Crazytown

LET ME NOT TO THE MARRIAGE OF TRUE MINDS ADMIT IMPEDIMENTS

On marriage, or whatever you want to call it.
By Alisha Giampola (Actor) 

The other day I was sitting in the usual table in the usual restaurant my best friend Jake and I tend to eat at in our neighborhood (Sunnyside, which is the absolute shit, just for the record) and eating my usual dear-God-I-couldn't-even-imagine-cooking-something-right-now snack and discussing marriage. Specifically, Jake and I were trying to decide who of the people we currently know who have gotten married recently will be the first of our circle of friends to divorce. This seems morbid, but Jake and I love slightly disturbing discussion games (Would You Rather being obviously the best, hands down). This discussion game was fun and I feel, valid, as statistically large numbers of married people (although maybe not quite the dreaded 50% that is so frequently touted) end their marriages some time before death doth part them. 

Marriage equality has been a huge topic in the past few years, and many states (NY included, woot woot!) have recently chosen to extend the right to marry to all people (and so far has turned into being able to marry cats and dogs pretty much the same way extending the vote to women also extended the vote to cats and dogs). According to current statistics, a majority of adults between 18 and 32 now favor marriage equality in the USA. My takeaway from that is: wow, young people still really care about the institution of marriage! And they want to invite all consentual adults in monogamous relationships to participate if they should choose to do so! Sweet! 

But why?

A very interesting opinion piece in the NY Times got me thinking about the reasons that my generation chooses to marry. We are marrying later than our parents and much much later than our grandparents, we are choosing to get educations first, cohabitate first, and then begin stressing that we might have waited too long to have babies. Personally, I am a huge advocate of all of these things (including even the last item on that list...it's called adoption, guys, there are a lot of kids that need parents out there). So ultimately, if we as a generation are already waiting so much longer than any previous generation to tie the knot, why are we bothering at all? 

If we are to believe the previously cited NY Times opinion piece (go ahead and take a few minutes to read it, it's cool) we are marrying because it is "a status symbol — a highly regarded marker of a successful personal life". If that didn't already make you want to punch yourself in the face, the author reiterates this point in an even bigger backhanded compliment later in the article: "People marry to show their family and friends how well their lives are going."

Basically, people are getting married to flip the ultimate finger at their single friends.

As a person with strong feelings about the current civil rights issue of marriage equality, very personal feelings about the entire institution of marriage, and as someone who has a marriage of my own that I happen to care about, this seems like a completely flippant and all-too-easy answer. 

I sure as heck didn't get married to say "screw you" to those in my circle who are not choosing to marry, be they currently single or simply uninterested in the institution. I definitely didn't get married because I was making some kind of civil rights statement. I certainly didn't do it to make anyone jealous of my life (if anyone ever had a jealousy-inducing marriage however, it is these guys). I didn't get married to get presents or have an excuse to throw a party or to have a reason to change my name (actually, I didn't change my name at all, although apparently I'm in a vast minority?!) and I one hundred percent didn't get married because I felt familial or societal pressure to do so. I know many women, particularly those who are well-educated, city-dwelling, and in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties feel exactly these same ways. And even though there are many religions and faiths that pressure young people to marry due to the stigma of sex outside of wedlock, fewer and fewer are choosing to succumb to this pressure. So it stands to reason that we are getting married for some mysterious other reason that thousands of internet opinion articles are not quite able to put their digital digits on. 

Could it be .... nahhhh.....

THE FIRST LATINO PRESIDENT?

After Julian Castro spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, twitter and facebook exploded with enthusiasm for the inspirational Latino politician who believes in Education and opportunity.

by David Davila (Latino playwright / songwriter)

If you haven't heard of Julian Castro, and his twin brother Joaquin, then you might have been living under a rock last election season when Julian Castro became Obama's liason to the Latinos in the USA. Julian spoke at the Democratic Convention and stole the spotlight from Obama long enough for people to begin whispering about future Presidential runs for the young Mayor of San Antonio. Most Texans seem to think he could be the next Governor and there are plenty of pundits who think it would be a wise move for Hillary to choose him as a running mate in 2016 (if she were to run - who are we kidding of course she is going to run).

It would be a wise for Democrats to choose a Latino from Texas to help turn the state blue in the next election and ensure a win for Hillary.

All of that aside, Julian himself is a huge inspiration to me. When he tells the story of his family, coming from nothing and making a name for themselves I sob uncontrollably. My mother picked cotton as a child yet still managed to make it through college and become an elementary school teacher. I am so proud of her, and the journey that our family has gone through in Texas.

Julian's speech strikes a chord with most people because he believes that everyone deserves the opportunity, and hearing a politician speak those words brings tears to my eyes. Even though America was founded on that principle it seems that more and more we accept that it is not a reality.

Julian Castro does not accept that fact, and that is an inspiration! I can only hope that this is just the beginning for this leader who believes in EVERY AMERICAN!

 

NOBODY'S GOT NO CLASS

What exactly is an “Emergent Service Worker” anyway?
By Rachel James (Treasurer/Writer)

We don’t talk about class much in America.  We talk about class mobility.  We talk about “The American Dream” - growing up poor and working hard to get rich.  Politicians talk about the “disappearing middle class” and how s/he will fix it when s/he is elected.  But in everyday conversations and interactions, this tends to be a topic we avoid.  

I think a big reason we don’t talk about class in America is because it is so intrinsically linked with race, and that is still a topic of unease in our society.  So we close our eyes and cover our ears and perpetuate the ideal that any kid can grow up to be President!  But I digress.

This week, sociologists in the UK released the results of the Great British Class Survey.  Now, I understand the American and British class systems are different.  We tend to ignore ours while they have Downton Abbey.  And for that I am forever grateful.  But an interesting result came from this survey.  Instead of the usual upper, middle, and working-class structures, they found that there are in fact seven classes that people could fall into.  The reasoning behind this is that they did not just look at a person’s income and background.  They also looked at a person’s social and cultural capital.  So, in other words, it’s not just how much you make, but how you spend it.  It also put into effect the capital that you can’t really buy: time.

 
You thought I was going to write "love", didn't you? And now I've posted this video of that preconceived notion. You're welcome.

As I previously stated, the American and British systems are different and cannot be judged on equal footing.  But internet quizzes are fun.  So I took a modified version of the survey, which is a four part questionnaire on the BBC website, and I was tagged as an Emergent Service Worker.

A what now?

LOVING YOU IS NOT A CHOICE

What Fosca has to say about marriage equality
By Sam Perwin (Performer)

I’m a Sondheim kind of guy, not only does he basically write for my voice (thanks, Steve!), but I’ve always had a connection to his work. I can safely say that Into the Woods is one of the reasons I decided to devote my life to musical theater, and I still can’t make it through “Move On” from Sunday in the Park with George without crying. 

One of my favorite unsung Sondheim musicals is Passion, which recently had a revival at Classic Stage Company. It remains one of the most beautiful scores I know (and Giorgio is still a perfect/dream role for me if anyone feels like mounting another production any time soon, but I digress…), and the most enduring anthem from the show is undoubtedly Fosca’s imploring, tragic ballad “Loving You.” I stumbled upon (and posted on Facebook) this beautiful version recently.

 

This song has stayed with me since I saw the show a few weeks ago not only because of Ms. Kuhn’s chilling performance, but because its heartbreaking first line brings my thoughts to the current Supreme court arguments.

Loving you is not a choice
It’s who I am.

Too much ink and, unfortunately, blood has been spilled over the question of whether whom we love or are sexually attracted to is a choice. Science has much to say, but the results seem to boil down to a mixture of predetermined genetic codes and a spectrum of sexual preference. Apparently not needless to say, I did not choose to be attracted to men any more than a straight man chooses to be attracted to women. Some people would disagree.

LOOKING BEYOND MARRIAGE

Other issues facing the LGB and particularly T communities.
By Gregory Jacobs-Roseman (Composer-Lyricist)

I want to provide a little context for what I’m about to say in this post before you get really pissed at me. My hope is that you won’t get pissed at me – but judging from reactions from friends to what I’ve been saying this week, it’s very possible that you will. First let me say that I am a gay man who believes that there should be marriage equality for all. I want to be crystal clear on this point. I support marriage equality. I think it’s an important, fundamental issue and the singular civil rights fight of my generation.

Everybody got that? Good. Now I would like to say that I also believe it’s time for the LGBT community to face some cold, hard facts about ways in which we’ve focused our energy and activism that has left many of our community members behind.

There hasn’t been much talk about this in the media, with one notable exception. The reason being is that marriage equality is such a behemoth of an issue, and LGBT organizations are skewed towards issues that concern gay men – and in many cases, white gay men – in particular, that other forms of inequality under the law are often overlooked.

There will always be issues we need to overcome in our community, be it homeless LGBT youth, teen suicide, domestic violence, substance abuse, etc. but when we’re talking about equality under the law there are also many ways in which the LGBT community is discriminated against other than marriage. Under the law, it is still legal in many states to deny gays housing or employment. Republicans were outraged that the violence against women act would even DARE to include protections for LGBT people. There is a law moving through the Arizona legislatures that would make it legal to imprison anyone using a restroom or locker room that is marked with a different gender from what’s printed on their birth certificate – legislation that singles out transgender people specifically. In fact, trans people are the most often ignored members of the LGBT community.

When you say “equality,” most people will assume you’re talking about marriage. When you uploaded your red equal sign as your Facebook profile pic this week, you did so in support of marriage equality. And that’s awesome. But that profile picture is not just a red equal sign. It’s also a registered trademark of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation – an organization that notoriously overlooks the issues I’m talking about, particularly those affecting the transgender community. The HRC turned their regular yellow and blue logo red during this week’s Supreme Court arguments because “Red is a symbol for love, and that’s what marriage is all about,” as HRC spokesperson Charlie Joughin said to MSNBC, and the whole thing went viral. But this strikes me as a somewhat short-sighted decision.

To begin with, red is traditionally a symbol of HIV/AIDS awareness, another very serious LGBT issue that has faded to the background in recent years, especially among younger LGBT people (also wasn’t the marriage equality “color” white? Weren’t we just wearing white ribbons with a knot tied in them a few years ago for marriage equality? Is a little consistency in my cause-related color-coding too much to ask?). 

But for me perhaps the most important thing to remember is the fact that THE HRC NEVER WANTED THIS FEDERAL CASE TO BE FILED AT ALL. The HRC fought against Hollingsworth v. Perry from the beginning. The HRC called the case “premature.” Perhaps their minds changed at some point over the past few years but I think it's worth remembering that if the HRC (and organizations like GLAAD, the ACLU, among others) had gotten their way, there would be no case before the courts this week and we would still be trying to overturn Prop 8 with another California-specific ballot measure. Especially given the fact that since the day of oral arguments everything now appears to be stamped with a variation on that special red version of the HRC's trademarked logo.

GAY MARRIAGE IS BAD FOR THE CHURCH (AND NOT IN THE WAY THEY THINK IT IS)

What happens when you suddenly realize that the church you've always trusted, and believed in, is wrong?

by David Davila (playwright / songwriter)

"The Church," or rather, the many religions that are adamant in insisting that being gay is a mortal sin, are right when they profess that gay marriage is bad for the church.

It is.

It is very, very bad for "the church," - just not in the way they think.

Over the last two decades people have awoken to the realization that gay people are everywhere, and they did not choose to be born as gay people. No, the openly gay people of the world did not choose to be gay, but they did choose to make their voices heard and no longer live in shame of who they were.

Every day more and more straight people see that not giving their friends and family equal rights is just wrong. People are examining their moral compasses and asking themselves what's right and wrong; what's good and what's bad. The problem for the church is that more and more people's moral compasses are telling them that there is nothing wrong with being gay. They're realizing that it's plain old mean to treat gay people differently.

And "The Church" treats gay people very differently... not good.

When someone examines their moral compass and finds that the church is on the wrong side of good vs. evil, the psychological and intellectual internal arguments that follow do not fair well for organized religion. We're smart enough these days to understand that believing in God takes a whole lot of faith. To know so many secrets of the galaxy, of physics, and biology, and to still believe in a God is quite a miracle in of itself.

Asking the members of the church to go against what they know in their hearts is right, only leads people to think that the church itself is bad. I know, because it happened to me...

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: THE MYTH, THE MAN, THE MUSICAL

Two weekends ago this writer’s news-savvy father shared with her something startling - a BBC article detailing the release of new, previously classified presidential tapes. You say political scandal, we say creative fodder.
By Annissa Omran (Writer/College Student)

(Photo courtesy of this Nixon Blog)

When I read that the U.S. government had recently released new phone conversations LBJ had taped during his presidency, my first thought as a history major was "Woah. Cool.'

I'm not sure if this is the correct response one should have to such a dark political reality. After all, as the tapes reveal, the Vietnam War was majorly affected by Nixon's meddling.

It has long been speculated that in order to improve his chances of being elected, Nixon - then running on a platform dedicated to ending the war in Vietnam - worked behind the scenes to delay the end of the conflict. The new information, however, implies that Lyndon B. Johnson did little to stop this, clearly disregarding the Logan Act.

The non-rational side of me immediately recognized that this would make an amazing story one day. Just think about it. The time frame is perfect. It's all cigarette smoke and brandy layered over arguments hashed out with gruff male voices. Arrogance and pride abound. Political corruption and intrigue simmer and stew in this hotbed of vice and greying morality. 

I can see it now....

HOW ABOUT THE RIGHT TO DIVORCE?

For many Americans a break-up from a long-term relationship means losing more than just your lover...

by David Davila (playwright / song-writer)

This week the Supreme Court of the United States started hearing the case that will determine if the Proposition 8 law in California that bans same-sex marriage is legal. Many of us have been hoping that this case would put an end to bans on same sex-marriage in all 50 states, as there just isn’t a way in our heads to think that the fairness of the American Dream and our sturdy constitution would allow gays to continue being lesser citizens.

The idea seems implausible yet after the first day of hearings in Washington DC, that seemed like a very big possibility.

I don't think I could take the Supreme Court of the land telling me that I'm not, nor will I ever be equal under our constitution. The blow will be ridiculously hard on me. I pay my taxes, I work just as hard as everyone else and I deserve the same rights. There are over eleven-hundred rights that gay people are not privy to in the United States, and I want to focus on just one of those today: the right to divorce.

Two years ago, I was in a long-term/live-together relationship that came to an end. At the height of whatever drama was involved with that break-up, my ex-boyfriend looked at me and said; "You know, that's why we need gay marriage, so we can have gay divorce."

BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH: THE WEEK IN REVIEW

Oh, Jackie. I love when you recap.
By Gregory Jacobs-Roseman (Composer-Lyricst) 

Today on the Ides of March, the fateful day when Julius Caesar met his maker at the hands of Marcus Brutus, I considered continuing my New York series of the past three weeks into a fourth installment devoted to the now overturned soda law – a development that made me quite annoyed this week. But so much happened this week – what with Mercury in retrograde or something, that I figured the time was right to do a week-in-review post. So here’s what went down this week by category, through the eyes of yours truly.

LOCAL/U.S.: Food Fight

Unless you were living under a rock this week, you heard that Mayor Bloomberg’s so-called “soda ban” (an awful name for the law) was struck down by a judge.

Everyone has their opinion on the law, but talking to friends and hearing the media this past week, it seems few people actually understood what the law was trying to accomplish. This law was aimed at stemming obesity in kids living in poorer neighborhoods of the city – kids who often buy their meals at fast food restaurants and other local establishments. I for one say limiting the amount of sugar and calories they can imbibe in one sitting is a good thing, and could have gone a long way to promoting healthy living.

But we live in America, and this story was ripe for media outrage. It was sold as if the government was telling adults what they could and couldn’t drink, which is the opposite of what it was going to do. No one was going to stop a grown adult from getting a refill on his or her 16-ounce soda. But don’t tell that to the anti-education, FOX News-watching yahoos out there, because in an effort to do nothing more than give a big middle finger to Michelle Obama and what Sarah Palin dubbed “fake America,” Mississippi lawmakers approved what they call the “anti-Bloomberg bill,” a law that bans Mississippi cities and counties from enacting legislation limiting portion sizes, banning trans fats & the like, or posting calorie counts on menus. Really, Mississippi? Hey, how’s that whole being the state in the nation with the highest rate of obesity thing working out for you? You better be thankful the healthcare law passed, otherwise your entire state would be diagnosed with a pre-existing condition.

It’s the children that really suffer in all this, and that’s what makes me crazy. A bunch of so-called “freedom-loving” adults are content to watch their kids grow overweight and develop disease just so they can enjoy their big gulps. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why kids should be consuming that much sugar on a daily basis.

 
Here's the only kind of sugar you need (any excuse to include a little Hedwig). Also: are there any Musical Theatre songs about soda? I can't think of a single one.

WORLD: Does The Pope Shit In The Woods?

I'll have you know, dear readers, that I searched long and hard for a video clip of the "does the pope shit in the woods" quote from The Big Lebowski but it does not appear to exist online in a form I could find. There's this one from Californication but it's just not the same.

Did you hear? There’s a new Pope! Pope Francis was selected on Wednesday as white smoke rose from the Sistine Chapel chimney, and this guy reportedly walks the walk – the first ever Pope from the New World, he’s also a Jesuit which means he’s super into poor people or something and doesn’t even like fancy cars or those Prada shoes all the Popes wear.

Now here’s the thing: I was raised Jewish, I’m currently agnostic, gay, and a socialist, so I shouldn’t give two fucks about the Papacy. And yet, I’m also a student of history, so I can’t help but be in awe of the historical moment for a deeply flawed institution that has been around for centuries. Yeah. The dude is awful on gay rights and women’s rights and whatnot. But remember that this is the Catholic Church we’re talking about here. It took them 400 fucking years to forgive Galileo for suggesting the Earth revolves around the Sun. I’m not saying that gives them an excuse, I’m just saying this is an institution that doesn’t take kindly to change. A new Pope isn’t gonna suddenly catapult them into the modern era, and anyone who thinks he can is being a little naïve.

But hey, unlike the last guy, this one wasn’t a member of the Nazi youth. So, you know… that’s something.

Growing up Jewish and gay, this was my only exposure to Catholicism. Thus I assumed that all nuns behaved like this all the time. (Also, Rue McClanahan, I still love you.) 

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRICKLE-DOWN THEORY & THE REAL REASON OUR COUNTRY IS LOSING WORLD POWER

Tax cuts for the rich will NEVER help the poor, and here's why...

by David Davila (playwright / songwriter)

Occupy Wall St was right. They had it right. They were right all along. The movement seems to be long gone as a few hippies camp in Union Square and smoke out, claiming to be the 99%, but the ideas they brought to us are real.

Sometime over the past 30 years, the wealthiest people in the United States took control of the media and government; changing laws and tax rates to make themselves even richer. To safe guard their little scheme, they then spread lies about how making rich people richer would help the economy.

It just isn't true. The rich becoming richer will NEVER help the poor. Rich people do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. When a business becomes so popular that they literally can't go another day without hiring another employee, THAT creates jobs. The business only becomes popular when customers spend their money at this business. Customer's only spend money when they have it.

See how it works?

It's the circle of business.

It's supply and demand.

It is NOT rich people.

In the perfect scenario, the economy would continue to feed itself and circulate money and jobs. That worked pretty well in Normal Rockwell's America, but times have changed. That system begins to fall apart with the introduction of mega-chain stores like McDonalds and Wal-Mart that put small businesses out of business. Once chain stores were introduced into the market place money stopped circulating evenly back into the small communities where it came from. Instead money spent at chain stores went to someone sitting in a luxury suite somewhere in a corporate office somewhere else in the world, and the circle of business changed.