We're Back Because... MARRIAGE!

Tweet

Yo. I'm back, bitches.

What else could bring The Skewed Review out of hiatus than marriage equality? There's no need to recap what happened because we all know it by now. Slowly, but surely, the country is waking up and realizing that LGBT Americans don't deserve to be treated as second-class citizens. Well, that's happening on a federal level, at least. 

States, on the other hand, are a different matter completely. After the good news broke on June 26, I, like so many others, took to the social networks with my rants and raves about the good, the bad, and the Gov. Herbert. Needless to say, in a quote that makes you ask, "Do you know the meaning of the word 'Hypocrite?'", Herby the hate bug told the press:

"I support and will continue to defend Utah's constitutional definition of marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. I also believe that discrimination has no place in society. I hope we can find a path that protects all from discrimination while defending the sanctity of traditional marriage." (Italics were added by Matthew in case Herbert reads this and wants to really understand the oxymoronicness of the statement.)

"Red really is the best color in the world, and it's my favorite.
But blue is my favorite color, also. I hope we can find a path
that allows red and blue to be my favorite color at the same time."

But, in a way, that's to be expected from that smirkaholic. That's OK, though, because with marriages recognized federally now, it's only a matter of time before some brave individuals take Utah to task and demand equal rights locally. After all, that's what a voting population does, correct? We're supposed to vote people in who will represent us -- people we think are the best for the job -- and then keep them in check throughout their tenure. 

Sadly, one of my (Facebook) friends, who I just assumed were sort of on my side in this whole thing, said I was not correct in assuming it was up to me to decide who gets into government. 

Let me just show you our conversation for clarification. And yes, there is a chance my Facebook buddy will read this. If you're reading this, I want you to pat yourself on the back for getting me back to writing! And yes, my Facebook profile picture is two burritos on a red plate. 

Don't worry, no sleep was lost over this conversation (or that only one person "liked" my response. But seriously, come on, people!). But I was wondering what sparked such an issue with someone I clicked the "Add Friend" button for. I mean, I'm not really in the business of adding friends who I know will just sit and argue with me over what appear to be baseless issues. In fact, before this whole marriage equality thing, I didn't even realize my friend was so anti-everyone-gets-the-same-rights-as-everyone-else. As far as I knew, he and I were at least on relatively the same page. Turns out, we're reading two completely different books.

Pictured above: One is a book children find absolutely

amazing when I read it to them... and the other is

"Horton Hears a Who."

So, now I'm opening the floor for answers. Can someone please tell me what recognition of all marriages does to infringe upon your lives? I seriously want to know. If you think it's immoral, then please explain how your morals are somehow changed if my morals differ. Are you just not that strong? Are you afraid you're going to accidentally become one of us homos? Tell me how your life is ruined because I can get benefits when my partner dies. 3...2...1... GO!

Tolerance: IT'S A TRAP!

Tweet

We are but men. We are but women. We are not gods. But yet, so many of us like to pretend that we are--or at least that we speak on behalf of one.

During this portion of history that will, indeed, be put into the books, I'm afraid The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be labeled as being on the "wrong side of history." 

During today's speech at the LDS Church's annual conference, Church authority Boyd K. Packer had this to say:

"The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequences that result from the violation of God's law of chastity....Tolerance is a virtue, but, like all virtues, when exaggerated it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the tolerance trap so that we are not swallowed up in it." 

Well, darn. And just when the LDS church was getting all lovey-dovey with all of us immoral folk, what with its totally tolerant website mormonsandgays.org. But here's what's irking me: Faithful followers of the Church are lapping this up. They'll fight tooth and nail for the words of one man who's source material comes from prayer. 

Which, by the way, anyone can do. And anyone who accepts the answers of the prayers of another man over the answers one gets from one's own prayers is not a person at all. That follower is pawn in someone else's scheme. 

But back to the quote. 

So Packer, who will most likely be the next prophet of the LDS faith, is grasping at what remains of intolerance in our nation. He's telling his followers to heed his words over those of Jesus. Don't tolerate. It's a trap. Love one another? No. It's a tolerance trap. 

And Packer's words should totally be believed, because he's been on the right side of history for as long as he's had authority, correct? 

Well, let's take a look at a quote from a 1977 talk he gave at BYU.

"Plan, young people, to marry into your own race. This counsel is good, and I hope our branch presidents are listening and paying attention."

Out of context, you say? Well, please, allow me to further enlighten you.

"We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our caucasians to marry caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, 'Well, I know of exceptions.' I do too, and they've been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, 'I can show you local church leaders, or perhaps even general leaders, who have married out of their race.' I say, 'Yes--exceptions.' Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman's near-scriptural statement, 'We'd like to follow the rule first, and then we'll take care of the exceptions.'"

This was only four years before I was born, and just barely before the LDS faith decided black people were OK after all. It's not that long ago. 

Packer is just another man who thinks he is ordained to speak on God's behalf because someone told him he is. He thinks any dream or feeling he has is the will and word of God because he holds an authoritative role in the Church. The very words he spoke in 1977 are disgusting and would not be backed up by any reputable member of the LDS faith today. 

Yet, he still speaks. And people will still follow. And families will be torn apart because the gay child is "immoral." Families will not tolerate the immoral children because it's a trap. 

Hopefully, 30 years from now, someone will write an article and cite Packer's quote from this day and look at it with as much disgust as any normal human looks at his 1977 quote. For a man who preaches from the highest tiers of the LDS hierarchy, he sure does seem to think Jesus just wasn't quite correct.

Until that time when the leaders of the LDS faith can follow the words of Jesus over their own misguided "feelings," I urge each and one of you to take the advice of authority figures with a grain of salt. They are but men. And until there is footage of God speaking face-to-face with one of these men, then your relationship with God is just as valid. And if your God is telling you to hate your fellow man, then maybe you should consider if that's even God at all. 

'Sanctity of Marriage' Argument Is Just No Good

Tweet

Can you marry a person of the opposite sex if you're not in love? Yes.
Can you marry a person of the opposite sex just for money? Yes.
Can you marry a person you are in love with? Not if you're the same sex.
The greatest despoilers of the "sanctity of marriage" aren't gay people
at all. It's the straight people who wed for green cards, publicity, money
and any other reason they want. It almost seems like gay people are the
only demographic left who truly want to marry for the sake of love.

The more ignorant among us--specifically the people who are vehemently opposed to marriage equality on the grounds that it infringes upon the "sanctity" of marriage--are practicing the highest and most ridiculous form of hypocrisy.

The United States Supreme Court will be ruling on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act in just a few days.

We are on the threshold of history here. We'll all be able to say that we were alive when the nation abolished the act of refusing rights to everyone. We can say we witnessed the Supreme Court help win the latest battle in the war for civil rights, and we can truly say we are a country founded upon individual freedom and equal protection and treatment under the law.

Or we will we say we were alive when the nation decided that "All Men Are Created Equal" and "Pursuit of Happiness" only apply to one group of people.

Of course, I'm hoping (and even praying) for the former. It just makes the most sense. If you're a citizen of the United States of America, then you should have the ability to reap the same benefits any other American does. You should be allowed to make a million dollars if you're an innovative and creative genius. You should be allowed to worship whatever deity you believe in at the place of your choice in the manner you desire. You should be able to speak openly about your satisfaction or dissatisfaction about the way the government works. You should be allowed to vote. You should be able to have a family. And you should be able to marry the person you love.

But there's that group of people who are so hung up on marriage being a "sacred institution" that's already been defined between one man and one woman, and we shouldn't be allowed to amend that.

As I've argued before, marriage, like all things, is an evolutional process. The definition of marriage has changed many, many times. From the incestuous marriages of Adam and Eve's children, to the polygamous marriages that ran the entire length of the religious lexicon, the Bible is rife with different versions of marriage, and a lot of them are pretty unsavory.

And as I've also argued before, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was willing to redefine marriage--twice. So the argument that marriage has already been defined and cannot be redefined or amended is a complete fallacy. The argument just doesn't hold up.

I think it's safe to say that there is no word, term or definition of anything that has been static since the beginning of time. Every word has more than one meaning. Go ahead. Think of a word. If you can think of a word that means only one thing and has meant what it means now since its inception, then make sure to share it in the comments section below.

Better yet, tweet it to me. 

But the other argument the so-called traditional marriage fundamentalists rely heavily upon is the sanctity of marriage itself. First of all, never mind that it makes zero sense to deny someone else a right just because that someone wants to execute it in a different way you choose to. When we abolished race segregation, was the water any less we than it was when black people weren't allowed to drink from "whites only" fountains? No. It was the same water.

But let's get back to my accusation of hypocrisy.

I have yet to see a religious zealot call foul on all the straight people who respect their bowel movements more than they respect marriage.

Where were all the traditional marriage defenders when Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries just for the publicity? How come I didn't hear a single peep from the people who consider marriage to be a sacred union when Britney Spears and Jason Trawick married for a whole 65 hours? Where's the uproar over the people who marry every day because of money or power? People who marry just to get citizenship? People who get married just because they happened to be super drunk that night?

When it comes to disrespecting a sacred institute, I think all of those qualify far more than two people who wish to marry because they are genuinely in love.

And I've yet to read an article or watch a newscast about a gay couple who wed because one of them was on his deathbed and promised the other $1 million dollars in his will. No, gay people want to be with the people they love, and they want the legal recognition and benefits everyone else gets. They're not in it for some ulterior motive.

Those benefits, by the way, are afforded to any straight couple who marries for any reason. Some straight couples get married strictly for the benefits alone. But that's not illegal in the eyes of the law, and for some reason, it's not immoral in the eyes of the people who think marriage is a hallowed establishment ordained by the lord.

It's hypocrisy. Pure and simple. I see none of the anti-marriage equality crowd picketing the people who don't take marriage seriously. I only see them spreading hate toward those of us who take the union between two people very seriously but are denied the right to marry.

And until I see the traditional marriage supporters actually practicing what they preach and demanding everyone treat marriage as a sacred institution, then I will be forced to judge them as just a bunch of homophobic bigots who are saying, "You can't have this! It's MINE!" like a greedy kindergartner would about a toy that's meant for the whole class; he thinks it should belong to him and him only.

You hypocritical hate mongers deserve such a bad review that I'm about to do something unprecedented. For your vitriol and closed-mindedness, I'm giving you a double five out of five Trash rating. Yup. 10 trashes, all for you and your hate-filled lives.

So if you're a Supreme Court Justice and you're reading this (which of course I know every Justice does), then please consider the fact that, out of all the people who truly want to get married, those of us who are denied the right are possibly the ones who want it most for the right reason: love.

Want Equal Rights? Quit Flaunting Your Sexual Exploits!

Tweet

OK boys, girls and everything in between. It's time to cease shoving our sexuality down society's throat, so to speak. We're not doing ourselves any favors.

But let me explain a little before you start your personal attack on me.

I'll be the first to admit that I can't pass up a good double entendre or sexual innuendo, and believe me, if "that's what she said"(or, in many a case, "that's what he said") turned nightmares into dreams, then my world would be one giant wonderland. Good God, I couldn't even start this article without making a fellatio joke.

And being part of the gay community means, usually, being part of the gay culture. And with that comes drag queens, Lady Gaga, bondage, sex toys and partying. I'm speaking in generalities, of course. Only one or two of those actually apply to me. (I'll let you guess which ones!)

But on the LGBTQ activism front, I think someone needs to stand up and demand some of the more flamboyantly sexual of us take it down a notch in public. So I'll be the one to take on that challenge.

The movement for equal rights among the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer population came to a head that fateful June day in 1969 when a group of us got fed up with the beatings and humiliation and general second class citizenry. The Stonewall Riots lit a fire that burns to this day.

In the beginning of our attempts to let society know that we're here and, indeed, we're queer, I think flaunting our sexuality was a must. I'd like to think of it as baptism by sexual fire. Society was so repulsed at the very notion that two people who just happened to have the same sexual anatomy could love each other that we were pretty much forced to show them that we could--and we would.

And of course this led to our celebrating our sexuality to show the world that we had nothing to be ashamed of, so society shouldn't either. And I think that initial part of the battle is over. Even those zealots who flaunt "God Hates Fags" signs are still aware that we're here, and even if they don't realize it, they're acclimated to our presence.

But now we're on the forefront of equal rights. There is a big possibility the Supreme Court could strike down California's Prop 8 this month, and hopefully they do away with DOMA, as well. But there are still some of us who think we need to stick it to society and flaunt our sexual behaviors just to prove some point that doesn't need to be proven any more.

And it's doing more damage than good.

I have a friend, and he's a very dear friend and a very good person. But he's known far and wide as "the gay guy." He's made it his life's work to be just that. Being gay comes first and foremost, and I think he gets a kick out of making people feel uncomfortable when he starts making intercourse jokes or talking about male anatomy.

Yes, it's funny to me, but we're in a very conservative state (Utah has yet to pass any sort of legislation on a statewide level that extends job and housing security or domestic partnership benefits based on sexual orientation or identity).

We still have many battles to fight, and people like my friend definitely do not represent the majority of the LGBTQ community. Most of us are happy to go about our lives living the same way everyone else does. All we want are the same rights everyone else has.

But when one person jumps in front of a thousand people and starts yelling on their behalf, whether they like it or not, that person is now the spokesperson for the entire crowd. And it's hard to ignore someone who runs around throwing condoms in people's faces and commenting on guys' rear ends.

This kind of behavior makes the more uneducated of society believe that all gay people want is sex and that we only view other people as sexual objects. We must, we must, WE MUST stop perpetuating this stereotype!

Our very rights are at stake! Do we want it to take another 40 years before we take the next big step in having the same rights every American is afforded? Do we want to bide our time by sitting on our asses and making jokes about shoving things up our asses rather than showing America we are not a group of kinky sex addicts? Is the leather and the sexual T-shirt slogans so worth it that we're willing to have them instead of the right to marry the person we fall in love with?

I applaud the generation that had to show the world sex and sexuality are just part of being human. You truly are pioneers, and there's no way we'd be staring down the bigotry of Prop 8 with a chance of winning without your initial gusto. But that portion of the fight is over. Now we need to be appealing, not appalling, if we want to get an entire country to believe we're not here to start some national orgy.

I'm giving our pioneer brothers and sisters five out of five Fabs for paving the way to the place we're at today. Thank you so much for your efforts, for the blood you shed, for the tears you cried, for the battles you fought, for the stand you took that made it possible for me to walk out in the open and be gay and not afraid.

BUT, I'm also giving those of us who think we need to make a "Tom's dick is hairy" to every Tom, Dick and Harry five out of five Trashes because you're not doing our community any favors.

Please, I'm begging you. Tone it down in public. Yes, be the sexual person you are with the people you have sex with! But don't take the details of your bedroom life and slap it across the face of the very people we're trying to persuade. We need to be taken seriously. I, for one, would never take a straight couple seriously if all they talked about was the latest sexual positions they figured out and how they implemented both a cucumber and an eggplant into their last lovemaking session. The same goes for us.

Now let's continue the good fight.

It's (Sadly) Still Relevant

Tweet

An Open Letter To Kate Dalley and Her Readers - By Matty Jacobson

This is the accompanying photo with Kate Dalley's
article: a sexual identity merit badge. Sexual identity
means the gender a person identifies with. Dalley
actually doesn't talk about this at all. Hate mail to
Matty Jacobson can be posted in the comments section
below.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | ACTIVISM


Tweet

All three rings of the gay rights circus are active right now, and it certainly is the most grating show on earth.

If you haven’t read Feb. 9 article, “Perspectives: TheSexual Identity Merit Badge,” by Kate Dalley, published on StGeorgeUtah.com, then maybe you should take a minute and read it.

If you can’t see how bigoted this article is, then I’m afraid you’ve fallen into the same delusion that Dalley has: that this opinion piece is a fair representation of her side of the argument.

But in all actuality, it’s only telling us that being “openly gay” means that you fully intend to disclose graphic sexual information to boys.  

I am not here to tell you The Boy Scouts of America should allow openly gay people to join the organization. I don’t really understand why any self-respecting person who just happens to be gay would want to join an organization that is willing to deny them membership for that one aspect alone. But, like I said, the whole Boy Scout issue is completely beside the point here.

Whether intentional or not, Dalley is portraying herself as a pervert who can only think of one thing: gay sex.

When I first started The Skewed Review back in 2009, my goal was to have a political column that focused on headlines—but in a sarcastic and entertaining way. Of course, I didn’t fully understand how poorly sarcasm is conveyed through print, and politics are about as entertaining as watching CSPAN “Clockwork Orange” style. Still, I’m able to crank out some pretty good puns every now and then, and as long as post mug shots of myself looking perturbed, then at least half my audience gets my sardonic attitude.

But what started as a political focus grew to cover a wide variety of topics. From movies to morons, The Skewed Review is able to touch on just about every subject. But one thing that’s really bloomed like a rainbow rose growing in a glitter and John Waters DVD mulch is my activism.

But in all my activism tantrums, I’ve never once argued that gay people should be allowed to run up to whomever they please and start spouting off about their sex lives.

Now, never mind that Dalley is uneducated; she doesn’t even know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual identity (she refers to sexual identity as a “sexual preference”) and never mind her inability to recognize her own redundancies (she talks about granting membership to “‘openly gay’ homosexuals”); I want to bring to your attention her blatant self-contradictions.

She goes so far in her argument as to say: “Am I ‘openly Mormon,’ or ‘openly heterosexual?’ No.”

Actually, Ms. Dalley is both of those things. First and foremost, she just announced them both in her article. That, my loyal readers, is the definition of being openly anything. I’m guessing she goes to church and is seen by hundreds of other congregants. That’s openly Mormon. And in her mini-bio at the end of her article, it clearly states she’s married and a mother of five children. That’s openly heterosexual.

Dalley’s hypocrisy is astounding.

But her biggest fallacy is that she’s a namby-pamby, no-spine writer who is too afraid to argue what she wants to argue. Her article reeks of disgust toward gay people, but she skirts that issue under the guise of “I’m not a fan of bullying.” She’s clearly repulsed by gay people, but she’s too much of sissy to admit it.

She tells her readers that it’s fine to be gay—just don’t talk about it.  You know, because if she were to talk about her husband and kids, that’s just fine. But if I were to talk about my husband, that’s crossing a line.

And under it all, I think Dalley just can’t get gay sex out of her mind. To quote her, “As for openly-gay scout leaders professing their attitude of acceptance to young boys, sex should never be a discussion that they have with their scouts. Ever. It is inappropriate, just as I do not want a promiscuous male heterosexual glamorizing or justifying his sexual conquests either.”

Wow. She sure jumped from point A to point XXX in a matter of seconds.

Who said being gay meant talking about sex to young boys? Dalley is basically calling all gay men pedophiles. She thinks that being gay means telling everyone around you how you have gay sex. This is a simplistic mindset, a fairy tale if you will, that Dalley has conjured up in her own closed little mind.

I’m sorry, Mrs. Dalley, but you are a pervert. I have never seen a married heterosexual couple holding hands and said, “Good God. Those two people are having sex.” So forgive me for thinking you're the odd one because you do exactly that when you see (or think about) a homosexual couple holding hands. And, oddly enough, I’ve never been afraid for my nieces and nephews when we invite the straight folk over. I’ve never thought, “Oh lord, those two straight people are going to start telling my 7-year-old niece how they have sex.” So again, forgive me when I think you are the pervert because you think that's No. 1 on a homosexual couple's agenda.

Guess what? My partner and I don’t do that stuff. Do my nieces and nephews know I have a partner who happens to be a man? Yes, they do. But do I sit down and tell them how sex with another man works? No! I would never do that! And neither would any other upstanding gay person!

The fact that you think we all want to have conversations about sex with young boys tells me there’s something wrong with you. Not us. 

Are there sick people out there? Yes. But are they all gay? NO. I'm not a sick person, my husband is not a sick person, and all our gay friends are not sick people. You, on the other hand, who thinks that being gay means "professing" your gayness to little children, gives me pause. I just have a sneaking suspicion the only thing you, Mrs. Dalley, can think about when you hear "gay" is a couple of naked guys going at in bed with whips and chains and cameras rolling. Disgusting.

Let the Boy Scouts of America deny access to gay people. That’s fine with me. And argue your homophobic point of view. That’s also fine with me. Just don’t pretend to be to be something you’re not—an understanding and loving human being. And we, as a collective group of normal humans who just happen to be gay will all be what we are—decent, loving, kind, accepting humans who are simply tired of people like YOU labeling us as sex-crazed pedophiles. 

An Open Letter To Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson edits and contributes to The Skewed Review.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS | ACTIVISM | RELIGION

Tweet

Dear Mr. Cathy,

I am but a lowly consumer who has rarely eaten at a Chick-fil-A (mostly because they aren't in my area), and I'm writing to you in regards to your message of marriage as defined by The Bible.

And, truly, this is a letter to all who continue to try and convince me that The Bible defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

I will always support your right to believe whatever it is you want to believe, Mr. Cathy, as I would hope you would support my right to do the same. However, I would hope in your attempt to be credible you would cite sources that actually support your argument. I would like to suggest you change your source material, since it doesn't actually stick to the definition you claim.

You said in an interview that "[Chick-fil-A is] very much supportive of the family -- the Biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives."

I can only assume that you are in favor of Adam's marriage then--to his first wife, Lilith, and that his marriage to Eve was just fornication, correct? OK, I'm splitting hairs, here. Lilith isn't included in most of the versions of the Bible we use in America today. So obviously her omission from sacred text means she never existed. By no means am I insinuating that early editors of The Bible would have the audacity to remove, add or change text to fit political or personal agendas.

Alright, fine. I am insinuating just a little.


But that's beside the point. Sort of. You're main focus is that The Bible's definition of a family is a man, a woman, and as many children as possible. Well, according to The Bible, the definition of a family is one man and multiple wives. In fact, a marriage between one man and one woman is rarely mentioned in The Bible.

But, starting in Genesis 4:19, The Bible just gets jiggy-wit-it when it comes to polygamy. Check out this first passage that mentions multiple wives: "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah."

Those are some pretty bitchin' names.

But furthermore, according to The Bible, your wife should pretty much be chosen from a bunch of slaves. How about this passage from Deuteronomy 21: "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails..."

Well, the verses go on to talk about how your slave wife should "bewail" (a.k.a. denounce) her parents for a month, and then you, the man, should have sex with her in order to make her your wife. But it gets really juicy in Deuteronomy 21:14: "And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Damn, Mr. Cathy. Damn. So essentially, according to this text, if you're not sexually satisfied by your slave wife, then you're well within your rights to dump her. You just can't sell her. The passages go on to talk about first born sons from first wives having all sorts of rights--even if you hate your first born son.

Cool. By the Biblical definition, I am owed half of everything my father owned. OK, I guess I'm on board.

But let's not dwell on old Deuteronomy. Let's move on to the book of Judges. How about 8:30, to be specific: "And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives." The passages then go on to describe his wives as "his concubine."

The list of Biblical multiple wives goes on, and the book literally has men treating their wives as property rather than things they must cherish. There are literally too many famous Biblical figures who practiced concubinism (that's my word, so make sure to attribute it to me once you've adopted it for your own life) to name.

Holy crap! First Kings 11 talks about Solomon with much fervor: "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines." That tiger!

But this is all Old Testament stuff. I know. How is it relevant to today's nuclear family? Well, uh, exactly? These passages, along with myriad others, fully endorse multiple wives and concubines--without apology. So, technically, that's the Biblical definition of a marriage. This is the same text you draw your laws from that supposedly denounces the love between two people of the same gender. This must be what you believe, then.

So, Mr. Cathy, my message to you is to at least be consistent in your arguments.

Or, wait a minute, in your same interview, you said, "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

Fine, I'll look the other way when it comes to the sheer hypocrisy of this quote, and I'll just assume that you are ordained to speak on behalf of God (henceforth, you shall be known as the High Ordained Chicken Friar). Perhaps you are practicing what you preach. Perhaps we are not privy to your personal life, which, I can only assume, is full of wives and concubines. Slaves and whores. Property and vessels for children.

You're either condemning marriage between one man and one woman by telling us you are adhering to the Biblical definition of marriage, or you're simply ignoring the parts of the Bible you don't like. And you would never do something like that, now would you?

Sincerely yours,
Matthew James Jacobson

So, Chick-fil-A, We Meet Again - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson thinks the only way to stop America's
obesity epidemic is to simply stop eating all fast food.
But, he's not going to impose his beliefs on everyone else.
Matty edits and contributes to The Skewed Review.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS | ACTIVISM

Tweet

I don't get cravings for Chik-fil-A. Actually, I don't crave much fast food. But when the rumor that a Chik-fil-A was going to open in our area started making the rounds, I was surprised to hear how many people were just so excited to finally have one nearby.

Apparently their food is delicious.

But, I'm not necessarily sold on what other people think is delicious. I heard the same thing about Popeye's Chicken, and I wretched when I ate that stuff.

What am I doing? This isn't a food review! This is about activism! This is about discrimination! This article is about gay rights! This article is about defending, wait for it, Chik-fil-A.


"The hell?!" you just asked yourself silently. "But wait Matty, aren't you totally gay?!"

Yes. Yes I am. And I hate it, nay, I loathe it when someone denies me any sort of rights.

"NAY!" 

There has been so much controversy in the news over Chick-fil-A: anti-gay sentiments from its president, Dan Cathy, loss of support from The Muppets, alleged lies by the restaurant chain to cover up said Muppet loss, and denial of new franchise openings in various cities. That's a lot of bird to stuff down your throat--even for me. 

Hopefully I don't need to tell you the story of how Dan Cathy admitted that he pretty much hates the gays. But just to summarize, yes, he admitted that he pretty much hates the gays. 

Now, does this offend me? You bet your sweet buttery buns it does. And I'm not the only one who was offended, obviously. 

The restaurant chain was offering a toy in their kid's meals, which they suddenly stopped offering "due to a possible safety issue." This of course was just one day after the Jim Henson Company announced that it did "...not want to partner with [Chick-fil-A] on any future endeavors." This has turned into an all-out fustercluck. I personally won't draw any conclusions as to the validity of Chick-fil-A's claims, but I will say that I hate getting my fingers stuck in mini puppets.

And just one day before Pioneer Day?! WTF?? 

And now the big issue is that the mayors of Chicago and Boston have publicly announced that they do not want more Chick-fil-As opening in their cities. Both have expressed concern over civil rights and have denounced the antiquated views that not everyone should be allowed to marry the person he or she loves. 

Yay! Good for them! But hold on a second. Let's get back on track here. Remember when I said I hated it when people denied me rights? Well, I'm a supporter of practicing what I preach. Sometimes, I even follow through on that practice! This is one of those times.

We live in a country where it's legal to be and say what you want, when you want, to whom you want. That's why the Westboro Baptist Church gets to run around pretending they're not secretly screwing their farm animals and what-not. It's why I live a block away from an LDS and a Presbyterian church, and yet I'm not being burned at the stake (for those of you in Utah, that was a Mormon joke. Did you get it?). It's why naked men are allowed to march down Folsom Street in San Francisco every year without being arrested.

I certainly deserve the right to marry whomever I want, as long as it's a consenting adult. And Dan Cathy deserves the right to believe whatever he wants, as well. 

Denying a business the opportunity to open because of the business's president's views on marriage equality is bordering on tyranny. If you or I were to attempt to open a business and we were denied because of our skin color, there would be a public uproar. In the cases of Chicago and Boston, there has been a public uproar, but it's wholly in favor of putting Chick-fil-A out of business before it can even start. 

Here's my call to everyone. Don't block businesses from starting. That's just plain wrong, and it goes against everything America stands for. If you hate Chick-fil-A as much as I do, then simply don't patronize the establishment! 

I say let Chick-fil-A pour tons of money into opening new branches and then lose that money when nobody goes to the restaurant. Hell, we could even picket the places! Picketing is fun! Why do you think the Westboro Baptist Church does it so much? I mean, you can't screw sheep all the time! 

"Yeah, baby! Pose for daddy! But
hurry. We gotta protest a soldier
who died so we can protest,"
said Fred Phelps, founder of
Westboro Baptist Church.

The thing is, how do you picket and/or protest something that's not there? 

The bottom line is that denying a business the chance to open based upon our own personal beliefs is literally unconstitutional. It's up to us, the consumers, to make sure we don't spend our money at those establishments after they open. 

Now go. Eat more chicken. Just not at Chick-fil-A.

The Gay Culture Conundrum - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson owns, edits and contributes to
The Skewed Review.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT | ACTIVISM

Tweet
I've been inundated with this desire recently to immerse myself in drag--culture, that is.

If you're a first-timer to The Skewed Review, I'll let you in on a little secret. I am a wig wearer. I wear wigs wonderfully. Wow. What whimsy when I wear a wig. However, when it comes to female wigs, I'm not a huge collector.

It seems pretty pointless, I know, but most of my wigs are men's styles. But just waking up one morning and deciding that I'm going to have shaggy black hair that day is better than drugs. Well, almost better than drugs.

However, I'm not against owning and wearing a nice queeny quaff. I thoroughly enjoy my Elvira, Glinda, Charlie's Angels and Snooki wigs, too. I just don't happen to put them on as often. So, suffice to say, I'm a drag enthusiast, albeit not a professional one.

What with this desert weather and global warming and all, I've found myself spending more time indoors. When I'm not on the treadmill, I'm parked in front of the TV watching "Priscilla: Queen of the Desert," or "To Wong Foo: Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar," or "Hairspray" (the Divine version, not the Travolta version), or "Pink Flamingos" or "Polyester" or "Trick" or "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" or "Paris is Burning." But I can only watch the same old drag movies over and over again. So I've turned to Netflix, and I've been enjoying past seasons of "RuPaul's Drag Race."

For those of you who don't know, "RuPaul's Drag Race" is a reality show that seeks out the best of the best in American drag queens. It's so much fun to watch, and I'm so jealous of the clothes they all get to wear. Here I am, stuck in southern Utah, where the only real drag I could possibly pull off would be a sister wife.

But "Drag Race's" season three got me thinking about something serious.

The winner of said season is one Raja, a makeup artist and high-fashionista from Los Angeles. From episode one I was torn on the soon-to-be-crowned Raja. I was in love with her fashions, but I hated her attitude. She was literally the mean girl. It's hard to root for the mean girl.

Sassy? Yes. I love a good sassy girl. But there's a line between sassiness and just plain bitchiness. And it seemed like Raja fit the latter description.

On the last episode, however, Raja talked about wanting to spread a message that it's OK for little boys to want to be who they are. That's a good message. Only, it was hard for me to wrap my head around the truth of it. Raja said she wanted little boys to not be afraid, but dammit, she was so scary that even I was afraid, and I was only watching reruns on Netflix!

Here's the conundrum of the gay culture. Little boys and girls all across this country of ours are constantly being told that "It's OK to be gay." "Come out of the closets and into the streets!" they scream. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

The gay community portrays this huge family that's accepting to all. Only, it's not. If I were a contestant on "Ru Paul's Drag Race," and I just happened to be there with Raja, something tells me I wouldn't have gotten a "be who you are girl!" I would have been shaking in my boots out of fear of rejection. That happens to many gay boys who don't fit the profile of what the gay culture wants them to be.

If your'e not fit enough, bitchy enough, "out" enough, loud enough, sexy enough (and the list goes on), then chances are your coming out won't bring you into a family of like-minded individuals. Chances are you'll find yourself having to conform even more-so to find that perfect gay niche in which you belong. And even then, you'd better adhere to that clique's standards steadfastly lest you be beaten down with vitriol.

Let me go back to Miss Raja for a moment. I often have to stop myself when it comes to reality TV. As I've pointed out before, I think reality TV is the downfall of our nation. I sometimes forget that producers and editors will splice and cut to depict certain people in certain ways. Who knows how much support and how many compliments were edited out of Raja's footage? I mean, after all, compliments and support do not make for good reality TV. You must have drama. You must have controversy. In this respect, producers of reality TV are distorting the truth and making it seem like people are horrible, when in fact, they're just behaving humanly.

In the reunion episode, Raja said she saw the show and didn't even realize how mean what she was saying actually was. She apologized for her words and her actions.

That, in and of itself, proves to me that there's hope for our gay culture. Yes, "throwing shade" is common in the drag culture, and unfortunately, it scares away some people who might be interested in becoming a part of that culture. It's almost as if you're required to become nasty in order to become a drag superstar.

I commend Raja for taking that step to adhere to her own message of wanting little boys everywhere to not be afraid to do what they want. Now I want the rest of us to help that vision out. Instead of judging the little gay boy down the street when he puts on a pair of second-hand heels and dons a wig from the Halloween store, let's commend him for daring to be fabulous.

Let's end this silly conundrum. Let's practice what we preach.