by leslie robinson
qnotes contributor
Kiss and sell
Diplomacy suddenly got a whole lot friend
lier. Leaders of nations and leaders of faiths,
instead of shaking hands, are kissing each
other on the lips.
Global warming, indeed.
All this intimacy is courtesy of Benetton,
the Italian clothing company, whose new ad
campaign features unlikely duos smooching.
In one image. President Obama kisses
Chinese leader Hu Jintao. In another, Obama
busses Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Needless to say, the pictures are fakes.
So, it's no use wondering whether Obama
considered the Chinese or the Venezuelan a
better kisser.
The photos were expertly doctored. The
men have their eyes closed, their lips meet
meaningfully and noses stay out of the way.
Above their heads is the word — if it is a
word — "Unhate." Clearly by pairing the lead
ers of countries that have tense relations, the
ad sends a message about world peace.
Clearly by pairing heterosexual men, the
ad sends a message that at Benetton they
know, when it comes to shock value, it's hard
to beat a gay twist. This is their variation on
"Gay is Good."
During past ad campaigns, Benetton
earned a reputation for shocking. Previous
images included parents grieving over a man
dying of AIDS, a priest and a nun kissing and a
black woman-breastfeeding a white baby.
In recent years, various Obama-haters
have depicted him as a Muslim, a chimpan
zee, a zombie and the devil. That was to sell a
philosophy, not Christmas bras.
It's unknown whether this queer depiction
irritates Obama any more than the others did;
the White House expressed displeasure on a
different score. Deputy press secretary Eric
Schultz said in a statement, "The White House
has a long-standing policy disapproving of the
use of the president's name and likeness for
commercial purposes."
Presidents who died long ago, however,
are available to sell cars in February.
Obama, Hu and Chavez areh'tthe only
ones to get the Benetton treatment In a
momentary display of heterosexuality, French
President Nicolas Sarkozy kisses German
Chancellor Angela Merkel. Israel's Benjamin
Netanyahu plants one on Palestinian leader
Mahmoud Abbas.
In the image that has created the biggest
uproar so far. Pope Benedict XVI locks lips
with Egyptian imam Mohammed Ahmed
al-Tayeb. The two haven't been on the best
of terms all year, but to see this "Unhate" ad
is to assume one of them said, "Let's kiss and
make up."
The Guardian reported that after posters
of this image went up around Italy, the Vatican
responded unusually quickly, condemning
such provocative advertising and promising
legal action to stop the use of a photo "in
which the Holy Father appears in a way con
sidered to be harmful, not only to the dignity of
the pope and the Catholic church, but also to
the sensibility of believers."
Who don't want to see their pit bull of
homophobia kissing another fella.
Benetton immediately withdrew the image
from everywhere. "We reiterate that the mean
ing of this campaign is exclusively to combat
the culture of hatred in all its forms," said the
company. "We are therefore sorry that the use
of the image of the pope and the imam has so
offended the sentiments of the faithful."
Naturally they're sorry. So, so sorry. So,
so, so, terribly down-to-their-socks sorry. It
never occurred to them that giant posters of
the pope smooching a man might offend their
fellow Italian Catholics. They're surprised that
the Vatican raised a stink. It never dawned
on them that the uproar would generate free
worldwide publicity.
And, Julius Caesar founded Versace and
Sophia Loren is in line to be the next pope.::
info:
lesarobinson@gmail.com. generalgayety.com
guest commentary
by Rob Schofield
An amendment of many names
One of the big challenges for caring and
thoughtful North Carolinians in light of the
General Assembly's decision to place a consti
tutional amendment on next May's primary bal
lot that purports to "define marriage" is; What
in the heck should the proposal be called?
Especially in light of the powerful messag
es that can be conveyed in just a few words,
"naming rights" are likely to be extremely
important in shaping the amendment's recep
tion by voters. How can one convey the extent
of the havoc the amendment would wreak in
a pithy phrase or moniker? Should advocates
get specific or keep it generic?
One tiling is for sure: Don't call it "the
marriage amendment." This is an easy one
to slip into, but it definitely falls short—both
in terms of accuracy and effectiveness. First
of all, the proposed amendment does much,
much more than impact marriage. Indeed, as
constitutional scholars have noted, the pro
posed amendment would be one of the most *
far reaching in the nation.
By saying that a heterosexual marriage is
the "only domestic legal union that shall be
valid or recognized in this State," the proposal
goes well beyond marriage and would create
all sorts of problems in other areas — many
of which seem likely to trouble even the op
ponents of same-sex "marriage."
The amendment could jeopardize cur
rent state domestic violence protections for
unmarried couples and child custody rights of
domestic partners (even if they are heterosex
ual). The amendment would also pretty clearly
prevent the state from adopting other protec
tions for unmarried couples in the future that
fall well short of marriage, including: the right
to family hospital visitation privileges, the
right to make medical decisions if a partner is
incapacitated, the right for domestic partners
to make funeral and burial arrangements
for one another, the right to inherit when a
partner dies without a will, and the right to be
named guardian or conservator if one partner
becomes incapacitated.
Here are some names for the amendment
that would be accurate;
The marriage discrimination amendment
—This one's pretty obvious. By permanently
limiting the definition of marriage in North
Carolina, the amendment singles out a seg
ment of the population and etches in stone its
second-class status.
The anti-marriage amendment— In a
strange bit of twisted logic, proponents of
the amendment attempt to argue that forever
limiting marriage to different sex couples is
necessary in order to "protect" marriage from
becoming "devalued" and to prevent those
couples from becoming less interested in
staying in marriages. But this argument flies in
the face of the facts.
Research in three states that permit same-
sex marriage or civil unions (Washington,
Connecticut and Massachusetts) shows that
the overall marriage rate has either stayed flat
or Increased. Meanwhile, the divorce rate in
these states has either declined or stayed flat
Conversely, in Georgia, Soutii Carolina and
Virginia (states with amendments) marriage
and divorce rates have experienced negative
trends since passage.
The anti-family amendment— Proponents
also attempt to argue that heterosexual mar
riage is necessary for optimal child rearing
results. But dozens of peer-reviewed scientific
studies have been able to detect no disadvan
tage for children raised in same sex couples in
such areas as mental health, social adjustment,
school performance, and behavioral problems.
Hie anti-economic competitiveness
amendment—There is also compelling
evidence to support the common sense
conclusion that adoption of a constitutional
amendment would send precisely the wrong
message to the creative classes (i.e., the
smart and innovative people who create jobs
and economic growth in the 21st Century) at
a time in the world in which their presence
is desperately needed. That some North
Carolinians would want to exclude such
people and dissuade them from staying and/or
relocating to their state in these economic
hard times is beyond amazing.
No one knows at this point of course,
which name will end up as the name that the
media and the public will latch onto in the
weeks and months ahead. Given the general
resistance to using "loaded" language in the
mainstream news media, it may well be tiiat
opponents would simply do well to focus on the
use of more generic terms like tiie mairiage
iimitetion amendment or amendment one.
Whichever label ends up rising to the
top, however, let's hope all North Carolinians
concerned about promoting freedom and
equality and saying "no" to exclusion and
discrimination get right to work helping their
fellow citizens understand the truth that lies
behind it.::
— Rob Schofield is the Director of
Research and Policy Development at N.C.
Policy Watch, ncpolicywatch.com.
U1
GO
GC
0
(!)
GO
D
(/)
These rates only cover a portion of our true cost,
however, our goal is to serve our community
Mailed 1 st class from Charlotte, NC, in sealed envelope.
Subscription Rates: □ 1 yr - 26 issues = $48 □ 1/2 yr - 13 issues = $34
Mail to: RO. Box 221841, Charlotte, NC 28222
name:
address:
city:
state:
zip:
credit card - check one:
□ mastercard □ visa □ discover
□ american express
card #:
exp. date:
signature:
ii
ipiisia
■iaii
Connie J. ^fetter
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
iiii
. : ':
f-."i'
t:
CJVLaw.com
704'333-4000
i 208 The Plaza
C.-harIottc
4 qnotes Dec 10-23.2011
\ ^
i