ON BRÜNO

Numero Bruno

Before I saw Brüno this evening, I had read gushing reviews heralding the film as a brilliant skewering of homophobia and ignorance.

I also read equally negative reviews, as well as complaints from several advocacy groups, slamming it as a faux-gay minstrel show that has the ultimate effect of promoting homophobia.

Given that Sacha Baron Cohen attended a rally for Proposition 8 as a potential scene for this movie, I had high hopes that this film would skewer the lunacy of homophobia.

But I nonetheless viewed it with an open mind, open to a spectrum of possibility, ready to opine on the matter.

Alas, I just finished watching it and I only have one strong opinion about this film: it is exceptionally apolitical.

It's just two hours of extreme pranks with a brave provocateur who had the sole goal to shock and awe.

Spoiler alert: Consider the Ron Paul scene. For me, the idea of Brüno tricking Ron Paul into making a sex tape is delicious with potential. Ron Paul, after all, is one of many politicians opposed to fully extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians. However, the scene is funny only to the extent that it is funny to see any random person -- regardless of their politics or sexual orientation -- being Punk'd by a fake gay Austrian fashionista who tries to seduce him. Plus, Ron Paul is no Rick Santorum.

Sacha Baron Cohen and director Larry Charles seemed driven by a purpose beyond entertainment in only one scene: when they exposed the lunacy of stage parents willing to sacrifice anything to land their kids a gig. (Those five minutes, in my opinion, were well worth the price of admission.)

In contrast, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan was a thoughtful satire that had the partial goal of exposing some subtle forms of prejudice that Americans have towards immigrants.

What Borat and Brüno have in common, however, is that both films left me a hundred times more fascinated in the guerrilla tactics used to make the movie than the finished products themselves.

Long after I've forgotten about specific scenes from these movies and the television show, I will continue to wonder how so many people were duped into signing consent forms and remaining on camera even after the hijinks started.

--Junichi

PROP 8: THE MUSICAL

--Junichi

PROP 8 BACKLASH...BACKLASH

a smarter campaign
Updated 11/12 - See below.

Apart from Obama's win, the other election story that's been getting heavy play has been dissecting Prop 8, and in particular, the Black vote. Obviously, that was part of the convo with Poplicks' earlier post but there's some new information - and arguments - worth considering.

1) That 70% number being bandied around should have been taken with a greater grain of salt (not the least of all by me). That's what CNN reported but a local, Los Angeles exit poll suggests a far more balanced vote: "another poll by the Center for the Study of L.A. found in Los Angeles, just over half of blacks supported Prop 8." That would put the Black vote closer to the overall result (52/48). At the very least, it suggests that no single demographic was the tipping point.

2) Also, 538.com points out that even if CNN's polls contain some truth, they also show that among first-time voters, Prop 8 would have gone to defeat. This goes directly to the argument that "all those Obama voters got Prop 8 passed". That idea plays well as a media soundbite but it doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny.

3) Speaking of scrutiny, if you can get through the 10,000 words written here, there's an even more thorough numerical debunking on DailyKos. I'll just skip to the conclusion: "Proposition 8 would have still passed by 81,565 votes, if Black voters had done no more than reflect the rest of the state's will on the matter." I didn't realize this was actually in contention - the math isn't that complicated to figure out that Black votes - alone - could not have made the key difference in the election. Whites and Latinos had far more numerical clout.

4) What's interesting is how the perception around the electoral math - right or wrong - has taken a life of its own since those who presume it's true proceed with arguments that seek to explain that 70% figure. Case in point, Jasyme Cannick wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times that explains why she thinks the proposition did poorly amongst African Americans:

"The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1."

I think Cannick makes some excellent points here, not the least of which was the weaknesses of the No on 8 campaign, especially around outreach. In an interview on NPR she did, she pointed out that when she was registering African Americans to vote in neighborhoods like Watts' Jordan Projects, it became apparent to her that the Yes on 8 campaign had found a way to get the word out there but not the No on 8 campaign.

If true, this raises at least two questions: did No on 8 not know how reach this community? Or maybe they just didn't think it would matter and so they didn't try.

This said, there was one thing nagging me in Cannick's argument: she makes a good case for why the campaign failed on outreach but that doesn't address why there'd be so much opposition to gay marriage within the Black community (again, assuming CNN's numbers were vaguely accurate, which they may not be).

What I'm saying is that there's a big difference between a proposition legalizing gay marriage vs. a proposition which rescinds legalization. Polls have consistently showed that while many people are not in favor of legalizing gay marriage an even larger number of people are against the idea of amending the constitution to enforce that. To put it another way, it's one thing to give a right; it's another thing to take it away and Prop 8 was asking people to remove a right.

Indifference alone wouldn't get the latter passed. If you don't care about gay marriage one way or another, why vote for rescinding it? In this case, a "yes" vote meant you were actively deciding, "I don't want gay people to have this right" and Cannick's argument, well-stated as it is elsewhere, doesn't really address this point. The only exception is when she writes:

"black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community."

Somewhere, Ronnie is smiling, about to say, "see, told you!"

Cannick actually elaborates more on this point in that NPR interview, the gist of which is that gay marriage proponents really need to strategize a way to win over people that has to include the recognition of how the church plays a role in the Black community. As I suggested in my original post, the church network turned out to be tremendously effective for the Yes on 8 campaign and Cannick's advice here would align well with the idea that any future organizing will either have to persuade (or on the other hand, stymie) the degree that religious networks become involved.

5) Last thing, but check out this county breakdown comparing Prop 22 (2000) with Prop 8. It's basically a tale of two regions - CA coastal cities were the main swing force - the Bay Area went over more pro-gay marriage while Los Angeles went less anti-gay marriage. However, what was consistent was opposition to gay marriage everywhere else in the state. BUT, even then, support for gay marriage - at worst - was static but otherwise gained elsewhere. That, to me, is a positive sign for the future.

---

11/12 Update: Mark Anthony Neal addresses many of these same issues and, I think, nails some important ideas to move forward with:

"black views on same sex-marriage are more complicated; simply reading black voters as inherently homophobic misses the complexity of an issue that, in black communities, is often tied to the absence of black men as husbands and fathers. Understood in that context, same-sex marriage goes against the belief of many within black communities that black survival is hopelessly tied to traditional marriage patterns. That said, the Black Clergy needs to be accountable for hateful rhetoric directed towards gays, lesbians and transgendered citizens (including a good many in their congregations) and for willful fear-mongering."

"For black communities we need to get past our romantic ties to the traditional nuclear family and the thought that we can only raise productive children if both a man and women are present in a household... Obama himself is evidence of models that don’t privilege the presence of father-figure per se, but rather the presence of many adults engaged in the lives of our children. Quite frankly, black children raised in a gay or lesbian household with engaged adult figures are likely better off than those raised in single-parent households or in heterosexual households where neither parent is up to the challenge of parenting. The point here is that we need to be more sophisticated about how family structures function."

"White progressives who sought to defeat Proposition 8 would do well to be a little more self-critical of the privilege that undergirds some of their politics. Debates about same-sex marriage, however important they are, are debates that only a privileged few can really be engaged in. The struggle for them is to better align these debates with the material realities of the working poor and the working class, communities for which the time to protest anything is at a premium...It is incumbent upon white progressives to get better at finding common ground with black communities, beyond the dated liberal agenda that brought us together in the first place."

As always, Mark is the M.A.N.

--O.W.

ON THE APPALLING PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 8

Separate and Unequal

Needless to say, I am ecstatic about the presidential election and will write later about what President Obama's election means to me.

But the passage of Proposition 8 -- along with other anti-gay initiatives in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida -- is seriously dampening my celebration.

A majority of Californian voters just granted new fundamental civil rights to egg-laying chickens while stripping fundamental civil rights away from loving gay and lesbian human beings.

November 4, 2008 -- rightly heralded as a national civil rights milestone -- also marked the first time that a state has stripped away a marriage-related civil right to a discriminated minority group after initially granting it.

As someone who has studied the judicial branch's handling of sexual orientation and the law, I can confidently predict that no state or federal court will get in the way of Proposition 8.

Which is to say, unless California voters pass a new initiative that reinstates gay marriage, gay and lesbian Californians will never again have the right to marry.

(There is a strong legal argument that the 18,000 gay marriages that took place over the last few months will remain valid, however, as the language of Prop. 8 does not include any intent to apply retroactively.)

I know that Gloria Allred is filing a lawsuit to stop Prop. 8, but her suit is unlikely to invalidate the initiative. Unlike Prop. 22 in 2000, Prop. 8 amends the state constitution; thus, there's essentially no argument that Prop. 8 violates state law.

Moreover, there is no viable legal argument that Prop. 8 conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or any federal law. Sadly, not one federal court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to require marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Keep in mind that under federal law, there is no right to be protected, for example, against hiring discrimination by an anti-gay employer. It would require some seriously "activist" Supreme Court justices to read a right to gay marriage into the Constitution.

Theoretically, Congress could pass a law mandating marriage equality that is intended to preempt state law. But the chances of that happening are about the same as Sarah Palin's chances of dominating on Jeopardy.

Thus, for now, Proposition 8 represents a nail in the coffin for full gay and lesbian equality in California.

Although dispirited, I remain optimistic, however, that we will eventually see full equality again in California.

This will require a new smartly-worded initiative, a better-organized movement, more money, and only an incremental shift in public opinion. (It was close, after all.)

Since we've seen the successful scare tactics of the fundamentalists' Yes on 8 campaign, any new initiative should probably make clear that places of religious worship will not be required to offer gay weddings.

For those who are with me on this civil rights struggle, we have a lot of work to do.

---

(OW chimes in)

Junichi, thanks for that informative - though sobering - reality check. I do want to add something here...

I've noticed that some people seem to forget that Prop 22 passed just eight years ago and, to me, it says a lot that, collectively, Prop 22 actually has been forgotten. The idea of gay marriage is prevalent enough to - on the one hand, spark a reactionary backlash as we've seen - but it's also common enough that we take its possibility for granted.

The other thing worth noting is that Prop 22 passed by a massive margin: 20+ points whereas Prop 8 is going to get by on just 4 points. I don't think you can really quantify tolerance but a five fold decrease in opposition to gay marriage in just eight years seems something worth thinking about.

Back when Prop 22 passed, I said, despairingly, to a few friends that "gay marriage will never happen in our lifetime" and one of them chided me to pay attention to the long view and see just how far things had come, even despite that evening's results and I think it's worth thinking on this too in our moment of discouragement.

The beauty of the state initiative system which is also its curse is that, in any given year, who knows what will come to the fore? And there's nothing stopping a well-organized campaign from putting the acceptance of gay marriage on next year's ballot.

And the next year's ballot.

And the next year's ballot.

Until that 4 point spread is gone.

American social justice has never taken a path of linear progress. There are always set-backs and resurgent periods of reactionary behavior. But I think this issue is winnable - absolutely winnable - with better organizing and better education especially in communities of color. As some of the exit polling has shown, the single-most community that came out for Prop 8 were African Americans - at 70%! - and the Latino community was also largely in favor of it too (~55-57%). Strikingly as well: the counties that voted against it, overwhelmingly, were the best educated in the state. No county where less than 10% of the population had bachelor's degrees (~20) voted against it.

So there's work to be done but this is not an impossibility (least of all in a state as mercurial as California). I think there's every reason to think that within the next eight year cycle, we'll see gay marriage legalized in California.

Junichi, a question for you: you think there'd be a state movement to outlaw any form of civil union that essentially grants the same rights to non-hetero couples?

--Junichi

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS: VOTER GUIDE

After some research, I've decided on how I will be voting on the California propositions on Tuesday's state ballot. I encourage you to leave comments if you disagree, however, as I haven't actually voted yet.

For those who simply trust me and don't want to arrive at their own conclusions, here above and below is my (Junichi's) voter guide for Tuesday's state initiatives:


Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act - YES

Los Angeles was recently selected as the city with the worst public transportation system in the world. With a high speed rail that will get travelers from L.A. to S.F. in under 3 hours for under $60, L.A. can move up that list and surpass at least Phoenix, Houston, Baltimore, Baghdad, and Kabul. The only flawed aspect of the initiative is that it doesn't increase safety by banning train engineers from text messaging high school students.


Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals. - NO

I'm torn on this one.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not big on animal rights, especially when efforts to advance them are at the expense of human rights. But as a general principle, I support the notion that animals should be treated as humanely as possible. Moreover, I'm willing to pay a premium for organic eggs from free-range chickens and hope that other consumers will do the same.

But it's not hard to imagine how an initiative that increases production costs by 20 percent will put the entire chicken farming industry in California out of business. In the last few decades, I've already seen plenty of farms go out of business in and nearby my hometown of Hanford.

Moreover, if we're going to raise farmers' production costs by 20 percent, I'd rather it be because of more humane conditions for workers -- and not just the chickens.


Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act. - NO

Why are we giving money to private hospitals that are flush with cash? Some of the beneficiary hospitals aren't even children's hospitals.


Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy - NO, PLEASE, NO

Because anything that increases the likelihood of self-induced abortions is a really, really bad idea.


Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole, and Rehabilitation. - YES

Why isn't this prop getting more props? Prop 5 is quite revolutionary in that it treats drug offenders as people with medical problems, as opposed to incarcerating them in the same cells as violent predators. Most notably, Prop 5 would reduce many marijuana misdemeanor crimes to the level of an infraction.

While some parts give me pause, I support any effort to expand drug treatment programs, save $2.5 billion in revenue, and reduce the number of nonviolent citizens behind bars.


Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. - NO

Another $1 billion for new prisons? No thanks.


Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation. - NO

Normally, when PG&E is spending millions against an initiative, I vote in favor of the initiative. But Prop 7's good intentions are outweighed by its poor drafting and its backers' failure to consult with other environmental groups like the NRDC and the Sierra Club, who both oppose 7.


Prop 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. - HELL TO THE NO

Because Jesus would not vote to legislate hate.

More here.


Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victims Rights. Parole. - NO

Most of the text of this initiative deals with victims' rights that are already in place. Thus, the real effect of this proposition is to stop the early release of inmates who would otherwise be granted parole, thereby increasing our already outrageously high prison population.


Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. - NO

Like Prop 7, Prop 10 is a green-sounding initiative with good intentions. But if it passes, the real winners are those companies that supply natural gas. And guess who backed this measure? T. Boone Pickens, the ubiquitous oilman, who also happens to supply natural gas.

I want a real green initiative. Not one that puts green in T. Boone Pickens' pocket.


Proposition 11: Redistricting. - NO

Have you seen the boundaries for California's districts? They look like a rabid insane abstract painter drew them while high on crystal meth.

But Prop 11 -- in its efforts to be non-partisan -- seems to give too much to the state GOP. Democrats account for 42% of the state's voters while Republicans only account for 34%. Yet, Prop 11 would match five Democratic commissioners with five Republican ones. Plus, if they can't agree, the State Supreme Court -- 6/7th of which was appointed by Republican governors -- would have final say.

This does not bode well for various communities of color whose voting power will likely be diluted with a Republican majority drawing the new districts. One can see why MALDEF, the NAACP, and many Asian American political groups are lining up against Prop. 11.


Proposition 12: Veterans Bond Act of 2008. - YES

Because our veterans deserve better.

--Junichi

MORMON MONEY TO BURN

Toilet paper for Mormons?

I understand why someone would donate every penny he or she has to strike down California's Proposition 8. At stake is the marriage of friends, the basic human rights of many Californians, and a symbolic dignity and equality that gays and lesbians have long been denied. I have now donated more to the No on 8 campaign than I have to any other political cause and I wish I could afford to give more.

While I fundamentally disagree with those who support Proposition 8, I also understand why someone might vote for it.

What I don't understand is why people would collectively donate at least $28.2 million to support California's Proposition 8, especially when the evidence suggests that much of those donations are coming from people outside the Golden State.

Interestingly, but nor surprisingly, most of those donations are coming from out-of-state Mormons. According to this article, Mormons may account for 70% of the Yes on 8 donations from individuals.

How do we know this is true? For starters, you can learn the name of every Mormon donor and his or her hometown by visiting the website mormonsfor8.com.

The public nature of these donor lists explains why we now know that San Jose's Michele Sundstrom and her husband, who have been married for 18 years and have five children, donated $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

$30,000 from one family? In this economy? Why?

I understand why one might donate $30,000 to a candidate who will lower capital gains taxes.

I understand why one might donate $30,000 to an initiative that increases funding for research that might cure her child's fatal disease.

I even understand why one might donate $30,000 to an anti-abortion initiative that could save the lives of unborn children.

But donating $30,000 so that two women or two men can't say they are "married" in the state of California, even though they already have the right to live with one another, become domestic partners, collect benefits, and adopt children?

And this is all organized by a church whose former unrecognized marital practices forced its followers to flee anti-Mormon persecution spreading along the Eastern seaboard?

Best case scenario: The Sundstroms are worried that their religious beliefs will be increasingly challenged by outsiders. But even if this is true, they must know that even if Proposition 8 fails, there is no chance that the government will or can force the LDS Church - or any religious group - to change its religious views or host gay weddings. (Otherwise, the Catholic Church would have long ago been enjoined from banning marriages between Catholics and Protestants, for example.)

So what motivates a Mormon family of seven to donate $30,000? If anything, the attention that their donation is receiving is likely to put more effort into people questioning the tax-exemption status of those churches that are using their funds to organize political campaigns.

Maybe Michele Sundstrom is a millionaire and $30,000 is just a drop in the bucket. But even if I had that kind of dime to drop, I would have to be deleriously high on opium to donate my child's first year med school tuition to pay for more Yes on Prop 8 commercials.

Interestingly, the Chronicle article points out that the Mormons' efforts are starting to backfire, especially with the sunshine laws that make the mormonsfor8.com website possible.

When two women found out about the Sundstroms' $30,000 donation, they "parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words 'Bigots live here' painted on the windshield."

That bold act seems to have delivered a message to Michele Sundstrom, who now seems to be a step closer to understanding the pains of gays and lesbians against whom she is fighting: "There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said. "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."

--Junichi

AN OPEN LETTER TO IRENE AND RANDY

This post is my response to Irene and Randy, the two kids singing a song about the need to pass Proposition 8 in the video below:

Dear Irene and Randy:

By now, I realize that you're probably used to your Asian parents constantly snapping photos and videos of you. I can relate. When I was your age, my mother played piano and made me sing songs while my dad documented every moment as if he were filming a reality show.

There is a difference between us, however.

I sang children's songs about peaches, dogs, and the joys of opening and closing your hands.

You're singing a children's song about hating people and denying civil rights to your fellow citizens.

I predict that you're going to regret that your parents put you in that video in a decade or so.

You're going to regret it in the same way that the smiling kid in the photo below regrets ever holding a pro-segregation sign:

You see, only a few decades ago, some states would have denied you the right to marry a large segment of the population simply because you are Asian. It's hard to believe, I know.

When courageous civil rights activists challenged those anti-miscegenation laws, others vigorously fought to keep the bedroom segregated, using fear-mongering intimidation tactics with which your parents are familiar.

But those segregationists are now shameful stains on our country's history.

With time, the majority of Americans learned to look at them and the bars to interracial marriage as fundamentally wrong and at odds with the principles of equality and justice that guide this country.

You, Irene and Randy, have been brainwashed by the next generation of bigots that comprise the shameful stains of our present and future.

Your parents are the George Wallaces of the 21st century, attempting to block the doors of marriage and deny other civil rights to thousands of Californians.

Don't worry. I don't blame you. You're just kids and you don't realize what you're saying. Your homophobic parents and ministry are exploiting you because they don't have the nerve to sing that hateful anthem themselves.

But eventually, you'll discover love. Maybe you'll be as lucky as me and marry the love of your life. And you'll appreciate how painful it would be if the government declared that love illegitimate or denied you the right to celebrate it.

That's one of the many reasons I cannot join you in supporting California's Proposition 8.

You see, if that initiative passes, someone you love will eventually be denied the right to marry his or her soulmate. Maybe someone you know will be denied the right to visit her lover in an emergency room after a horrible accident. Perhaps, you will soon realize that you can't marry the one you love because he or she lacks the right chromosomes.

But no matter whether that initiative passes, I have faith that the majority of this country -- indeed, the world -- will soon recognize that it is unequivocally wrong to deny fundamental rights to people because of whom they love.

Which is to say, eventually, the horror will consume you as you remember that YouTube video above and realize that you played a role in building walls of segregation, instead of knocking them down.

So for the benefit of humanity, I hope you join the right side of history -- sooner, rather than later -- and before you're old enough to vote.

--Junichi