Because sometimes what we all need on a Friday is a good laugh.
According to US Weekly, Tila Tequila (of Shot at Love fame) believes that Gays can now marry in California all thanks to her:
MTV reality queen Tila Tequila says she played a part in California recently dropping its ban on gay marriage.“It is because of me — I definitely think [my show] has helped the movement,” she told Usmagazine.com at the Hollywood premiere of The Love Guru on Wednesday.
“Before it came out, everyone was still a little apprehensive about [same sex relationships],” she said. “Then they realized, ‘Wow, everyone is really into this stuff, and it is fine.’ The next thing you know, [gay marriage] is legal.”
I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
While I’m here, I’d just like to congratulate all of the Californians who’ve made their marriages legal since June 16th, and say a big ol’ F you to McCain for endorsing the ballot initiative that seeks to ban same-sex marriage. (Too bad Obama’s not much better.)
Whether Tila takes credit or Obama endorses it, it is a victory and I’m happy to celebrate it. Regardless of your views on marriage, I think we can all appreciate how important it is that we’re all granted equal rights under the law.
Happy Friday!
Hat tip to
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
six comments
i'm surprised she didn't take credit for bisexuality as well ...
Posted by shannon shuster
June 27, 2008, 2:48 PM
single people or people who form other types of relationships/partnerships/communities outside of the Couple form are **not** granted equal rights under marriage laws. in fact, they are particularly excluded from social, legal, material benefits by them.
Posted by Sheetal
June 28, 2008, 1:42 AM
Sheetal: I completely agree with you, which is why I have chosen not to participate in the legal institution of marriage personally, but that doesn't mean that I don't think all people should have access to a legal marriage if they desire it. I think the entire institution of marriage needs to re-examined, but the key for me here is choice. I think granting access to all people is a key step in that examination and change.
Posted by Stacey May
June 28, 2008, 10:48 AM
i'd marry you stacey may! for the OSAP!
but I don't think that making same-sex marriage legal makes it available to all people. It becomes available to people who live their lives in a particular relationship form: in longterm, monogamous relationships (even if actual marriages aren't lived this way, this is the way of living that is rewarded and valorized by state-sanctioned marriage as more worthy than all other forms). For example, spinsters or sluts don't have access to marriage unless they change who they are, how they live. Polyamorous people are screwed by marriage, as are other households (my classic example is Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert in Anne of Green Gables... as brother and sister, they would be exempt from so many privileges afforded conjugal households).
Posted by Sheetal
June 28, 2008, 12:15 PM
You're right that marriage as a cultural and legal institution is discriminatory, but I still believe that making same-sex marriage legal is a step towards making it available to more people, if only because it dismantles the gender roles and norms specific to the marriage construct.
I'm also not sure that monogamy is a legal requirement of marriage (although it certainly is a cultural one.) Is monogamy not something decided between you and your partner, and not a requirement of law? It actually really pisses me off when people say that the reason they choose to get married is because of monogamy, because it suggests that people who are not married are not participating in or can not commit to monogamy, and that people who are married can't agree to polyamory. Can marriage not be choosing a primary partner and not an exclusive one? The monogomay = marriage idea also reinforces a (bullshit) stereotype that women must trap men into marriage so they won't stray.
Basically Sheetal, I'm with you on all points - I think marriage is problematic to say the least (which is why I've chosen not to make mine "legal.") I genuinely believe same-sex marriage is a much needed expansion of constrictive definitions, but I certainly don't think it should end there. I would much rather live in a world where all people's relationships were valued, or even better - people were valued regardless of their relationship(s).
For some really fantastic takes on gay marriage, check out (my hero) Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore:
http://nobodypasses.blogspot.com/2008...
http://www.alternet.org/sex/86574/
Posted by Stacey May
June 28, 2008, 2:02 PM
oooo I'll check those out!
so i did a reasearch paper for this class and looked at the narratives that informed the actual same-sex marriage judgment in ontario (the one that made it legal) and the language consistently used when talking about it.... it's really interesting, and I will post more about it when I am not so hungover... :)
Posted by Sheetal
June 29, 2008, 1:16 PM
Leave a comment
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.