Common drinking facilities and common decency

Sexuality in the arts posts a review of Bob Dylan and Barry Feinstein’s Hollywood Foto-Rhetoric that also serves as a response to California’s vote to ban same-sex marriage.  It includes some images of drinking fountains and bars.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. cymast

     /  November 11, 2008

    Maybe that bar wanted to keep it on the down low . .

    Anyway, why do people even get to vote on whether consentual adults can legally marry each other? It doesn’t make any sense. Next they’ll vote on whether atheists can legally get married. Then people who don’t observe the Sabbath. Another cult, another giant step backward for humankind.

    Hey I just invented a cult that says Mormons can’t get married. The No-Marriage-For-Mormons cult. If I get enough people in my cult, I’ll make it a law.

    Well what do ya know I just invented another cult. The No-Marriage-For-Opposite-Sex-Pairings cult. Of course, as the Founder/Prophet, I am exempt from my own, I mean, from God’s rules. Yep, God told me.

  2. acilius

     /  November 12, 2008

    Well, government grants certain rights and benefits to legally married couples that it withholds from others. So if the voting public is in charge of government, it would have to have the final say on who can be legally married. In other words, once you institute marriage as a legal status, you open the door to any voter who wants to express an opinion.

    I remember when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled about ten years ago that the state constitution did not permit Hawaii to distinguish between same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships. The resulting brouhaha led Hawaii’s then-governor, Ben Cayetano, to speculate out loud that perhaps the time had come for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. That made Cayetano a darling of libertarians for a little while.

    Anyway, I can only see two options available to those of us who support same-sex marriage: a) try to convince people that homosexual relationships are of value and desreve the same recognition as heterosexual relationships, or b) get the state out of the marriage business, as Governor Cayetano put it. As recently as the 90s, Governor Cayetano’s solution may have seemed like the more realistic way forward. But since then, we have in fact made huge strides towards winning public acceptance for same-sexers. I think it is useful to keep legal benefits for married couples, so I vote for more pro-gay advocacy.

  3. cymast

     /  November 12, 2008

    Yes, the voting public is supposed to be in charge of the government, but I don’t think that should give the voting public the authority to legalize child abuse or illegalize marriage between consenting adults.

%d bloggers like this: