The Oscars

The 81st Academy Awards were held the other night and I've barely thought about them since, though I'm sure that's not so for Danny Boyle. Scott had an Oscar party, which was fun, though I always feel bad when people are enthusiastic about films that I really dislike. Makes me feel like a dick. And it's weird, because it's the opposite with my film school buddies - they hate everything and say that I LOVE everything.

Anyway, some parts of the show were really hilarious - like Hugh Jackman's opening song-and-dance routine. I love how he's such a classic Broadway entertainer type-guy and also Wolverine. The best bit was the part about The Reader. The Pineapple Express skit was also a highlight of the evening:

Dustin Lance Black's speech, when he won for the Milk screenplay, was really moving. And I was glad to see Penn win again, also for Milk, which should have won Best Picture, though I would have applauded a Mickey Rourke win, too.

Seeing Black and Penn win reminded me of an Op-Ed in the NYT that day. It was co-authored by two writers on opposite sides of the gay marriage issue and proposes the compromise of federally-recognized civil unions without forcing religious groups to recognize those marriages. In other words, give gays and lesbians the right to marry by another name, with most of the same rights as straight people, but if one of these gays or lesbians happens to be a church secretary, allow that church not to extend benefits to the partner if they don't want to - much the way Catholic hospitals are not forced to perform abortions.

"In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it."

This is a good point, worth considering, but I don't think "separate-but-equal" works, does it? The issue is not about whether churches would actually have to marry gays and lesbians - they will never have to do so, if they don't want to, because of the First Amendment. And if religious organizations want to be able to discriminate against whomever in terms of benefits and whatnot for employees, well I think that's probably also protected, if super-dickish. I mean, we allow people to be dickheads in all kinds of ways in our society.

But I fail to see how this adds up to no federal protection for gay marriage. Carve out exceptions for churches, fine, but civil law is civil law. Full marriage rights should be available to all adult couples, right now.