8: The Mormon Proposition

(Photo Courtesy: sacbee.com)

In my time, I have seen many different types of social documentaries that have made me feel a whirlwind of emotions from concern to angst to anger. Never, have I felt such intense emotions about such a personal and controversial subject as the one covered in "8: The Mormon Proposition". This film documents, in detail, the campaign to ban same-sex marriage via State Constitutional amendment in the state of California during the 2008 Election season. At the time this proposition went to the ballet, same-sex marriage was recently legalized by the Supreme Court of California and thousands of marriages were performed across the state and many more planned to take place with friends and family; as marriage should be celebrated. This proposition ended all of those hopes and dreams of couples who were ready to make that next step in creating a family built on love and honor and commitment.

A member of the Coalition created to fund campaigns against same-sex marriage, who was anonymous, brought documentation to the attention of a legal expert which outlines all of the battle plans the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had formed in order to defeat same-sex marriage legislation in Hawaii. There, they formed a coalition of religious followers and churches, which behind they stood as funders and unattached supporters, to fight against the State of Hawaii Legislation. They used educational ads which made voters feel that it was their right to stand strong and not allow a government to take away their right to belief in God, Church, Sin, and that homosexuality was an abomination. They funded the majority of the campaign, and some within the coalition say, the ban would have failed without the support of the LDS Church. These battle plans were carried over into California and set in place years before Prop 8 was on the ballot.

In the same fashion that they formed a battle plan with Hawaii, the LDS Church moved into position to lead the pack. Without officially forming a Political Action Committee, the LDS funded and assigned members from within their Church to form the group known as the National Organization of Marriage. By distancing themselves completely from the campaign, the Mormons were free to fund and build a strong opposition and "coalition" to pass the Constitutional ban.

To understand just HOW the LDS Church went about getting all the money to fund Prop 8, we learned just HOW the LDS Church operates in their belief system. The first teaching within the Church is that of Obedience. They believe that the 12 Prophets of the Church have direct contact with God and their word is the same word of their God. They also believe that when they die, their spirit goes to the spirit world. In the spirit world, they become a God and get their own world for which they must create little spirit babies with all the spirit women so that they can create life on their own planet. Its a reward for following "God's plan" and doing what they were put here to do. This is one of the founding ideas behind their original polygamist practice. The more babies they create, the happier and better off they were in following the path created for them. To me, I respect religion and allowing people to believe what suits them best. But the reason the Church was so impartial and "hell-bent" (no pun intended) on stopping same-sex marriage is because they interfere their what they believe is God's plan. It's a very intense set of beliefs, but nonetheless, they are allowed to practice it as such.

In the campaign, the Church used smear ads saying that legalizing gay marriage would do so many different things to upset the balance of life and child education, that the uneducated voters would eventually listen and follow suit. Sickening, but that's what their religion lead them to do. In order to fund the 72% of all the money spent on Prop 8 by the LDS Church (an estimated total $83 million spent on the campaign, you do the math) came because of the tactics used by the Prophets and their Elders. The Prophets delivered a 1 hour speech and following letter to its members, with personal bank statement/income/savings information telling them how much money the Church feels they can donate to the campaign. Elders from the Church would visit each family in the coming days/weeks with blank checks, reiterate how much money they think each family can donate, and then wait for them to write the check. I found it compelling that, regardless of class, income, or family size, a Church organization would actually know the personal financial information of a family and then make assumption about how much they can "do without". Again, the word of the Prophet is the word of their God, so the families were obedient and gave as directed.

They also gave us a glimpse into the lives of what a gay Mormon would go through. The main story followed the lives of two gay Mormon men who got married the day the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal. They were shut out from their families, with the exception of one of the mothers, and excommunicated by choice from the Church. They were happy the day they got married, and felt as if the world was finally becoming accepting and changing for the better. Then, the campaign started and it felt like their world was falling apart. We see how many gay Mormons become homeless, and commit suicide. Salt Lake City has the highest teenage suicide rate, with 80% of those being or thought to be known for committing homosexual acts. Families within the Church who's children committed suicide even stated on record that they were happy once they knew their children weren't around anymore. Happy their child committed suicide. . . That's where the tears began to roll down the sides of my face. I can't imagine a life growing up where the feelings of complete emptiness would consume me to drive me towards taking my own life. It's very sad that this does happen and because of the power of the Church, often goes under the radar. I can't type about this subject anymore.

Proposition 8, the Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the state of California, my home state, passed by a margin of 4%. 52% to 48%. 504,479 single votes made it possible for what was seen as the most liberal state at the time, after millions and millions of OUT OF STATE dollars came in to support banning same-sex marriage, to TAKE AWAY the rights of so many thousands of loving couples. This historical documentary really gives you some serious insight as to how this tragic vote was made possible, and comes to DVD on July 13th. It is worth the watch and will definitely serve as a stepping stone towards achieving equality for LGBT families. One of the many concepts we discussed in IDS 101 this quarter.

Just wanted to share! (a follow up to my "Oh Fox..." post)

So, this aired on Fox News...



Did you notice the marquee scrolling at the bottom about the "disgraced minister" who was opening up a new church?? Come on, Bill! I mean, really?? You're disgusting and I hope you... UGH! I can only pray for you, dear old man. I mean, "are you hungry after watching that ad"...and then saying "gays are only 10% of the population, at least that's what the estimate says". WTF? "It will never run in America", he says, with a small shudder in his shoulders. "Do they have an al-Queda ad?". Really? I mean, really, Bill? CAN YOU BE ANYMORE HOMOPHOBIC, BILL?!?! FOX?!?! Thoughts....?

Dieta Mediterránea

(Photo Courtesy SIFF.ORG)

For my first film at SIFF, I chose a Spanish Film about feminism and ménage à trois. I thought that it would be a hilarious movie about food, culture, and sex, and I surely met my expectations. I rated this movie a 5 and would enjoy watching it again and again!

The film opens with a young girl in a kitchen, making her favorite desert and a couple smaller food items to sell on the beach. She meets a young boy who offers to buy something from her for half the price she was selling, and then another young boy who tells her how good her food is. She gets in trouble from her parents because she was not allowed to go to the beach by herself as her father thought she should only stay home and be in the kitchen.

The next scene we see Sofia, the young girl, she is a teenager who over hears the first boy, Frank, a restaurant manager, firing a cook. She jumps up to ask Frank if he has a job for her because he needs a chef and she was a good chef. He mocks her and tells her that a woman's place was in her kitchen...at home, not in a restaurant. The comment he makes is that only men can cook for money, and women cooked for their husbands. She tells him that is not true and one day, she would become the world's greatest chef. He eventually gives in and allows her to work that night.

This scene was an example of gender roles because, as Frank said, Sofia's role was to be in her own kitchen at home, not working as a chef. In Spain, and many other countries, chefs were mostly men and the restaurant business was male-dominated. As Sofia would have been otherwise out of luck in achieving her dreams because of the male-dominated business, she demanded to have the chance to work outside of her gender role and prove her ability. I find it interesting that women were not allowed to be professional chefs because, growing up, my mother always was the cook and I never once saw my father, or any male relatives, in the kitchen. In my culture, the women do all the cooking, work in restaurants, and cater major events. It was different for me as an adult to see men owning a majority of the high-class restaurants I enjoy today, but nonetheless, I see how the business is completely dominated.

Sofia, shortly after her first shift as a chef, meets another young man who is working at a gas station. He is incredibly handsome and wholesome. The ideal boyfriend/partner. She ends up dating him and being completely infatuated with him sexually. They begin a relationship, which eventually transforms into marriage.

Frank becomes much more adept at the restaurant business, pursuing his career further than his local operations. Along the way, he finds Sofia again, and offers to take her with him to show her skills as a chef. She leaves Toni, her husband, to go run off with Frank and become a chef in a fancy restaurant. Sofia and Frank also begin a romantic, sexually charged, relationship. Frank is hot, but not the wholesome husband type that Toni is. As their relationship boils, Toni finds Sofia and demands she return home so they can start a family. Which they do.

As a few years go by, Sofia and Toni have 3 children and Toni is a successful Real Estate Agent, while Sofia is a housewife. Sofia is unhappy with where her life has brought her professional, though is content being a mom and wife. Frank magically comes to the rescue and Sofia attempts to leave Toni again to pursue her career as a chef. Toni catches up to them and demands their return, offering a property which they could transform into their own restaurant. Frank entertains the idea, and returns home with them.

Through the duration of their careers, Frank, Toni, and Sofia become involved sexually, lead by Sofia who demands both their comfort. Sofia breaks more sexual boundaries by encouraging a bisexual threesome with her two men, making a much more interesting twist in this sexually charged film. The "normal" relationship is between one man and one woman, as Toni has dejected to, but Sofia rejects that idea and then gets her way.

The relationship lasts many years, the restaurant is a major success, and the three of them lived happily ever after. With 3 kids. Together.

Oh FOX, you're so FOXY!

Geez. I can't remember the last time someone asked me if I watch FOX. I mean, sure, there are quite a few good things to come out of the FOX/Newscorp Network, like Kelly Clarkson, but on a serious note, what is this world coming to?
Newscorp, the mastermind company that owns everything FOX and FOX-named, founded and ran (as Chairman and CEO) by Rupert Murdock, claims many things about their broadcast network. Their main slogan for their News Channel, "Fair and Balanced", is just a crock of junk propaganda used to lure in viewers who think they are actually getting the right information, all the information, and watching good TV.

It's fair and balanced to say, FOX Network is just so Foxy!

To use a fair and balanced example of how FOX uses its super-fantastic editing skills, I will show you two clips of Lady Gaga's performance on "American Idol", of her smash hit "Alejandro".

This is the version of the performance we got to see on "LIVE" TV. It wasn't live, it was prerecorded. When I watched the show, because Im a little monster die-hard huge fan of Lady Gaga, I was already questioning what just happened. The chorus in her song, "Don't call my name, don't call my name, Alejandro. I'm not your babe, I'm not your babe, Fernando. Don't wanna kiss, don't wanna touch, just smoke my cigarette and hush. Don't call my name, Don't call my name, Roberto..." (Alejandro, lyrics by Lady Gaga), didnt seem to fall into place at around 3:15 into the clip. While I'm singing along at home to her dance routine and chorus, I slipped up on the lyrics that I thought I had mastered after playing her album "The Fame Monster" nonstop for the past few months. Then it happened again shortly after that part of the song!! I couldn't figure it out, and was getting a bit confused.

Since I DVR'd the show, I rewound the clip to see if maybe I was just blanking out and hallucinating the scene, but nope, there it was again. Out of my confusion, I immediately jump on my computer and went straight to Twitter (twitter.com) to find out if I was alone in my world. I do not have a twitter account, but I do frequent Lady Gaga's twitter page to see what she's up to, and sure enough, she posted something which quickly fired me into an uproar:

" http://bit.ly/apyBrH FOX POORLY + AMATEURLY edited+cut my performance/musical arrangement on idol. Watch real version. http://bit.ly/apyBrH 11:36 AM May 6th via OpenBeak

http://bit.ly/apyBrH here's my full american idol performance ALEJANDRO. Fox chopped up my performance in 4 places. Real version on itunes. " (twitter.com/ladygaga)

I was livid! I knew something was fishy about the broadcast performance on "American Idol", but I couldn't believe there was more to the story than just a horrible editing job. When I clicked the link she posted to check out the REAL performance, I noticed that you can actually SEE the dance routine! It was the first time in "American Idol" history that there was an all-male dance group dancing together. Like, together together! They dip each other, spin each other, rub each other, etc...in a very tasteful manner. Lady Gaga is a professional and she knows her boundaries for how and what she can do, especially on a "family" show. In the FOX edit, you see many close up shots of her and her upperbody. You get a little less than 2 minutes of the actual performance that FOX pre-recorded. You don't get the magnitude of dance moves, shake and shimmy, and over all Gaganess of the performance. I'll give it to you, though, because it's sheer genius:



The fact that it was edited so much was because of the backlash FOX would face if the homosexual dance content was shown on air. Do we even know if the men in the background were gay? No. Do we even know if they have gay sex together? No. Does it LOOK like they are gays and going to have gay sex with each other? Heck no! They were performing art, dance, and did it in a very tasteful manner! FOX responded to the left by saying they had to cut down the performance to less than 5 minutes due to time constraints, but never mentioned anything about the fact that they took the male dancers out of focus during their couple's routine.

Focusing on another show FOX airs, "Glee", Im just gonna take a jump into something that also shows how homosexuals are depicted. We all know the stereotype that homosexuals don't have a strong relationship with their same-sex parent, which causes them to become gay. Case in point, we have Kurt Hummel, the token gay guy on the show. Throughout the series, for those who have yet to see it, he is the flamboyant and extremely effeminate boy who wears bright colors, fantasizes about the lead male character (who is straight, but that doesn't stop the gay guy from crushing on him), has a high pitched voice, has a thin body, uninterested in sports, and has an image of being weak. This is his character, this is a stereotypical gay guy in high school. Is this really what they're like?

I like to tell myself that I transcend boundaries and stereotypes for my cultural identity. I'm a strong-willed male who is very opinionated and aggressive in behavior. I wear dark colors, or rather not so pastelly, bulky, strong, and deep voiced. That's not me on the TV screen, and that certainly wasn't me in high school. Where are the real gays?! Are they too busy hiding in fear because of their lackluster relationships with their same-sex parent? To make my point, I would like to show an additional two clips of Kurt on "Glee". The first one is the typical Kurt, what he always looks like and how he sings. The second, is his response to his father shunning him to hang out and be a father-figure for said male lead, who is without a father. Kurt goes from flamboyant tinkerbell to roughneck, macho, John Mellencamp singing, wanna-be heterosexual wearing a trucker hat and bubble jacket vest who is in need of his father.





It just sends a message to the LGBTQ youth communities that, while it's okay to be gay, you have to play this particular role. Roles tell us a lot about our culture, and when you have a media conglomerate as large as FOX setting roles, stereotypes, and making it seem like the same-sex parent myth is true, future generations start to believe those messages.

Editing music acts and changing the way a character is portrayed to fit what media big wigs want? I fail to see how that is fair and balanced. I know, that slogan is for the news channel, but I really don't want to get started there.

I could go on and on, but I think these two very solid pieces of evidence are a good start for you readers out there to begin your very own research and develop a sense of what's right and what's wrong in the media.



All clips are courtesy of Youtube.com and are searchable.

It's Gay Week!!

So this week in class, we are focusing on LGBT in the Media on how Hollywood (or lack thereof) has depicted it.

Boy...do I have several topics to narrow my weekly post down from.

Stay tuned...

=)

Murderball: Disabled MEN

(Image courtesy: Paramount Pictures)

This week in IDS 101, we screened the film, Murderball. This is the tremendously inspiring story of quadriplegic men who, through their strife, band together and form a Wheelchair Rugby team. They train together, play together, and compete globally in the World Wheelchair Rugby Championship as well as the Summer Paralympic Games. The story of these players is very inspiring, as they take what they have, and live to achieve great things. It is also the story of men, being men, in a much different capacity.

We were asked to examine and critique the masculinity involved in the film and consider the intersection of gender and disability. I found it very interesting to see one of the main characters in the film, Mark Zupan, as this tattooed dude with a goatee and incredible body build saying, "hit me, and I'll hit you back". It was a glimpse at the tough, masculine shield and armor he wears in his life. He makes more comments throughout the film, such as "you have to gain respect, I'm not going to give it to you", which continue to show the edgy person he is. Two of his friends are also interviewed who claim that he was "an asshole before and after the accident," and that to blame the accident on his assholeness was, "an oxymoron". Zupan has a very competitive personality, being involved on the Championship team and the Paralympic team, and always seen scoring goal after goal. We also have a glimpse of the more caring side, which is rarely a side we see, when the story of his accident are displayed on screen.

His high school buddy, Chris Igoe, who felt deep regret and responsibility for the accident, failed to attend their 10 year reunion because of the feelings he would have seeing Zupan in a wheelchair. One of their other friends tells Zupan she heard from Igoe the previous week via 3am drunken phone call. She said she was worried about him, but knew he would be okay knowing that Zupan was alive. Two other friends described them as being just enough to understand each other, one keeping their emotions in while the other understood with a simple nod. In homo-social environments, this display of manly emotions is an extreme of masculinity; not showing or talking about emotions. When the team leaves for Athens for the Paralympic games, Zupan invites Igoe out to Greece to see them, and Igoe happily obliges. This is a masculine display of affection, which is sweet, to say the least.

It is apparently that masculinity does not change when a person's life is dramatically altered. In fact, it is clear that it can also greatly magnify the machismo. Joe Soares is another of the main characters in the film. He is also a quadriplegic who's bought with polio at a young age put him in a wheel chair. He is considered one of the top rated wheel chair sportsmen of all time, having competed in numerous championships on both National and International circuits. The first (or second) time we see Joe, he is on a court, ignoring a female coach from another team and mumbling "F&$# You, Bitch". This is a sign of future things to come from this man. He is a highly competitive, driven man who is not allowed to coach the USA rugby team, and joins the Canadian team to extract revenge. In the film, he is hell-bent on winning. He has a room in his house, displaying all of his trophies and championships as a shrine to himself. Very self-absorbed by his ego, Soares works tirelessly to discipline his team and get them to beat team USA.

Soares has a son, who is not interested in sports, but is incredibly smart and talented in other areas. During a homo-social event (Superbowl party/BBQ), Soares talks about how he wants his son to play sports and be involved in sports competition. He wants him to be macho and tough, and uses his own brand of "tough love", which he learned from his Police Officer father. It's touching to see this and hear these words on film because it almost seems to be a completely different culture. In the end, however, after Team Canada beat USA in Athens, Soares came home to watch his son play in a Strings Band performance, hugging his son and telling him he was so proud of him. Yet, another tender display of sweetness that men seldom show.

The USA team is also shown in the film playing poker, talking about athletic chicks, boobs, drinking beer, smoking cigars, and talking about sex. Sex is an interesting point made in the film, as the men talk about how they "work the chicks", for a good 20 minutes as they talk about how they became quadriplegics and if "it" still works. I think that because this film is based on men, it was necessary to put some focus on sex because they are men. Call me crazy, but whenever men are the focus of a film, it almost always seems that women will be seen as sexual things to them no matter the circumstances. And, of course, there is a film which a doctor presents a newly rehabbed quadriplegic patient with that focuses on "sexual rehab". It teaches them new ways to do "it". If the film focused on quadriplegic women, would if have any emphasis on how they have sex? Probably not, it might just send the message that women would have to get along without sex. Interesting, but not something to overlook.

All in all, it was a great film to watch for some inspiration and to make you realize that you may be missing somethings, you may be incapable of doing things "like everyone else", but you should never give up anything just because you have to change how you do it. Or "it".

=)

Quotes courtesy: "Murderball"

Sick? Too bad!!!

Health Care. It's been on the minds of most Americans this past year, and for others, many years. This has been one of the most Topsy-turvy roller coaster policies in American History, to date. America's health care industry is economically 1/5th of the country's Gross Domestic Product, and it is because of this, the opposition to free health care pit themselves against those many who cannot afford health care. This "luxury", as it's seemingly being treated, should be a fundamental right to all Americans. Are we not the country that sits on top of the world and looks down on everyone else? Ok, so that may be taking it a bit too far, but when you think about the sheer wealth our country owns (not you and I, the other 10%), a martian would think that the Americans are well taken care of. In the year 2010, 233 years into the life of the United States of America, an approximate 47 million people do not have health insurance. If 47 million people were to develop cancer or have coronary heart disease, we would have roughly less as many people living in America.

It's a bold statement to make, but unfortunately, there is much truth in the statement. Regardless of what side of the isle you stand on, one cannot brush over the facts of how unhealthy America is today. One of the top reasons why people do not have health insurance, is not because they simply don't want it, but the cost of coverage is just too steep for many people. According to a study conducted by Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm), the average cost of health insurance for a family is $13,375 annually. If you divide that by month, you get about $1115, which is as much, if not more, than a mortgage payment. When you have to balance costs and your family's budget and spending, you are already looking at $2230 on just housing and health care, IF you can find such an affordable home. Take into consideration the costs of utilities in, for example, Washington State. I pay, for a family of 2, $300 for electricity, sewage, gas, water, and phones. Then, we have auto insurance: $250. A large number of middle-class American's also have a car payment; $250. Then food! Currently, an average family might spend around $400 a month on food alone. If you add up these monthly costs, and these are just rough estimates, you are looking at a monthly expenditure of $3430. Annually, that's $41160. If you take out the cost of health care, it drops down to $27785. This number, is much more easier to reach with a household of 1 income. This number is still pretty high for a large portion of the population, which would make sense for those families to not have health insurance.

Now, I by no means think they are being negligent in not paying for health insurance, as we're all guilty at one point in our lives of sacrificing some bill or another to pinch some pennies. The point that I'm making is, health care costs have increased by 48% since 2000 (Kaiser Family Foundation; Health Research & Educational Trust), which either puts families out on the streets, bankrupt, or simply, without coverage.

In the Michael Moore documentary film, SiCKo, we get a very impressive point of view on America's health care system. Moore starts off his film by interviewing a number of families who have been affected by the rising health care costs and how for-profit Health Maintenance Organizations deny benefits and increase costs. He uncovers through personal statements and letters from some of the major HMOs rejecting payment for medical treatment to patients, rejecting coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and statement increases families have had to suffer with in having health care coverage.


(Photo Courtesy Canadianflag.com)

He then makes some strong comparisons to foreign countries that have a different systems with almost no cost to its citizens. My partner, NJ, is a Canadian citizen. He has one annual payment that he has to make in order to keep his health insurance: $180. This is the only payment he has ever had to make in his entire life for medical care. Two years ago, he had to have a small growth removed from the backside of his neck (don't ask). In the States, even with my medical coverage I was receiving from the company I worked for (it's a big one, with one of the highest rated benefits package in the state), we would have had a medical bill exceeding $12,500. He made an appointment in Vancouver, BC for the same surgery. Our total cost: $60...on GAS to travel up to Vancouver! The amazing Canada Health Act ensured that the burden of cost would not be placed on its citizen. WOW!!

One of the countries Moore gives us a look into is France. I became extremely jealous of the French after watching this film, and even looked at relocating to France. It is there, where health care is free. Prescription drugs are free. Education is free. Nannies are free. Day care is free. EVERYTHING A FAMILY NEEDS IS FREE!!! This is a country that knows caring for a family should never be a burden and its government is more than willing to encourage and participate in this beautiful thing called family building. This is important, as parents have more opportunity to teach values and ethics to their children so they have an equal chance at a happy life. This is something any country would envy, but if you as a hard right American, he'll call it "Socialism".


(Courtesy: The Columbus Dispatch)

In American, "we don't give handouts", according to some extremist conservatives who have fought tooth and nail only to lose the battle over health care reform. We also have the highest mortality rate. And the highest obesity numbers amongst children. And the largest wage and wealth gaps between the extremely poor and the extremely rich. But, we're not a Socialist country because Nazi Germany was a Socialist country too, right? I mean, really, they were National Socialists. Really. This is important.

National Socialists is the English translation for the Nazi Party. What they actually practiced was "Fascism". There are some VERY DIFFERENT political and economic beliefs between the two, but I'm just saying.

47 Million Americans do not have health care coverage. This is due in large to employer-sponsored cut backs (they can't afford it), and simply because health care in America is just too expensive for most families. The rich, upper-class, and middle-upper class wouldn't have much difficulty affording coverage, but why can't America help its "other" citizens have this basic and necessary right? Maybe, one day, we too can be like France. Or Canada. Or Britain. Hell, even like Cuba.