Friday, June 28, 2002

10:04: I side with the court on this one.
I don't fully understand why Congress passed the law in 1957 (?) that added the words "under God" to a pledge that in other respects represents everything that our nation holds dear--the symbols of freedom of belief, of association, of living one's life as one wishes without coersion.
I think that if Congress, rather than trying to fight the "godless Communists" in the 1950s, had stuck to celebrating our nation's core ideals enshrined in the Pledge of Allegiance as it was up to that time ("one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"), we wouldn't be trying to reconcile the notion of freedom of religion (even the freedom to not believe in religion, as I choose to live) with the notion of patriotism and patriotic belief.
I got asked yesterday to support an amendment to make sure the words "under God" are in the constitution. I cannot support an amendment that forces me to comply with other people's belief in one deity in the name of showing my pride in being an American. I've lived in countries that had compulsory religiosity as a daily component of living--that's why I no longer live there. Remove the words "under God" from it, and I'll certainly join in in making the pledge of allegiance a constitutionally delineated symbol of our nation.
But my own thoughts on compulsory adoption of somebody else's icons as a demonstration of commitment to the cause run in other directions as well. I used to have a rainbow flag on my car--a little, transparent triangle sitting above my brake light. I remember that I got it the first day I bought the car, not as my own action but as the somewhat mandatory, if playful, demand of two of my friends. They mostly insisted that my car had to also have a sexual orientation. Being out and not having an issue with people knowing, i agreed to put the thing on.
I carried it on my car for about a year, during which time my car was keyed in the parking lot of my apartment, i'm fairly sure because of the alley-facing flag thing. Still, I kept the flag on.
But then I started wondering what it was supposed to represent. In that same time I'd hear through insinuation, suggestion, and others' questions, with fairly irritating regularity, that there was something about my "gayness" that wasn't there--the standard "Where's your pink card?" joke when I couldn't or wouldn't recognize some quote from Steel Magnolias, melt in delight when the Diva of the Day sang her treacly ballad, or want to go to another unimaginative drag show with tired penis jokes. Certainly, after enough people suggest that membership in the clan depends on also adopting all of the recycled iconography from the fashionable Gay magazine of the day, my whole attitude towards the symbology they've also appropriated comes into question. Somehow, having the rainbow flag on the car meant a certain allegiance to that set of beliefs. Certainly, it represents more than that for many people who fought long and hard for their rights, and by inherited extension, mine. But more often than not, folks consume rainbows as a product and not as a political symbol of anything. Its abuse washes away its meaning into a torrent of rainbow-colored disco balls, guarache sandals, faabulous candles, fashionable body wraps. So I removed it, saying "I don't believe in its politics of commercialism and its false equation of political enfranchisement to purchasing power." Sure, it also represents Gay Visibility, but short of wearing a Gay sign on my forehead, I'm already out and visible in all my contexts.
Now, i'm starting to wonder about my stance. If I don't buy the iconography that got plastered on top of The Rainbow in the last 10 years, does that mean that I denounce the Rainbow itself? Or just that I don't believe in the god of commercialism that got layered onto whatever proclamation of allegiance I may have had towards the Rainbow at some point?
So, perhaps if I pledge my allegiance to the Rainbow flag of the Gay Rights movement, and to the Universal struggle for sexual freedom for which it stands, one concept, under the dollar, diverse but united, with liberty libertinage and justice freedom rings for all, I might be more comfortable expressing my commitment to the cause.
Unfortunately the 9th circuit court of appeals in Gay America is controlled by a disco boi, a musclequeen, a copycat drag queen, a closeted video bar patron, and a self-described "normal" lesbian... they outvote the post-op tranny, the tie die Bear, the dyke on a bike, and the self-actualized lesbian avenger. No chance of them striking down the law passed by the almighty marketers willing to make us a commodity.

Thursday, June 20, 2002

12:03: NPR.org has an absurd policy about placing links to their website, which flies against just about every principle of internet usage, world-wide web linking, and interaction between pages. Do they get it? It's about as ridiculous as having to write a request to an author of a journal article or book every time you want to footnote it.

Maybe they should ask the Computer Guys what they think?

Saturday, June 15, 2002

17:26: Managed to successfully avoid Overpriced Kebab and Rainbow Washington DC Gay Pride weekend by going canoeing with some Georgetown classmates and friends. The Aunts, however, stumbled across the block party that Sunday on their way out of the National Gallery of Art. I had told them about it, and they managed to dodge their way around the few thousand people gathered.

Why do I have such an antipathy towards Gay Pride weekends? I was recently organizing photographs, and noticed I had pictures from NYC pride in 1995, a couple of DC Prides, and a good pile of images from they gay-affirmative freshman year at college. Is it merely a reflection of the dearth of people with expressed concerns about the crass commercialism and apoliticism of this yearly indulgence?

I suppose that the explanation of other events such as the Gay Shame resonated with me for a reason.