How can I not adore my home state? On the very same day Peter and crew filed petitions for a destined-to-fail advisory referendum on the November ballot to recommend a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed an executive order extending benefits to state employees with same-sex partners.
Meanwhile, the Republican candidate for governor, Judy Barr Topinka, stated, "Don't even look at me. I support civil unions." I highly recommend this website "outlining" her views. Hilarious.
Equality Illinois, apparently finding itself with way too much time on their hands because of all this bipartisan tolerance, cheered on a pointless hissy fit after a local urban magazine known for its irreverent tone offered a contest seeking the most outrageous pictures from this year's Pride Parade.
What about the most inspiring (gay student groups) or the most heartwarming or affirming (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays or various religious institutions). Why does the media continue to try to titillate the population at large with what is "outrageous" in our community?
When reached for comment, organizers replied, "This guy's been to a pride parade before, right?" They then vowed to win the contest themselves, wandering off in a flurry of whispers about sequins and rhinestones.
Bravo to Dems like Blagojevich when they actually deliver, and bravo to Republicans like Topinka for, well, existing.
And why do they call them "assless chaps," anyway? Isn't that redundant?
Posted by: Malcontent | May 09, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Watch out for those nutty mid-westerners.
Posted by: Tommy | May 09, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Speaking of assless chaps. The people that wear them must be very self-confident. I mean, you don't just put those on and say: "hmmm I look okay..." You have to put them on and think: "Goddamn - I look good. I mean damn! This works on me!"
Of course I've always believed that most people I see in chaps don't own a mirror...
Posted by: Queer Conservative | May 09, 2006 at 02:54 PM
Why does the media continue to try to titillate the population at large with what is "outrageous" in our community?
Because that is what 95% of pride parades are about.
For once, the media practices accuracy in reporting. Deal with it.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | May 09, 2006 at 03:30 PM
Having lived in Chicago for 6 years, I can attest that the Chicago Pride Parade consists mostly of boring politicians sitting in vintage cars passing out junky swag. My favorite is Maria Papas (sp?) and her baton twirling.
Seriously, I would say that half of the parade is politicians trying to get our vote. That is something that never gets on the evening news.
Posted by: Jason | May 09, 2006 at 03:54 PM
same thing here in frisco, jason.
politicians, corporate sponsors, christian groups, family groups, christian families with children who ride bicycles and have joined AA, all dressed in drab khaki and black .. B-O-R-I-N-G .. although the local news never fails to describe the event as "flouncing and strutting in lace and leather" and get a pic of some scraggly drag queen or those cockroach-like sisters of perpetual indulgence.
.. oh and i forgot that one old naked hippie and some saggy ass hanging out of a pair of chaps...
so festive !!
Posted by: el polacko | May 09, 2006 at 04:29 PM
Seriously, I would say that half of the parade is politicians trying to get our vote. That is something that never gets on the evening news.
Atlanta is the same way. Of course the parade here is always lead by the Dykes on Bikes with their titties flapping in the wind. But we do have a gay policemen/firefighters group - and that's worth waiting for, trust me!
Posted by: Queer Conservative | May 09, 2006 at 04:34 PM
of course, we invented dykes on bikes out here.. and now we get about an hour's worth of dorks on bicycles following behind them.
sadly, even our police and firepersons are now mostly women or men of retirement age (not that there's anything wrong with that).
if you want to see hot firemen, you're better off setting a fire than going to the pride parade in this supposed gay capitol.
Posted by: el polacko | May 09, 2006 at 05:07 PM
Hey, I happen to LIKE the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. :)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | May 09, 2006 at 05:21 PM
oh the 'sisters' have done good charitable work over the years and all that .. but their bizarre (and even sacrilegious to some) images have always been the go-to visual for anything gay-related, even here in 'progressive' ess eff. so, as much good as they may have done within 'the community', they have done equal or more damage outside of it by perpetuating the concept of gay people as a buch of jesus-hatin' freaks who need to be controlled lest your children end up like them.
Posted by: el polacko | May 09, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Damn! He's in Atlanta too! The ubiquitous "old naked hippie."
Posted by: Queer Conservative | May 09, 2006 at 05:50 PM
oh.. and i only referred to the sisters as "cockroach-like" because i always thought they were a little bit of shock street theatre that would have died with the 70's, but they seem to continue to multiply, procreate, recruit, haha... whatever it is they do. guess the damaged ex-catholics just keep on comin'.
Posted by: el polacko | May 09, 2006 at 05:54 PM
*Sighs.* I was anchoring the newscast like I do every Monday night that night, and I remember we shuffled stories so I wouldn't have to read the gay marriage story because it might upset my mom. Not that she listens to my newscast, but hey, the week she did would be the week I had to say the word "gay" on the radio. (Better than the time I had to say the words "breast implants" and "prostitutes" in the same story. About government employees misusing their credit cards. Ah, America.)
Posted by: Thor | May 09, 2006 at 08:32 PM
oh the 'sisters' have done good charitable work over the years and all that .. but their bizarre (and even sacrilegious to some) images have always been the go-to visual for anything gay-related, even here in 'progressive' ess eff. so, as much good as they may have done within 'the community', they have done equal or more damage outside of it by perpetuating the concept of gay people as a buch of jesus-hatin' freaks who need to be controlled lest your children end up like them.
Touche, el polacko.
However, I would also argue that the Sisters, even as outrageous as they are, are still the ones out raising countless tons of cash for people in the community who really, REALLY need it.
My response to people who criticize them is, "Feel free to give them a few hundred thou a year to stop."
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | May 10, 2006 at 12:18 AM
i love outrageous...i complained above about the lack if it in our drab, boring pride fests these days...but at the same time (conflicted much?) i've long been dismayed by the easy target the sisters have provided for the mainstream media needing an image to freak the living shit out of str8 folks whose support we've needed in political battles...folks who don't share the sensibilities needed to see the humor in the sister's particular form of(dated)street theater. some things just play better within a minority group than they do outside of it.. and the sister's conflation of bizarre clown gender-fuck with seemingly blasphemous anti-religiosity makes for a potent image, but one that makes us no friends and sings only to the choir.
Posted by: el polacko | May 10, 2006 at 01:47 AM
Isn't El Polacko's last comment the point of the post? There are a myriad of other, non-outrageous things in the Parade, yet the media picks the most outrageous as a representative sample and neglects to mention the other aspects. (And, as with El Polacko, I welcome some crazy in otherwise coma-inducing parades.)
However, if the media want to show the outrageous and none of the tame crap, maybe they could explain that these "sisters" dressup all crazy and oh, yeah, raise money for worthwhile charities.
A little perspective would be nice. Am I asking to much of the media? (Don't answer that. :P)
Posted by: Jason | May 10, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Jason - I think why the complaint was fairly ridiculous, is because the magazine they're complaining about is Metromix (which you're probably familiar with). The silly, the outrageous, the fun. That's their niche. To go all kinds of humorless homo-activist on them is a bit over the top.
As for local news coverage of the parade, they seem to cover it fairly respectfully. I can't recall offhand what kind of newscast they're doing about it at the end of the day (as I'm generally still in Boys Town drinking at the time), but I know the Sun-Times and Tribune often include a good mix of pictures of the outrageous and mundane. They'll show the politicians and things, noting who appeared, who didn't, etc.
The Chicago media's approach to the event have never really struck me as excessively concentrated on the flamboyant.
Posted by: Robbie | May 10, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Robbie - True, quite true. I do love Metromix.
And my rememberances of evening news coverage is from years ago, so things may have changed.
Posted by: Jason | May 10, 2006 at 11:17 AM