Does no one around here remember what happened to "Moonlighting"?

I think "Moonlighting" is probably Annabelle's all-time favorite tv show. She can sing the theme song. She knows all the characters and lots about them and their story lines. She also gets a pained look when the topic of David and Maddie sleeping together at the end of Season 3 comes up. Annabelle prefers to pretend this never happened, that her beloved show was never ruined in such a horrific way. The point: when a lot of the energy of a show and the draw for the audience lies in the chemistry and sexual tension between the two lead characters, changing that dynamic fundamentally changes the show.

Remember "Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman"? How about "The X-Files"? Okay, that one got particularly weird when David Duchovny left his starring role, but the change in chemistry between Mulder and Scully, while exciting in a way, was really the beginning of the end. I was happier when it was only Bree Sharp actively chasing Duchovny's "Mulder."

Last summer, I became addicted to "Bones" during my two months off. That show has a phenomenal ensemble cast. Yes, it clearly has two leads -- Bone and Booth -- but it's the entire cast that makes it a great show. That being said, I fell in love with the chemistry between Bones and Booth. The best way I can describe it is that I have a crush on them -- their chemistry, their banter, their friendship, their teamwork, their love of one another. I don't have a clearly identifiable crush on either character or on either of the actors (though I wouldn't kick Emily Deschanel out of bed or anything). I just love all that is Bones-and-Booth as a television pair.

Which brings me to what I've really been thinking about today: why Jane Rizzoli and Maura Isles (of, cleverly enough, "Rizzoli and Isles") can't be a couple. Earlier, I read Dorothy Snarker's recent AfterEllen post "'Rizzoli & Isles' is TV's first lesbian buddy cop show (it just doesn't know it yet)," which I loved. Seriously, go read her post -- she hit on all the loveliness that is the on-screen chemistry these two characters share. The nice thing about this piece is that, while honestly cheering for them to be a couple, I don't think Snarker believes it will happen. Part of me thinks she might even agree with me that it shouldn't happen. Her tone is playful enough to show me two things: 1) This could be a really great thing for tv that will likely be passed by. 2) She can confess her crush on them and their relationship while still understanding that messing with their chemistry messes with the show. She must still remember "Moonlighting."

I made the mistake of reading a bunch of the comments to the post, which reflected what I've seen in some of the questions recently posed to Sasha Alexander (Isles) via Twitter -- fans really DO want the characters to be together. They think it would be a far better show that way. And, they're totally serious. They see the territory opened up by taking the characters from books to the small screen, and while acknowledging that it wouldn't fly with the characters as they've been established in the books, a lot can still change when we're only three episodes into a brand new show.

Dear friends, I learned this lesson already -- when your show feeds on the chemistry between two characters who clearly should be together in your (my) dreamworld, actually getting them together is a sure-fire way to kill the show. It irks me that people fight against this fact.

I'll be the first to admit, though somewhat embarrassingly, that I'm all about these women in a serious way. Snarker is so right about their connection; they are the new crush duo for me. (Sorry, Bones and Booth.) I have already given over too many hours in the past two weeks to reading fan fiction (fanfic) on the internet about the two coupling (most rated PG-13 or higher -- yes, I read fanfic smut; don't judge). I'm contentedly living in my fantasy world where the relationship between these women can be what I and other fans imagine. And as hot as their imaginary sexual relationship is, it's totally not where the show should go.

I think that part of it for me is that I need the saucy subtext to feed my imagination. It's more fun this way.

I must now acknowledge an important part of arguments I'm reading about why they should be a couple -- wouldn't it be an amazing thing for television to see two awesome and happily and openly partnered -- and accepted and loved -- lead women on this show, or any show? It would be an amazing thing. It's 2010, people, and lesbian couples are living happily ever after in a neighborhood near you. Why shouldn't they be honestly portrayed in leading roles just like anyone else? Maybe you've checked and noticed that we aren't progressive enough, as a country, for this to be a successful formula for a tv show. Us queers aren't getting equal rights in so many ways; why should tv be any different? Yes, some states "get it" and allow legal partnerships of some kind, but others -- I'm looking at you, California -- put bigotry into state law. Is one tv show going to change that? No way. Does the show have a better chance of being successful without that? Yeah, I'm thinking so.

In my mind, I keep coming back to "Fried Green Tomatoes." Love that flick. If you read Fannie Flagg's book, it's abundantly clear that Ruth and Idgie were a couple. The 1991 movie the book is based on, however, is a best friends film. When the film came out (and still today, I'd argue), that makes the film open to a wider audience. That film reaches more people than it would if Ruth and Idgie were "out" on screen. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe more people can see the nuances of their relationship, and maybe because of that, those people become a little more accepting and open-minded. For those of us who cared about the integrity of Ruth and Idgie's relationship, we only need to go so far as the director's commentary (aside from the books) to hear that the filmmaker knew they were lovers all along. Listen up when the commentary addresses the food fight scene -- it's intended to symbolize their love-making. I kid you not.

My point here? Maybe "Rizzoli and Isles" won't be pushing any boundaries. It's probably not going to test the waters out there and see if the public is ready for the two women to be an on-screen couple. I think that would ruin what I, personally, love about the show. When I fell in love with "Fried Green Tomatoes" as a teenager, I wasn't entirely tuned into Ruth and Idgie's relationship (or my own interest in women), but that's okay. There was enough there to let me read what I wanted to when I wanted to between the lines. With what's actually on screen, I think I'm happy with "Rizzoli and Isles" just the way it is. I'm having fun with the characters and their chemistry. The rest is up to my imagination.

I spend too much time with my social scientist friends

Chicagoist is one of my favorite blogs, and while catching up on it this morning, I came across this posting: The Legal Side of the Sizzlin' Chicago Sexpo. Most of the post discusses what attorney JD Obenberger discussed during his presentation, and while some of what he said might be a little extreme, I agree with the overall sentiment that criminializing sex work is problematic, especially when other laws that crimilaze acts associated with sex are also on the books but not often inforced--not that I think those things need to be on the books either. I understand laws against violent acts, but I just don't agree with criminalizing sex that falls outside the mainstream.

The problems Obenberger pointed out weren't what really got to me, though. I had a real problem with the comments people posted, though I doubt posting a counter argument would be productive. Instead, I'm blogging about it. Here's what commenters had to say:

• One of my least favorite justifications for breaking a law is that other people are breaking a law. I learned early on that "But they did it, too" is no excuse. By extension, murderers could make the argument that law enforcement officials are picking on them with impunity.
• So let me get this straight...Dart's picking on prostitutes just because they're doing something illegal. Gotcha. Look, I think prostitution should be de-criminalized, but until then, the law's the law. This isn't a "civil rights" issue. And until adulturers start advertising their "services" on Craig's list, it's being dealt with as it should and doesn't need Dart's intervention (Besides, think how much that would further clog up the courts). as is criminal fornication. [emphasis theirs] What, exactly, is "criminal fornication"? Sex with underage children? Cause if that's what it is, it's being dealt with as soon as it's discovered. And I've had sex that should be considered a crime as well. HEYOOOOOOOO!!!!!
• this Obenberger is an idiot.

What kills me here is the seemingly blind acceptance of "a law's a law." Juts because something's a law doesn't mean we can't question it. I think we have an obligation to investigate where a law like this came from, what it's based on/in. We've constructed this ideology that anything outside vanilla sex between a man and a woman is BAD. Just because that ideology exists doesn't mean that it's true/right (or that it's not). We're getting better at questioning this why-do-YOU-have-a-problem-with-MY-gay-marriage? thing in some places and some states, seeing that just because something's always been one way or another doesn't mean it's right or that it can't change. Even that's going to take a long time for there to be--in terms of national decisions/legislation--a paradigm shift. Will that make it any easier, once we're not so quick to criminalize "deviant" gay sex, for the sex workers and sex work in general to be decriminalized?

(There are so many other issues I don't have time to address here, like my caveats about people entering into sex work, but for the sake of this quick blog post, I'll save that for another time.)

Sweet!

For Immediate Release, March 5, 2009
Contact: Rick Garcia, 312-560-0405

CIVIL UNION BILL PASSES ILLINOIS HOUSE COMMITTEE

SPRINGFIELD, IL -- An Illinois House committee passed a bill today that would extend legal recognition and many of the benefits limited to married couples to same sex couples.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act (HB2234) passed the Youth and Family Committee with a vote on Thursday, March 5. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.

“We are gratified that the members of the committee understand the importance of recognizing and extending legal protections to Illinois same-sex couples and their families,” said Rick Garcia, director of public policy, Equality Illinois. “These couples make our communities stronger and deserve to have the same protections and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.”

The bill guarantees some of the rights and responsibilities to persons in civil unions that are currently granted to persons in civil marriages. Among those rights are the ability to participate in healthcare visitation and decision making for one’s partner, survivor benefits and the right to make disposition decisions about deceased partner’s remains.

The bill also re-affirms religious institutions’ right not to solemnize a civil union.

“This bill asks for no special rights, only to grant all families access to what most families now are given automatically under the law,” said Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) the chief sponsor of the bill. “We have families in our districts in committed relationships, working hard every day, who when faced with sudden tragedy may desperately need these rights tomorrow or the next day.”

Equality Illinois lined up an impressive list of witnesses to testify before the committee.

The Reverned Suzanne Anderson-Hurdle a Lutheran pastor, mother of three and a Chaplain for her local fire and police departments gave testimony in favor of the bill.

"It seems odd to me that some who tout the idea of family values would push for the defeat of this bill. Their position is incongruent with the nation of family values and seems to lack integrity," said Pastor Suzanne. "It is both naive and ethnocentric to say that the "family" is mom, dad and children. This is not the reality for so many people -- gay or straight and it discounts the experiences of so many people in our communities.

Dr. Randy Georgemiller testified on behalf of the Illinois Psychological Association.

"Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are essentially equivalent in terms of their psychological and social functions and therefore discriminatory policies are unjustified" Georgemiller told the committee. "Government recognition of relationships affords a variety of benefits that are favorable to the couple’s physical, financial, and psychological well being. Just as for heterosexuals, a committed relationship offers a positive sense of self, self worth, and mastery, and provides some insulation from mental and physical disorders."

Gail Clodfelter of Springfield noted the protections that she and her husband have that are denied to her gay son and his partner.

If passed by the full General Assembly, Illinois will join a handful of states to recognize civil unions joining .

In Illinois, the County of Cook and the cities of Oak Park and Urbana have domestic partner registries, but the registries convey no benefits to registrants. The above jurisdictions, the State of Illinois and Chicago extend domestic partner benefits to their gay employees as do numerous Fortune 500 companies.

rest in peace

She did a lot of good work. Lesbian rights pioneer Del Martin dies at 87.