Queer Musings

Re: ADVERTISING: And Then Came Lola Ad Rejection

I finally got a response from Facebook about their rejection of the ad for 'And Then Came Lola.' It was very short and really didn't admit any fault.

Hi David,

Thanks for your feedback.  We want you to know take we took this matter seriously and after further review we reinstated the ad in question.

Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

T
Online Sales Operations
Facebook

I guess any response is better than none. I'm just glad that in the end they reconsidered their position on the ad and decided to run it.

Buy 'Music for Matthew' Support a Worthy Cause

While debating the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009," H.R. 1913, better known by many as the Matthew Shepard Act, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R - North Carolina) called the events surrounding Matthew's death a hoax.

In the Congresswoman's own words:

"The hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard Bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed. But we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s, it’s really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."

In response to the hurtful and shameful comments Foxx made on the House floor, my friend Lee wrote a song that he is using to raise money for the Matthew Shepard Foundation. All the money he makes from his song 'Virginia' will be donated with a note on the check that the donation is "in the name of Virginia Foxx." Lee is selling the track for the bargain basement price of 99¢ be sure to get yours now so he can make a nice donation to a worthy cause.

You can visit his blog to get the listen to 'Virginia' before purchasing it, or you can just visit 7 Digital directly and purchase it from there.

Facebook Changes Mind

The small independent lesbian film And Then Came Lola has achieved a small victory today. According to their blog, Facebook has now approved their ad.

Thanks for contacting us about this. Your ad has now been re-reviewed and approved. We apologize for any inconvenience.

That's a rather generic sounding response to the issue, but I'm glad to see that Facebook was willing to change their mind.

Thanks to everyone that picked up my original post and help spread the word on Facebook, Twitter, and mulitple other sites. I would like to especially thank Bil at The Bilerico Project for featuring my post.

Will Facebook be the Next Target of Twitter Users?

Earlier this month Amazon faced some harsh criticism from Twitter users upset over the apparent banning of sales rankings on LGBT books. They had to come up with a response the Monday after Easter due to the overwhelming outcry from Twitter users.

Will Facebook become the next target of Twitter users outrage? It could happen with the rejection of an ad for the lesbian film And Then Came Lola.

The movie was hoping to target the ad to women who listed themselves as interested in women and over the age of 18. So where's the problem? From my way of thinking, that is the demographic that would want to see And Then Came Lola.

Honestly I see nothing wrong with the picture they wanted to use for the ad. It's not any different than ones I see on Facebook daily advertising gay cruises. At least all three of the women are fully dressed. There doesn't seem to be anything inappropriate happening between the three of them.

Is this a form of homophobia on Facebook's part?

According to the Facebook FAQ for Advertising Guidelines:

"Facebook is committed to protecting our user experience by keeping the site clean, uncluttered, and free from intrusive advertising. We believe that we can help transform existing advertising on Facebook into tailored messages to our users, because they are based on how their friends interact and affiliate with the brands, music artists, and businesses they care about."

Well the ads I see every day look like the one pictured. Everyday I'm treated to the sight of two shirtless gay men advertising what has always been in my mind nothing more than a floating bathhouse.

The reason Facebook gives for rejecting the advert is as follows:

"The image of this ad is either irrelevant or inappropriate. Per sections 3 and 8 of Facebook's Advertising Guidelines, the image on your ad should be relevant and appropriate to the item being advertised. Make sure your image is directly relevant to what you are advertising. Images that are overly explicit, provocative, or that reveal too much skin are not allowed. Images that may either degrade or idealize any health condition or body type are also not allowed. If you choose to submit this ad again, please use an appropriate image that adheres to all of Facebook's Advertising Guidelines."

I get the overly explicit part. I don't go to Facebook to see advertisements for adult oriented sites. I already know how to find most of those, and those I don't know about I can always Google.

What I don't get is the rest of the response. There's much less skin showing in the movie's picture than the one for the cruise. I don't find it any more provocative than the ad showing a gay couple enjoying themselves on the deck of the cruise ship.

When it comes to the part of an idealized body type, they may have a point. All three women look to be the typical model/actress type of build. It's not any different with the cruise ad. Neither of those men look like me. They have a pretty idealized body type.

Everything they said in their rejection is something I see everyday. I'm hoping that Facebook made an honest mistake, but I don't think they did.

I just don't get the reasoning behind the rejection. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

Encourage Showtime to Greenlight "Hero"

As I mentioned back in January, Showtime is in talks with comic legend and "Hero" author Perry Moore to turn Moore's book into a television series.

In a recent interview, Moore revealed the "Hero" is one of three shows being considered by Showtime. I think "Hero" is a show that really needs to be made. Sure it will satisfy my inner geek, but the bigger issue is GLBT teens need a role model they can identify with. The main character will definitely fill that need.

If you want to see Showtime turn "Hero" into a series, feel free to contact them.

Here's the letter I sent to Showtime.

I've heard buzz around the internet that Showtime was considering making Perry Moore's Hero into a series. I think this would be a great idea for a show.

As it stands today, GLBT teens have few role models to look up to. Moore's character of Thom Creed would make an excellent role model for those teens in need of someone that they can identify with. Someone that is conflicted about being who they are, and who they feel the world wants them to be.

Being a teen is hard. Being an GLBT teen is even harder. Please consider giving "Hero" the greenlight so that these teens will know they aren't the only ones suffering with problems of identity.

Even if Showtime doesn't turn "Hero" into a continuing series, I would like to see them make it into a movie.

Help Lee Help Homeless LGBT Youth

Sometimes coming from a loving family has made me blind to the fact that not everyone has a family to care for them.

Sometimes living in the 'burbs wraps me in a safe cocoon, and I forget that there are those that don't have a home to go to at the end of the day.

Sometimes we all need a reminder that there are some people that are all alone in the world. We also need to a reminder that there are organizations that are trying to provide some much needed help to these people.

My friend Lee created a wonderful video to help remind us that there are LGBT teens in desperate need of help. He's doing what he can to help raise awareness of the Ali Forney Center.

If you're in the NYC area please do what you can to help such a deserving organization. For those that can't afford to give money, there's other things you can do to help. They can always use new or "gently" used linens. They can always use volunteers to help with with preparing dinner, or helping on field trips.

Sometimes donating your time can be more valuable than donating money. I'm sure many of the teens feel that they are forgotten. By helping out with time you can teach them that they are valuable members of the GLBT community worthy of the love and respect that they are no longer getting from their families.

Texas Governor Talks Secession

I always joke that I have a bag ready to leave Texas the moment the crazies decide to secede from the United States. It used to be a joke until I got home from work and found that Joe. My. God. posted a YouTube audio clip of our one and only Gov. Rick Perry stating that Texas can secede any time it wants.

This honestly makes me nervous. I can't help but feel that as a gay man I would become a target. There's no doubt in my mind that Old Testament justice will become the normal course of life around here. Life in the nation of Texas wouldn't be much different than life in many of the Islamic ran nations.

Maybe it's time my joke becomes a reality and I pack that bag. I guess I should also make sure the cat carrier is readily available so I can run home and grab Baku as well. Now, where did I put my passport?

In the meantime I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that Perry doesn't get reelected in 2010. Damn, I miss Ann Richards. She was one tough old broad that wouldn't put up with this craziness.

Why Marriage Matters

After I wrote my piece about the White House making the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Iowa a bit bittersweet, a UK reader had a question for me. Dyl asked, "What's wrong with the law calling it "civil unions" if you have the same rights as straight marrieds? Serious question, since that's what we have in the UK."

I tried my best to answer that question in the comments, but the more I got to thinking about it the word marriage and all that it entitles really does matter. I'm by no means a legal expert, so this is all just from a lay-person's point of view on the subject.

I don't know all the details of what a civil union in one state offers that may be missing in another state, but that could eventually lead to problems for GLBT couples in my opinion. Let's say for example that we lived in a time where some states allowed full marriage equality for straight and gay couples, and the rest only allowed civil unions. Will that then mean that the civil union state gets to treat the gay married couple differently when they move to that state?

For the most part marriage is fairly uniform across all 50 states. The only real difference is some states may require than one party be a resident of the state. Other states may require waiting periods between the time you obtain the marriage license and the actual wedding, but once married they are the same under all 50 states law.

To further complicate matters, not only do we have to worry about differing laws between states, there is the Federal Government we have to deal with. Right now Washington is prohibited from recognizing any GLBT partnership performed in any state. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) not only allows states to choose if they want to recognize a GLBT partnership, it flat out prohibits the Federal Government from doing so. Once we get everything settled between states, we'll then have to take the issue to DC and fight to get DOMA repealed, if not sooner.

There's also an issue with our military service-members. In the UK gays and lesbians can serve proudly and openly. Here of course they have to remain silent and in the closet. Until GLBT service-members can openly serve, we would still have a segment of our population that would be denied the right to marriage or civil unions. Once it was found out they had married, they would quickly be discharged from military service.

I think in the UK it's easier to have the two separate but equal recognitions of marriage versus civil partnerships. You don't have 50 different states deciding what is legal and what's not. Therefore, what's legal in the Greater London Urban Area is the same as in the Greater Manchester Urban Area once Parliament enacts a law. The only thing I've seen in the news that may muck things up in the UK was the Scottish Parliament was looking into allowing gay marriage to be performed by a faith group, if the religious institution consents. This wouldn't change the overall legal status of GLBT partners as far as I can tell. I would think that a marriage, if performed at an Anglican Church in Edinburgh would be as valid as a civil partnership performed in London. It will all be a difference in where and who can perform the ceremony.

In the end, marriage really is an important institution that we will eventually achieve. I think in some cases we may have to take a long winding route to get there. Maybe more states will follow the lead of Vermont and allow civil unions, followed later by full marriage recognition. Other states such as Iowa may just jump in with both feet and allow GLBT couple to marry. With the exception of things like residency requirements or waiting periods, marriage is treated the same in all 50 states. That's really all we're asking to be given. Let's not have a hodgepodge of laws across the nation conferring some rights to GLBT couples and denying some. Let's not muck things up by forcing each state to look at where a civil union was performed so they then have to decide what rights a couple has and what rights they don't. I hope this clears up for Dyl, at least from my point of view on why marriage is important to me.

White House Adds a Bittersweet Note to Iowa Ruling

With a first ever unanimous ruling in favor of gay marriage last Friday by the Iowa Supreme Court, history was made in the mid-western United States. Needless to say the GLBT community across the nation has been celebrating.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I saw the White House statement about the ruling, it became a very bittersweet moment for me.

The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law.

While it's not as bad as anything that would have come out of the Bush White House, it still promotes the unfair "separate but equal" policy that is anything but. Marriage, not civil unions, would be equal treatment under the law.

The struggle is far from over, and end the end we will have full marriage rights regardless of what the current administration supports. We shouldn't let the fact that Obama only supports civil unions.

Quote of the Day

From the summary of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, "the court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated beliefs and popular opinion."

I think this perfectly sums up the role of the court. It has always been my belief that the courts are here to protect the rights of the minority. They were created to prevent those rights from being trampled upon by the majority. With their ruling that denying GLBT citizens the right to marriage is unconstitutional they have done their job to protect the minority.

Posted via Pixelpipe.