Proposition 8 for the kids
Well, not quite for the kids. Perhaps this would work as a sort of "Schoolhouse Rock" for the 21st Century Gen-Xers.
I like Jack Black as Jesus Christ (JB as JC) and the brief, clever way the musical gets in a dig on black Obama supporters in California who voted in favor of Prop. 8 ("Obamination") without coming across as totally insensitive. But for my money, it doesn't get any better than Doogie Houser crooning about the boost to the economy legalized gay marriage would provide, an argument that ends up winning over the pro-8 crowd.
Anyway, enjoy:
No, it should've taken place at Sacto's California Musical Theatre instead of Sacramento Community College. They'll probably do something like this, since the director was forced to resign. Crimony.
Posted by: Jason S. | December 03, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Please support No on Prop 8 protests with our official "Prop 8 is Hate" bumper stickers!
Posted by: Prop 8 is Hate | December 09, 2008 at 02:48 PM
Did you know suicide rates are so high there is an organization/website for youths? If not, you should know that a high number of gay teens kill themselves every year. Hence, the organization/website, named in remembrance of just such a youth, encourages OUR young -- after all, these are our brothers, sisters, children, friends -- to choose life.
If you believe that being gay is a choice, I must ask: Who logically would choose a lifestyle so reviled and frought with hardship? If it were a choice, would gay youths need to commited suicide? Why wouldn't they instead, as so many suggest, "just be heterosexual" or "marry [or fall in love with] someone of the opposite sex"?
Opponents of same-sex marriage comment Prop 8 is so much more than about marriage. They say that it is about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage and enforcing non-acceptance of a lifestyle they consider "deviant". My issue with this argument is that there is compelling evidence being gay is not a "lifestyle", but rather an individual's identity.
Who has more at stake is arguable: Those claiming to "defend" traditional marriage -- personal opinion, religious conviction, etc. -- as opposed to those who compelled to defend themselves. Who is under seige is debatable: Those whose personal and/or religious convictions were deemed unconstitutional or those whose constitutional rights were revoked.
Posted by: informed1* | December 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM