About Madeline

Politics at Feedster

Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:26:00 GMT

I really don't know what this is or what the point of it is, but it's something they're doing at the Feedster site, so I decided to do it...

Basically, I support the Democratic candidate, which in this case is Kerry, but I have no real love for Kerry. Kucinich is who I'd want if I could have chosen the Democratic candidate, with Clark next, and then Dean. If I could choose the party to run the country of course it would be the Green Party!

I Blog For:

About Madeline

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:38:25 GMT

I recently joined an online community called The WELL. I made a profile for it. It's rather nice...

Madeline is a radical, progressive, socialist, internationalist, ecofeminist, anti-racist, white, 27-year-old, student, francophone, writer, bisexual, polyamorous, Pagan, Unitarian Universalist who lives in San Jose, California.

She aspires to be a Witch in the Reclaiming tradition.

She advocates for personal liberty, communal responsibility, peace, economic justice, ecological sustainability, civil rights, sexpositivity, nudity, queer rights, women's rights, and international cooperation.

She believes in ultimate unity.

She values diversity, communication, self-expression, compassion, creativity, passion, play, laughter, pleasure, harmony, and the natural world.

She believes in education, integration, reform, reconciliation, restitution, rehabilitation, re-creation, transformation, re-visioning, and growth.

She decries marginalization, disempowerment, violence, punishment, division, ignorance, narrow-mindedness, zenophobia, and vindictiveness.

She loves animals, babies, music, drumming, crafts, earrings, chocolate, games, jigsaw puzzles, reading, writing, discussions, roller coasters, pizza, crossword puzzles, hiking, camping, singing, downhill skiing, guinea pigs, gardening, and the Internet.

Tears of Sadness at SF City Hall (and here) :'(

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:00:05 GMT

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) — Tears of sorrow flowed at San Francisco City Hall Thursday as word spread that the state's top court had ended, at least for now, the city's month-old policy of allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Ross Ladouceur, left, weeps after learning he and his partner, Stuart Sanders, arrived too late to be wed Thursday.

It just breaks my heart. Fucking conservatives. It makes me want to hate the world. I probably just need sleep. I just want to give this man the biggest hug in the world! We have to keep up hope though. At least no one is being killed or beaten up. Images of the Civil Rights Movement come to mind. The bigotry and fear of change on the part of the conservative forces is the same, even if the struggle is less physically violent. We shall overcome. I hope. It just breaks my heart. They are so handsome in their tuxedos with their beautiful purple wedding garlands. It's hard to remind myself that most of the anti-gay forces are well-meaning at heart and believe that what they're doing is right. Logically I know that they are motivated by fear, ignorance, misconception, and irrational belief, not by a desire to be cruel and ugly, but when I think of them I see un-human beasts filled with hate and bigotry spitting in the faces of loving couples.

And yet they know they're on the losing end of this battle in the long run (well, in the earthly, pre-apocolyptic long run anyway). (Gods, I wish for the Rapture more than they do: please someone take them all away! Let them all go to their happy heaven! Let them believe what they want! Why do they have to be here? Why do the rest of us have to suffer their idiocy? Sigh.) They know that time is not in their favor; they can feel it; it's what's motivating them to push so hard right now. I must have faith that the time will come when their pious belief in their future "Godly paradise" will be all they will have to cling to, because human rationality and fairness will win out over backwards religiosity and illogical moralism, and the freedom to marry will be a reality instead of a tenuous dream. Let all people of compassion and reason keep up the struggle to hasten the coming of that happy day! So mote it be. (And "So Vote It Be!")

On Marriage, Culture Wars, and the Human Race

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:22:33 GMT

As human beings, we are more than the means to reproduce our species: both basic common sense and deeper philosophical inquiry affirm that marriage is, has been, can be, and should be about so very much more than procreation! The traditional Christian God (the one worshipped by the RR) is a violent, chauvinistic, moralistic, vengeful, selfish, angry lout, and the ideas of marriage they promote are patriarchal, narrow-minded, anti-feminist, uncreative, and ultimately STUPID and BORING!

Instead marriage should be about relationship, committment, love, and family, in the deepest and most inclusive sense of those terms—about building a life together—about creating, declaring, and upholding a bond that is at once personal, intimate, communal, civil, legal, and social—a consentual and intentional covenant between equal human individuals that establishes them as a nurturing, nourishing family unit. It is a union of persons, not genders, and thus, obviously, the gender configuration of the persons involved is entirely irrelevant to the legitimacy and/or sanctity of the union.

To value marriage is to affirm its validity and insist upon its accessibility for all who desire it. To champion marriage is to fight against the imposition of irrational limitations upon it by ill-informed, misguided, anxiety-driven "traditionalists". To uphold the dignity of marriage is to reject attempts to essentialize it, to caricaturize it as no more than—as I once said—a union for the facilitation of penile/vaginal intercourse (which sounds to me more like a marriage between a man and his bottle of Viagra!). To defend marriage is to protect it from the absurd illogic that would deny it to those who seek it, all the while pressuring it upon others who do not. To proclaim marriage as a basic human and civil right of all who mindfully choose it is to raise it to the most enlightened standard of human potential.

Indeed it is not the loving same-sex couples who are a threat to the "meaning" of marriage, but in fact it is the fearful, backward, small-minded forces of the RR that pose a threat to the growth and development of the human race.

George Carlin on American the Less-than-Beautiful

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:38:18 GMT

...I'm just about (being) anti-United States. I don't like the way this country operates. I think we've ruined this place. And I think it's largely because of businessmen... I go out there to show the rest of the Americans how badly they're doing. This country has been, for about 180 years now, badly mishandled. And it's been in the wrong hands. It's been in the hands of the business interests.

And a lot of the beauty of this country has been shattered by them. The physical beauty and the kind of institutional beauty that was originally built into this place - this experiment, this magnificent experiment in democracy is just being shredded to pieces by these right-wing Christians, the Ashcroft branch of Republicanism...

Q: Do you feel like this country has progressed any way, shape or form in the past 20 years?

A: Everybody's got more jet skis and Dustbusters now and sneakers with lights in them. They've got more cheese on their thing that they buy. They get double helpings. See, Americans measure all their progress in the wrong way. They measure by quantity and by gizmos and toys. And not by quality and by things that are important.

The most interesting thing to me is that the things that people would seem to have the most right to have - that is to say health, food, shelter and a job are the things that are last on the list. To me, that is fundamental. Those are the things humans most need to function, and we have placed them at the bottom of the list. So I think that says a lot about national character and priorities.

My comments: Amen, George. As I've always said, it's all about priorities, and ours are very much in the wrong places.

A Cinematic Masterpiece for the Rest of Us!

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:48:17 GMT

If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. —Niels Bohr

Everything you see has its roots in the unseen world. The forms may change, yet the essence remains the same. Every wonderful sight will vanish; every sweet word will fade, But do not be disheartened, The source they come from is eternal, growing, Branching out, giving new life and new joy. Why do you weep? The source is within you And this whole world is springing up from it. —Jelauddin Rumi

The truth dazzles gradually, or else the world would be blind. —Emily Dickinson

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. —Martin Luther King, Jr.

A full-spectrum approach to human consciousness and behavior means that men and women have available to them a spectrum of knowing—a spectrum that includes, at the very least, the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit. —Ken Wilber

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. —Galileo Galilei

Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. —Lewis Carroll

Do you remember how electrical currents and 'unseen waves' were laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy. —Albert Einstein

You cannot see anything that you do not first contemplate as a reality. —Ramtha

The spirit down here in man and the spirit up there in the sun, in reality are only one spirit, and there is no other one. —The Upanishads

While the evangelical Christians revel in Gibson's gorefest (and in their twisted interpretation of the significance of the life and teachings of the executed Jewish radical Jesus of Nazareth), those of us interested in the present and the future of life on Earth and in increasing our understanding of the nature of the Universe and of humanity and of the human mind, as studied by physicists, doctors, and mystics (rather than as dictated in the writings of some patriarchal, anti-Goddess, war-obsessed, primitive, desert nomads!), a mind-altering film has just been released that I am excited about seeing—that is if it makes it to the Bay Area! I can only hope and assume that eventually it will!

As Radical as Einstein
As Blasphemous as Bruno
As Heretical as Galileo
"WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed, not even dreamed of since Copernicus.
It's a documentary. It's a story. It's mind-blowing special effects.
A new art form
About a New Worldview
For a new audience
This film plunges you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated—where neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived by its protagonist—where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought.
Like the movies, The Matrix, Vanilla Sky, and Minority Report, this film shows you a greater reality behind the one we all accept as true, and you have the ability to create absolutely anything from your own thought.
But the difference between this film and those movies is—
This isn't science fiction.
It's stranger still—
It's real.
(Keep reading!)

An open letter to President Bush

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:46:49 GMT

The author of this letter, the Rev. Meg Riley, is the director of the Faith in Action office (of the Unitarian Universalist Association) in Washington D.C.

An Open Letter to President Bush

February 24, 2004

Dear Mr. President,

This morning you felt compelled to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.

You say that this will create "clarity." I would like you to share this clarity with my first grade daughter on her school playground, when the children, imitating their role models as they always do, will take up the issue. Because I dread those conversations with every fiber of my being.

Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fifteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us.

You see, we have not yet discussed with this seven year old, precocious as she is, the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She knowsonly that we are her parents, the only ones she's known. She knows that we got married in our church, as her aunts and uncles did, and that our neighborhood and church, her school and social circle, involves a significant number of kids with two moms and a few with two dads. She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known.

Of course she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now of course we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of "We the people". I just haven't found a way to fit it in between soccer and karate and church.

Tonight I will sit her down, after we've done her homework, and have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution. Yes, the document she adores from watching Liberty's Kids and reading Magic Treehouse books. I will tell her that I don't believe this change in the Constitution will happen, not enough people will vote for it. But it does mean that people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too.

I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family.

Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself "without bitterness or anger" at this time, as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight: you look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you, the first President she has ever known, thinks she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to "conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country." Because I am at a loss.

Sincerely,

The Rev. Meg A. Riley
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington, DC

My comments: What can I say, really? It takes my breath away. The most amazing thing, though, is that there is no chance of it affecting in the least the imbecile we call President, even if he should read it, because I don't think he even has the ability to imagine the perspective of someone very different from himself. It's a stage of human development he's never achieved, and probably won't in this lifetime. But perhaps it could affect some other people, perhaps some people unsure of where they stand in this "debate".

It has to become about real people. Human beings, with lives, jobs, families, just like everyone else. It's too easy when it's just about ideas, traditions, doctrines, theories, politics...too easy for people to say, "yeah, this is what I believe, and I have a right to believe it", without having to consider the very real human beings and relationships and families that stand in limbo at the heart of this issue. The children and parents, the loved ones, the communities, the loving couples, they are all this issue is about. Everything else is rhetoric.

Dubya will never understand that, because he's really nothing more than a spoiled child wearing Daddy's boots and playing emperor. Nothing in his life has given him the ablity see beyond himself and his sense of the world...

But the evolution of the human race depends upon the ability of people to open their minds to uncomfortable ideas, and it's happened a million times before, with a million things most of us now take for granted, and I have to have faith that it will happen again. And it already is happening with today's young people, so it's only a matter of time. And that's what the religious conservatives know, in their hearts, and because they fear change and growth and forward movement, they want to do whatever they can to stop it, but they can't—I have to have faith that we as a human race are better than that, smarter than that, more fair, more compassionate, more able to change and grow towards greater love and greater harmony, embracing all aspects of our humanity... I have to believe that we are capable of so much more than those who believe we are "fallen" could ever imagine...

I have to believe that we are moving toward the creation of a world where all are valued, all are honored, all are encouraged to reach their full potential... I have to believe that there is more Gandhi and MLK Jr., Dorothy Day, Mother Jones, and Cesar Chavez, Del and Phyllis, Gavin Newsom, and Meg Riley, more people like Pastor Michael, this woman, and these two (people who make an effort to reach out, to seek understanding, to bridge divides) in us as a human race than there is Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, James Dobson, Jesse Helms, Dr. Laura, the Pope, Dick Cheney, Arnold Schwarzenneger, or George W. Bush... I have to believe that we are more, ever so much more than the least imaginative among us... I have to believe all of this to go on every day. To get up and to make an effort. And I have to love the human race in spite of all of its failings, because it is in humanity that I put my faith, in our inherent wisdom and goodness, in our ability to grow and create and achieve understanding...

For the day that is coming when all will be well on this lovely blue-green paradise we call Earth will not be heralded by apocalyptic horsemen and orchestrated by a God on a throne who accepts only some and rejects others. No, it will be heralded by loving words and loving thoughts and loving deeds, by increased cooperation and decreased division, by increased understanding and decreased fear, by the laughter of children and the wisdom of sages. And it will be orchestrated by a million tiny voices calling in unison for peace and freedom and justice for all. I have seen the Promised Land in my mind, in my heart, in my dreams, and I am not alone, so I will have faith in the potential of the human race, and I will work for justice and empowerment and unity, and the Spirit of Love will guide us, somehow, and we will find our way. So mote it be.

Goodnight. :)

I love my church!!

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:00:03 GMT

Statements by Bill Sinkford, President of the UUA

February 4, 2004: "I enthusiastically applaud today's opinion from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. As they did in the Goodridge decision, the court once again has resoundingly affirmed the right to equal protection and due process for all Massachusetts citizens as guaranteed under the state's constitution. Unitarian Universalists are delighted by the Court's refusal to create 'a second-class of citizens by status discrimination.' As we learned through our country's bitter history of racial discrimination, separate but equal does not work. As the large banner on the side of our Beacon Hill headquarters building proclaims, Unitarian Universalists believe that civil marriage is a civil right."

February 19, 2004: "On behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Association, I am delighted to extend congratulations and blessings to the same-sex couples who have been married recently in San Francisco. I applaud the courage of the mayor and citizens of San Francisco in taking this bold step forward for civil rights. It is my fervent hope that the events in San Francisco and the recent rulings by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts mark the dawn of new day of justice and equal rights for all citizens. The Rev. John Marsh and the Rev. Margot Campbell Gross, co-ministers at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, have officiated at several of the marriage ceremonies for Unitarian Universalists in San Francisco, and I am grateful for their efforts. For decades, Unitarian Universalist ministers have performed religious services of union for same-sex couples, and it is a joy to realize that civil marriage is now an option for our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. I realize that these recent events are just the beginning of a long struggle for equal rights, but I assure you that Unitarian Universalism is committed to this work. Unitarian Universalists know that civil marriage is a civil right."

One of the categories I've been meaning to make is a Unitarian Universalist one, and I came across the material for its inaugral post, so I had to make it! I love my church. I love the UUA. I love Bill Sinkford. I think he's cute (for an old guy!) ;), but that's not why I love him: I love him 'cause he's very cool.

Also, a couple of weeks ago the UUA headquarters hosted a day of activities for the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry. Leaders from the Episcopal, Jewish, UCC/Congregational, and UU churches attended a prayer breakfast in the morning followed by a press conference. They had a training on lobbying techniques before walking next door to the Massachusetts State House to inform their elected officials of their support for same-sex marriage and their opposition to a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage.

I'm so glad to have been to GA last year and to the UUA headquarters, because now I can picture all of them there, and I know how the State House is right next door (there's a statue of Ann Hutchinson, but you can't get close to it, because the whole place is surrounded by a black wrought iron fence). All of this is up on a hill, Beacon Hill, overlooking the lovely gardens below. Boston is a lovely city. :) And it's filled with fascinating history. And the UUA is there—what could be better than that?! ;)

Validation!

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:11:57 GMT

I tend to assert a lot of things based on what I think mixed with bits of knowledge gleaned here and there. Maybe everyone does that, I don't know, but I definitely do! Thanks mostly to my intelligence (as I'm really not the most widely informed or well-read person!), it generally works out pretty well, but nevertheless, it's always nice to have my assertions validated by those more learned and credentialed than myself! First I was reading the bonobo book description, and there was exactly what I'd been saying to Steve about procreation not being the only "natural" function of sex, and then I did a Google search on the words "sex" and "procreation", just curious to see what was out on the Web on the subject, and I came across a page on legal commentary site (FindLaw's Writ), with an article by a law professor, Joanna Grossman, "Are Bans on Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional? New Jersey Says Yes, But Massachusetts, In a Landmark Decision, Says No", and lo and behold, the MA supreme court said just what I've been saying:

Like the New Jersey case, the Massachusetts case began with seven couples in committed relationships, four of whom have children, trying to enter into a civil marriage in their home state.

The trial court ruled against the couples, claiming that the primary purpose of marriage, under Massachusetts' marriage laws, is procreation. The court concluded that the state thus could rationally distinguish between couples that are "theoretically . . . capable" of procreation and less likely to rely on "inherently more cumbersome" non-coital reproductive methods and other ones.

The problems with this ruling, of course, are legion: What about opposite-sex couples in which the woman is over childbearing age, or that are infertile? Could the state also "rationally" tell them they cannot marry? Certainly, it cannot. Indeed, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court later noted in its opinion: under state law, even those "who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry," and infertility is not a ground for divorce.

Why should the state care if a couple relies on easy or cumbersome reproductive methods? And why should reproduction for, say, a lesbian couple, be less likely at all? A couple made up of two women, both of whom might be fertile, has double the chances of procreating.

Fortunately, the Massachusetts' Supreme Court was wiser. It interpreted the state's marriage law to mean the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others"--invoking the interpretive principle that a statute of dubious constitutionality should be construed in such a way that it is constitutional.

Does this mean I'm qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? hehe ;) But really, though, it's only perfectly obvious! The only people to whom it's not perfectly obvious are those who are blinded by an irrational fear of same-sex marriage and its "dangerous" consequences!

Speaking of which, I surfed on "FindLaw" to an AP news article describing how the California judges are basically following the simple logic that says that same-sex marriages are a "threat" to no one!

The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said. ...

Chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.

"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.

I also learned from this article that, "On Friday morning, Newsom officiated at the wedding of Carole Migden, who leads the state's Board of Equalization, and her partner of 19 years, criminal defense attorney Cris Arguedas." For the benefit of those who think gays and lesbians are somehow a threat to children, I would like to point out that both Migden and also Sheila Kuehl, another prominent lesbian in California politics, in addition to advocating for women and for gays and lesbians, have been strong advocates for children's issues during their careers. Kuehl is particularly well-known as a children's issue advocate and has authored quite a number of bills to protect and benefit children.

Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 03:04:58 GMT

I mentioned this book in my recent "discussion" with Steve Skojec, but I was just reading its description on Amazon.com, and now I really want to read it myself! It is apparently a lovely book, so perhaps I will have to own it! It has received a bunch of 5-star ratings from Amazon reader/reviewers (I haven't seen that very often on Amazon. The Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice book also got such reviews, so I really want to read it too!) Anyway, I want to share its description here (I got this from Amazon; I assume it is from the book jacket) as others may be inspired to read it as well:

This remarkable primate with the curious name is challenging established views on human evolution. The bonobo, least known of the great apes, is a female-centered, egalitarian species that has been dubbed the "make-love-not-war" primate by specialists. In bonobo society, females form alliances to intimidate males, sexual behavior (in virtually every partner combination) replaces aggression and serves many social functions, and unrelated groups mingle instead of fighting. The species's most striking achievement is not tool use or warfare but sensitivity to others. In the first book to combine and compare data from captivity and the field, Frans de Waal, a world-renowned primatologist, and Frans Lanting, an internationally acclaimed wildlife photographer, present the most up-to-date perspective available on the bonobo. Focusing on social organization, de Waal compares the bonobo with its better-known relative, the chimpanzee. The bonobo's relatively nonviolent behavior and the tendency for females to dominate males confront the evolutionary models derived from observing the chimpanzee's male power politics, cooperative hunting, and intergroup warfare. Further, the bonobo's frequent, imaginative sexual contacts, along with its low reproduction rate, belie any notion that the sole natural purpose of sex is procreation. Humans share over 98 percent of their genetic material with the bonobo and the chimpanzee. Is it possible that the peaceable bonobo has retained traits of our common ancestor that we find hard to recognize in ourselves? Eight superb full-color photo essays offer a rare view of the bonobo in its native habitat in the rain forests of Zaire as well as in zoos and research facilities. Additional photographs and highlighted interviews with leading bonobo experts complement the text. This book points the way to viable alternatives to male-based models of human evolution and will add considerably to debates on the origin of our species. Anyone interested in primates, gender issues, evolutionary psychology, and exceptional wildlife photography will find a fascinating companion in Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape.

(Steve and everyone else, please note the sentence I have bolded!!)

On the definition of civil marriage

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:51:37 GMT

Let me first clarify that I am not talking about anyone's particular religious definition of marriage, which could be any number of things, but only about a reasonable definition of civil marriage.

I'm going to keep the focus on two people, although I will comment on the numbers issue at the end.

One could, theoretically, logically define civil marriage as a union between two persons for the sole purpose of procreation and child-rearing. However this would leave out many heterosexuals who are currently validly legally married, and they would probably object. Furthermore, it would not exclude gays and lesbians, unless it was specified that the procreation and child-rearing could only involve the biological offspring of both individuals (and this will be possible pretty soon anyway!), in which case even more heterosexual couples would be disqualified.

So, leaving out procreation and child-rearing, one can logically define marriage as:

A legal and social bond between any two persons (*) (regardless of their physiology, skin color, social background, genital configuration, etc.), existing on both private and public levels, reflecting an act of committment to a common life (establishing a common household/family unit), and imparting certain rights and responsibilities.

(*) Excluding, arguably logically, immediate biological relatives, for various complex reasons that I can't begin to fully explain.

Sure, one could word it in all kinds of other ways, but I think this is pretty good.

So, then, given this definition, it makes no logical sense to further define it as a union between two people, one male and one female, because such a union is entirely possible between two females or two males. Some people don't seem to think so, but I argue that this is only because they don't actually know any loving, committed same-sex couples, so it's simply ignorance on their part and no logical proof of anything.

The only thing that is not possible between two females or two males that is possible between one female and one male is penile/vaginal intercourse. (And all of this isn't even bringing into the equation intersex and transexual people!) Everything else is possible. It's possible for them to make a committment, to establish a household, to share rights and responsibilities, to be in love, to raise children, to care for one another, etc., etc. So then, unless we are going to define marriage as a union for the facilitation of penile/vaginal intercourse (sounds more like a marriage between a man and his bottle of Viagra!), rather than a union of two people for the purpose of sharing life together, there is no logical or legally-valid explanation for gender discrimination in the issuance of civil marriage licenses.

(QED, Amen, and Blessed Be!) ;)

Oh yeah, regarding numbers, two is logically arbitary, and I don't agree with it, but, as I've said, the vast majority of people do, and legalizing same-sex marriage isn't going to change that. Ya do what'cha can, and if it's going to be two people, then at least it ought to be any two people, not certain people's definition of which kinds of two people, whether based on race, class, religion, gender, etc., etc.

Nebulous "Threats" to our Nation's Future

Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:41:49 GMT

Same-sex marriage rights seem to be the only thing on my mind right now, but it's not terribly surprising, since it's a major news issue at the moment...

For example, earlier today I was visiting with my mom and sister (we had met with my older sister and niece and had a wet weather "fieldtrip" to Ikea, my first time, quite a store), and we went into a Starbucks, so my mom could get some coffee, and I took a look at the local Palo Alto newspaper, and of course it's a font page story that a thousand people will have been married in San Francisco over this long weekend, with hundreds being turned away because City Hall is simply overwhelmed!! (I had to blink back tears again!)

People have come from other cities and other states, waited hours and hours in line, and are ready to camp out on the sidewalk, just to make a public declaration of a loving committment that others can do so easily any day of the week in any city in the country. It's just so absurdly ironic... People are lining up to uphold the marriage institution by joining it, and some fools want to "protect" it by turning them away! What are they so afraid of? As I've read a number of conservatives say, can gays possibly make any more of a mockery of marriage as a serious institution than straights already have?!

And yet here is a quote from a random conservative, writing to a US Senator, that sounds like so many other conservative claims, and yet makes no sense at all...

"The traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be preserved, for the sake of our nation's families and our nation's future."

My response: Or what??! Just what the hell is it you fear-mongerers think is going to happen if gays and lesbians get married? How is society going to be anything but better and more stable for it?! One thousand same-sex couples have been married in San Francisco this past weekend. Whether or not their marriage certificates eventually get voided by some court decision, for right now, they have marriage certificates, and they have had the same chance to make public their committment that straight people get every day of the year.

And has the world ended? Has California or San Francisco dropped off into the ocean? Has God smote Gavin Newsom? Have the city's children suddenly morphed into some crazed, depraved, heathens destined to carry out the destruction of the human race? Has everyone in San Francisco suddenly forsaken heterosexual sex and reproduction? (I think my sister and brother-in-law and niece who are redecorating and shopping and excitedly awaiting the birth of my new nephew Gordon would be shocked to hear that!) :P

It's all just so ridiculous! People predicted that interracial marriage, and the end of slavery, and women ordained as ministers, and the teaching of evolutionary biology, and women voting, and black people voting, and women working, and who knows what else(!) would bring about the end of human civilization, and yet here we are, driving SUVs, writing weblogs, drinking lattes, sending rovers to Mars, occupying other countries, and using way more than our fair share of the Earth's resources here today in the good ol' USA. It's amazing how life goes on despite every so-called threat to the foundations of human civilization...

Blogging with Catholics...

Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:19:15 GMT

I'm not sure how I got into this, but I guess I'm just a sucker for debate, although I must admit that I'm still waiting to see something worthy of debating, but I've ended up in some discussions with conservative Catholics on this guy Chris Burgwald's blog, Veritas, which if nothing else is a very pretty blog to look at (I really like the stained glass pattern!), but also Chris seems to be a nice, level-headed guy, so we'll see what happens. It's given me plenty to write about (as though I really needed any more!).

I started out commenting over there because Chris was lamenting the end of a discussion with a liberal pro-gay Catholic, and I felt like I understood where she was coming from and why she felt she couldn't continue the discussion any longer, and then later I opined that the two of them couldn't really communicate, because they have two fundamentally different views of the fundamental nature of their religion (law vs. love), to which Chris replied that he wasn't making arguments based on religion, only on reason. I find this pretty hard to believe! So I said:

"Reason" cannot take one to an anti-gay stance; all evidence indicates that homosexual behavior and same-sex relationships are "natural" (biologically), "normal" and "well-adjusted" (psychologically), and, sociologically speaking, perfectly compatible with harmonious social life (in other words, millions of gay and lesbian individuals and couples are living peacefully and productively on this planet, the same as heterosexual ones); there is nothing "reasonable" about affording rights to opposite-sex couples and denying them to same-sex ones. It's exactly what the MA supreme court said.

So I asked him to either make or point me to where he has already made an anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage argument "based on reason with no appeal to religious doctrine, God's plan, traditional values, divine law, Leviticus, Adam and Eve, etc., etc." I continued: "I'm excited at the possibility--it would certainly be a first in my experience!!"

So, we'll see...

Anti-Vatican is not necessarily Anti-Catholic

Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:33:40 GMT

Being against the Pope and the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchical institution and its assorted very bad policies and doctrines does not mean one fails to have respect for people who are Catholics. There are many good ideas in Catholicism, such as defending the poor and advocating for peace. And there are some very cool Catholics out there, like, for instance, many Catholic nuns. Two examples: The Sisters of St. Joseph of La Grange: Ministry of the Arts (they make the most incredibly gorgeous artwork—buy some!), and the National Association of American Nuns (a 33-year-old peace and justice group representing about 1,800 women religious), which doesn't seem to have a website, but one can find some of its statements around on the web:
On women in the priesthood
On sexual abuse of women in the Church
Some excerpts from a statement of outrage after two Catholic leaders were officially silenced and banned from working with gays and lesbians (although they never contradicted the Church's official teachings on "homogenital acts", they were just a little too loving and compassionate towards gays and lesbians as human beings, I guess *rollseyes*):

Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you shut the door against the loving relationships of lesbian and gay people and shelter the homosexual priests and bishops in your closets.
Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you devour the human rights of the Church's ministers by using secret and authoritarian procedures of examination.
Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you refuse to listen to the voices of dissent to your repressive measures.
Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you abuse your authority through a resurgence of the inquisition by probing into the conscience of another.

Another couple of cool Catholic reform movements: The Quixote Center and Call to Action.

Anyway, the reason this came up is that after somehow (not quite sure how) finding my way to a couple of Catholic blogs I encountered some commentaries on Margaret Cho who, in addition to her comedy segment on Republicans for the Moveon.org affaire, had previously done a piece against the Vatican's stance on sex and birth control, and so I had to respond to their calling her an anti-Catholic bigot:

~~~~~

1. Opposing the policies and positions of the Vatican does not make one "anti-Catholic". Many American Catholics, some very active and devout, disagree, sometimes very strongly, with the Vatican on quite a number of issues. This hardly makes them "anti-Catholic".

2. Neither does opposing the policies and positions of the Vatican mean that one holds a negative opinion of all persons who identify as Catholic. The above argument applies here, obviously. As does the fact that I vehemently oppose many policies and positions of the Vatican, yet nevertheless, my best friend is a practicing Catholic, one who agrees with the Pope on more issues than many American Catholics, and that doesn't stop me from loving her dearly. She has beliefs with which I disagree; I have beliefs with which she disagrees; on some levels we each think the other is misguided; yet we manage to be very good friends.

3. Even strongly opposing the Pope himself and the very nature of the Catholic hierarchical system, even despising the Pope and thinking him a foolish, pompous, dangerous and deluded individual, even telling him to F off (I wholeheartedly agree with everything Cho said and think she is a fabulous comedian), does not make one "anti-Catholic", if that is taken to mean that one hates or would discriminate against or seek to harm any or all persons who happen, by circumstance or deliberate choice, to be Catholic.

(No more so, I might add, than opposing the Bush administration makes one "anti-American" or opposing the Israeli government/army makes one an "anti-Semite".)

If y'all cannot see that, I think there's something lacking in your logical process. The Pope may think that he and his views define Catholicism, but many Catholics, in the US and around the world, disagree, and I wish them much luck in transforming the Catholic church into a more humane, fair, equal, rational, accountable institution.

~~~~~

I also made another comment on Margaret Cho, with regard to the fact that some conservatives (religious and otherwise) don't seem to be able to make a mental differentiation between a comedy act and a serious statement of personal belief...

~~~~~

Does it occur to any of you that Margaret Cho does not necessarily go around speaking like that in her everyday life? The language that you find so "offensive" is part of her comedy routine. She is in fact a perfectly intelligent woman who is perfectly capable of speaking and carry on conversations without using "profanity".

As with various sorts of performing artists, comedians take on personas, adopt styles of being and speaking, often ones that are extreme in some way, that are used in their comedy routines. And while a comedian's stage persona likely incorporates some parts of who they are as a person, it is nevertheless a limited way of being, one that is used while performing, and it can in no way be conflated with their whole personality or character. Reading a transcript of one or two of Margaret Cho's comedy routines does not put you a position to judge who she is as a human being.

Now I realize that some of you here on this Catholic blog may believe that using "profanity" at any time, for any reason, even in a comedy routine, is wrong, and thus constitutes a negative mark on a person's character, and (though I personally think it's silly, meaningless moralism), I respect your right to believe that way, but you still ought to be able to make some sort of distinction between the way a person is while performing on a stage as part of their professional work and the overall character of that person.

~~~~~

Speaking of Margaret's intelligence and her character, here are a few sentences from her comments on SF's same-sex marriages on her blog:
"I am of the opinion that this only enforces and grounds the idea of family values. By allowing and legitimizing different types of families, we make them relevant, attainable and honorable, therefore strengthening the moral fabric of the nation and making the ideal American family available to all who wish to be a part of one. We will never have a shortage of parents, like we do now. We will have a surplus of love and caring, which we do not have now."

[IOW: KISS MY ASS YOU "FAMILY VALUES" HYPOCRITE FOOLS! FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILIES! (MY words, not Margaret's!)]

What We Need Is Here

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:14:16 GMT

What We Need Is Here

Geese appear high over us,
pass, and the sky closes. Abandon,
as in love or sleep, holds
them to their way, clear
in the ancient faith: what we need
is here. And we pray, not
for new earth or heaven, but to be
quiet in heart, and in eye,
clear. What we need is here.

~ Wendell Berry ~

Lesbian couple, together 51 years, married today in SF :)

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:55:35 GMT

[SFGate]
S.F. defies law, marries gays
LEGAL BATTLE LOOMS: City Hall ceremonies spur constitutional showdown, injunction threat
February 13, 2004
By Rachel Gordon

In a historic act of civil disobedience, San Francisco defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, a move expected to ignite a constitutional showdown as early as today.

A lesbian couple who have been together five decades were the first to marry, followed by 89 other couples who said their vows in City Hall ceremonies. The cheers and yelps echoed throughout the building all day, as gays and lesbians who had expected to be refused wedding licenses during a planned National Freedom to Marry protest were instead married under the ornate City Hall rotunda. Several couples rushed to get married during their lunch hours after word spread that they could. [It's just so absurd when you think of it, the religious right, the supposed champions of committed relationships and the social stability they provide, doing everything they can to keep people from getting married. What a farce...]

"A barrier to true justice has been removed," said Mayor Gavin Newsom, who argues that state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians. ...

Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act. By early Thursday, employees in the county clerk's office, in consultation with city and civil rights lawyers, had changed marriage license documents to make them gender-neutral, replacing the words "bride" and "groom" with "first applicant" and "second applicant."

At 11:06 a.m., two icons of the lesbian movement, Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, took their wedding vows, kissed and embraced, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States. ...

My comments: Hooray for Del and Phyllis! (It's a rare newspaper article that brings tears of joy to one's eyes!)

Stupid fucking moron conservatives! How can they be so fucking blind? When will they simply open their eyes to the beauty of love in its myriad forms and stop trying to draw lines in the sand and boxes around people? ...I guess the answer's probably "blowin' in the wind", but at least, on this one bright February day there was a little beauty and celebration in a City Hall rotunda... Blessed Be.

(Here's a little more of the sweet story...)

Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life" in place of "husband" and "wife".

Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.

"I asked Del, and she said OK," Lyon said. "We didn't really think about this before, because we didn't think it was possible. Now, so much has changed ... and everyone's working so hard to get gay marriage. It didn't seem right to say 'no.'" [Awwww! It's just so sweet! I can just see them, these 80-year-old ladies, lesbian rights pioneers, 51 years of love and companionship... And indeed a lot has changed in the world since they first got together...but there's still a long way to go!]

About 20 people witnessed the ceremony. Many of them were moved to tears as the couple were wed, using borrowed rings.

According to another article by the Rocky Mountain Telegram, "Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done. 'Why shouldn't we' be able to marry? Lyon asked." Indeed.

Also:

On the same day that San Francisco entered uncharted territory, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced the California Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act, which would amend the state Family Code to define a marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.

I hadn't heard about this, but I guess it was first announced a few weeks ago...

Leno to counter Bush on gay marriage: Bill would recognize licenses, boost benefits by Rona Marech, on Jan. 24:

The bill Leno plans to introduce in the Assembly next month would prohibit the denial of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in California. The bill would expand on AB205 -- the domestic partners bill that takes effect in 2005 -- most significantly, by allowing gay couples to file joint tax returns, claim an exemption from property reassessment upon the death of a partner, and travel across state lines without jeopardizing their marriage rights.

In addition, the bill would confer a range of federal rights on gay couples, from immigration rights for foreign-born partners of American citizens to the right to Social Security benefits.

"It was disgraceful for the president of the United States to pander to his radical right-wing supporters out of his own concerns for re-election," said Leno, D-San Francisco. "This puts me and my community in the position of taking one of two actions: Either continually playing defense or taking proactive steps. Rather than playing defense and explaining why we don't need a constitutional amendment, this (legislation) moves forward in a positive fashion."

Leno's bill does not conflict with Proposition 22 -- the initiative California voters passed in 2000 -- which prevents California from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples married outside the state, Leno said.

Leno -- who proved his ability to get controversial civil rights legislation through the Legislature with a series of bills including AB205 and a transgender rights bill -- plans to have 20 co-authors lined up by the time he introduces the gay marriage bill on Feb. 12. "We'll take it from there step by step," he said. ...

San Francisco mayor wants city to issue gay marriage licenses

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:06:10 GMT

I love San Francisco. I mean I really love San Francisco! How many places in the US can you imagine there being a mayoral race betweeen a moderate progressive and a radical progressive?! I was excited by Matt Gonzales' amazing success and bummed that he lost, and yet Newsom, whom many San Franciscans have criticized for not being liberal enough, has just done this totally radical thing! Whatever else one may say about him, that's pretty darn cool. One also has to admit that he is stunningly handsome. It's almost breathtaking. I also think Matt Gonzales is quite good looking, but not in such a chisled, classic, perfect way. But anyway, hooray for Gavin! Hooray for San Francisco! No matter how many cities I visit in my life, my heart will always be there, fluttering somewhere between the Castro and the Golden Gate...

[Bay Area Independent Media]
Newly elected San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday he wants the city to be able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
2/11/04

Newly elected San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday he wants the city to be able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His spokesman said the mayor wants to officiate at the nuptials of two brides or two grooms within a week.

Newsom told county clerk Nancy Alfaro he wants all "forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses" to be revised so they can be provided "on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation." "Less than a month ago I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California's constitution, which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination," Newsom said in a statement. Newsom is hoping San Francisco would become the first place in the nation where gay and lesbian couples could wed--symbolically at least. ...

Sexlines (Where to draw them?)

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:55:24 GMT

I've created a new category that I'm thinking might be one that's going to "take off" on its own, meaning it would have posts not be routed to my main blog at all... I think it will need it's own domain. (I've already got plans for several of those on other topics.) I'm kind of excited, because I realized that it's an important topic, one I sure would like to discuss...

It's name? Sexlines. OK? So what does that mean? Well, here's the short description:

Where to draw the lines? What's right and wrong when it comes to sex (including porn, sexuality, images, depictions, thoughts, fantasies, actions, etc.) and age? How young is to young to have sex? To be sexual? To be sexualized?

I had this realization, due to a few sites and ideas I encountered today, that I really don't know where to draw the line on sex, sexuality, sexualization, and sexualized representations and age. I mean really... I think nobody really does, even though some may claim to. People have a whole lot of different ideas. Governments, institutions, religions, parents, teens, adults, young people, old people, authorities, leaders, families, men, women, cultures, countries, philosophies...all have different ideas about various aspects of this issue. I think that most are very subjective. What should we take as our guide? Gut feeling? A rational argument? A philisophical argument? A legal argument? A moral argument? A practical argument? I could make all kinds of varieties of any of these and so could anyone else! It's so complex and so confusing—and so important not to get wrong...

I think it's important to talk about...to think about...to dialogue about...to question...to wrestle with...

Everyone should have a say: pre-teens, teens, young adults, middle-aged adults, older adults, parents, men, women, religious leaders, ethics scholars, psychologists, doctors, social workers, those who have been abused, those who have been repressed, those who think all sorts of different things...

Because it really occurs to me that I just don't know where the lines should be drawn... How young is too young, and what is it too young for, and who is it too young with, and how old is too old, and how old is it too old, with whom, and how young are they? What is the difference between looking, fanticizing, and acting? How well do groups and individuals create and enforce distinctions between looking, fantcizing, and acting?

Part of what brought this up for me are two examples of images of girls/young women, some of whom I don't know the true ages of (and partly that's part of the point), images that came from different sources...

The various parts of me are conflicted: the radical sexual liberal, the feminist, freedom rights of children advocate, the protection of children advocate...

Wow.

Who has a right to make these decisions? Different people want different things, and yet as a society we have to make decisions for other people, because sometimes two people don't want the same things from one another, and sometimes even if they both claim to want them, we must decide that they don't get to do them... (If this doesn't make sense, a blatant example: even if a 10-year-old might claim to really want to have some sort of sexual relations with a 40-year-old, many of us would believe that we must, because the 10-year-old is not truly capable of making that decision for himself or herself, deny her or him the right to make that decision and deem that activity unacceptable)...

But here come the tough questions...

What about a 10-year-old and another 10-year-old? Two 11-year-olds?
12 & 12? 13 & 13? 14 & 14? 15 & 15? 16 & 16? 17 & 17? 12 & 13? 11 & 13? 12 & 14? 12 & 15? 14 & 16?
14 & 17? 17 & 19? 15 & 17? 15 & 18? 15 & 19? 15 & 20? 14 & 20? 15 & 25? 17 & 45? 16 & 45?

Now mind you, I haven't even gotten to what, exactly, these people in question are doing: Holding hands? Fantasizing about one another? Looking at clothed, sexualized pictures of one another? Looking at partially-clothed sexualized pictures? Looking at nude pictures? Looking at graphically sexual pictures? Kissing? French kissing? Making out? Heavy petting? Oral sex? Intercourse?

If I am a 40-year-old man, and I get off looking at pictures of "girls", is that wrong? Am I depraved? Am I sexually dysfunctional? Am I a criminal? These "girls", what if they are 9? 10? 12? 13? 15? 17? 19? 20? What if they are actually 16 or 17 or 18, but they look 13 or 14 or 15? What if I am a 30-year-old man? A 20-year-old man? What if I'm a woman? What if these are boys rather than girls? (Clearly, no argument will have any sway with me made purely on the basis of an anti-same-sex bias, but other than that, it's all fair game!)

Who decides these things? What kind of different answers do we get when we ask pre-teens, teens, boys, girls, men, women?

How different is your viewpoint if you're involved vs. if you're not? What if you're the 12-year-old? The 40-year-old? A parent? A friend? A survivor of sexual abuse? A medical professional?

When is too young to get married? When is too young to have children?

Where does culture fit into all of this anyway? What if in X culture it is completely acceptable for 40-year-old men to marry 14-year-old girls? 16-year-old girls? 12-year-old girls? What about 20-year-old men and 15-year-old girls? What if it were older women and younger men/boys (this has in fact been found in a relatively small number of anthropologically-studied societies)? Where do sexism and patriarchy come in? Where does personal choice come in? How do we decide if it's really a totally free personal choice or a coerced choice? Is there ever such a thing as a totally free personal choice?! Can something be right in one cultural context and wrong in another? Who gets to decide?

I will never accept culture as an excuse, that is to say, culture can never justify a human rights violation. Denying women equal rights, mutilating their genitalia, or making them wear something or not wear something, or do something or not do something—and trying to use culture or tradition as an excuse or justification will never fly with me. But exactly where do we draw the line? If everyone in society does something, is it less damaging to an individual than in a society where most people don't do it? Would it be more damaging for them not to do it?

This topic could easily expand to other areas of human activity, but I'd like to keep it more or less focused on sexuality, with some overlap into more general body issues, as well as such things as marriage and childbirth.

I wish us luck—we're going to need it!

Word of the day

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:46:45 GMT

(Definitions provided by Dictionary.com)

sardonic, adj.

American Heritage Dictionary:
Scornfully or cynically mocking. See synonyms at sarcastic.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Forced; unnatural; insincere; hence, derisive, mocking, malignant, or bitterly sarcastic -- applied only to a laugh, smile, or some facial semblance of gayety.
   Where strained, sardonic smiles are glozing still, And grief is forced to laugh against her will —Sir H. Wotton
   The scornful, ferocious, sardonic grin of a bloody ruffian —Burke
WordNet 1.6, Princeton University:
disdainfully or ironically humorous; scornful and mocking (sny: wry)
   His rebellion is the bitter, sardonic laughter of all great satirists —Frank Schoenberner

Thanks to mandrigora for inspiring my learning. *grin*

I love Ed Babinski

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:55:14 GMT

Well, not personally, since I've never met the guy, but he's just cool and smart and makes me laugh.

He's written a ton of stuff and has a ton of web pages. Maybe I'll be like him some day. Probably not as funny. He's got a page on Homosexuals, Sex and Religion. It's got some funny stuff. This is a hoot and a half:

The Religious Right dislikes both abortions and homosexuality.
But who has fewer abortions than gays?
—George Carlin (comedian)

Or get this:

If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in queer to work.
"Hello, can't work today. Still queer."
—Robin Tyler

Concerning the Pope's claim that homosexuality is "unnatural". Perhaps the Pope is suggesting that it lies beyond the scope of "normal" human behavior. If so, this has uncomfortable implications for an association of old men who wear dresses, hear voices and practice ritual cannibalism. Self-enforced celibacy is all but unknown among other animal species. If any sexual behavior is out of tune with the natural world, it is surely that of the priesthood.
—George Monbiot, The Guardian, July 13, 2000

And it just goes on and on! You've gotta read this whole page—ROTFDyingHysterically!

Please oh please oh PLEASE keep the government out of my bedroom!!

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:09:15 GMT

Unwed teenage mothers... (or, It's not a toy; it's a child!)

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:52:35 GMT

To return to the anti-adoption issue for a moment, here is a statistic from an article from Carol's own website:
"Children growing up in a single-parent home face a double-negative effect in their lives: living both in poverty and with only one parent. Poor children are more likely to be too short and too thin for their age. Also, they develop academic skills more slowly than nonpoor children and are at greater risk of being educationally disadvantaged."
Now, since it's my guess that it's not the older, educated, employed, intentional single mothers who we're talking about here, it's probably the young uneducated ones who find themselves pregnant and (foolishly IMO) decide to keep their babies, who are then raising them in poverty. Someone tell me how this is possibly in the best interest of the children?! Bullshit! I think it's nothing but selfish pettiness that would cause a woman in such circumstances to keep her baby... Not when there are thousands of terrific, prepared, ethusiastic would-be parents and families out there who would give it a great childhood—while the mother gets herself and her life together!

Myself, I'm no longer very young (30 is feeling dangerously close!!), and I am educated, but not only would I do everything possible (condoms, emergency contraception, abortion) to not end up with a full-term pregnancy in the first place, but I wouldn't hesitate a moment to give a baby up for adoption. Now, I'd damn well find the absolute best family I could, probably some nice lesbians or gay men (can be damn sure no fundies would get my baby!), but there's no way in hell I could parent a child at this time in my life, and I know it perfectly well. It's only common sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist...

Raising a child is by far the most important endeavor upon which one can ever embark. A child should always be planned, meticulously planned, impeccably well thought-through. Prospective parents should have to write a 100-page essay on every aspect of parenthood and why they want to be a parent and what they think about this and what they will do in case of that—it's not to say that they wouldn't change their minds or go with something different in the future, but by gods people should think about things before doing them, and there's nothing more important than caring for and nurturing a little human being! That's why I think adoptive parents are often the best kind, because they're so deliberate about what they're doing: they very consciously and deliberately want to raise a child. So whatever else they may have going on or not, they've got the most important fundamental covered. Any idiots can do a little horizontal mumbo and shit!, the woman ends up pregnant, and there you have it, instant parents, ready or not. Sometimes they rise to the challenge and everything works out great, but often it's not the case. Sure there are plenty of other factors, but I just think that if every child were a planned child and every parent an intentional one, it would constitute a significant improvement in our society.

Anti-Adoption??

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:38:01 GMT

I discovered something I'd never heard of or imagined: the anti-adoption movement. It seems to be disgruntled birth parents and adoptees, who, while they have some good points about various things that are problematic with adoption and the foster care system, seem to be advocating to the total end of adoption under any and all circumstances, which as far as I am concerned makes no sense at all! So I wrote an e-mail to the woman, Carol, who runs this site: Abolish Adoption Canada:

Dear Carol,

This is the first time I've heard of this anti-adoption movement, and I've read several sites including yours and can't find any answers to simple questions of what is supposed to happen to babies and children with no parents...

I agree with not taking children away from parents without very good cause and without looking into ways to help the parents improve so they can keep their children. Of course kidnapping and baby-selling are wrong. I agree with having open records. I think having more parents and more family is almost always better than less, as long as it's loving and supportive. I think creative solutions are always better than either/or solutions. I'm all for reforms of problematic systems. But you seem to be saying more than any of that... You seems to be saying that there are no circumstances where adoption is necessary or good, and that simply doesn't make any sense, and I see no where that you've even attempted to make a detailed argument for that case...

There are plenty of reasons why children may be without parents, and I don't understand what is supposed to happen to them... Some people are not fit or available parents. They may be abusive, incompetent, physically or mentally ill, incarcerated, just plain unwilling....not to mention dead. Don't their children deserve good, loving homes??? Sometimes parents die and there is no blood relative willing or able to take the children. You don't think they should be adopted by a loving family? I'm sorry, but I think your blanket anti-adoption stance is wrong...

While it may sometimes be possible for a very young parent to be a very good parent, I do not think, as a general rule, that a 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 year old girl is a preferable parent over a mature, stable, employed, secure person or persons who is/are making a conscious choice to have a family (and I think this can be any kind of person or combination of persons of any gender(s)). And I don't see how you could possibly think she could be. She is a child herself! A baby deserves better than to be raised by a child-mother!

Furthermore, I don't think it's good for *her* any more than for the baby. She deserves and *needs* to finish her childhood and to have the chance to experience what teen and young adult years are supposed to be about: freedom, exploration, experimentation, self-indulgence, change, growth, movement, self-discovery... I guess have a pretty extreme personal position on age and marriage/parenthood: basically I think getting married or having children before, bare minimum, 25, is a bad idea. With the world as complicated as it is, people need all the time to grow up they can possibly get. And with people living into their 80s, 90s, and 100s, there are plenty of years for marriage and parenthood: people need to experience youth and individual freedom...

I have two nephews who are adopted, both born to young mothers who were smart enough to realize that they were in no position to raise a child. They live in a safe, stable, warm, loving home, with two devoted parents and plenty of toys, education, experiences, opportunities, attention, space, supervision, stimulation, nutritious food... It's not just a matter of money, by any means, but it is a factor... Children are very much aware of being in fiancially unstable circumstances, and it is disturbing to their psychological security. Money buys many things in life, including education, recreation, safety, medical care... Of course in a "right" world, all people would have these things in abundant quantities, but in the meantime why should children be made to suffer?

I think you put far too much emphasis on blood relations. I believe that love makes a family. Some biological parents are terrible parents. Some biological relatives are totally incompatible with one another. Some children are very much like their biological parents, but others are very much different from them. Some biological siblings are very much alike, and some are totally different--in looks, interests, abilities, tendencies... Genetics is a crap shoot. You can be genetically closer to a totally unrelated person than to an immediate family member. And that's just at the DNA level. At the everyday-life level, blood relation is absolutely not a guarantee of compatibility!! I think the idea of a more "natural" bond with a blood/birth mother than with any other loving mother is in your head and not borne out by evidence.

Finally, the practice of adoption is as old as humanity, and was in fact much more common in previous historical times, if less systematized, simply because so many more people *died* before old age or even middle age. Many women died in childbirth (in some places they still do). Someone else stepped in and raised their child(ren). It's the perfectly natural, human thing to do. Plus in non-Western cultures, many people besides fathers and mothers participate actively in rearing children...

Anyway, those are some thoughts I have. I'm interested in your response. I'm also curious as to whether you can point me to a source of a good, detailed explanation of how a complete abolition of adoption would work (in other words, what would happen in a, b, c, d, e, etc. situations/cases instead of adoption).

Thank you,

Madeline Althoff

PS--There has never been any secrecy for my nephews. They've always been made aware of the fact that they're adopted. (They are currently ages 3 and 5.) I know that there are many good books for young children on the subject. It seems to me that being adopted is a sure sign that you are loved and wanted: your parents did not *have* to raise you--they actively sought you out because they wanted to be parents and to raise you!

P.P.S--I've had various people tell me this or that reason why they would not adopt, but I've always been a strong supporter of adoption, and while I hope to have one biological child of my own, I've always planned to adopt others, because so many children *need* adopting, and because I don't want to have more than one of my own, because I believe overpopulation is an extremely serious planetary problem.

Massachusetts court insists upon full equality

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:26:42 GMT

The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous. It is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists in not a reason to insist on less than the constitution requires.
—The Massachusetts Supreme Court

And so it seems that come May there are going to be a lot of weddings in Massachussetts! Hooray! Attention brides and grooms to be: you'd better get those hotel reservations now before the whole state's booked up for 6 months straight (no pun intended)! ;) More on the Massachussets court's ruling...

But of course it won't be for too long or spread too much farther without the right-wing putting up a noisy fight—and attempting to amend state and federal constititutions to enshrine anti-gay discrimination...

Of course Shit-for-Brains had to have his say. He's condemned the Massachusetts ruling and seems set to endorse efforts to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. For more on that: For progressives: Don'tAmend.com. For conservatives: Leave Marriage to the States.

From: "Top Ten Reasons for Conservatives to Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment":

And lastly, whats the real danger here? I mean, if gay "marriages" are recognized, does that somehow diminish my own marriage...or yours? No. Does that mean heterosexuals will suddenly stop pining for the opposite sex and "turn gay"? No. Will gay marriage mean men and women will stop having children and doom mankind to eventual extinction? Come on.

So it's going to be interesting... But throughout it all I'll just keep reminding myself that no matter what happens, the children are our future. :)

How absurd: the US Dept of Education is making an ass of itself!

Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:19:45 GMT

So Bush can lie all he wants, take us into a perposterous war based on lies and falsified evidence, make all kinds of promises he fails to keep, but a FedEx courier makes a mistake, and 30 top students from Berkeley don't get to compete for Fullbright awards??! What a farce! Punishing the students for a mistake that is the fault of FedEx and/or Berkeley is totally unfair and wrong. Where is the sanity?! Fuck the Bush administration! Arrgh!

[The New York Times]
Missed Pickup Means 30 College Students Lose Chance at Fellowship
February 5, 2004
By Dean E. Murphy

A missed courier pickup, an honest clerk and an unyielding federal bureaucracy have conspired to deny 30 college students here the chance to compete for a prestigious Fulbright research grant.

"It seems surreal to me," said Mary Ann Mason, dean of the graduate division at the University of California, Berkeley. "It is an unnecessary, foolish, tragic incident."

The students, all enrolled in doctoral studies, got the news on Tuesday night from the university's chancellor, Robert M. Berdahl, that their applications were disqualified because they were late. Dr. Berdahl had earlier flown to Washington in a failed bid to persuade education officials in the Bush administration to change their minds. ...