FIRST GAY CARTOON CHARACTER

FIRST GAY CARTOON CHARACTER

HE HAS PINK FUR  

TALKS LIKE A SISSY

BARKING STAGE DIRECTIONS 

FROM HIS YEARS IN THE THEATER

JUST LISTEN TO HIM!

LOOK AT HIM! 

THEN LOOK AT YOGI BEAR!

OR LOOK AT WALLYGATOR!

COME ON!

HIS NAME IS 

SNAGGLEPUSS ! 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"Queers" didn't Appear Much in the Old Time Movies and TV

Back when J. Edgar Hoover's close acquaintances would describe him among each other as "...queer, a fairy..." (see  Evidence of Revision movie #3 at between 13:00 and 14:40 elapsed). In 1932  there was a chain gang movie with a lisping, limp wrist, effeminate inmate, in the part of the cook for the other convicts, with his own little chuck wagon hook up, avoiding the road work. 

"I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" (1932) was an award winning expose' of brutal conditions suffered by prisoners in the southern United States. After being stunned by the novelty of seeing a gay character in such an old flick, it proved revealing about peoples' sensitivities in that era, no one in the film called 'the Cook' names and he was not shunned, he was treated the same except for his preening jokes and gags which drew guffaws. Characters were well written and immediately real.

"Will and Grace," was phony. Straight people don't speak and interact with gay people as portrayed in that show. I'm straight and it embarrassed me to see the two gay men portrayed as so needy and unstable they each had a female keeper, a mommy figure; the gay cook character in the chain gang movie received more respect from his fellow convicts than those two ever got on TV.

The Marriage Contract

Way before the shit hit the fan with the gay marriage issue; 30 years ago I worked with a waiter who was flaming, nobody asked him or provoked him to comment on his identity; we were all grown people, he was what he appeared to be.

What it is is you live and let live.

Gay Marriage—My idea whereby same sex couples can enter into a contract legally identical to straight marriage, but would forgo the legal designation of the word marriage, one mere word. Whether out of respect, pity for, care for the feelings of others who are taught marriage is a sacrament of the church, whatever—remember churches were in the marrying business way before government started charging a fee to license you to get married, the two do not relate, separation of church and state ought not allow government to burden the public with altering a well known traditional entity and custom of the people practiced in church, standing the teaching of centuries right on its head, church teaching about what is and isn't marriage predates the Magna Carta the oldest document , and government reordering what began and is historically a church, mosque and temple issue, right up to now, may well face a legal argument that could really hurt their cause.

Hostility exists on both sides of the issue.

I remember when civil unions were the prize to keep their eye on. I believe if the gay lobby would relent, compromise on this particular issue, the most devisive vis-a-vis the Church; public support would grow to get this done and over with and provide gay partners with the property rights and civil rights sought, access to a companion's sick bed in a hospital, providing equal inheritance rights, health care benefits earned by one spouse made available to the other, the right not to be forced to testify against one another in court: all the original complaints might be resolved just put a different sticker on it that people will accept and live with, because it'll be just another government regulation, like wearing your seat belt.

American Chain Gang