Altar-ing Reality

Dear Homo,

I've got something that has been pestering me this week. Before I tell you what, please, please know that I FULLY support equal rights and marriage for all. (I would love to see you get your happily ever after, honey.) Keep this in mind! Now, it was in various articles this week how Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell, like Brangelina, are saying we won't wed til everyone can. I get it. I totally respect that they are showing their support publicly for an important issue in a way they see fit. But the bitchy cynic in me is saying, "Really? Do they think the baboons out there will say, 'Oh crap, we better change legislation ASAP so these actors can get married and be featured on People Magazine!'"

I want to know your thoughts.

--Just Curious (but not curious in a winkwink sort of way)

Dear Curious,

Homo thanks you for your queery and must (again) point out that our mail bag has been empty for over a year now, making Homo wonder if you are the ONLY curious person -- sexually or otherwise -- left in the universe. In any case, on to the question at hand:

Can celebrity couples like Brangelina and Krax influence the masses with regard to the issue of marriage equality by postponing their own nuptials until said equality is achieved?

The answer is simple: Of course not. And absolutely.

(We homos do love our paradoxes, don't we?)

Look: Celebrities have been spouting off about one thing or another for as long as anyone can remember. Charles Lindbergh tried to keep America out of World War II. Actor Ronald Reagan worked to bolster unions (unlike President Ronald Reagan, who worked to destroy them). "Hanoi Jane" Fonda infamously posed with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft missile to protest the war in 1972 (although she was FABULOUS in "On Golden Pond"). Charlton Heston loved guns the way John Travolta loves massages. And of course, we all know how Clint Eastwood feels about chairs.

Personally, I would have rather seen him with Cher.

The most common response to such star statements, especially in these jaded cynical times, is: "Who cares?" Ask the average person on the street -- gay, straight, liberal, conservative or Scientologist -- and he'll tell you that celebrity endorsements matter not one whit. For either he already shares the celebrity's opinion, or, if he doesn't, he claims that there's no way in hell some dumb actor can sway his deeply felt convictions.

And that's the truth, in a literal, short-term way. Or, to answer your question directly, No. No Bible-thumping homophobe in Kansas is going to suddenly find herself marching for marriage equality because she simply must see photos of Dax and Kristen at the altar.

And yet: There is a larger, more subtle impact when famous people take these kinds of political stands. It highlights the issue. It furthers the conversation. It forces Americans to do the one thing they hate doing: THINK. And that's the first step toward equality.

Moreover, a shocking number of people still find the notion of two men or two women together inherently icky. It's not the gay wedding so much that bothers them, but imagining the honeymoon that comes afterwards. So whenever unspeakably sexy straight celebs like Brad, Angelina, Dax or Kristen speak up for gay marriage, an important psychosexual shift occurs. In layman's terms, if I want to bone Angelina, and Angelina doesn't have a problem with the idea of a dude boning another dude, then maybe I don't have a problem with the idea of a dude boning another dude.

If that sounds stupid to you, remind yourself that 17 percent of registered voters believe President Obama is a Muslim. We are not a nation of intellectuals.

On a final note, although I applaud the courageous stand taken by Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell, I would like to strongly voice my opposition to their marriage. There's only one person Dax Shepard should marry.

Me.

I'll make him forget Sarah Marshall.

Get me to the church on time,

Homo



All Over His Face

Dear Homo,    
Since gay guys are experts on "beards" I thought you could please explain Brad Pitt's to me. Thanks!
 
Rebecca in Denver

Dear RID,

Ah, yes: Gay men and beards go together like peaches and cream, like Dolce and Gabbana, like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. And yet I must confess, I am as stumped as you when it comes to that loathsome, scraggly mess taking over Brad Bitt's otherwise lovely face of late.

Homo is not a fan of facial hair in general -- or pubic hair for that matter -- or, most especially, facial hair that looks like pubic hair. And such scrub is particularly unsettling when sported by heavenly creatures such as Mr. Pitt. For him to grow and keep such a monstrosity is the facial equivalent of covering the Hope Diamond with dog poop. (And one suspects the aroma is similar.)

Unable to answer your question on my own, I turned to E! Online's Ted Casablanca, a k a the Homo Oracle. As luck would have it, Mr. Casablanca recently posted about this very topic on his blog, "The Awful Truth." He dispels the notion that Brad grew the beard in order to portray Col. Percy Harrison Fawcett in the upcoming film, "The Lost City of Z." The movie, Casablanca points out, is nowhere near ready to shoot. (There isn't even a script!)

Ted offers an alternate theory: That Brad could be following a well-known pattern in which people in unhappy relationships "stink themselves up." Now, Homo doesn't want to cast any aspersions on the union of Brad and his longtime companion, Angelina Jolie, especially since they (Brad and Angie) recently sued Britain's News of the World for just such an aspersion, and he (Homo) does not currently have a pot to piss in.

But hypothetically speaking, it would make sense for Brad to make his kisser as unkissable as possible if he wishes not to be kissed by she who regularly kisses his kisser. If you follow me. Let's hope that whatever the case may be, Brad's delicious visage is soon returned to its former clean-shaven glory.

I hope this helps.

High on a Hill Was a Lonely Goatee,
Homo