Power of the People!

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:

Colin Powell got something right anyway

Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:13:56 GMT

It sucks that such a great man in so many ways has chosen to be a sucky, murderous, pro-war, lying Republican. I hope he repents of his evil ways some day. But he said a very cool thing about Affirmative Action. At least he's not Ward Connerly, but then maybe he's done equally as much bad for the world in his work for the Bush Administration, I don't know... Anyway, here's the cool thing he said:

"There are those who say we can stop now, America is a color-blind society. But it isn't there yet. There are those who say we have a level playing field, but we don't yet. There are those who say that all you need is to climb up on your bootstraps, but there are too many Americans who don't have boots, much less bootstraps."

New California UU Legislative Ministry

Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:51:39 GMT

UULM Office Opens
January 16th 2004
926 J Street, Suite 417
Sacramento, CA 95818

The UULM office in Sacramento officially opened for business, thanks, in large part, to a gracious invitation from Jericho for Justice to share their office space at a low cost. Jericho for Justice is an interfaith ministry focusing on public polices affecting low-income children and families.

The other neighbors in the building include organizations familiar to many UULM supporters:

Friends Committee on Legislation
MALDEF (Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund)
League of Women Voters
Planning and Conservation League

...and many more.

UULM 2004 Legislative Priorities

The UU Legislative Ministry Board of Directors, at its meeting on February 9 and 10, determined three short-term issue priorities between now and November 2004.

As we have covenanted to affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person We will advocate for equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, couples, and families, including civil rights for gay marriages.
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations We will advocate for a California budget that includes responsible revenue streams and cares for poor and vulnerable people in our communities.
The use of the democratic process in society at large We endorse Proposition 56 on the March 2 ballot. We join a growing coalition of community, educational, religious, and good governance groups throughout the state. The proposition would reduce the number of legislators needed to pass the state budget from two thirds to 55%, thereby correcting a flaw in the budget process that now prevents a democratic majority from passing the budget.

In making these selections, the Board considered preliminary input received from issue ballots, visits to congregations, last year's District Assemblies, this year's ministers' retreats, and input from the California Interfaith Council that highlighted immediate opportunities for interfaith collaboration.

Many other issues also received strong support. We will address those as opportunities arise and resources permit. For example: At both Pacific Central and Pacific Southwest District Assemblies, we will be hosting educational workshops on "The Health Care Crisis: How Do We Respond as Faith Communities?"

UULM is committed to making social justice more worshipful, joyful, creative and fun, as part of our overall UU religious practice. We would love to be invited to lead a worship service or workshop at your congregation, and to engage you in this fall's "Listening Campaign."

Amish in the City? (or Reality TV is Truly Terrible Trash Television!)

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:02:11 GMT

Hollywood Amish

As spiritual cousins to the Amish, Mennonites feel a particular distaste at the prospect of an Amish-based "reality" TV show proposed to air this summer on UPN.

After plans for Amish in the City emerged in late January, we thought such a preposterous concept would soon vanish on the shifting tides of taste. Unfortunately, we misjudged the network's determination to make Amish in the City its latest prism of comedic distortion, this one directed at an already misunderstood, and often exploited, faith group.

The premise of the show calls for a group of Amish young people to move in with city-dwelling Gen Y'ers, with the resulting disjunction generating millions of dollars in laughs for UPN. The expectation, apparently, is that the Amish youths will "freak out," as network honcho Les Moonves said, when they see the debauchery available in the combustion-driven world.

Whether this will make "interesting television," as Moonves also asserted, we leave to the masses already gorged on The Osbournes and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance.

But that such a show is an insult to the Amish, or even to Christians in general, stands without a doubt. [I'm not sure how such a show would be an insult to garden-variety Christians more so than to anyone else, but OK...] In fact, a lot of "reality" TV is insulting - to the people involved and even to the viewers who bask like radishes in its headache-inducing glow. It is also an insult to those whose insurrection scuttled CBS's proposed New Beverly Hillbillies series, which was just Amish in the City with a cee-ment pond.

[As someone who pays very little attention to 99% of anything having to do with TV, I hadn't heard about the protest that arose from this proposed show, but the group that ran a newspaper ad against it made some excellent points. A lot of things confuse me in life, but there's one thing I'm pretty sure about: we don't have much chance of evolving beyond our current human condition if our most popular forms of humor stay confinded to those that ridicule and degrade the different and the disempowered. I'm a big fan of political/social satire that highlights foolishness and faulty thinking on the part of the famous and powerful, but capitalizing on ignorance and prejudice to make fun of people like the Amish and the rural poor is a very different thing—and a very tasteless, unenlightened one a that!]

We encourage anyone who opposes such programming to complain not only to UPN, but to its sponsors. If UPN can't see the emptiness of such a show, perhaps a threat to their advertising coffers will prove more enlightening. And if this fails, just boycott the show, or take a lesson from the Amish themselves and throw your TV on the brush pile behind the barn.

After all, an unwatched show is almost like no show at all.

I did not know until I was educated by a Judging Amy episode (besides Gilmore Girls, my favorite currently-airing shows are CBS dramas, although I don't get to see them that often) about the fact that Amish young people who are coming of age are encouraged to spend a year in the "real world" before deciding of their own free will whether or not to join the church themselves and live out their lives in the Amish way. That in and of itself is pretty darn enlightened and speaks profoundly to the wisdom of the Amish culture.

Even an editorial on the CBS website speaks out against the UPN show idea! (Not that CBS itself would have any right to decry stupid reality shows, but I guess this guy is allowed to have his own opinion, which is reassuring!)

This guy, who does have a name, which is Lloyd Garver, has another great opinion piece on the political distraction value of the anti-same-sex-marriage hysteria of Bush and his right-wing friends. He starts out on a comic note: "When I first heard the term 'same-sex marriages,' I was against them. I figured just because a couple is married, why should sex always have to be the same? All right, I didn't really think that about same-sex marriages, but I also didn't think they would become such a big deal. I guess my fingers slipped when I was taking the pulse of America, because boy, was I wrong."

He goes on to ask some of the questions I myself have asked: "In the past two weeks, thousands of gay couples were married in San Francisco. Is your respect for marriage smaller than it was two weeks ago? Is your marriage less important to you now? Do you love your spouse any less than you did before the 'Valentine's Day weddings?' If your marriage is affected by the marriages of some strangers, don't blame the bride and groom. Blame your marriage." Indeed. "What about all those celebrity weddings — like Britney Spears' — that seem to make a mockery of marriage? Should we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding flighty famous folks from tying the knot? What about that cousin of yours who married that guy that everybody knew would treat her horribly and eventually leave her? Should there be a constitutional amendment to prohibit that kind of unfortunate marriage?" How about a law requiring pre-marital counseling? Maybe even one requiring pre-divorce counseling! Sounds much more reasonable to me that a right-wing, anti-gay, anti-family, anti-marriage Constitutional amendment!

And here's the most important question: "If you're against gay marriages for legal, ethical, or emotional reasons, you're certainly entitled to these feelings. But do you believe it's such an important issue that things like national security, the economy, and foreign policy should be pushed aside so time and money can be spent on passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit them?"

Garver's article isn't just about SSM but more generally about the way hysteria over "threats to our nation" caused by "sexal immorality" serves to keep us from focusing on important issues. Another recent example is the whole Janet Jackson breast silliness. Garver writes: "Faster than you could say 'Lewinsky,' Congressional committees were formed to investigate 'Nipplegate' and other offensive fare being foisted on us by machines with an 'off' button. But how long did it take for a committee to be formed to investigate why we received such poor intelligence on Iraq before sending over American soldiers to risk their lives?" And perhaps more importantly: what real power does this commission have, and will we actually know the outcome of its investigation any time in the next decade? I keep asking: where's the moral outrage in this country over real threats and atrocities like the Dubya regime's new "pre-emptive" war policy and its incarceration of hundreds of people, including children, in an illegal prison in Cuba?! As George Carlin said, our priorities are seriously screwed up. Really, truly warped.

Computerized Voting

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:32:48 GMT

"The core of our American democracy, members, is the right to vote. And implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all that is being called into question [^] the privacy of the vote, the security of the vote, and the accuracy of the vote. It troubles me, and it should trouble you." —Kevin Shelley, CA Secretary of State, December 2003

Verified Voting Campaign
True Majority: The Computer Ate My Vote
The California Voter Foundation's Voting Technology Page

"Age is not a factor in determining detention"

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:33:31 GMT

How can age not be a factor??! We are violating international law! You can't hold a 12 or 13-year-old boy at a military prison facility—it's barbaric! It's mind-boggling! Thank the Goddess that we did not mistreat them (although apparently the one boy was abused at least early on in his ordeal), but that hardly makes it all OK! Is it not absusive to kidnap these children from their country, steal them away from their families and friends, and imprision them in a foreign country half way around the world?! Is that not a human rights violation? A war crime? I don't care if they had been made into fighters by the Taliban (which they all deny!)—would that have been their fault?! Most Americans don't think kids their age have the maturity to decide whether to have sex; we don't allow them to drink or vote (or drive, at least for the youngest one!); and yet somehow they're mature enough to be held as "enemy combatants" in a military prison?!!

It is no wonder they world despises us! We are delusional—at least our leaders are, along with those Americans who support their activities! Thankfully they were treated reasonably well and educated and allowed to play. I am so very grateful to the Universe for any amount of sanity on the part of our military and our leaders. But that doesn't make the absurd injustice of their kidnapping and year-long imprisonment in any way less appalling! And it's still going on: there are still juveniles imprisoned right now by our military. Where is the public outcry?! The public goes into immediate action when an American child Asadullah's age is kidnapped! Is an Afghan child not as valuable and precious as an American one?! Are we a nation of zombies made blind and braindead by the deceptive war propoganda of the current Administration?! What the hell is going on?!

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.

What's worse, screwing an intern or screwing the country?!

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:27:07 GMT

A letter to Salon.com in response to this article (to which I was alerted by True Majority):

What I want to know is when the Democrats are going to start taking some of this information seriously and going after Bush in a big way. Information comes to light every day about how Bush has lied, about sinister neo-con plans to build a military empire and squash all dissent, about the myriad ways in which in three short years the Bush administration has made us less secure, less free, less healthy, and less well-off, but the Dems just don't seem to take it to heart. There's far more serious a case for impeaching Bush than their ever was for impeaching Clinton, but the Democratic party seems unwilling to take any definitive action against Bush, despite many calls from the American populous, and many of us would sure like to know why!

The truth about 9-11?

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:16:24 GMT

I've seen some sites on the web that have presented some elaborate challenges to the official story of what happened on 9-11-2001. I don't know if I should take them seriously or not. But a group called the "Family Steering Committee" has put forth some tough questions for GW Bush, and this is a serious group, made of substantial, accomplished individuals who ought to be taken seriously. So I wrote e-mails to the government's 9-11 commission as well as to Bush and to my Senators and Congressional Rep.

To: info@9-11Commission.gov
From: Madeline Althoff
Subject: Make Bush Answer the Tough Questions!

Dear Committee,

You should extend your investigation, and specifically you should insist that President Bush answer the tough questions put forth by the Family Steering Committee (http://www.911independentcommission.org/). Many different people and groups have questions about how 9-11 could have happened and what exactly did happen, but this group in particular is made of extremely qualified, respected indidviduals who deserve to be taken very seriously. If this tragedy could have been prevented, no matter who is responsible, even if it is President Bush, the American public has the right to know. You are the only ones currently empowered to make sure the truth is known and steps are taken to ensure that this kind of national security failure never happens again. Please go above and beyond to make sure nothing has been overlooked and no one has been exempted from your fact-finding mission.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,
Madeline Althoff
*****************
San Jose, CA 95129

Cool Israelis: Rabbis for Human Rights

Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:33:24 GMT

Principles from Israel's Constitution:

"...to foster the development of the country for the benefit of all the inhabitants, based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: to ensure complete quality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, and sex: to guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; to guard the holy places of all religions: and to be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the UN."

Wow. Sure would be nice if Israel's government paid attention to Israel's founding document. (Of course the same is true for the government of Israel's chief ally.)

I found a neat Israeli organization, Rabbis for Human Rights. Here is an excerpt from their Principles of Faith, affirming the dignity of human life:

"...and with our concern for human dignity and the preservation of life, be they Jews or Arabs, we are deeply disturbed by and seek to remove excesses and abuses such as:

Expropriation of land.
Uprooting of trees.
Demolition of homes.
Torture through the use of "moderate physical or psychological pressure."
Coercion and torture to extract confession or to incriminate others.
Bullying and humiliating, which is demoralizing both to perpetrator and victim: and we wish to save our children from the temptation to these vices.
The exercise of double standards by, or the granting of relative immunity to those who wield political or military power and authority, in the pursuit of criminal proceedings in general, through delay, evasion, and protection.
Shooting to kill when life is not in immediate danger.
Collective punishment of "children for the sins of their parents" and "parents for the sins of their children."
Imprisonment without trial in administrative detention.
Removing the rights of residence through confiscation of identity cards.
Sale of weapons to aggressive regimes.
Undercover killings.

The organization has an affiliate in North America to which donations can be made.

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!)

Wedding Church And State (From TomPaine.com)

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 04:37:22 GMT

Susan Jacoby's forthcoming Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism will be published in April by Metropolitan Books. The author is also director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York.

In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus, the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

Today's Religious Right is completely out of touch with the thinking of our esteemed "Founding Fathers" and with the nature of our Constitution, which "was written and ratified by a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians equally fearful of entanglements between religion and government... the men of faith who helped frame the Constitution were confident enough of the strength of their religion that they did not feel obliged to enlist the aid of government to promote their personal beliefs." [Apparently today's evangelical Christians are less confident in the strength of their religion to hold its own without the benefit of unconstitutional government support!]

My comments: The RR always likes to believe that the Founding Fathers were a group of pious traditional Christians, which is so much bull-dookey: they included Deists, Unitarians, and other "unorthodox" types. Most importantly they were not interested in creating a theocracy: far from it! They were products of the Enlightenment, and they were champions of the separation of Church and State.

Bush is un-American! Patriot Act is un-American!

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 03:47:42 GMT

Mike Keefe, The Denver Post

"President Bush's endorsement of this mean-spirited amendment shows that he is neither compassionate nor concerned with the rights of all Americans," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Gays and lesbians are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. They serve as firefighters, police, doctors and professional athletes. They laugh at the same jokes and worry about car payments and credit card debt. Amending the constitution to deny them the same rights we all take for granted just isn't very American."

Learn More about the Proposed Amendment

Some good news from the ACLU: "In response to a public outcry, the Justice Department has decided to quash a series of grand jury subpoenas issued to anti-war protestors in Des Moines, Iowa. However, the ACLU still has serious concerns about why the subpoenas were issued in the first place and the broad scope of the Justice Department's inquiry."

A Conservative Christian case for defending same-sex marriage as a civil right

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:51:16 GMT

Or Wow! I found a calm, rational, pro-civil rights conservative Christian!

This person's basic argument is that if conservative Christians want civil rights protections to protect their rights to their beliefs and practices, then they must support civil rights for all, even those with whom they strongly disagree. I went to this person's main site, Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality, and the Bible, and found that it's a woman who has made it a personal mission to learn and think about homosexuality. She's married, a mother, and a "conservative Bible-believing Christian". While she does believe that "homosexual acts" are sinful, she does not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. She seems to be a kind, compassionate, intelligent, thoughful, genuine person. Wow, how refreshing. Following is a great excerpt from one of her other essays:

If I only had a dollar for every time I have felt embarrassed by other Christians, or at least by those who have tried to pass themselves off as such.

I remember one night watching the news coverage of the murder of Matthew Shepard. Matthew Shepard, I'm sure you recall, was the gay college student who was lured out of a campus bar by two other men pretending also to be gay, then was robbed, pistol-whipped and tied to a crude fence in the middle of a lonely field in Laramie, Wyoming. By the time he was found 18 hours later, bleeding and still tied to the fence, it was too late to save him. He died in a coma five days later.

The tragedy was immediately seized upon as an opportunity for people to vent their opinions about hate-crimes and homosexuality. And as I watched that night on television how the aftermath of Shepard's death was quickly degenerating into an ugly shouting match between "Christian fundamentalists" and "gay activists," the television news camera panned a frenzied crowd and focused on one man picketing with a sign: GOD HATES FAGS!

At that moment my husband turned to me and said, "Why do we have to call ourselves Christians? Isn't there some other label we can use, to distinguish ourselves from people like that?"

Now this wouldn't be surprising coming from a liberal Christian, but this is a conservative Christian! Her essays are well-written, thoughtful, and very human. The only "bad" thing about her site is that there isn't more on it! I guess she's gotten busy with other things, because she hasn't added to it since 2002. But what's there is quite valuable.

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!)]

Bishop Spong condemns Bush Administration for lies about Iraq war

Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:55:58 GMT

Jane from Adelaide, South Australia asks: "How did you feel when your daughter joined the Marines and was deployed to Iraq during the war, while you were so outspokenly opposed to that war?"

Dear Jane,

I respect each of our children and trust them to make the proper decisions for their lives. It would not occur to me to try to make my children abide by my convictions or attitudes, even if I could. So I trust them to live as they decide.

I opposed the war for lots of reasons that are now, even after the capture of Saddam, overwhelmingly being shown to be right.

The war hype was not related to reality. Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attack. Attacking Iraq was a policy decision made before the Bush Administration took power on January 20, 2001.

There were no weapons of mass destruction.
There was no atomic capability.
There was no germ warfare that could be made ready in 45 minutes.
The American case was so weak that major allies would not join the war effort.
The propaganda that called these troops "Coalition forces" was stretched beyond reasonableness. It was an Anglo-British [I think he meant Anglo-American] force with a sprinkling of others. [A tiny sprinkling at that!]
The cost of the war was grossly underestimated. The cost of reconstruction has only recently begun to be embraced.
The "pinpoint" new precision weapons that were supposed to minimize civilian casualties were a joke since we know that some 14,000 Iraqis died, about half of them innocent citizens.
There was no exit strategy.
Terrorism is not fought with bombs and missiles. Terrorism is fought by addressing the causes of despair and hopelessness that give rise to a willingness to die in order to inflict pain on those the terrorists hold responsible for your pain.
The truth about this military adventure was never told.
The benefits do not offset the loss of more than 500 American lives.
Unilateral military action breaks trust in the family of nations.

I think the war was fought for three unspoken reasons:

1. The first President George Bush had made a mess of the first Iraqi war. Not only did he not complete his mission but he encouraged dissident Iraqis with promises of help to rebel against what he thought was a crippled Saddam Hussein. They rebelled, received no help and were murdered by Saddam, while that first President Bush stood by meekly, hoping to ride his "victory" to a second term in the White House. He failed. His son, the second President Bush, wanted to clean up his father's mistakes.

2. Iraq had oil reserves, which American oil interests wanted. Neither North Korea nor Libya, both of which posed a greater threat than Iraq to their neighbors and to the world with their known arsenals of destructive weapons were invasion targets. In these places we sought a diplomatic or "negotiated settlement." The difference? Neither North Korea nor Libya has oil.

3. After 9/11, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told the Bush administration that they could not survive politically if American military personnel continued to operate from Saudi Arabia. The U.S. needed a Middle Eastern country to solidify its military presence in that region. Iraq was the choice. These facts mean to me that this present administration has not been honest with the American people. They, therefore, do not have my trust.

John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, for more than twenty years and is one of the leading spokespersons in the world for progressive Christianity. He is the author of 15 books including the bestselling Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Living in Sin, Liberating the Gospels, and Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

Note: I got text because it was posted to mailing list I'm on. It's from Spong's e-mail newsletter. In order to receive the newsletter, one must pay a fee at this site. I'm disturbed that he's selling his ideas for $35 $25 (apparently there's been a recent markdown!) a year... What kind of bizarre money-making scheme is that John?

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. ...

Intolerance and hatred in America...

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:54:18 GMT

People really disturb me sometimes. Truly. Something is terribly dreadfully wrong with our society...how can these people think and write like this?

Right-wing bigots hurl vicious insults at comedian Margaret Cho (who "dared" to criticize Republicans in comedy routine!)

I think that I should print this entire page and keep it handy for the next time anyone tries to tell me that intolerance and hatred based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. are not alive and well in this country.

Who are these people? How do they come to be so hateful and bigoted? It defies my comprehension...

Pages of comments on this issue by more right-wingers can be read on The Free Republic's site. I truly do not understand how all of these people can be so utterly lacking in any sort of critical thinking skills. They see absolutely no problem in reducing the situation to "Left Attacked Right, Right Attacked Left Back"...as though details were completely irrelavent.

The fact that "Left Attacked Right" consisted of a professional commedian using a comedy routine as a platform to make political commentary and criticize a political agenda, while "Right Attacked Left" consisted of hundreds of individuals sending horrifically racist, misogynous, cruel, bigoted e-mails personally attacking the comedian and her very right to exist and to live in her own country—this profound discrepancy apparently causes them no concern. It seems to be completely beyond them that these two attacks are not fundamentally equivalent. So essentially, if someone challenges Republican/Right politics or criticizes a Republican president, it is perfectly acceptable to respond by calling that person a "fat, ugly chink whore".

How does one even begin to communicate with such people? If it's not simply obvious, how could one possibly get them to see that attacking a president and his administration on matters of public policy, whether by serious discourse or even outrageous comedy, is a perfectly legitimate course of action in a democratic society, whereas attacking a person on the basis of her sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and/or physical features is inhumane, unproductive, and just plain wrong?

Fortunately Margaret Cho seems to be a very together person who is able to see through these vicious attacks and advocate for respect and equality for all people (even though she may kick the shit out of some of them rhetorically in her comedy routines!).

From an interview with Margaret on BuzzFlash:

Certain folks don't really see me as being an American, because of the "foreignness" that they project upon me. In their eyes, I'm an immigrant, when in reality, we are all immigrants — unless you are a Native American. There is no such thing as an American really — we're all truly immigrants.

I think when people try to dismiss you because of your sexuality or heritage or whatever it's just a reaction from a segment of the right wing. It's just the really, really stupid people who can't understand or get their mind around the fact that there are people of other races, other ethnic backgrounds, other gender identifications, other sexualities, other forms of living that's just unacceptable. In my worldview, and in my mind and in my work, I try to express that we are all Americans and that we can have completely different ideals and morals, but still co-exist peacefully as a country. But we have to allow brothers and sisters to do what they would want to do and don't try to control other people's lives. ...

I really don't have a choice about being political or outspoken. I have my own definition of community and it means that people should talk about issues that are meaningful and incendiary, which I specialize in. If it wasn't irreverent, I would be betraying my own personality. My race gives me away every time. I have to speak about race. If I don't, it's weird. I have to talk about my own experience in this country being a minority, because if I don't, then what would I talk about? I don't look at it as being any particular responsibility or burden, but it's kind of funny to talk about. I just enjoy working. I enjoy writing. I enjoy being political because it is hopefully opening people's minds to alternative views of how we can live in the world.

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!

The 40-day prisoner

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:48:31 GMT

(from Occupation Watch)

[Al-Ahram Weekly]
The 40-day prisoner
8 January 2004
By Karim Gawhary

Mohamed spent 40 days in an American prison in Iraq after being arrested in August while driving through the streets of Baghdad. The 44-year-old owner of a small take-away food stall was never a major criminal figure; none would expect his arrest to be announced at a press conference with the words, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him". But Mohamed's story is a prime example of what prisoners less prominent than Saddam Hussein are subjected to at the hands of the occupiers. ...

Mohamed, the only prisoner who spoke some English, soon became the official camp translator, and he also became friendly with some of the soldiers. "A lot of them were homesick," was how he described their state of mind. One of the soldiers had just lost his father, and the wife of another had given birth; and none of them had the chance to go home. "When I get home," a sergeant told Mohamed, "I will never again vote for George Bush." The same sergeant, by now on friendly terms with Mohamed, checked the computer regularly for any details about his release. And finally the news arrived. "Tomorrow you're to be released, and you'll be freer than any US soldier here."

"All the best, and sorry for the unpleasant situation," said an officer to Mohamed as he was leaving the prison, adding that, "there was actually no reason for you spending the last month here."

Mohamed was a changed man when he returned home, a fact confirmed by his wife. Now he is afraid to drive and spends most of his time at home with his family. "The only way of guaranteeing that nothing like this will ever happen to me again is to emigrate," he says. He is thinking of moving with his family to one of the Gulf states, but is somewhat reluctant since he does not want to have "to start again from scratch". ...

My comments: Too many casualities, too many prisoners in Bush's foolish war...