You can be gay – just don’t be happy

Imagine you’re a child. Imagine you’re a child who never got to have bubblegum – just chewing gum. Now all the grown ups kept saying that it did the same thing, it contained sugar and that it was still sweet. But all the little kids in the playground had bubblegum. You had chewing gum.

Lets start this easily long-winded discussion on gay marriage with our friends in the US, the leaders of the free world.

In Australia’s relationship with the US, the US is the Britney Spears of the family; the older, crazier, more famous and more radical sibling. When it comes to kicking conservatism to the curb, the US are second to none.

If you’re not Sarah Palin you may know that the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade made it legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy for any reason up until the point where the “foetus becomes viable”, seven months.  Heck, if you’re not Sarah Palin you probably know a lot of things.

Let’s also not forgot the ingenious Bill of Rights which protects the much needed right to bear firearms.

So in supposedly the greatest country in the world, you can kill babies that are two months from birth and you can risk the lives of millions of schoolkids in high school massacres which seem to be as frequent as Jennifer Aniston attempting to release another blockbuster. Apologies, her first blockbuster.

Despite having laws in place that risk lives, the California Supreme Court ruled in May to uphold Proposition 8. Arguably one of the more liberal states in the US continues to treat gay and lesbian citizens as second-class people who do not have the same access to rights as heterosexuals.

When we look at the situation in Australia, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. In fact this Australian apple was dropped on the head as a child.

The US allows abortion for any reason up to seven months. Australia, with the exclusion of one state, only allows abortion under strict circumstances as prescribed by a doctor. The US allows the right to bare firearms. Australia amended the Firearms Act in 2008 after years of lobbying only so far as to make it easier to obtain a license.

We lag behind. And with gay marriage, we lag even further. It’s not even lagging behind in a cute way like Eric the Eel. It’s more the sort of lagging the really big contestant does in a Biggest Loser challenge – painful to watch and almost beyond hope.

When all is said, when it’s all done and dusted and the fat lady has sung (probably that same Biggest Loser contestant) the anti-gay marriage argument boils down to two main points.

The first is that the term marriage is sacred and has religious origins that have permeated throughout history. A marriage is between a man and a woman.

The second is that gay people do not make good parents.

In regards to the first issue the first thing is obvious. How religious are we? No really, just think about it. Australian heroes are footballers. Married footballers engage in controversially consented group sex. Need I say more?

Furthermore, this preoccupation that a marriage is sacred between only a man and a woman is ludicrous. This has meant that in Australia homosexuals can only be a de facto couple – not a married couple. You can have chewing gum, just makes sure you stay right away from that special bubblegum.

On one hand, I get it. If homosexuals get the same rights as married heterosexuals when it comes to health insurance, tax, parenting and separation – then maybe homosexuals just need to ‘get over it’. Maybe “marriage” is just a term churchgoers are in love with and homosexuals should leave it alone.

But how just is that?

That argument rests on the fact society is willing to give homosexual couples everything – just not the word “marriage”.

But if it is just a term, isn’t it more humane to lean on the side that encourages happiness rather than the one that denies rights?

The second argument is equally as intelligent as George Bush trying to push doors that don’t open. The argument that children need both a male and female figure in the early stages of their lives is valid. Controversial and potentially as weak as Britney’s singing, but it is valid.

Firstly, what about single parents? Are we saying that all single parents are horrible people because they are denying a child to be immersed in the environment a heterosexual couple can offer them? That’s right, because the single-parent families which make up 14 per cent of all families in Australia are breeding anti-social, mentally challenged and depressed left-wing criminals.

Oh and all those heterosexual parents – they’re doing a fantastic job. Please take a moment to applaud them. Please take a moment to applaud those awesome kids on P plates who speed and take the lives of innocent people. Let’s also congratulate the refined skills of Corey Worthington’s parents. I take my hat off.

So while states in the US continue to uphold Proposition 8 and Australia continues to live in denial, many people will be celebrating. Many people will be jumping up and down that some human beings can’t adopt or foster children, won’t be able to file joint tax returns and are unable to tick the “married” boxes when filling out forms. What a win for them.

Meanwhile, others just want to be happy.

It’s Always Racey

“I don’t think you’re ready for ethnicity ‘cause my body’s too bootylicious for you babe”. That’s what Destiny’s Child should have sung.

Let’s face it, when we think of Beyonce Knowles we don’t think of the ten Grammy awards she has won. Instead we think of the black voluptuous songstress who can work a crowd into a frenzy by doing the original ‘uh-oh’.

Racial differentiation is an ugly money-making-monster that rears its head, and if it can, swallows up all one’s talent, leaving them with only their bust, waist and weight measurements to make a living.

Society treats ethnicity like John McCain does Sarah Palin. The former says to the latter, “Come over here, look sexy and work to better my interests”.

Speaking of American politics- Barack Obama. The number of times Obama has been labelled “handsome” is the only count to surpass the recent changes to political leadership in Australia.

The media’s embrace of Obama’s aesthetic difference with Michael Phelps-sized arms is not only unprecedented, but also reminiscent of the populous support Colin Powell had in 1995 as the media were desperate to inject hype into the impending presidential campaign. Doesn’t the US media know it’s impossible? Cue John Howard’s Youtube cameos.

Journalists and talk show hosts continue revel in how Obama looks youthful, looks passionate and looks like someone with promise. Television shows have thus painted Obama as a fresh and in-touch politician. To answer the previous question: no.

Though, who can blame the media? We live in an image-obese world. Although Kirsty Alley would disagree and say it is obesity of the literal kind that is affecting our world.

Internet blogs erupted with excitement thanks to Tina Fey’s return to Saturday Night Live for two skits as foreign policy wiz and US vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Palin says she recorded all of NBC’s Friday night programming but is still unable to find the skit.

The NBC’s other media colleagues are also quick to join the coal-fuelled bandwagon of bagging Republicans’ political prowess while on the other hand celebrating Obama’s charm.

For instance, four of the five ladies on US talk show The View hold partisan opinions in favour of Obama, leaving John McCain supporter and client of the world’s best hair colourist , Elizabeth Hasselbeck, constantly reduced to tears.

On the Ellen Degeneres Show, both Barack and Michelle Obama will be remembered for their coordination and rhythm as they slid, shook and shimmied their way onto the couch for their interview. In contrast, McCain will be remembered by Degeneres’ fans as the man who said, “People should be able to enter into legal agreements” when asked about gay marriage.

What I’m trying to say is that society whether out of convenience or pressure, commonly finds it easier to munch on physical differences be it in a positive or negative light. It’s apparently fun and refreshing.

One would be kidding themselves if Russian superstar and former part-time tennis player Anna Kournikova was to be remembered as the pioneer of women’s tennis in Russia and not her magazine spreads, lacklustre service action and off-court profile which has seen her become one of the richest sports people of all time. Andy Kirsty Alley wonders why Jenny Craig dropped her kilos.

One would also be forgiven for overlooking the producing and directing endeavours of Jennifer Lopez, Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek (executive producer of Golden Globe wining Ugly Betty). Not surprisingly, many simply associate these hardworking Latinas as ‘the curvy ones of Hollywood’.

When it comes to pointing out difference, we love to hype it up. It’s exciting. It’s new. But inline with what I have already said, this issue is not limited to race. It’s gender as well. But that’s a whole other can of worms that no amount of lipstick wiping off pigs from a windowsill in Alaska overlooking Russia can clean up.

But offcourse all this debate surrounding the media’s portrayal of physical differences is actually meant to help solve healthcare and unemployment issues. Isn’t that right Sarah?