As long as they don't back down, other companies will begin to realize that our communities are no longer going to be repressed and that they are going to have to support this diversity for a more just and equal nation. I wonder if AFA members realize that Starbucks and Coors support the lgbt community too? (of course we all know that Christians don't drink caffeine or alcohol) It's going to be hard for the AFA to commit their members to not buy minivans and inexpensive American made SUV's from Ford and its affiliates.

In January the American Family Association sent out an Action Alert to their members urging them to take action against Ford for sponsoring what they call "one of the most explicit, sickening homosexual scenes ever shown on television". Ford apparently runs commercials on the FX channel that airs during the series "Dirt". They warned their members about viewing the "extremely graphic" video of the scene. My curious mind wondered what I would find, so I watched it not really knowing what to expect. AFA describes the video as:

Two men on a backyard patio are discussing their acting careers when one of them asks the other if he may ask a personal question. The other man says, "Relax. I've been thinking the same thing." He then places his hands on the first man's face and pulls him in for a very long, passionate kiss. He then says, "Every since I met you, I've been thinking the same thing." He then moves one hand down the first man's shirt and rubs his crotch. Immediately he falls to his knees and begins undoing the man's belt, pants and zipper. After gazing at the man's penis, he moves his head forward toward it. The scenes cuts to a distance view, where the second man is seen giving the first man oral sex.
Here is the scene posted on You Tube- "Dirt"
I'm sorry, what's so sickening? If this was a man going down on a woman, would they be as sickened? Of course not, because AFA believes that homosexuality is a disturbing abnormal disease that can be fixed. They even promote a video called "Its Not Gay" where apparently former homosexuals tell their stories in their own words and express a fatal warning about how the promotion of homosexuality is ruining the fabric of America. Sorry AFA, the promotion of love and passion is not destroying America, it's the promotion of hate that tears this country apart!

It's Not Gay

Down With The Family

While I never would have promoted this idea initially, after much thought about the subject of Family Values, I thought maybe progressive minded activists should be supporting a “Down With The Family” value system or a “Change the Family” agenda as a way to combat the traditional idea of the family within America that has a history of violence, control, oppression and hate. It certainly would catch people’s attention, at least for a moment. Let me elaborate.

The American Family Association (AFA) is a 501(c) (3) organization run by a group of right wing fundamentalist Christians. AFA was founded for people "tired of cursing the darkness and who are ready to light a bonfire" who promote traditional family values, targeting various media outlets that play "a major role in the decline of those values on which our country was founded and which keep a society and its families strong and healthy." Three of the issues they actively work on that are related to Queer Theory are marriage & family life, the homosexual agenda, and pornography.

One of the examples they cite in targeting the media is the normalizing of premarital sex. They say that the normalizing of premarital sex is directly related to a "dramatic increase in teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS and abortion as a means of birth control." They don’t address the scientific facts that humans have a genetic pre-disposition to adolescent sexual emotions and that the abstinence only programs do nothing for the people who do chose to have sex before they are married. They also assume that all people want to get married, that all people will want to have children and that no person would have a sexual relationship without the purpose of reproducing- which are all completely preposterous ideas and which directly affect the lgbt community.

Let me preface the following by saying that I realize the following words may be seen as fighting words, but also recognize that I was raised Christian. I do not promote the hatred of anyone, including Christians. I am merely pointing out the contradictions I see within Christianity.

So, how do we define family as Americans? I would argue there is no essential notion of family. It is always changing and dependent on ethnicity, culture and social structure. Let’s look at some traditional Christian family values our country was founded on. In America, the early Christian settlers promoted inequality within marriage- where women weren't seen as equals in the family and were subservient to men, and supported spousal abuse for example the rule of thumb, the term that originally referred to the maximum thickness of a stick with which it was permissible for a man to beat his wife - these ideas were supported by Christian “families”.

Christian “families” supported slavery- they owned and operated plantations, and slave households- if this isn’t true then who was it in America that owned slaves? Muslim families? Hindu? Buddhist? Additionally, Christian “families” were directly involved in the genocide of the indigenous people of America- Christians slaughtered Native Americans in the name of god and in order to claim their land, Christian “families” operated the boarding schools responsible for the assimilation of indigenous people and the destruction of their culture. Within their own families, with slaves and with indigenous peoples they promoted child sexual and physical abuse and child labor.

While much of these values have shifted within American society weren't these among the supposedly "traditional family values", “those values on which our country was founded and which keep a society and its families strong and healthy."? Under these facts of history the AFA then would define the family as supportive of inequality, violence against women, slavery, genocide, physical and sexual abuse and child enslavement. The AFA contradicts itself. While the "family" notions that AFA currently supports promotes Christian values such as the opposition of pre-marital sex and homosexuality-which happen to be consensual issues, at the same time the AFA promotes a family existence where hate becomes the centerpiece, and oppression overrules. By condemning lgbt communities and untraditional families they are instilling a mantra of our lifestyle is the only one that is moral all others are unmoral and should be punished attitudes which I would argue in the current political atmosphere lead to violent-aggressive belief systems that perpetuate various forms of diversity based violence and hate crimes.

The AFA is for the family, so maybe to combat the AFA’s hate propaganda those of us who are pro-diversity, pro-homosexuality, pro-choice, and support a person’s right to choose whom to marry or not marry, or how many children that they have should be anti-"family". There is also the option of helping the AFA redefine the traditional family values that they are trying to preserve to be more inclusive and tolerant of diverse families (that would go over well). It’s just a thought that’s all I am saying. While I personally love my little family-me, my son and my daughter, it is outside the realm of the traditional family because I chose to live a life without a husband in exchange for not being beat up everyday-it’s a choice, unfortunately not everyone has that option.

Queering Barbie

Friday night I flipped through the stations of my newly purchased cable, trying desperately to find something that would peak my attention for longer than 3 minutes. It's damn hard to do so. ("They" should rate television shows by how much I like them, I'm just saying...) Often I start to watch a show that may look inviting, either by the title, ratings or initial description and then I find out that the show annoys me for varying reasons. Sometimes its the poor acting, often its ridiculous story-lines or mostly its that shows are a bore or that they are disturbingly oppressive. Maybe that's why I hate that unreasonable beast of burden so much. I detest the media, I won't say I can't live without the 75 sports stations I have and reality tv is an abomination. To top it off, in order to enjoy these deadening life portrayals, "we" as consumers must consume the massive corporate commercials that employ the network and keep profit margins large. They exploit our brains at the cost of our societies ethics and morales. Perpetuating biased unrealistic stereotypes and depicting unethical people who would do anything in the name of a product.

Friday night, while I was actually working on a project, I decided I needed some background noise to keep me stimulated. I sat there willingly participating in this process (manufactured consent well at work), I rested the remote for a moment to continue working and because frankly I was tired of flipping through stations of nothing. I landed on a commercial for Wedding Day Barbie. I watched intensely as two little girls walked Barbie and Ken down the aisle. It was Barbie's dream come true, it was complete with flower girls and even a wedding cake. The last 2 seconds showed a close up of the two little girls pushing the plastic lips of Ken together with the plastic lips of Barbie. -Wait let me reiterate TWO LITTLE GIRLS HAVING THEIR DOLLS MAKE OUT!!! Instantly I began to wonder if somehow this relates to the culture of fear being circulated currently around gay marriage by pushing heteronormative relationships. In all of my years, from the time that I was a wee lad until now, I don't think I've seen a commercial for Barbie where she was getting married...and I especially have never seen little girls so blatantly pushing the heterosexual norm in my face. In all fairness...this could be an innocent attempt to sell a doll to little girls...but I've got to be a little critical. It's plausible that this commercial is only a millionth of a percentage of the media persuasion that is being propagated by those who want to maintain the status quo. Those who fear change...who fear the lgbtq community and who will seek every means possible to pervade the subconscious minds of children with their agenda. They'll deny the fact that gay men and women exist regardless of "societies normative rules" and they'll continue to try and sexually repress.

The other thing I began to wonder is "Why isn't there a Queer Barbie?" What about Butch Barb? or Gay Kenneth? Or Drag Queen Skipper? Maybe what Mattel isn't realizing is that there is an entire market out there ready for that kind of change. I wonder what would happen. Would Religious Fundamentalists picket the Mattel corp? Would Right Wing Conservies respond in an uproar? Would Barbies be burned in the streets? I also wondered why I thought that it might be inappropriate at first for children to own "Queer Barbies"- then I realized why. Even though I am aware and believe that homosexuality is not deviant, I have been taught subconsciously and consciously by the world to think that anything gay is bad, and if it is accepted it is **FOR ADULT USE ONLY**! All the while heterosexual couples are allowed to dominate our culture. At the same time other social injustices are deemed acceptable, for example forms of physical and mental violence are deemed okay and inflicted daily on at least a quarter of the world's population. How would the world respond if Mattel introduced "Rambo Barbie", hyped up on steroids, dressed in torn camo and ready to kill her enemies? Maybe that option is one to be desired!!!