This Has To Be A Joke

A really, really, really bad joke:

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License

Right?

The best part of the episode has got to be this:

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

I like how he thinks having black friends exonerates him from expressing a really, really racist sentiment.

In other news, I may have to bend my "one charity gets money per month" thing and donate to the ACLU this month even though they're my June charity.

Women, Rip Van Winkle, & Domestic Violence

A good friend of mine had up a link on his Facebook feed, advising people to read the fourth panel:Which reads: "Well, I wrote a little song about women, called 'Women are Special (They will not stop until we are dead". I had a problem with it at this point, and in the course of calling him for other reasons, pretty much expressed my distaste with the sentiment expressed in that one box. Because, hey, women are half of the population and if you seriously think maligning 50% of the population is a good idea, then there's a bit of an issue. He responded that most of the women in his life had wronged him at some point in some way, and I told him that most of the people in his life had wronged him at some point in some way - that's what happens when you have an insane amount of friends; some of them are going to not be so great, and sometimes even the great people screw up. He also mentioned the "Boys Are Stupid" Flair permeating Facebook as a reason why his link wasn't so bad. And here's where the "equal opportunity" insult falls flat on its face. Because the "Boys Are Stupid" flair is bad:

But it doesn't take into account certain inequities in life. There is a Gavin de Becker quote that says, "At core, men are afraid women will laugh at them, while at core, women are afraid men will kill them". Now, I'm not saying every woman is afraid of men, or that every man is afraid of being laughed at by women, or that some women aren't afraid of looking foolish in front of men or that some men will not experience the very real fear that a woman in their life is not only capable of killing or abusing them, but that it is also a probable outcome of their situation. What de Becker's quote does highlight, though, is the patently ridiculous and hurtful sentiment expressed in the above comic strip. Because domestic abuse is a very real, very large issue. Because:

Battering on women is the most under reported crime in America.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States; more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. "Violence Against Women, A Majority Staff Report," Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 102nd Congress, October 1992, p.3.

Three to four million women in the United States are beaten in their homes each year by their husbands, ex-husbands, or male lovers. "Women and Violence," Hearings before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, August 29 and December 11, 1990, Senate Hearing 101-939, pt. 1, p. 12.

One woman is beaten by her husband or partner every 15 seconds in the United States. Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1991.

About 1 out of 4 women are likely to be abused by a partner in her lifetime. Sara Glazer, "Violence, Against Women" CO Researcher, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Volume 3, Number 8, February, 1993, p. 171.

Approximately 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women. Statistics, National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, Ruth Peachey, M.D. 1988.
...
Domestic violence is not only physical and sexual violence but also psychological. Psychological violence means intense and repetitive degradation, creating isolation, and controlling the actions or behaviors of the spouse through intimidation or manipulation to the detriment of the individual. "Five Year State Master Plan for the Prevention of and Service for Domestic Violence." Utah State Department of Human Services, January 1994.

Those statistics and figures make the assertion that it is women who will not stop until the men are dead laughable. And yet, the image of women sucking out the souls of men, as the comic continues on:

is a cultural staple. The shrewish woman is a staple on sit-coms, and in movies and in how we frame relationships. And it has been, for years and years, and centuries upon centuries. In stories like Rip Van Winkle, our sympathies are directed toward Rip:

I have observed that he was a simple, good-natured man; he was, moreover, a kind neighbor and an obedient henpecked husband. Indeed, to the latter circumstances might be owing that meekness of spirit which gained him such universal popularity; for those men are apt to be obsequious and conciliating abroad are under the discipline of shrews at home. Their tempers, doubtless, are rendered pliant and malleable in the fiery furnace of domestic tribulation, and a curtain lecture is worth all the sermons in the world for teaching the virtues of patience and long-suffering. A termagant wife may, therefore, in some respects, be considered a tolerable blessing; and if so, Rip Van Winkle was thrice blessed.

Certain it is that he was a great favorite among all the good wives of the village, who, as usual with the amiable sex, took his part in all family squabbles and never failed, whenever they talked those matters over in their evening gossipings, to lay all the blame on Dame Van Winkle."

It isn't until we have been assured of the Dame's shrewish ways and Rip's goodliness that we are told in sympathetic terms what may account for Dame Van Winkle's irritability - though it isn't framed as such. According to Hawthorne, "The great error in Rip's composition was an insuperable aversion to all kinds of profitable work", and his children looked ragged and like beggar children. And yet, still, we are told that he would do all the odd chores around the other wives' homes their "less obliging husbands would not do for them", possibly because those less obliging husbands were actually making the money necessary for their wives and children to not have to scrimp and save. And at the end of the tale, Rip awakens from his twenty year nap and finds his wife has died in his absence; this is seen as a major plus for Rip, as "he had got his neck out of the yoke of matrimony, and could go in and out whenever he pleased without dreading the tyranny of Dame Van Winkle." Published in 1819, the perceived dynamic between men and women seems to have changed very little. Men endure wifely 'nagging', with little attention paid to whether or not that wife has a valid concern or not.

And what makes this even more insidious is that the same cultural norms play out when we are discussing the other, distorted aspects of male-female relationships. It comes down to the women. In domestic violence cases, one of the questions that invariably gets asked is "What did she do?", the implication being that if only the woman in question was a little less shrewish, a little less demonic, a little less harpish, she wouldn't have gotten hit. Again, this isn't the question that comes up for everyone; not everyone asks this question. Not everyone thinks this thought. But it is still a prevalent thought, in articles and message boards - especially in high profile cases. This same thing can be found when we discuss rape victims, when we tell women that to wear certain outfits and to go certain places and to act in certain ways is to open the door to sexual assault.

To assert that men are in general the victims of women and their soul-sucking ways is ludicrous. To assert that 'women', as a monolithic group, are threats to men and want them dead is also ludicrous. Because it just reinforces the notion of that mean woman married to the harried man. It attempts to give men, all men, regardless of whether or not they are married to nice, non-soul-sucking women, victim-status. It attempts to strip all women, whether or not they are nice, non-soul-sucking women, of their very humanity - literally, by turning them into demons. And it also reinforces the notion of men and women not as partners, not working in tandem, but as being in a constant struggle, as a war. I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm in a relationship, I prefer not to categorize that relationship as being a tug-of-war, a constant battle, a situation in which I am the perpetual victim. I would prefer to think of it - and portray it as - a give-and-take, a loving and dynamic duo. And for those who would categorize their relationships the other way, well, maybe they should just not be in a relationship.

The Conundrum of Bisexuality

I read the Opinion page of my newspaper. I read it sometimes to get myself really angry; I read it sometimes in order to see if there are any sane people in my area writing letters to the paper - those people who don't write in to say that Obama is a Muslim socialist who is going to wreck our economy, take away our liberties, and turn us all into communists. And I read my paper because I do have a genuine interest in the conservative viewpoint. I should probably pick a better paper to read for the conservative viewpoint, but the Republican-American is easily accessible (as it comes to my door - or more accurately, my paper box) and I am heart a lazy person.

Mona Charen's "In Defense of Rick Warren" is one of those examples for why I should find some other paper to read. Barring anything else, her discussion of bisexuality is not only flawed but simplistically separated from the rest of us. She says,

"But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone's feelings, but in all seriousness. How does same sex marriage help a bisexual? I assume if you are bisexual, you believe you need to have sexual relationships with men and women."

Except, that isn't bisexuality; bisexuality isn't needing to have sexual relationships with men and women. It is being attracted to both men and women. Not all men, and not all women. Bisexuality is not only dictated by the actions a person takes but the desires a person feels. A woman can be a bisexual and never have a sexual encounter with another woman; a woman can be a bisexual and never have a sexual encounter with a man. Just like a heterosexual person can be attracted to blondes and brunettes, and yet never have a sexual relationship with a blonde.

Charen goes on to postulate:

"If you are a bisexual man married to a woman, don't you need to break the marriage bond to express your bisexuality?"

No more than a person attracted to both blondes and brunettes would need to break his marriage bond to a brunette to express his interest in blondes. Bisexuals can engage in fidelity, just like every other person sublimates their attractions once they are in a committed, monogamous relationship does. And I'd again refer to the first point, that being that one doesn't need to express bisexuality in order to be a bisexual.

I would like to assume that Mona Charen is being sincere in her ignorance of bisexuality; but that ignorance, and questions over how action is necessary for identification - along with the continued idea that bisexuals are somehow just selfish and won't choose one of the two binary positions we have allotted (one, albeit, slowly, begrudgingly, and not yet fully) - are real issues for those marginalized by these assertions.

Bisexuals are oftentimes treated as the hyenas of the sexual orientation crowd. They aren't one thing or the other, and so at times are treated suspiciously by both. There are the "bi-curious", the girls who engage in bisexual behavior for the attention, and those identifying as bisexual as a stepping stone toward fully coming out as homosexual; and those variables help delegitimize the bisexual orientation. And there is consistently present this idea of a binary code existence in almost every area of life, but definitely present in sexual matters. Then there are the obtuse wonderings of people like Charen, people who have no problem accepting and expecting fidelity and monogamous relationships even while accepting that attractions will occur outside of those heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Bisexuality is largely ignored. It gets one of those letters in the LGBTTIQ; and it is used as a ratings gimmick on shows when the gimmick involves a conventionally attractive girl - like Marissa Cooper's couple of episodes-long relationship with Alex Kelly on The O.C. - but it is quickly abandoned or ignored. After all, even Willow on Buffy the Vampire Slayer went from being in heterosexual relationships to declaring, "gay now", and this was after a long time crush on best friend Xander and a long term relationship with werewolf Oz.

But the true answer to the question that Charen asks,

"How does same sex marriage help a bisexual?"

is a simple one. It allows them to have full and legal rights with the partner of their choice. It doesn't help the world understand bisexuality any better, but it does help with some of those practical matters for the bisexuals who have found lasting love among their own gender. We don't make those entering into a heterosexual marriage take sexuality tests to make sure they are indeed heterosexual - and not homosexual, or bisexual. The same can be said for those entering into homosexual unions. And so, access to same sex marriage helps bisexuals in the same way access to marriage helps anyone and any group.

Awesomeness

This is great. It is a marriage manifesto. Says Tom Ackerson,

"I no longer recognize marriage. It's a new thing I'm trying.

Turns out it's fun.

Yesterday I called a woman's spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, 'He's my husband.'

'Oh,' I say, 'I no longer recognize marriage.'"

I like this idea of not recognizing marriage. And I love anyone who sincerely uses the words "flip floppy". I'm thinking of joining in, partially to raise awareness of how much it would suck to have people not recognize the state of your relationship and partially to be obnoxious. It is also partially why I want to start referring to bunches of people "you gals" or "you girls" instead of "you guys". I have to admit that for all of my issues with gendered language, "you guys" doesn't bother me in the way that it should. Neither does "that takes balls" or "man up". These are things that pepper my every day conversation; but I kind of want to mix it up. Start referring to bunches of men as "girls" (my mouth doesn't sound right saying "gals", but maybe that is just another thing I should work on), and saying "that takes overies", and telling a guy or girl who need to just screw up some courage to "woman up". Partially because even though it doesn't offend me on a visceral level, it is still negating women and is still making men both the only recognized sex and the only positive one. And partially just to make the people around me screw up their faces and try to recognize what's happened. And hell, maybe I'll actually offend someone with my girlie rephrasing. And then we'll have a grand ole convo.

"This Tiny, Symbolic, Semantical Grain of Happiness"

I've been seeing The Countdown's latest Special Comment pop up everywhere today, but on the off-chance anyone's missed it:

I love it. I said so on Oh, You're a FEMINIST (and my comment may still be awaiting approval), and I'll say so here. I like Keith Olbermann and I enjoy The Countdown, even as I often feel he's gone too far and stridently in the direction of the left. Some of the things he chooses to care about baffle me, as in the case with the supposed Sarah Palin on SNL incidents (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, all the better; I wish I didn't know what I was talking about - thanks, Keith). I've often thought that if one of the editors of The Nation Magazine is the one telling you to chill out on the crazy leftist agenda, maybe you've gone too far from time to time. But as I said, I like him; and I agree with the underlying principles in much of what he says, no matter how much I sometimes - good naturedly - roll my eyes at the voraciousness of his comments. However, this special comment is special in that I genuinely feel emotionally moved by his perspective. I not only agree, but I feel as though Keith Olbermann has hit the right note in which to express this opinion. It isn't strident or overly sanctimonious. There is no bluster or waving of the finger but a genuine concern and disappointment over this election decision. I'm one who feels as if weddings and the ceremonies are practices in frivolity, and that those things are ridiculous. But I wish the people who desire to participate in them no ill will; I'm not anti-marriage. And, as Olbermann states, it is a "semantical grain of happiness", so why, in the name of anything one holds dear, would anyone wish to bar someone from such a pursuit? And so, hats off to Keith Olbermann and his special comment on a disappointing loss.

Obama and Prop. 8

As if there weren't enough reasons to vote for Barack Obama this campaign season as it is, what with John McCain becoming more and more erratic until he picked a nutcase as his VP, Obama has just added to the list. In response to flyers in California using his image and his statement, "I'm not in favor of gay marriage" and encouraging voters to vote yes on Prop. 8, the Obama campaign put out a statement repudiating the flyers and said specifically in one part:

"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

For all of the statements Barack Obama has made in regard to same sex marriage that were not progressive (like the one referenced on the flyer), and for some of his less progressive moves ("99 Problems" immediately springs to mind), this is a triumph of political integrity. It would have been easy enough to leave well enough alone. Up in the polls, contemplating the possibility of the Bradley Effect, and wanting to remain cautious and ride into power on the coattails of a strong victory, it would have been easy enough for the man to leave well enough alone. It would have been easy to remain silent. It would have been easy to pander at this moment to those who are uncomfortable with the thought of homosexuals having the rights and privileges of matrimony, who truly believe that inviting more people to the party automatically means a subpar cake for the rest of America - and less of it. But he (and his camp) did not. I was proud to be voting for Obama before this. I had a terrifying dream that I had somehow forgotten that Tuesday was voting day and was sitting at home at 8:16 before recognizing that the polls had closed sixteen minutes before and that I had missed my opportunity. I woke up in a veritable panic and only managed to calm down when I realized that it was Sunday, I had two days, and that I probably wouldn't be able to get through the whole day without recognizing that voting was occurring. But this, a candidate who is not afraid to take a stand on an issue that could very well lose him votes, makes me want to vote for him all the more.

And, of course, now if he loses, it will be teh gays that did it and not teh women (she jokes).

Weirdest Situation Ever

Connecticut has some odd laws on the books still, dating back to our Puritanical days. But one will most definitely take the cake for weirdest offense ever anywhere, and that is this: according to the nightly news (channel 8's, I believe), if a same sex couple who have already entered into a civil union take part in Connecticut's newly legalized (but not available until around November 10) same sex marriage laws without first dissolving their civil union, they will be in violation of the state's bigamy laws. How friggin' odd is that? Being a bigamist by marrying the same person! Ah, Connecticut. How I love thee!

WOOT!

Connecticut has legalized same-sex marriage, being the third state to do so behind Massachusetts and California. I discovered this through The Feminist Underground, which is kind of sad since I live in Connecticut. Anyway, the New York Times is reporting a 4-3 split on the upperest level court in Connecticut over the decision to legalize same-sex marriage, and Governor Rell has said, "The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution -- will not meet with success".

I am a little confused about that logic; according to Governor Rell, the majority of people in Connecticut are not in favor of straight up same-sex marriage (and I'm not sure if that is true). So, if that is the case, why would something like California's Prop. 8 not meet with success? I'm in no way wishing my state put forth such legislation, and I do happen to believe that if it were placed on the ballot it would not meet with success. But I also think that the statement from Governor Rell is a half-hearted attempt at best to offer some resistance to the idea that homosexuals have (or should have) all of the rights of heterosexual citizens. Her statement that any attempt to reverse the decision would not work seems to be implicitly demonstrating the belief that the Right is on the losing side of this particular culture war.

Anyway, go Connecticut! And congratulations to all of those who are now free to engage in the ridiculousness of weddings, and the beauty and entitlements and acceptance of marriage itself.

The Power Of A Brilliant Headline

Sometimes, a headline just catches your attention, and you are forced to read it. Like, for instance, the one from Feministe saying, "So it turns out that the gays are going to ruin your marriage after all." I think it is "the gays" part of the title that gets me so. Have a look-see. I especially like Jill's last line of, "Hopefully, the cake issue is next on the Pacific Justice Institute's docket".

Anyway, the article Jill links to is a hoot, all about a couple's protest because they aren't called "bride" and "groom" on their marriage certificate and how this apparently impacts their rights. I would almost think it was ganked from The Onion, it is so full of what could be satirical goodness. Like how the not-bride says, "We're traditionalists - we just want to be called bride and groom", but how the end of the article states, "For now they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three)". Apparently, they both weren't traditionalist enough to stay married previously, nor remain celibate - or at least not cohabitate - until they remarried. But that kind of hypocrisy should be expected, so I forebear and just gave a little chuckle.

What I really liked, though, is this:

"Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name... ...Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance."

Like, say, the fears and issues every homosexual couple had prior to their being legally allowed to wed? How ghastly a feeling that must be! Am I right? These two, and the movement behind them, are like two incredibly spoiled children holding their breath because they are being made to share the cake with the rest of the kids. It is childish, stupid, and self-denying because they could have a piece of their damn cake (and the same size too) if they would just suck it up and deal with the fact they can call themselves whatever they please but that the state has to, due to that whole "all men are created equal" ideal crazy Jefferson had, be nondiscriminatory. But no; instead they have decided to voluntarily live with the same fears and tribulations homosexuals were forced to live with, proving nothing other than the fact that they are idiots who can't see past the end of their own noses.

Marriage for None; Civil Unions for All

A June CBS poll about gay marriage found that 30% of Americans favor allowing it, 36% are against it, and 28% percent favor civil unions. This is the highest percentage of people who support recognition of homosexual relationships since the question first appeared in polling questions in 2004, but it still represents a rather firm split with no clear majority. However, Oliver Thomas -a minister, lawyer, and author- has an intriguing answer to this ideological problem; actually, it is the same solution my mother blurted out about 3 years ago in our kitchen, but Oliver Thomas actually has an outlet for these ideas whereas my mother just had the four of us to rant to as she put dishes away. Plus, Oliver Thomas' seems more thought out and -dare I say it- more eloquent than my mother's rant was. I attribute that to the fact that he probably wasn't trying to wrestle with the conundrum of where to put the colander.

What both Oliver Thomas and my mother came up with -separate from each other- is that government should get out of the business of marriage. Government appropriated marriage from religious institutions because it "creates more stable relationships and families, more financial security and a better environment for the rearing of children" -all of which are legitimate concerns, but not religious ones. The thing we call marriage is a civil contract between two parties and the state. Thomas' proposal (and my mother's) is that we merely acknowledge that, call what the state does civil unions, and allow marriages to be overseen by the church. Says Thomas, "Theologically, this puts marriage back were it belongs. Constitutionally, it protects churches from having the government dictate to them which relationships they should or should not sanction."

Thomas has a list of benefits, and -from what I can tell- no real downside. His basis is on the fundamental principle of separation of church and state. It is also about what benefits both the church and state separately. Churches could refuse to perform marriages, couples could find churches that would sanctify their unions, and homosexual civil unions would provide the same stability and financial security to the state that straight unions do. The right of equality under the law would be upheld, as if everyone were getting civil unions there would be no discrimination. He even tackles the "union for procreation" argument, stating that "if procreation were our primary concern, current law wouldn't allow the elderly or the infertile to marry". All in all, I think Thomas has the right idea here. Government shouldn't be in the marriage business; homosexuals should have the same rights and legal protections in their relationships as heterosexuals. Civil unions for all solves those problems; and does so fairly and equitably, if I may say so myself.