|
|
Add one part satire to two parts sincerity. Sprinkle on a couple of rants. Stir liberally.
RSS feed coming soon!
Daily Blah FAQ
Who are you?
I'm the newly-appointed Future editor at Business 2.0 and the former San Francisco correspondent for Time Magazine.
Wow, so does this mean everything you write reflects Time Inc's opinion? Or do you perhaps have some sort of standard disclaimer to the effect that it doesn't?
Naturally, the opinions contained in this blog are not those of my employers. In fact, some opinions may be the polar opposite of my employers. Some may be the same, for all I know. Hey, it's not like I ask my employers their opinions about everything in the news, okay? Let's just say that if this were a Venn diagram with one circle marked "my opinions" and the other one marked "my employers' opinions", there would doubtless be some overlap. But neither I nor my employers are able to pinpoint exactly where that overlap is.
What is this Daily Blah thing?
An experiment for a column I wrote about blogging back in December 2001. All these years later, I haven't been able to kick the habit.
If it's called Daily Blah, how come you don't ... hey, wait, you're writing every day!
See? Told you I'd try harder.
Mister, you talk funny. Are you one of them furrners?
Why yes I am, as it happens. I was born, raised and educated in Great Britain. I've been living in the U.S. since 1996 and identify as British.
I say, old chap, you forgot the "u" in "colour."
No I didn't. I may identify as British, but I am also an American journalist writing for an American audience about mostly American issues. These two different sides of me are a constant source of tension. Nevertheless, Daily Blah will adhere to American English grammar and spelling.
Praise for Daily Blah:
"It is fun to watch the author's navel-gazing joy." - Sunday Times (UK)
"It's really funny and informative." - Dave Eggers, author
"The Blah is becoming a daily destination for me." - Richard Marsh, Playwright
"I like it, and I don't." - Fiona Hogg, Teacher
"Better than Xanax." - Lessley Andersen, journalist
"Dude, lay off the crack pipe." - Souris Hong-Porretta, gamesmith
Friends, Bloggers, Countrymen ... lend your ears to these people. I come not to bury them, but praise them.
Arik
Bill
Dan
Cole
Emily B
Emily G
Helena
Jee
Jewelz
Kaila
Kathryn
Mac
Robin
Slim
Souris
Mr. West
My TIME articles
All magazine articles (subscription required for older stories)
Online column index
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Blah for... Friday, March 12, 2004
Wedstock Deadlock
It's a sad day for San Francisco. Last night the state supreme court swooped in and ended same-sex marriages, pending a hearing on the matter. No justification was offered for this move by the majority Republican court; no harm was demonstrated. And yet there was harm in stopping what has come to be known as "Wedstock," the tide of unexpected bliss that has engulfed City Hall for a month. Just ask the couple that flew in from Phoenix for a marriage appointment that turned out to be an hour after the court ruled. Just look at the shattered dreams and crushed hopes of many years.
There will, one day, be legal gay marriage in America. It's an historical inevitability. As the New Yorker artfully pointed out this week, there is a generational divide on the matter. Poll after poll shows the under-30's get it. One day they will be the generation in power, and we will wonder what all the fuss was about. But you know what? I'm tired of waiting for that day. I've seen Wedstock first-hand, and I'm sick of the blinkered stupidity that prevents that kind of joy from being found everywhere.
So all snarkiness aside, I want to address opponents of gay marriage. I don't know how many of them are among my readers, but if I can reach just one -- if you can reach just one -- it's worth a little bit of pedestrian logic. Okay, opponents, exactly what is your objection?
1) You believe homosexuality is a sin against God.
If so, go back and read the Bible. I respect beliefs based on a religious text, but this one is not. Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexual love, only love as a whole (and you'd think he would have specified if certain types of love were "forbidden."). Indeed, your belief is sanctioned by only one verse in the Old Testament: Leviticus 18:22. And a lot of things are sanctioned by the Old Testament, including slavery, animal sacrifice, polygamy, kosher food rules and execution as a punishment for working on the Sabbath. You cannot honestly and fairly believe in the literal truth of every word in the Old Testament unless you believe in all of these practices. Even if you did, most Christians believe that Christ represented a break with the rules of Leviticus. That's how they eat bacon cheeseburgers guilt-free.
2) You believe homosexuality is "unnatural."
I think what you really mean to say is "icky." Because you can't be talking about nature. Nature is utterly, flamboyantly, unrepentantly gay. Don't believe me? Check out Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, the definitive work on this topic. You'll find it replete with photos and case studies. Gay couples are not only fully accepted in the animal kingdom, they're also good at raising kids. Somewhere in our evolution, it seems, we lost a little tolerance for diversity. Probably right around the same time we started making weapons.
3) You believe in preserving the "sanctity of marriage."
Then let's have a Constitutional amendment to ban drive-thru marriage chapels. Let's ban adultery. Let's ban divorce. But marriage has always been between a man and a woman, you say? Then you know little about early Church history. Check out Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe for a primer. Admittedly, marriage has been exclusively for men and women in recent centuries. But if wedlock traditions never changed, we'd all be demanding dowries for our daughters and prearranging marriages for our 12-year-olds. Have some flexibility, and you'll see that extending the institution of marriage to all committed partners is actually a good way to help preserve it.
4) You believe in "separate but equal" civil unions.
And how about installing separate water fountains, bathrooms and bus seats while you're at it? We don't want to go through another painful century of separate but equal. History has shown it works just about as well as Prohibition. And if a civil union is to have the same rights as a marriage -- well, why not call a spade a spade? Why not give gay couples their semantic due? Where do you get off treading on their happiness by denying them the M-word?
|
|
|
|
