What’s Going On…
Posted by Craig Mazin on 12 Sep 2005 at 10:56 pm | Tagged as: Miscellany
The other, much
better looking
CraigI’m going to say something that I hope makes the slower writers among us feel very, very guilty. In the past 8 weeks, I have written three…count ‘em, THREE…drafts of my next movie. My brain feels a bit pudding-like right now. That’s probably why it’s been a few days since the last post, and while I normally have all sorts of wonderful things to say about the job and the business, my attention factor is really low right now.
As such, I’m going to do a more traditional blog-style update of what the hell is going on right now in my life, as way of explanation. After this brief update, I’ll get back to the screenwriting stuff. I swear.
The handsome dude you see up and to the left is Craig Bierko, a terrific actor who received fantastic reviews as Max Baer in Cinderella Man. Not only is he a great guy, but he’s the lead in Scary 4. I couldn’t be happier.
My son recently turned four, and my daughter is now 9 months old. My boy is still hovering around the 97th percentile for height and weight, and the girl is at the 90th percentile, so my dreams of having Brobdingnagian children who would physically crush anyone who dared threaten dear Poppa is apparently coming true.
The prepping of the movie is in full swing. I write pages, sit with David and go through casting, talk with the production designers about the sets that are coming up, the requirements of what must be built or not, the story implications of shooting certain scenes on location or on stage, and on and on and on.
And then there’s the notes. Now that we’re two weeks out, I can’t really do draft revisions anymore. I have to go scene by scene, depending on what’s coming up first. The 1st AD and I decided that the third draft should be the “white” or shooting draft. From here out, it’s revised pages and asterisks all the way.
Meanwhile, John August has a post up on his blog about gay marriage. I’d like to think that if I were gay, I’d comport myself like John–outly, matter-of-factly and with confidence in my identity as something beyond mere sexuality. John and his partner want to get married, but there’s that little issue of politics and law. The ensuing comments are almost entirely in favor of gay marriage, but I must admit that I’m still on the fence about the whole thing. Normally I’ve very sure about everything, so this is an uncomfortable feeling. In my comment on his post, I wrote:
I guess my stance is this: smart, faithful, reasonable, stable people should be allowed to get married, and it should be extremely difficult for these folks to get unmarried. The rest of the riffraff, be they gay, straight, bi, lesbian, polyamorous, etc., should keep getting drunk and screwing each other in bars. I know, I know…hardly realistic. Just like my long-held belief that only smart people should vote. But please, riffraff, if you’re not willing to stop getting married in Vegas drivethroughs to waitresses you just met or some geezer with cash, at least stop having kids, wouldja?
In other non-sexuality news, the WGA election will soon come to a close. This year’s campaign was a rather tough one, and I hope that the blood on the floor gets mopped up quickly and everyone gets back to business. I’m looking forward to working with a new Board, mostly because I get easily bored staring at the same people. Besides, I think the odds are good that, at the very least, my more-talented-than-I friends like Phil Alden Robinson and Scott Frank will join me in the room, although I very much want all of you eligible voters to cast your ballots for the candidates running on the Common Sense slate.
Last but not least, for those of you following the saga of The Crimson Ape at Josh Friedman’s blog, I think you ought to know that I spoke to the Ape himself today, and he said the following:
“You know how people tell a story about an incident that happened a long time ago involving two other people, and if you ask the other two people about the story they’ll each give you a slightly different version, or maybe a very different version? Well, this isn’t that way. The way Josh told the story?
Happened exactly like that. Exactly.
Back to work for me. Up next, I think I’m going to talk a little bit about something that’s been bugging me lately. WGA credit arbiters are supposed to determine who gets credit for “story” and who gets credit for “screenplay”, but I’ve come to believe that most arbiters don’t know the difference between the two, and that our system is routinely (and wrongly) denying “screenplay by” credit to writers because they haven’t fulfilled the requirements for “story by” credit.
Okay, just put all of us to shame why don’t ya with all the drafts you’ve done. Seriously, well done Craig. And you know we worry just because we miss you. So, do your job then come back and dazzle the masses with your tales of glamour in the business of Hollywood.
Or just tell us how the WGA should deal with arbitration. Whichever.
I don’t feel guilty–I feel jealous. I don’t have that kind of time right now, what with school and a job. Yeah, and with all that, I still wrote 15 pgs on a new script in the last three days. “Methinks [I] doth protest too much.”
..okay maybe a little guilty.
Good job, Craig. Credit is deserved where credit is certainly due.
Craig Bierko is also an accomplished stage actor, including broadway musicals – in addition, I met him when I was working in casting and thought he was a really nice guy, which is not true of a lotta actors coming in to auditions -
John August should be allowed to get married.
Ditto Ellen and Portia.
But also Britney and Jason Alexander, Anna Nicole Smith and that old geezer, Liz Taylor and…everyone.
Marriage shouldn’t be “hard to get out of.” Marriage is a contract between two people. Marriage is what you make of it.
Sleazy riff raff has just as much right to engage in tawdry, meaningless, empty marriages as John August does to engage in a meaningful one, as my parents did because they were in love and later divorced when they got sick of each other.
Marriage isn’t a contract between God and two people or the state and a loving hetero couple. It can be all of those things or whatever the hell you want it to be.
The State should not impede marriages or divorces. No one person, couple or group can “devalue” marriage, no matter what the Dobsons of the world would have you believe.
The only one who can bring value and meaning (or the opposite) to my marriage is myself and my spouse.
Leave us alone. Tend to your own house.
Peter:
That’s all fine and good, but you’re the one asking the State for recognition of marriage. You can’t have it both ways.
“All of you people…leave me and my spouse alone! But first acknolwedge formally that we are a state-recognized partnership. Did you do that? Okay…NOW leave us alone!”
Yes, that’s right.
And when I get a driver’s license, I don’t expect the State to ask me where I intend to drive or tell me whether or not I can put cool “flame” decals on my fender.
If people REALLY want to get married for transient reasons, they should be allowed to. Yes, even if it means the government has to give them some extremely minor considerations.
Peter:
That’s a pretty awful analogy. I mean, in order to get the driver’s license, you need to take a written test and pass it, then take a road test and pass it, then submit to a number of considerations that would otherwise be considered gross violations of privacy (like, say, accepting implied consent for DUI tests).
In short, in order to be licensed to drive, you need to show competence and submit to intrusion by the state to veryify that privacy and agree that there are terms under which the state can unilaterally revoke the license.
No, even I wouldn’t want marriage licenses to be handed out under such strict rules.
The state should not recognize transient marriages, because transience is incompatible with the purpose of marriage.
Yes, it is an awful analogy. First thing that popped into my head.
My point is that the State has NO BUSINESS making value judgements on people’s lives or the way they conduct them.
How would you, how could you, possibly determine who “deserves” to get married and who doesn’t?
What are the criteria? Who gets to decide? Those questions can never be answered.
The government has no business regulating my romantic life nor any aspect of my personal life at all.
It is no one’s business what “value” my marriage has but my own (and my divorce lawyers).
How could you even begin to practically apply what you are suggesting, even if it wasn’t utterly antithetical to the nature of freedom?
Maybe that sounds like hyperbolic. But, really, how could you begin to make these kinds of judgments? How could you justify it?
Peter:
But that’s what marriage is. It’s state approval of your life and the way you conduct it. That’s its only definition. If you don’t like it, don’t get married.
Ah, but here’s where the driver’s license analogy comes back into play. Or, better yet, how about articles of incorporation?
Marriage is NOT government “approval” of your bond, it’s simply government “permission”, for lack of a better word, to enter into a contract. The contract is not with the goverment, but between two people, though obviously the government will then treat the resulting partnership with new rules and a new status.
The government, because of its refual to acknowledge gay marriages, does give de facto, tactic “approval” of hetero marriages, but it shouldn’t and it is wrong to do so.
And you didn’t respond to my questions about how you would even begin to go about “protecting” marriage from the “riff raff”.
On a personal note, I agree that marriage has been devalued and that there are huge numbers of people who treat it too casually, who don’t think about it enough, who enter into it for a host of “bad” reasons. But, at the end of the day, that’s none of my business and, unlike what the FRC would have you believe, what Britney and Kevin or Anna Nicole Smith and Strom Thurmund or Bruce Gayenstein and Lance McQueer do has absolutely zero bearing on the value I bring to my own marriage.
Article. IV. Section. 2. Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Not a lot of wiggle room.
Thanks for being honest.
I’m all for gay marriage rights but have disagree with Peter…the State does have a say in the ‘value’ of a marriage because of the privileges that are accorded married people, such as the right to be in this country. If they didn’t, it would be much easier to get resident status through marriage than it is now. Everybody and their dog would be offering to pay some poor American for their hand in exchange for the opportunity to live here.
Great site, Craig.
So I have about 13 years to get my licks in, eh?
Craig, Would it sway your opinion to frame this “marriage” thing in a context that is near and dear to your heart? What context is that? Why royalites, or course. More importantly… foreign royalties and copyright ownership.
Consider this, today, in a world that does not allow gay screenwriters to marry their partners, copyright and patent benefits DO NOT automatically pass onto their “spouse”. Nope, not even with California’s Domestic Partnership registration. So, if John August passes away today (Please God, not now) then his partner, Mike, would NOT automatically get the royalties that your wife would get from the WGA. How is that fair?
We’re not talking shallow end of the gene pool, trailer trash now, are we? (Oh wait, maybe we are…)
Writergurl:
Firstly, we don’t retain copyright as screenwriters.
Secondly, as members of the WGAw, we do receive residuals and foreign levies payments, but we are allowed to designate who our beneficiaries should be at time of death. I’m not sure how they figure these things out if no beneficiary is assigned, but since the WGAw does recognize same-sex partnerships for its P&H fund, I suspect Mike would be the automatic recipient of residuals.
John…if you’re reading this and haven’t already made sure of this through the Residuals Dept., you might want to check with the resids department to make sure your beneficiary is properly assigned.
Craig,
Firstly, thanks for the reply. Trust me, I am well aware of the “work for hire”, you don’t retain jack as a screenwriter thing. IN THE US. In your recent article about foreign levies, you took pains to explain that we are considered “co-authors” by the powers that be in the rest of the world… and are paid as such. Surely a writer of your or John’s stature has work that is being shown around the world. This is what I was refering too.
I feel pretty comfortable in thinking that John has probably taken care of his beneficiaries and the WGAw’s paperwork.
Secondly, were gay people allowed to simply marry, there would be no need to for the WGAw or WGAe to make sure they were complying with a completely different set of “rules” when it came to things like this. As has been pointed out on John’ site, “seperate but equal” is usually anything but.
Thirdly, there are screenwriters who also write books and magazine articles as well as various and sundry other things that either have a copyright or possibly a patent involved. Granted, those writings are not within your purview at the WGA, but my point in mentioning this is that its not just the great unwashed that wish to marry, it’s the intellectual elite as well.
Furthermore, should you die intestate and the WGAw had misplaced your paperwork, then your wife would AUTOMATICALLY be given your residuals as part of the probate laws. Not so, if the same were to happen with John and Mike. Mike is NOT considered John’s next of kin for estate purposes. I’m sure he’s taken care of this via trusts and other legal documents, but why should gay people have to employ attorneys to get us what you gain the instant you say “I do.”?
Chester Cat,
In the case of a foreign spouse using marriage to obtain a green card, I DO think the government has the right to suss out the legitimacy of the marriage, because the marriage would automatically confer extraordinary priviledges on a non-citizen.
However, that’s really the exception. For two good ole Americans getting married, the government has no right to determine who ‘deserves” to tie the knot and who doesn’t.
What would you propose? That we send teams and teams of INS-like interrogators to every single couple applying for a marriage license to ensure that they “really” want to get married and have “legimitate” reasons to do so?
Such a notion is utterly antithetical to the notions of freedom that this nation was supposedly founded upon.
The only person who can bring value to a marriage are its participants. Not the government, not organized religion, not self-appointed moralists like James Dobson, only the people actually in it.
Writergurl:
We are considered coauthors around the world. As it so happens, the WGA acts as the collecting agent for us, and as I pointed out before, the WGA will pretty much let you assign your own beneficiary.
I just poked back over to JA’s site, and I saw that he posted something that pretty much jibes with my understanding of what marriage is and why one would want it:
The legal protections and bureaucratic niceties are details that come along with civil marriage, but they’re not the reason for marriage. People get married because they want society (and the government) to acknowledge them as a unit, legally and more generally.
Yup. Couldn’t agree more. As it therefore stands, the quest for gay marriage is really a quest for acknowledgement and legitimization.
This begs the question: can we legislate good feelings? Tough one. There’s a good argument that public acceptance follows legal fact. On the other hand, that’s not always the way it works. Racial integration of public schools became a legal fact, but public acceptance of racial integration never really happened. Instead, you got white flight and private schools and tremendous racial resentment over bussing.
Will there one day be gay marriage? I think so. Before that happens, however, I think both the straight AND gay community need to do some growing up.
Oh, and for what it’s worth…my wife and I have gone through a lot of the hoops that many gay couples jump through, because we want to protect each other as much as possible. We’ve pooled all of our property into a trust, and we have left nothing to chance.
Peter:
You wrote:
Which is it? Is marriage government approval or not?
I was wondering if there were any international agreements that would make it mandatory for a government to recognize a marriage that was performed in another country. If there were, he could get married in one of the countries that recognizes same sex marriage. Granted, this wouldn’t resolve the issue for the rest of the population.
Craig Bierko. I noticed him first in The Thirteenth Floor. Great performance in one of my all time favorite sci-fi.
DL
My stand is that gay folk are equal to straight folk and therefore entitled to all the rights under law (and marriage, via a license given by the state of residence, is a lawful contract) and to deny someone the right to marry because of their sex or race or religion is a very sad kind of bigotry (I’m not accusing anyone here of that, btw, just stating my opinion) – I’m currently in an inter-racial marriage – a union that is legal and raises no eyebrows wherever we go – but it was against the law in more than a few southern states within my lifetime, which sort of boggles the mind, don’t you think?
Some people I’m sure may still frown upon it (Pat Robertson is listening) but it’s real and going strong for five or more years, despite our very different race, but no one is aghast or offended. It’s interesting to note that many of the arguments used against interracial marriages back in the day are the same ones used against same sex marriage now.
I see no reason to deny myself the freedom to marry whom I chose, regardless of her race, simply because it may bother some backward, fundalmentalist folk with weird ideas. They’re going to be bothered no matter what. And the same holds true with homosexuals and lesbians. It doesn’t matter if it offends anyone. Some folks are still offended to see women work for a living and have children on their own.
That’s what freedom is, truly. It means that you can do whatever you wish as long as you don’t keep someone else from enjoying the same freedom. And it also guarantees that you are going to offend someone or be offended (the beautiful freedom of expression).
I will add, though, if Craig’s argument is that we need a seven day waiting period (like when you buy a firearm) before being granted a marriage license, I’m in favor of that. If Craig is saying that a marriage license isn’t something someone should be able to pick up at the local Gas-N-Sip like a lotto ticket, I totally agree. Drunk in Las Vegas is not the time to decide to get married, anymore than it’s the right time to purchase a firearm. Prudence is always a good path to follow. But whatever prudent rule should be applied to all citizens, equally.
This is, of course, all just my opinion.
You don’t make me feel guilty: sometimes to get a story right (especially when it comes to the antagonist) you have to go back five hundred years to clarify the antagonist.
Craig,
Re-read my post. I was pretty clear. I specifically said it was NOT government approval.
However, since the government refuses to recognize the legality and constitutionality of gay marriages, it gives de facto approval of hetero marriages over gay marriages.
And that is wrong. It’s not the government’s business to approve a certain kind of marriage and outlaw another. (And don’t anyone dare start the “slippery slope” nonsense with polygamy and pedophilia, which is not the same thing. Not that I think Craig would ever make that argument…)
Anyway, sorry to have hijacked this thread into a gay marriage thing. Good conversation, though, but maybe we should get back to writing!
Craig, Thanks for getting back to me. By the way, I TOTALLY agree with you on at least two items, marriage IS about more than legalities and benefits. It’s also an affirmation by society that you are a couple and as such it’s a joyous (it’s supposed to be anyways) celebration of finding someone to love, who returns those feelings. Legislation’s got nothing to do with that, which is why gay couples become couples in defiance of those who would tell them “No!”. Also, I agree that EVERYONE needs to grow the hell up. I’m no fan of the pervs on parade show that some insist on having every June. (Also known as Gay “Pride”. How’s do you eye rolls here?) Nor am I big fan of folks like Fred Phelps (I refuse to give him the honorific “Rev.”) Seriously, if I’m not involved with you, I don’t care what gender, how many of if there’s latex or leather involved in your personal life. It’s none of my business. As long as it’s consenting adults, have it, I say.
This will be my final post about this as I really don’t want this to spiral into yet another back and forth about gay marriage since your insight into the WGA and screenwriting is much more valuable than this particualr debate. I can get this debate anywhere, the advice.. not so much.
Thanks for both.
Why is it that this administration is so anti big government when it involves billion dollar corporations, the environment, health care, etc., but becomes insanely big brother-ish when it involves issues like gay marriage, civil rights, and abortion?
WriterGurl:
Yeah, I’m pretty much with you on all of this stuff. And Phelps is pretty much a lunatic, whereas the pervs on parade are just adolescent. But still annoying.
Gary:
Kerry was also against gay marriage. I think it’s a bit facile to suggest that Bush is the only thing standing between gays and marriage.
Bush is far from the only thing standing in the way of equality for all sexes, but he is the poster child of the biggest group opposing them (and science, evolution and a ton o’ other stuff) – it’s the church, and Bush’s born-again POV is a major block to a lot of common sense progress – Pat Robertson is considered one of his spiritual advisors, after all, and evangelicals helped put Bush where he is.
The biggest thing standing in the way of gay marriage? Bigotry clothed as religion.
Again, just my two cents.
To totally change the topic, as you sound busy and have a four year old, if you are looking for something educational to keep the 4 year old occupied, check out http://www.headsprout.com. Coolest Flash cartoon reading program. My four year old daughter completed it (the first forty and second forty lessons) and can read like a grade 2 student now and had tons of fun. You just put them in front of the computer and it does everything. Pretty amazing elearning at work.
Three drafts in eight weeks? I officially hate you now, Mr. Mazin.
As far as the gay marriage thing goes, I’m for it and I’m against Craig’s suggestion of making marriages harder to get out of. Forcing people to stay married when they really shouldn’t be (or when there are damn good reasons for the marriage to end) just doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I picture a regression to the 50′s where a woman might not have the option of leaving an abusive husband. Then again, maybe I’m overreacting.
Oh, and thanks, Writergurl, for mentioning my seperate but equal posting on JA. I’m glad someone liked it. But did you have to go and phrase it better than I did?
Vlad:
All I picture are people thinking long and hard about what the committment of marriage means before making it.
Sue:
Thanks! I’ll definitely give it a whirl!
As someone who was married in Vegas at 3 AM while also a little tipsy, I take offense to some of the negative misconceptions presented in a few of the arguments here. Sure, my wedding cost $350 dollars which I paid in casino chips, and sure some might find the neon flashing “bells” adorning the front of the Silver Bells Wedding Chapel a wee bit gauche (not to mention the astroturf lawn), and sure the preacher asked if we knew each other… but to suggest that we were somehow imprudent in our decision-making? Why, that just strikes me as elitist and whatever-another-big-word-is-for-elitist!
Derek,
According to news reports (I haven’t watched his reality show) Danny Bonaduce married his wife on their very first day because she said no sex until marriage – he called up a preacher and they got married that very night (Danny was determined to have sex asap, it seems) – and it’s noted that years later they are still married, though not without drama and hardship (which cannot hardly be blamed on said wife or marriage, but rather Danny’s character, hence the reality show) – so he married on impulse and is still trying to make it work, so maybe there’s a case for it -
Kenny Chesney and Renee Zellewiger just announced that their marraige is KAPUT. They had an impromptu wedding as well, not in Vegas, but still impromptu and it lasted about 4 months!
Siegfreid and Roy have been together for years, and they LIVE in Vegas. Oh, wait, they’re not married. Nevermind…
IMO marriage is for two people who are committed to making the union work. I do not thin=k that gender should figure into it.
OTOH, I think thatr folks should get licensed to become parents. A lot of them do not know how to deal with children or the stress they can put on your marriage and even on one of the spouses if they feel that they have to stand between the child and another parent so that the child will not come to harm.
I have known a couple of gay couples who had the right temperaments, some of whom even came from families where they helped care for younger siblings. I have also met many “straight” people who are abysmal parents and should have beem shot first (lol). Figuratively speaking, of course.
The license for marriage should be granted as a legal union for those willing to commit to each other for the long term an who are willing to work at a relationship (even if to some “work” is just another four letter word): the license to have children–well, we have driving schools and the five hour classes and even refreshers to lower insurance and the like, and they should have something similar for a perenting license.
Ah, to go away from the gay marriage thing, dead on right with the story/screenplay arbitration bug. They’re shit definitions anyway, and the official descriptions in the arbitration booklet are damn near incomprehensible. Love to see the credits system revamped — after we strike for DVD resids. But, not going to happen.
Jo-Ro:
Here’s hoping you agree with my take on what the splits are between story and screenplay, because the next post is going to be my first step on a looooong path to hopefully rewrite the manual in clear English.
This is a “fools go where angels fear to tread” kinda thread, isn’t it? (smile)
In my mind, there’s two issues. One is defining “what is marriage” and the other is the wider circle of rights and protections afforded by society and the government to the covenant of marriage.
For me, the definition I use is the one Jesus gave (which I don’t think specifies gender) because in my four decades of life and observation, that seems to be the one that works best. It seems to be a rare perspective I hold that gets uttered in vows at the altar with little thought as to their meaning – one about a lifetime of commitment, through better or worse, keeping your partner’s back in the tough times and sharing those secret understandings. Ironically, I’ve observed that the people who are closest in alignment to my own beliefs in today’s society seem to be the monogamously committed gay couples I know. Most heterosexual couples I know believe marriage is primarily about having children (which seems like a heavy burden on the children, I think) or don’t really have a working definition of marriage — they just know they are supposed to be married, which might explain the high rate of divorce. (this is all my personal opinion, btw)
Having heard first-hand stories of the nightmares gays have gone through when their avowed partner passed on, I completely support gay couples having the same government and societal rights as heterosexual couples. When a gay person’s family doesn’t recognize or support their gayness, they will often do cruel and greedy things to the partner that is left. The only way to avoid this is to create an intricate and expensive legal safety net while both partners are alive. Why make it so difficult? These are my thoughts anyways.
(I’ve been up all night writing a complex four-page document so you have my sympathies, Craig.)
Craig.
I have a feeling your post is going to change my attitude regarding Screenplay By credit. Over at Wordplayer, T&T opened my eyes (I just read the posts, no debate involved) about how credit should work. I hesitated to agree as I read the posts, though as my screenplay is nearing completion, I’ve been developing a new attitude, and your post, along with theirs, will probably shape it.
My resentment to see additional writers getting “screenplay by” credit first came from the thought that those additional writers were vultures who seized on a likely “go” project as to earn residuals from dvd sales and television airings. Of course, I realized that is not the case. Sure, there are some writers who try to write “just enough” so they can get credit, but I am sure there are many others who want to make the script better for the script’s sake.
My resentment also stemmed from the attitude Hollywood has of the screenwriter. And so I saw the awarding of sole screenplay credit to the original writer as the best revenge. But revenge is never the solution.
But the real queston is, should a gay screenwriter be allowed to marry Craig Bierko? He’s dreamy.
“This begs the question: can we legislate good feelings? Tough one. There’s a good argument that public acceptance follows legal fact. On the other hand, that’s not always the way it works. Racial integration of public schools became a legal fact, but public acceptance of racial integration never really happened.”
I totally agree with you. There is no way you can legislate good feeling. If people feel strongly about something no law or decree or government ruling is going to make them feel differently.
John August started this discussion about gay marriage and what little I know about how things are in California I learned from him.
In California same-sex couples are free to raise children from infancy and they do. I’m sure a lot of people strongly disapprove. But apparently no steps are taken to protect children from homosexuals; government officials don’t knock on doors and remove children from same-sex couples on the grounds that children need to be around heterosexuals in their formative years. This means inplicit government approval of same-sex parenthood.
In California same-sex couples can become domestic partners which to a degree is like marriage. To dissolve this partnership you need to go to divorce court. One can only assume the reason is that the government wants people to think twice before they decide to become domestic partners. As far as I know the domestic partnership arrangement was created specifically for gay people. Which means that the government is responding to gay peoplé’s needs.
Recently Governor Arnold S vetoed laws the legislative assembly of California had passed on gay marriage (I’m not sure I got that right but he vetoed something). The reason being (presumably) that he thinks the majority of the people of California oppose gay marriage or aren’t ready for it. Is Arnold right? Or is the legislature right? I have absolutely no idea. I live 7000 miles away and know absolutely nothing about California politics or its people so I’m not about to judge.
But considering how things stand now in California it seems to me that it wouldn’t make one bit of difference to anyone if the so-called domestic partners were granted all the rights / benefits / responsibilities heterosexual married couples have, instead of just some of them.
As far as I can see gay people have already won this war though a couple of battles are still left.
What a great site! Would it be all right to advertise your blog on my review site, and perhaps exchange links?
If you have time, please email me, via my profile to let me know if you are interested.
Kind regards
Tracy-Jane An Alternative View for an Alternative Read
Thanx for sharing.
To what degree are marketing executives involved in determining which screenplays get a greenlight? Do production executives ask them, “can you sell this?” or do marketeers inherit the star/director-attached stories post-greenlight?
This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 33756, and this game guessed it! See it here – http://www.funbrain.com/guess/