Watchmen Movie Review

I'm a comic book fan, have been since I was a kid, and like many others I'd place The Watchmen at the summit of graphic tales. So I admit that I expected to be disappointed with the movie. Oh, I figured there was some hope. I mean, Spider-man, the X-Men and the Dark Knight all proved that Hollywood can dress up in tights in front of the camera with as much vigor as they do in casting rooms, but still . . . this is The Watchmen.

I'm happy to report that I loved the flick. It was long, pushing 3 hours, but a close and power translation of the original graphic novel. And director Zack Snyder did a wonderful job of casting lesser known actors who looked and interpreted their parts better than had he tried an Ocean's 11 (or 12 or 13) approach by trying to draw an audience with Brad Pitt and that George guy.

*MINOR SPOILER ALERT*

And speaking of Zack Snyder, is he a homosexual or what? Those of you who've been here before know that I support gay rights, finding Christian arguments against homosexuality weakly supported by scriptures and a Republican argument against homosexuality in conflict with the Republican idea of personal freedom. (For a full explanation of my take, check out Homosexuals, Republicans And The Holy Ghost.) So I say this not as a pejorative attack, but as a legitimate question.

I know Zack Snyder is on his second marriage. Well, I know it as I read it on the Internet. But then I think . . . his most famous film prior to this was 300, which was obviously named after how gay that movie is on a scale of 1 to 10. And now he gives us The Watchmen where there are far too many scenes with a clear view of Dr. Manhattan's junk. In the comic we see Dr. Manhattan's wardrobe get less and less as the story progresses and he moves toward his eventual disconnect with humanity. But in the movie it's a quick jump from Speedos to too, too much of the blue.

I'm just sayin'

Joe "The Dumber" Biden On Gay Marriage

One area where I differ from many conservatives is that I support gay marriage. I wonder if Joe Biden agrees with me. It's hard to tell.

During the Veep Debate Biden said that neither “Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.” But earlier this week Biden danced a different jig on the Ellen DeGeneres show saying, “if I lived in California, I would vote against Proposition 8.” (This initiative reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”)

Which is it Joe? I mean, I don't really care, but which is it? Can you just give us some straight talk for once . . . or do you only talk straight when you're seeking the straight vote.

What was it Sarah Palin said about these Democrats "saying one thing in Scranton and another in San Francisco"?

H/T: geeeeeZ!

USA Today's Coverage Of "Gay Couple" Ruling

I'm really disappointed in USA Today's coverage of the California Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. I'm not a regular reader, but I do get the complimentary hotel copies when traveling and spend a little time looking at its colorful pictures while scarfing down a lacquered continental breakfast bagel. And I usual pick one story to read.

The one story that I actually read declared in the headline: Gay couples "ecstatic" over ruling. Since I support gay marriage you may be wondering why that story left me disappointed. Well, I just feel it came up a little short. I mean, after describing San Francisco resident Lauren Patton's friends walking "up to hug her in victory as she parked her bicycle in front of a Starbucks coffee shop" and then painting the image of "raised celebratory glasses of iced coffee" I thought for sure the author, Janet Kornblum, could have worked in a few more powerful homosexual stereotypes into the column. I read the thing several times and never saw a single mention of Xena, Barbara Streisand or the WNBA. It just left me feeling unfulfilled. Come on, Janet, nobody took to the streets to belt out a show tune?

Homosexuals, Republicans And The Holy Ghost

The California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision that their state constitution allows for gay marriage is sure to make homosexuality a flaming hot issue for the upcoming election season. Given that fact, I suppose I'll throw out my thoughts concerning same-sex marriage while things are heating up. I happen to fully support gay marriage, primarily because I think the arguments against it are prissy, unRepublican nonsense. Here's a few of them to give you a taste of what I mean.

Argument #1: Homosexuality is unnatural
Anybody who has seen two male dogs going at it on the front lawn or has had to pry Buttons off their quaking leg should see the flaw in this argument. When Buttons wants to get his groove on virtually anything will do to satisfy that loving feeling. The same is true of most other critters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that animals and humans are the same (at least in this case). What I am saying is that one cannot by definition call something "unnatural" when it happens frequently in nature. Yes, God intended heterosexual sex when he commanded his creation to be fruitful and multiply, which I suspect is the only command we have faithfully followed. However, God also created a world where homosexual activity spans the species and is commonly found in nature.

Argument #2: Homosexuality is a sin
Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality . . . with all the vigor that it condemns women who don't cover their heads in church. The fact is that the Bible hardly mentions homosexuality; the best I can tell is that it's only in there around 6 or 7 times. Compare that to how many times the Good Book condemns gluttony and you may be wondering why so many churches aren't expelling their voluminous preachers for the sin of too many trips to Crispy Creme.

Even when the Bible mentions homosexuality the circumstances tend to cloud the interpretation. For example, homosexuality is condemned in Levitical Law, but I don't know many Christians or Jews who follow all of the precepts there (unless "stoning" doesn't mean what they told me in Sunday School). Then, there is the Sodom story of "sodomy" fame, but if you read that tale closely you'll find it a story about rape. Homosexual rape, but rape just the same which God condemns regardless of sexual orientation. And in the New Testament you'll catch some references to homosexuality in the historical context of temple prostitution, a big no-no to the likes of St. Paul so no wonder he was a bit cranky on the subject.

What is especially striking to me about the Bible's take on homosexuality is that the Old Testament prophets, who were obsessive killjoys when it came to morality, never mentioned it. Perhaps more telling is that Jesus Christ himself didn't have anything to say on the topic. Now, if Jesus was (is), as I believe, the divine incarnation of God then he would have foreseen the social and spiritual turmoil that the homosexuality debate was going to cause in the twenty-first century. So if gays really bothered him, don't you think he might have mentioned it?

Argument #3: Homosexuality is destroying the family
Forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding how heterosexuals with a divorce rate topping 50% can claim that gays are destroying the family unit. What exactly is it about two people in love who happen to be of the same gender that is ripping the moral fabric of the country? Abusive husbands, sexual predators, incestuous pedophiles, selfish spouses . . . they are destroying the family, not people in love.

Argument #4: We need to stand firm against moral relativism
I certainly agree that true morality is not relative. However, as you can tell from what I've already written, I don't think this is an issue of morality. It is about gay relationships that can be every bit as loving or destructive as their straight counterparts. It is not about unnatural abominations, destruction of the family unit or an unpardonable sin. Since that is the case, we need to be more "Republican" about the matter and diminish the role of government in deciding whether or not gays can be married. Besides, to paraphrase Woody Allen, it would immediately double the chance of every American finding a soul mate in his or her or hiser's pursuit of happiness.