I'm standing up for a church? Now I've seen everything...

CBS and NBC have refused to air an advertisement entitled God is Still Speaking, produced by the United Church of Christ. The ad begins outside of a church, where bouncers are stopping a certain "bad element" from entering: first two men holding hands, then a young black girl, a barely legal Hispanic guy, and a midget (I think). The nice white heterosexual couple and their presumably slutty daughters get passed just fine, though. Then the words appear: "Jesus didn't turned people away. Neither do we." Fade to second scene, which shows people of all sorts smiling on the steps of the church. Smiling children, minorities, an elderly couple, and (gasp) two women standing next to each other, one with her hand on the other's shoulder. No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here, the narrator tells us.

This is the sort of innocuous commercial I probably would not even have noticed (when was the last time I watched anything on CBS, anyway?). But apparently the message of inclusion is too controversial for the networks. CBS spelled out why they have refused to air this ad in their rejection notice:

Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks.

I think CBS needs to do some serious therapy work. Obviously they are obsessed and terrified with gay marriage. Because nowhere in the ad does it say one thing about gay marriage. It just implies that if you are gay, or black, or Asian, or (possibly worst of all) elderly, you'll be welcome at this particular church, even if you haven't been at others. Still, even that's enough for CBS to read-between-the-lines and consider it contrary to the aims of the White House--and that, in turn, is enough for CBS to refuse to air the ad at all.

How pathetic is it that not being bigoted is now considered the "controversial" side of the debate? I really don't care if ads agree with this president's religious "values" or not. That shouldn't be a deciding factor for anyone. This isn't about gay marriage, or constitutional amendments. This is about a Church that welcomes all comers. That's the "controversial" part of the ad. And apparently, CBS thinks that merely not being bigoted is too controversial a stance to take given the current climate at the White House.

Just like Jimmy Olsen: The Sequel...

I had my second photo credit in The New York Times on Thanksgiving Day. 

This picture is from our new show at The Pearl Theatre Company, Gogol's Marriage. It's a quirky little comedy about a young bachelorette in Russia. She is wooed by four suitors, each more idiosyncratic than the next. The last bachelor standing "celebrates" the impending nuptials in a most surprising way, but I won't spoil the fun.

The fun thing about this photo credit? I'm actually in the picture. No, I'm neither of those pretty-looking people in the forefront. But if you look very closely in the mirror behind them, you can see my reflection taking the picture. That's right, baby; my picture is in The Times. I'm moving up in the world.

No condoms till marriage...

The first of December each year is World AIDS Day, a day when people around the world unite to demonstrate their commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS. President Bush, in his proclamation of World AIDS Day, used the announcement to brag about his "compassionate conservative commitment" to AIDS.

This commitment was first made last February by President George Bush to spend 15 billion dollars over five years fighting the AIDS epidemic in more than 100 countries around the world. Sounds great right?

But keep in mind that a pillar of Bush's AIDS plan both at home and abroad is ABSTINENCE EDUCATION. Which is all well and good, fine, tell people not to have sex and see how well that goes. It certainly worked for the War on Drugs. Thanks to Nancy Reagan, there is no longer a drug problem in this country. Oh, wait no, that must have been her husband's dementia talking.

The problem is that there's no evidence at all that abstinence-education works to prevent pregnancy, STDs, or AIDS. In fact, a study of thousands of teenagers who had made chastity pledges found that they were just as likely to get STDs as their non-pledging pals.

Bush's faith-based just-say-no AIDS plan is a joke, but a dangerous joke; the administration is doing all it can to sabotage the message that people should use condoms when they have sex. Needless restrictions on condoms and HIV/AIDS information are undermining the global fight against the epidemic. Condoms remain the single most effective device against sexually transmitted HIV, yet they face government-imposed constraints in numerous countries across the globe, and much of America's so-called "aid" refuses to provide or even talk about condoms thanks to this administration. They are undermining real HIV prevention efforts at home and around the world.

But, faith-based abstinence educators still got a whopping one hundred million bucks in the latest spending bill.

Happy World AIDS Day.

No comment on gay rights...

Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments over a challenge to the year-old Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage in that state.

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.

Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment.

Conservative groups who brought the lawsuit tried to have the highest federal court in the land on the grounds that this one state's marital law violates the guarantee of a republican form of government. Gays are destroying our democracy, I guess.
Their attorney stated that the federal Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power." Isn't it great when the crazy right-wing nutcases in the red-states, who spent the entire last election hollering about how the blue states are filled with elitist liberals and should be ignored a all costs, take such an active and helpful role in Massachusetts state law? They are only trying to protect the will of the people from the tyranny of a homo-loving judiciary!

The city attorney from Boston had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.

Nor does your hate of the equal rights for homosexual Americans.