anythings.org

Not shockingly, each of the presidential candidates issued a statement yesterday about the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the gay marriage ban. Even less shocking: all 3 candidates oppose gay marriage. Which, to be honest, is a position I understand for Obama and Clinton because the percentage of people in America who support gay marriage fluctuates to be a little more or a little less than 50%. But nevertheless, here are their statements in the court’s decision.

Sen. Obama:

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Sen. Clinton:

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

The only thing positive I found in Clinton’s quote was the bit where she claims that she will work for access to rights on the federal level for gay couples who can’t marry because their states are too conservative. Clinton and Obama’s statements are the reason I can’t consider them “liberal” candidates in this election. I’m disappointed in them both, but I had to get behind the lesser of two evils.

And, the most painful, Sen. McCain:

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

My favorite part is the bit where McCain says he doesn’t believe that judges should be making these decisions. But you know, something tells me that if this decision upheld the gay marriage ban, he wouldn’t have made that statement. If the California Supreme Court had ruled that abortion could not be performed in California (which would never happen), he would have issued a statement thanking the judges for making the “right” decision. I’m sorry, but, how is someone running for president when they don’t understand the function of the judicial branch of the government?

Check out the LA Times article here.

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices rule that state marriage laws are unconstitutional.

SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

Finally, some decisive action on this!

Here’s a quote from our shitty, shitty Governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger, that makes me feel a little more secure in today’s ruling:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

I am a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. Ask my boyfriend and my roommates: I watch it constantly, and I listen to the musical all the time. If Buffy could be a religion, I would be a devout follower.

Since Buffy is no longer on television, I’ve been going through a bit of a Buffy drought. Once the comics appeared on the scene, I began reading them sporadically, waiting for the paperback volumes to be released to purchase them. I caught an article on the New York Times about Issue #12 and Buffy’s lesbian “experimentation”. This isn’t the first time Joss Whedon has included lesbianism in his series.

For those not familiar with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series, Willow - a witch and Buffy’s best friend - develops a lesbian relationship with a fellow witch, Tara, during college. After Tara’s death, Willow begins dating a potential slayer.

Joss Whedon has often said that making Willow a lesbian wasn’t so much about her being a lesbian, it was about her finding in love in someplace unexpected, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman. As a character, Willow’s most obvious trait was her ability to love anyone wholeheartedly, and Whedon played on that trait in her relationship with, and grieving of the loss of, her girlfriend. While BtVS wasn’t the biggest pop culture hit during its seven year run, it was a show that used science fiction and fantasy story lines to highlight true life experiences and the struggles teens and young adults face growing up.

Besides, there’s nothing more fabulous than a show that takes the “high school is hell” metaphor and turns it into the basis for an entire seven season show.

From the NYT:

In a new issue of the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” comic book series, being released Wednesday, Buffy sleeps with a fellow slayer. And, oh yeah, she’s a woman.

It’s an unusual development for a lead character of a series, whether on television or in comic books.

The story line “evolved naturally,” said Joss Whedon, who created Buffy for the 1992 film and the 1997 television show, which ran for seven seasons. Mr. Whedon is also executive producer of the comic book, published by Dark Horse Comics and promoted as “Season Eight.”

He has written several stories for it, including an opening arc that introduces Satsu (pronounced SOUGHT-sue), one of nearly 2,000 slayers activated in the television show’s finale. One of Buffy’s prized disciples, she ends up sharing her bed.

Mr. Whedon has developed their liaison over several issues. In No. 3 Buffy is overcome by a “Sleeping Beauty” spell undone only by a kiss from someone who loves her. In No. 4 Buffy realizes that Satsu saved her. Last month the pair discussed Satsu’s feelings. Buffy, although flattered by Satsu’s attentions, said the risks of involvement were too great.

“People who love me tend to … oh, die,” she said. Or, she added, they leave, because “sooner or later everybody realizes there’s something wrong … something wrong with me, or around me.”

My favorite part, however, comes from none other than Mr. Whedon himself:

But before fans start blogging frantically, they should know that Mr. Whedon is clear where this is headed. “We’re not going to make her gay, nor are we going to take the next 50 issues explaining that she’s not. She’s young and experimenting, and did I mention open-minded?”

I can’t wait to read this issue! Nerd alert…

[Image from Dark Horse Comics, NYT]

The Kentucky Senate has passed a bill that, if passed in the House, will ban universities and state agencies from offering benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.

Even worse than the actual decision is the way the Courier Journal describes those who voted against it. One was labeled a “homosexual” after his only quote in the article. The entire article is riddled with quotes about why people felt this ban should be passed. Of course, the big shocker, religious values played a huge part. Vernie McGaha, R-Russell Springs, the bill’s sponsor, said:

“I do not recognize domestic partnerships as being a correct thing. My Bible teaches against it.”

Of course, the ridiculous thing behind it all, is that it hurts the Universities in the area. It also hurts the students, who may not get a top quality education in Kentucky because the University couldn’t recruit one expert due to their sexuality and lack of available partner benefits.

University presidents have opposed the bill, saying it hurts their ability to recruit researchers and professors.

University of Louisville trustees voted in 2006 to become the state’s first public university to extend health-insurance benefits to unmarried domestic partners, including homosexuals. the University of Kentucky followed suit, and Eastern Kentucky University is looking at the issue.

Nearly 300 universities and colleges across the country, and more than half of the Fortune 500 companies, provide such benefits, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group based in Washington.

“Our position is and remains that we are hopeful the legislature will allow the universities to have the flexibility to make health-care decisions for their employees and their families,” UK spokesman Jay Blanton said.

U of L spokesman John Drees said the bill would make it difficult to work toward its goal of becoming a top metropolitan research university — a goal the General Assembly set in 1997.

“If you want to compete with the best universities and the best corporations, you need to be able to offer the same types of benefits they offer,” he said.

This just SCREAMS DISCRIMINATION! I never understood why sexuality was such a difficult thing for people to comprehend discrimination of. Religions are constantly fighting for their right not to be discriminated against, and yet, that is a chosen identity. Identities that you are born with, such as gender (unless you change it), race, etc have been protected from discrimination for quite awhile… but sexuality has not. And that’s because the church has people believing that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore a sin:

They also see a homosexual orientation as being a choice. Because they see this “behavior” as wrong (at one point, it was criminal) and preventable, they view the LGBT community as asking for special rights that allow them access to the insitutions that privilege heterosexuals. The process goes something like this: if sin as a choice, and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality must be a chosen path. This argument is, essentially, flawed because it is based on the idea that being LGBT is a choice. (For the sake of time and length, I am not going to go into LGBT as being inborn v. chosen v. environmental debate. My reasons for this are because the Christian Right does not, so I do not need to do so to deconstruct their argument.)

Religious identity is a choice. And according to the Christian Right, being “a homosexual” is also a choice. If religious identity wasn’t a choice, it would be assigned in the ways that gender and race are. Religion is, however, a chosen identity.

Religion is, also, protected by the Consitution. Sexuality is not. This is special rights. The Christian Right’s response to this accusation is that they are not special rights because the designers of the Consitution put them in there, so they shouldn’t be removed. While it is true that religion was added into the Consitution and is protected by law, this response to the argument that religious identity does not dodge the issue of special rights. This still doesn’t answer the question of why religion gets protection but sexuality does not.

Chosen identity or not, there is simply not reason whatsoever that a person’s “choice” to be gay (or straight!) should lead to discrimination in every aspect of their life. The right to marry, secure health care from a partner, safe work environments and protection from employment discrimination, adoption, child custody, and more, are all rights that are not granted to LGBT individuals at the federal level. Instead, they are granted on a case-by-case basis.

My advice? Move to California. It’s nice.

Equality is an abstract concept. I don’t believe that it is something that can easily be defined. But apparently, every year, the World Economic Forum thinks it can easily define gender equality. This year, the evaluated 128 countries. The WEF just released the Global Gender Gap Report for 2007. According to their website, it measures gender equality across the following four areas:

1. Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment
2. Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education
3. Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures
4. Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio

I sat and stared at these categories for awhile and tried to figure out what about them it was that bothered me. It took me some time and a lot of thinking, but then I realized it. And it was so obvious. They didn’t even consider choice. And I’m not talking about pro-choice or anti-choice, I’m talking about the choice to excel economically or to be a stay at home father.

You can’t measure choice. And if you can’t measure choice, how can you measure equality?

A huge part of equality is the fact that you get to choose what you do with your equality. Yes, there is 20% female labor force participation in Saudi Arabia… but is it because they want to be in the work force, or is it because they have to? In the 7 countries I looked at closely (Sweden #1, Ireland #9, United Kingdom #11, Canada #18, United States #31, Saudi Arabia #124, Yemen #128) the workforce participation of men always exceeded that of women. Mozambique, which was rated #1 in Economic Participation and Opportunity (#43 overall, #120 in educational attainment), in contrast, has 85% of women but only 35% of men in the labor force population. This is also the same country that received the worst score possible on polygamy, an extremely poor score on legislation preventing violence against women, and a mid-range score on genital cutting (the report says “female genital mutilation”). How much do you think choice has to do with women being members of the labor population?

Studies such as these rely heavily on statistics and the use of surveys, which, to a point, delivers the facts. But the statistics deliver facts in a very scientific way. This study doesn’t taken into account the satisfaction people feel towards their gender equality - or lack thereof. While it is a huge step that studies like this are being done, they have yet to catch up with the things that are most important when it comes to equality. The study does make for a very interesting read, and I do encourage you to read it… but do so with a grain of salt. Statistics only give you the numbers, they don’t give you the satisfaction people feel in regards to their home, finances, government, or overall quality of life.

I feel that I should also mention the statistical profiles on each individual country mention nothing about gay marriage.

For those interested in the study, other information provided in individual country reports are:

• Mean age of marriage for women
• Fertility rate in births per woman
• Year women received the right to vote (which they list as 1965 in the United States…)
• Overall population sex ratio
• Maternity and Childbearing: births attended to by skilled health staff, contraceptive practices among married women, maternal and infant mortality rate, length of paid maternity leave, maternity leave benefits, provider of maternity coverage, adolescent fertility rate.
• Education and Training: percentage of female primary, secondary, and tertiary teachers
• Employment and Earnings: female and male adult unemployment rates, women in non-agricultural paid labor, ability of women to rise to position of enterprise leadership
• Basic Rights and Social Institutions: paternal versus maternal authority, “female genital mutilation”, polygamy, existence of legislation punishing acts of violence against women

Sweden (0.815*), the #1 ranked country on overall gender quality, also received the best score possible in all the Basic Rights and Social Institutions categories and the statistical equivalent of gender equality in terms of Educational Attainment (but they did not rank #1 for this).
* 0.00 = inequality, 1.00 = equality

If there’s one thing in the United States you can say to a room with pretty much any demographic and get an extremely negative response from a large amount of people, it’s “tell me how you feel about special rights”. We have this obsession with denying people “special” rights, which kind of goes against American individualism, but that’s an entirely different topic.

I never really could put my finger on what it was that bothered me about the Christian Right being so against LGBTQI rights. Other than the fact that they’re being complete bigots with no respect for human variance, I couldn’t really figure out what about their arguments bothered me so much.

And then I read this book*, and it all made sense.

The Christian Right argues that LGBTQI individuals should not be allowed access to marriage, adoption processes, and other civil rights due to their sexuality**, which they see as a sin. They also see a homosexual orientation as being a choice. Because they see this “behavior” as wrong (at one point, it was criminal) and preventable, they view the LGBTQI community as asking for special rights that allow them access to the insitutions that privilege heterosexuals. The process goes something like this: if sin as a choice, and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality must be a chosen path. This argument is, essentially, flawed because it is based on the idea that being LGBT(QI) is a choice. (For the sake of time and length, I am not going to go into LGBTQI as being inborn v. chosen v. environmental debate. My reasons for this are because the Christian Right does not, so I do not need to do so to deconstruct their argument.)

The flaw was not obvious to me at first. And then I saw it.

Religious identity is a choice. And according to the Christian Right, being LGBT(QI) is also a choice. If religious identity wasn’t a choice, it would be assigned in the ways that gender and race are. Religion is, however, a chosen identity.

Religion is, also, protected by the Consitution. Sexuality is not. This is special rights. The Christian Right’s response to this accusation is that they are not special rights because the designers of the Consitution put them in there, so they shouldn’t be removed. While it is true that religion was added into the Consitution and is protected by law, this response to the argument that religious identity does not dodge the issue of special rights. This still doesn’t answer the question of why religion gets protection but sexuality does not.

Now, this contradiction could be avoided entirely if the Christian Right changed their position on the origin(s) of homosexuality. However, if the Christian Right changes their position on homosexuality from that of choice to something else (either inborn, environmental, or a myriad of other factors that are still under debate), they can no longer blame the homosexual individuals for their “sins”. If homosexuality is no longer a choice, then same-sex sexual acts are no longer a sin. If homosexuality is no longer a choice, then it should be just as protected as other identities, including race, sex, gender, ethnicity, class, education level, religion, etc.

There are no federal laws preventing job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

There are no federal laws to protect hate crimes against LGBTQI individuals (there are, but they are very limited and only apply if the crime is committed during/after a federally protected act or on federal property). Hate crimes are not thought crimes. Hate speech? Well that’s a fine line I’m not prepared to walk (again, time and length), but not everything you say is protected by “freedom of speech” and there’s nothing wrong with that.

As of 2004, there are 1,138 federal benefits of marriage that are denied to same-sex couples as civil unions or domestic partners.

These aren’t special rights, they’re equal rights. I don’t understand the hatred.

* Please take note that this book was written published in 1999, so it doesn’t have information on Lawrence v. Texas or the goings on in Massachusetts.

** I use the acronym LGBQTI to encompass the entire community, which the Christian Right as rallies against as a whole. While the propoganda on “sexuality” targets LGBTQ individuals, it does not talk about intersexed people. Intersexuality is not a sexuality, it is merely a biological welding of the male and female genders together in some way. Even though the Christian Right does not explicitly mention anything against intersex individuals in their anti-gay rhetoric, I’ve included it in the acronym because they church targets the entire community with their tactics.