From the U.S. Supreme Court to YouTube: The Homosexual Movement in Action

'L.A. Filmmakers Produce Video of Same-Sex Marriage Trial'

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2010/02/la-filmmakers-produce-video-of-same-sex-marriage-trial.html

On February 3, 2010, the Los Angeles Times' "opinion" section posted a story about two filmmakers, John Ireland and John Ainsworth, and their re-creation of a federal same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco. The original trial was not allowed to air over the internet because it was ruled that witnesses (specifically Proposition 8 supporters) would be put at risk of harassment. What is Proposition 8? Put simply, California's same-sex marriage ban.

Courtroom bloggers, official transcripts, and professional actors were used to create the 12-part series (appearing on YouTube) that will 'bring to life' the trials proceedings. As one can only imagine, there is a significant amount of controversy surrounding the series. The story includes several posted comments, varying from moral opposition to congratulations and support of the production. Also included in the comments is discussion of homosexual discrimination as well as homosexual retaliation. Multiple points of view are presented, adding to the complexity of the homosexual debate.

Croteau and Hoynes' chapter on sexual orientation (found in Media Society), details the history of homosexual representation. From comic devices to erotic heathens, homosexuals have held a variety of roles. Despite the role, Croteau and Hoynes note that images are almost always the heterosexual view of homosexuals, not the homosexual view of homosexuals. Homosexuals are not the only ones represented by those outside of their people group. The same is true for women -presented from a male perspective, ethnic groups - presented from a caucasian point of view, and working class people - presented from a middle or upper class perspective.

Why does it matter? Well, think for a minute if someone who is not a part of a particular people group can be the most accurate representation of that people group. Of course we are all able to observe different people, but we are not those people, making it a challenge to accurately identify with them. What I am trying to say is this, that by depicting a people group you are not a part of, you run the risk of misrepresenting them. This can be dangerous, because as Croteau and Hoynes explain, media images become norms against which we compare real people. If the "norms" aren't realistic, then we are ignorantly and unfairly evaluating people. Individuals who do not fit our stereotype are perceived as abnormal and freakish, yet they may not actually be deviants of what is normal.

I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe the things we assume about certain people aren't necessarily true. The way I see it, our assumptions have a lot to do with how we assess other people, and if those assumptions are wrong, our assessments may be wrong too. Perhaps we would have a different understanding of, or perception about people if those inaccurate assumptions were corrected. And maybe, just maybe, the positions we hold and the issues we debate about would be completely different.

What do you think???

s.w.a.k.,

Blogdor