It's official

I'm a director now.

Yep, months of underpaid part-time insurance-free work as a "technical director," or "switcher" as we say in the biz, has officially paid off. A few months ago, co-worker Mike, the weekend director, got a job in Seattle; now his replacement, co-named Andrew, is moving to Nashville to work as a grip on Spike TV's "Power Block," which I'm told is four shows about trucks, or something. And it should tell you something that working as a grip on the Power Block is paying co-Andrew much, much, much more than what he made in Eugene directing the weekend news.

I started out switching the morning shows, a stint that slowly depleted my savings and held the tantalizing danger that I might get injured or sick and deplete other peoples' savings as well. The worst part of switching the morning show was not that I had to be awake and alert from 4:30am to 7:30am, nor was it that I also had to be back in the afternoons from 4:00pm to 7:00pm to do audio and chyrons for the afternoon shows, nor was it the fact that I only got one day (Sunday) off per week, nor the fact that I often didn't get that day off either and received only regular pay and not overtime pay for extra work because I wasn't working 40 hours a week. It was more a combination of all those things. Also awful: you come home from work in the morning, you go to bed, wake up in the afternoon, and go straight back to work.

Luckily for my sanity, after about eight months Mike got the Seattle gig, which meant co-promotions for co-Andrew and myself. At last I was full time, with benefits and the ability to get overtime and everything. But I was still in a kind of limbo territory -- being a technical director for a long time doesn't look all that great on a resum?, I imagine. I mean, I'm sure you could get a fine job with that experience alone, but I'm also sure you could do a lot better if you could just drop that pesky "Technical" from the title. Co-Andrew, however, said he was in it for the long haul...

Until a scant two months later, when suddenly he found a job in his dream city, Nashville, doing his dream thing, which was a show about souping up trucks I guess. He's very excited. And now I get his old spot directing. It's a totally different job from what I was doing before, and requires an entirely different training process, which I've just started. (A technical director "switches" the show, pressing buttons that correspond to cameras and tape decks and the like to manipulate what shows up on your TV screen; the director tells the technical director exactly what to press and when, while simultaneously instructing the sound guy, the floor crew, and sometimes the anchor. It's mostly about timing.)

So that's the latest from me. More on my saga as it unfolds.

Let's Get Civilly United!

Furdell matriarch "Mom" brings up a good point:

I think lots in the G and L community would be happy with civil unions as it affords them benefits and other practical things.

True enough. It's all the commitment with half the social acceptance.

In fact, I'm willing to enter into a civil union with Julia. Unfortunately they're not recognized by the state of Oregon, where we currently reside; and, even in states that do recognize civil unions, it's unclear whether hetero couples are elligible. That's right...they're separate, but equalish.

Yet another way that I'm like Charlize Theron

For those of you not up on your celebrity gossip (it pays to work at ABC), Charlize Theron has also decided not to marry her long-time boyfriend Stuart Townsend until gay marriage is legal in the United States.

Just in case someone thinks I'm unoriginal, I'd like to confirm here and now that -- while it's possible (though unclear) that Charlize may have come up with this idea before I did -- we each came to the idea on our own. In fact, I saw her make a declaration little more than a week after I had made up my own mind. Weird, huh? Isn't that what you kids call a meme?

BONUS: Watch next Friday's Judge Joe to hear the following awesome sentence...

Hey, if I wasn't a good mother, then my daughter wouldn't be able to sue me right now.

The Marriage Thing

Well, it's about time I expanded on my little personal boycott on marriage. I'll try to lay out my whole thought process that brought me to where I am right now, and you can either sympathize with it or be even more disgusted by it than you already are.

If you'd rather not read an entire manifesto, just stick with the paragraph from my previous post, which sums things up pretty well.

Before we begin, I'd like to start taking two things for granted.

I. As atheists go, you might consider me "staunch." This shouldn't be too shocking -- I haven't believed in god since I was an infant, and even then I wasn't exactly an avid churchgoer.

II. Social pressure tends to have the opposite effect on me from the one society was going for. (See Article I.) And I like it that way.

Now that we're all on the same page, here's the number one thing about marriage that bugs me: it is, at its core, a religious institution. If it's not historically, then it sure is in contemporary American culture. As you'll see, the exclusion of homosexuals from full marriage rights is at the root of this problem.

Q. You don't have to get married in a church, you know. Or by a minister. Ship captains can do it.

A. Yes, I'm aware of this. But why don't we allow homosexuals to get married?

You've probably heard the argument from some of our right-leaning politicians that allowing homosexuals to marry would open the door to polygamists, siblings, and NAMBLA. If you're reading this, you probably already think that argument is stupid, so I'll move on.

Then there's the argument that children would be innately harmed by having homosexual parents. Personally, I think that argument comes from fear of the unknown. I don't think homosexuals are all that much different from heterosexuals, and I don't think two dads or two moms would do all that much more psychological damage than one of each (or one of either, for that matter). If you're worried that the children could be socially ostracized, well, a little social ostracization can be good for you. (See Article II.)

My point is that these arguments are smoke screens. Nobody on the right wants to admit the real reason, in fact the one and only valid reason, that homosexuals can't get married: because marriage is innately religious, and in America we're Christians, and God is not cool with gays.

Well, God's not cool with atheists, either.

Q. But what about all the benefits?

A. First of all, let's not overstate the benefits. Any tax breaks or other financial benefits would be pretty small for me, since I'm already dealing with small amounts of income.

Marriage clears up some legal questions, like who can unplug me from the machine, or who gets my comic books after they're done unplugging me. But these are all things that can be cleared up in other, less matrimonial ways. Maybe it's not as easy, but it can be done -- and if homosexuals aren't allowed to have it easy, I don't see why I should.

It also occurs to me that something like half of all marriages fail. Marriages don't offer permanence; they just penalize breakups by making them more emotionally, financially, and legally difficult. I don't see that as a benefit.

Q. But if people see that you've been with someone for so many years and you're not even engaged, they're going to think you're weird.

A. See Article II.

Q. What if you want to have kids some day?

A. As it turns out, the biology works out in much the same way.

Sure, this would make my children "illegitimate," or even better, "bastards." The facts that I'd be in a monogamous relationship with the mother, that we'd all live together as a family, and that I'd be a good parent and provider would in no way "legitimize" my children, whatever that means. Because apparently it's all meaningless if you don't enter into a socially required contract. (See Article II.)

Would my children be ostracized for having unmarried parents? I don't see why. I'm unlikely to live in any town small enough that anyone would know that my kids' parents are unmarried. And if they were ostracized, well, see Article II.

Q. But your girlfriend wants to get married.

A. Yeah, and I don't. Should I flip a freakin' coin?

Put more diplomatically: I'm just as depressed by the idea of going against my principles and being a total hypocrite by getting married, as she is by going against contemporary American societal norm and not getting married. That my position is maintenance of the status quo does give me some measure of advantage, and I apologize for that.

Q. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, will you get married? (this question brought to you by RM)

A. I'd certainly consider it. At that point the only things holding me back would be ambivalence and a general dislike of boring ceremonies. The promise of gifts would probably tip the scales.

Q. This is why you're not joining the Army, too, right? (sarcastic comment brought to you by M. Pinz)

A. I've been talking about this for a while now, but this sarcastic comment is maybe the first thing I've heard that's actually made me stop and think. So, congratulations, M. Pinz.

This comment could be read to mean, "you're just using homosexuality as an excuse to get out of something you already don't want to do." Well, I've already written my response to that in the above 400,000 words or less. But this actually made me think of something totally different.

The truth is, if someone tried to pressure me to join the Army, its exclusion of homosexuals (or its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which I've always thought was patently stupid) wouldn't even make the list of reasons not to before I totally abandoned the idea. Here's what my thought process would look like...

PROS
* ...?

CONS
* I totally disagree with this administration's military policies, strategies, and tactics.
* I'm also not too keen on murder.
* Mom would never allow it.
* I know it doesn't always look like it, but I'm actually trying to build some kind of career here, people. Two years in the desert might set me back.
* The Army? I have a degree in computer science! Can't I at least get into the Air Force, or something a little less cannon-foddery?
* ERROR BREAK

See? I didn't even make it to discrimination, or the fact that I don't want to shave my head.

Does that mean my position is somewhat contradictory? Probably...I'm willing to admit to some glaring contradictions. As I mentioned in my reply to RM, I eat meat even though I'm ideologically against it, because it's just too hard to give up. In the case of marriage, my ideological problems with it just plain outweigh the benefits. (And in the case of the military, all the benefits in the world would have trouble stacking against the cons.)

Q. So, you think you're so much better than married people?

A. Nobody's actually asked this, but I just want to make it totally clear that I have no problem with anyone other than me getting married. There's an element of political activism to my little boycott, but for me the intention of political activism is to raise awareness, not to expect other people to join me. If I went on hunger strike, I wouldn't resent you for still eating.

In closing: I expect to be with Julia for the foreseeable, and even the unforeseeable future. I moved from a big city where I had friends and disposable income, to a comically-named much smaller city where I didn't know anyone or have any prospects, just to stay with her while she goes to graduate school. If anyone still doubts my commitment to our relationship after that, I don't have much to offer them.

In fact, right now I'd say the one and only reason I can envision us ever breaking up is if Julia finally gets completely fed up with me for not marrying her, and she decides to leave in search of someone who will. I really hope that doesn't happen. She's not as big on Article II as I am.

I'm interested in a discourse on this, so feel free to comment.