That’s what social commentator Dr. Boyce Watkins says about the clip. American rapper Tyler The Creator is the man behind Mountain Dew’s three part trash-talking ad spots featuring Felicia the Goat. The first one showed the wily goat violently throwing a soda at a waitress while the second spot had her pulled over for a Dew-U-I, but it’s the last one that’s creating so much controversy that forced PepsiCo to issue an apology.
The ad features a battered and bloodied woman, sporting a neck brace and crutches, as she attempts to pick her aggressor from a police lineup. Meanwhile, Felicia threatens her from behind the mirror with zingers like this, “Keep your mouth shut. I’m gonna get outta here and I’m gonna ‘dew’ you up.” Dr. Watkins eloquently describes the offending lineup as follows:
“Of course, in the world of Mountain Dew, every single suspect is black. Not just regular black people, but the kinds of ratchety negroes you might find in the middle of any hip-hop minstrel show: Gold teeth, “mean mugging,” sun glasses wearing, white-t sportin, hard core n*ggaz ready to “get into some ol gangsta sh*t.”
One of them is even called Beyonte (OK that part I admit I chuckled at ;) This isn’t the first time Tyler the Creator has come under fire. The 22-year-old has often drawn criticism for being homophobic and misogynistic in his raps. His rep issued a statement to the Hollywood Reporter about the offensive commercial. Check out the clips after his statement.
“It was never Tyler’s intention to offend however, offense is personal and valid to anyone who is offended. Out of respect to those that were offended the ad was taken down,” it said. “For those who know and respect Tyler he is known for pushing boundaries and challenging stereotypes through humor. This is someone who grew up on David Chappelle. This situation is layered with context and is a discussion that Tyler would love to address in the right forum as he does have a point of view.” – Tyler The Creator
“I’m black. I’m gay.” YOU GO GIRL. Sashay you stay. During a legislative debate over a measure to repeal Nevada’s gay marriage ban, Senator Kelvin Atkinson made the declaration. The 44-year-old politician urged his fellow senators to change the state constitution to recognize same-sex marriage.
His impassioned plea included talking about his father’s interracial marriage which would’ve been banned last century and overhearing derogatory comments about the bill from people who didn’t know he was gay. His impassioned speech also addressed the concept that legalizing same-sex marriages would threaten straight marriages. “If this hurts your marriage, then your marriage was in trouble in the first place,” he said.
His speech definitely moved people, the Nevada Senate voted 12-9 to begin the process of repealing the ban. That said, Nevada is still a few years away from legalizing gay marriage. The proposal will now head to the state assembly before it can be placed on a ballot in 2016. Check out a portion of Senator Atkinson’s speech below.
Friends of Homorazzi, and long time supporters of LGBT rights Kimpton Hotels have announced an amazing contest that everyone and anyone in Colorado should enter. If you’re sitting at your computer in CO and thinking, “I could really go for a wedding right now”, then the Hotel Monaco Denver has the answer.
Since the recent passing of the Civil Unions Act in Colorado, I’m sure a hell of a lot of people have been bolting to the altar. The Hotel Monaco wants to make it easier for you and your partner and throw you a wedding worth upwards of $20,000 just for a hundred word essay and a picture. Cake, DJ, booze, food catered by the amazing Panzano restaurant, vintage furniture, flowers, photography, event space, you know name it, you got it.
Here’s a small brief:
In celebration of Colorado passing the Civil Unions Act into legislation, long-time supporters of the LGBT community, Kimpton’s Hotel Monaco Denver and Panzano Restaurant will award one lucky couple an all expenses paid “Civil Union Celebration” for up to 50 guests at Denver’s most vibrant, bold and seductive hotel and its award-winning restaurant. Everything for the perfect ceremony and reception will be included and the total package will be worth nearly $20k from the flowers, to photographer to dance floor and a honeymoon suite— ensuring that every last detail is accounted for in complete Kimpton style.
It’s actually that easy. Send your essay and picture to Robin.Ewing@hotelmonaco.com by April 26th, only a few shorts days away. A panel of judges will select five couples, and by April 30th, you can go to the Monaco’s facebook page and vote for your favourites. The couple will be announced by May 15th, and bing bang boom, you get to plan closely with the Monaco for a November 30th, 2013 date. FUN!
Just when I thought my fondness for the Monaco couldn’t get any stronger, they go and make dreams come true.
For more info, head over to Hotel Monaco Denver.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases that will determine the fate of same-sex marriage in America earlier this week. Their decision won’t come for months, but TIME magazine has declared victory in the eyes of the American public. Naturally, the publication featured two covers putting gay marriage front and center.
Photographer Peter Hapak snapped real life couples for the cover and inside editorial. The one above featuring two men kissing are film and television set designer Eric LaBonté & his domestic partner Russell Hart, a hair salon owner. The two live in Los Angeles and have been together for seven years and engaged since 2010.
“My parents have been married for 45 years and I always knew that was something that I wanted. I want our children to say, ‘My daddies are married.’ We wanted to feel like a complete package.” – Eric LaBonté (right)
The images on the cover and in the issue are beautiful and make a bold statement. According to magazine chief Rick Stengel, there was much internal debate on to publish the covers or not. Here’s what he revealed via an editor’s note published in Politico’s Playbook:
“We had a long debate in our offices about this week’s cover images of two same-sex couples,” Stengel wrote. “Some thought they were sensationalist and too in-your-face. Others felt the images were beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage. I agree with the latter, and I hope you do too.”
In the second day of back-to-back marriage hearings at the US Supreme Court, the justices heard arguments yesterday in United States v Windsor. Edie Windsor married her long-time partner in Ontario, after which the two of them moved to New York. At the time, New York did not permit same-sex marriages, but they did give full recognition to same-sex marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. When Windsor’s wife died, the federal government sent her a tax bill for over $360,000 because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Had Ms. Windsor’s marriage been recognized, her tax bill would have been zero.
Yesterday’s hearing was divided into two parts. The first, much like the Prop 8 hearing, was devoted to a somewhat dull but important procedural question: the issue of standing. Because the Obama Administration was supporting Ms. Windsor’s case, there was a question of whether there was anybody who was actually able to bring the case to the Supreme Court. In simple terms, courts resolve legal disputes. If both sides agree on the law, then there’s no dispute. No dispute, nothing for the courts to do. Republicans from the US House of Representatives have also tried to step in to defend DOMA, but there were also some tough questions about whether or not they had a right to be in court. With that said, a majority of the justices seemed willing (or at least more willing than they did with the Prop 8 case), to rule that the case was properly before them.
I have to admit that I spent a lot of time staring at a blank screen trying to figure out how to write this piece. I do my best, in writing about legal matters, to find a way to cut through the jargon and make convoluted proceedings a little easier to understand. In listening to the approximately one hour of oral arguments released by the Supreme Court today it became quite clear that this wasn’t going to be a particularly easy task, but here goes.
Just over a year ago, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that California’s Proposition 8, passed in November of 2008, was unconstitutional. Proposition 8 took away the right of same-sex couples to marry that had previously been granted by the California Supreme Court.
Unlike most cases, which tend to be straightforward, the Prop 8 case isn’t as simple as your usual win/loss situation. That’s what makes it so complicated. The Supreme Court has a number of options before it, and for any one of those options to be successful, at least five of the nine justices will have to support it. On the side of those who support Prop 8, there is one option for them to win, and that is for the Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8 as a valid and constitutional enactment.
Today and tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court hears arguments in two cases about same-sex marriage. There’s going to be a lot of bluster, but in the end the whole thing boils down to a few key issues. Here are the issues as I see them, and the fundamental logical disconnect that anti-equality forces are hoping nobody notices.
First, they say “it’s intolerant for you not to tolerate my intolerance.” Sound ridiculous? That’s because it is. Using the argument of race, that line of reasoning suggests that the people who were against different water fountains and different seats on the bus were the ones who were really intolerant, because they refused to tolerate the views of those who would deny liberty to everyone. The argument is laughable on its face.
The next argument (that seems to be made in court) is that it’s fine to exclude same-sex couples from marriage because the government has an interest in promoting marriage. Well, that one sounds nice, until you examine it more closely. For a government policy to pass the “rational basis” test, the policy has to have a (you guessed it) rational connection to the purpose it seeks to advance. The problem here is that there’s nothing to indicate that allowing same-sex couples into the institution of marriage compromises or defeats the purpose of promoting marriage as an institution. In other words, the policy and the goal have nothing to do with each other. The people behind these bans know that, so they’ve thrown in arguments like “this is all very new, we don’t know what the impact will be, so we have the right to proceed slowly.” The problem with that argument is what happens when you decode it. What it means is basically that they don’t know whether or not straight people will think marriage is tainted solely because gay people have been allowed in too. That’s called animus, and the Supreme Court held in Romer v Evans that animus against a particular group of people doesn’t count as a rational basis for government policy.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just released a video in conjunction with the Human Rights Campaign. She really explains her stance and support for gay marriage really well and you can really get how passionate she is about the issue.
In one part of her message she says, “I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law. Embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans.” She continues, “Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved. By my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith.”
Watch her powerful and captivating message below.