Happy New Year!

A busy holiday season, and not much time to spend on the computer. Just wanted to wish all a Happy New Year for 2006.

Still haven't had a chance to really dig into the podcast thing, probably won't be able to until I'm done with the show in February. Too many lines to learn...

See you next year!

The Odd Couple at The Sheboygan Theatre Company

"The Odd Couple" is the next show at the Sheboygan Theatre Company. Both the male and female versions of the show (the original, male, version was written around 1965, the female version debuted in 1985) will be performed on alternating nights.

Show dates: February 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (for tickets, call 920-459-3779)

The male version of the show stands up well to the test of time. The only thing "dated" that I see is how attitudes toward failing marriages have changed. Back then, divorce was tragic, you don't get that feeling nowadays.

The female version of the show dates itself starting with the women playing "Trivial Pursuit" instead of poker (like the men do), and again, the attitude toward divorce is much different than it is today.

Why am I writing about this? Because I'm going to be in the show! I played Felix last time we did the show, in 1998, and will be reprising the role. I'll also be playing one of the Spanish brothers (Olive and Florence's dates) in the female version.

We started rehearsal last week, and it's been a bear to go from work to a 3.5 hour rehearsal every night. But it's a lot of fun, and we have a great cast and crew to work with.

So if you're in the area, and are looking for something to do on a cold February night, stop in and see the show!

Podcast? ME??

Well, the Christmas shopping is done, all that's left is wrapping and paying the credit card bills...No time for a tree or Christmas cards this year, I was lucky to hit the stores and amazon.com this year.

Santa, in the guise of the UPS man, brought me one of my presents today:

The Podcast Factory

This looks like it could be a lot of fun. When I was in college, I used to listen to an AM radio show that a woman did from her home. She was connected by phone to the radio station, and she did a 3-hour show every weekday morning. She's been on the air for over 30 years (I think), and her show is still on. Yes, this does sound like it's one of those "hicks from the sticks" stories (well, it WAS the UP after all...), but I always enjoyed that simple, down-home approach. It wasn't a slick professional production by any means. She butchered words (I still smile every time I think of the time she pronounced the name of the show "Irma la Douce" as "Irma la Douche," and audibly gasped when she realized what she said, then chuckled and plowed ahead), read local news and the obituaries, wrote and read the commercials for various local advertisers, gave out recipes and housekeeping tips, and took callers on various topics. Maybe a little cornball, but when you think of it, in her own way, Jan Tucker, from Ontonagon, MI, was a pioneer of the "at home" broadcast (And bless her heart for still being at it!! Too bad that station doesn't have webcasting, or I'd be a regular listener!). And, for many people who do podcasting, isn't a podcast just an at-home broadcast?

So there's my role model, so to speak. I'll probably spend some time over the holiday week getting this thing set up and trying to put a podcast together. I'll have to think of a theme song..... Then figure out how to post it or link it to the blog. Not sure what my format will be, it will be fun to try out some different things. The only thing I dread is hearing the sound of my own voice!!

Stay tuned....

A Christmas Card with Balls

This is an electronic Christmas card from one of our local advertising agencies. It's really cute:

XMas Card with Balls

Turn your sound up and enjoy!!

Marriage Amendment: My Take, Part 2

Mike at Cooler Near the Lake weighs in on the gay marriage issue with two excellent posts. I don't agree with them, but he presents a very level-headed, reasoned argument for his opinion, and not a knee-jerk reaction.

I offer the following comments:

When it comes to the gay marriage debate, there are only three options. We ban it, we sanction it, or we do nothing.
...
If we do nothing, the costs of debating the issue will continue to be incurred. What is the benefit of this option? Enlightenment?

What is wrong with having "enlightenment" as a benefit? And there is little cost for becoming enlightened, other than the time spent to read, listen, learn, discuss, and think.

I think this country is in a period of enlightenment right now. The gay community has come a long way in the last 10-15 years as far as enlightening people to the fact that gay men and women aren't all swishy lispy drag queens and flannel-wearing lumberjack lesbians. Gay people are no longer the distant cousin on some 70's or 80's sitcom who turns up "queer" and provides comic fodder for a 23-minute episode. Gay people are beginning to be seen as real people, not stereotypes. And I feel that is what is beginning to put a "face" on this issue.

I think the younger generations have become a lot more "gay-friendly" as a result of this. That is a benefit. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that (to paraphrase that classic "Seinfeld" episode...).

Sanctioning means that government is expanding. It is expanding in the sense that is has to define a new legal category. This new category will require reinterpretation of a vast number precedent setting interpretations of applicable and associated laws. Considered in this context, one sees that the cost is not inconsequential. Proponents of gay marriage have not provided much sense of the benefits from doing this, other than it will make a small portion of the human population 'feel better'.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how sanctioning will require reinterpretation of a vast number of laws, and at great expense. If the benefit is for a "small portion of the population," I would think that any legal issues and skirmishes resulting from sanctioning would be proportional to the percentage of the population participating (wow, how's THAT for alliteration??). In other words, if 1-3 percent of the population goes for the gay marriage/union (I don't have any real stats, just grabbing numbers, here), legal issues surrounding the marriages/unions should account for 1-3 percent of the total legal issues. I'm not denying that there would be "start-up" costs, but I can't see the costs being so high as to empty Wisconsin's coffers. I've seen my tax money thrown away on much worse!!

Child guardianship, medical decisions, insurance, and other legal rights: Peace of mind and security, and those are big benefits.

The current assumption is that 100% of the population can be divided into two groups, heterosexuals and homosexuals. I believe that to be an false assumption, which means that there is a smaller portion, but a portion nonetheless, who have not had their 'preference' sanctioned by the government.

The slippery slope argument, presented in a new way, and very well done. Wisconsin law already bans sex with minors, incest, polygamy, and I hope, beastiality. Those are the usual chestnuts trotted out for this argument. No, there is nothing stopping proponents of any of these "preferences" from educating the public, lobbying, and actively pursuing changes in these laws. That's not saying they will be successful, but they are free to do so. That's what makes this country great!

The same goes with gay marriage/civil unions. Proponents are free to seek changes in existing laws (Wisconsin law already defines marriage as between a husband and a wife, which, by definition of "husband" and "wife," prohibits gay marriage) to sanction gay marriage/civil unions. By passing the Marriage Amendment, opponents of gay marriage/civil unions are simply duplicating an existing law, when all they have to do is defend laws currently on the books. And I admit that the opponents are free to seek changes in the law (yes, our system is great, it works both ways!), but in this case, it's overkill (and sometimes it sounds like mean-spirited, political overkill, but I'll save that for another post.).

Can I say that the third option [banning] will make us better? No. But in selecting the third option, I know that I will not make the situation any worse than it is now.

It does make the situation worse. The Marriage Amendment does nothing but duplicate an existing law and contribute to the emotion-driven hot-headedness on both sides of the issue. The gay marriage/civil union debate is not going to go away with the passage of this amendment.

Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment: My Take, Part 1

I haven't blogged in a while, but a post I read on another site has given me the motivation...

Lucas at Wild Wisconsin presented an argument for the amendment, which would give Wisconsin voters a chance to amend the Wisconsin constitution to recognize marriage between one man and one woman only.

While this will probably cost me my "conservative card," I'm not in favor of this. Yes, I support gay marriage.

Lucas made the following points:

1. God said that homosexuality is wrong.
This about settles it for me. It was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden not Adam and Steve. God made marriage between a man and wife who am I to question that?

I'm no Bible scholar, and will never claim to be. Lucas is correct, the text is there. However, if you peruse the Bible a little more, you'll also see that God told us not to eat pork. Are we going to close down America's pork industry? I think there is also something in there about wearing clothing made of multiple types of fabric. Should we be putting the garment industry on notice?

God also said that we shouldn't commit adultry. Now, if there's anything that threatens heterosexual (and homosexual) marriage, it's adultry. Are there any laws on the books about that? Laws that are enforced?

No one should be cherry-picking Bible verses to make their case for this argument.

2. Homosexual marriage will destroy traditional marriage.

...

If I could say "I'm married" in Texas (and in Wisconsin so long as no judges come along to make things up) everyone knows that means I've got one wife with whom I've made a special commitment be joined together 'till death do us part. Now if I said "I'm married"in Massachusetts people would only know that I love some other person whether it be man or women. Hence by allowing other relationships to be included under the relationship of man and wife we have struck a fatal blow at the original relationship between man and wife.

For most people, marriage is part of religion, and I think that is what Lucas means by "traditional." I don't think advocates of gay marriage are looking for acceptance from the religious groups. They are looking for government-based "rights," like guardianship, child custody, health care issues... No one is asking anyone to force gay marriage on any religious institution, and I agree wholeheartedly with that.

I think it's overdramatic to feel a "fatal blow" is struck to the man-woman relationship. If you are involved in a man-woman relationship, I can't see how gay marriage would affect what you have....Someone has to explain that to me better...

3. It's all about the Children

Children deserve a stable family. They don't always get one, but they still deserve it. Today we recognize that many children live in broken families that only have one parent, or many other arrangements that are less than ideal. That doesn't mean the state, the society, should work to endorse and encourage more of this type of situation. It should be apparent by the inability of procreation in a homosexual marriage that it does not raise kids well. To think that a child will not have a mom or dad if homosexual marriage is allowed should confirm our rejection.

Agreed for the most part, except the part about a homosexual marriage not being able to raise kids well. I know a lesbian couple (together for almost 20 years) who successfully raised, and are continuing to raise, 4 children. Two of the children were from a previous marriage by one of the partners (the father was an absolute bastard). The younger two were adopted. The oldest child, a son, married recently, and to a woman!! Who knew.... The second child, a girl, has a steady boyfriend. All 4 kids appear to be well-adjusted, normal, and in the case of the older ones, heterosexual.

Children deserve a stable family environment, with two parents. But, in today's world, that's sometimes an ideal world, and you just have to play the hand you're dealt. That goes for "normal" marriages, and gay marriages. To suggest that gay marriage should be rejected just because a kid won't have both a mom and a dad is very short-sighted. A kid needs loving, attentive parents, no matter what the sex.

And if marriage is for children, what about all those childless married couples out there? And the ones who decide to get married, but don't want to have children? Or the ones who cannot have children? A marriage license is not a breeders' license.

4. It reduces marriage to attraction

This reasoning is probably what prompted me to make this post. In 5 words, Lucas managed to summize that being gay is nothing more than glands calling out to each other, and that two people of the same sex are unable to love each other. That people who are gay are unable to control their lusts. That accepting gay marriage is the first leak in the dyke (no pun intended) toward sex with animals, sex with sisters/cousins, polygamy.....

Lucas is an insightful young man, I've enjoyed reading his stuff for quite a while. But he is towing the party line on this issue, without the life experience necessary to step back and look at how gay marriage would actually affect him. Truth be told, it probably won't. He will be able to live his life, marry the girl of his dreams, and raise his children the way he sees fit. Heaven forbid if one of them turns up gay, however.....