Since the Unholy Cabal of Activist Judges have forced us to redefine marriage for the very first time, I have decided to assemble an anthology of people’s experiences with the End of American Society As We Know It. If you’ve been forced into a same-sex partnership, seen your hetero marriage dissolve without warning, had your children run away from you as they discover that children actually don’t need a mom and dad, or experienced a sudden, implacable impulse to marry the family goldfish, I want to see your story. (Right after I marry my boyfriend’s cat. Jack is a sexy beast.) See my authoring blog for details. And if you’re interested in my writing, why not follow that blog, too?
“I have been a long-time advocate for states’ rights. However, I believe as Abraham Lincoln did – that states don’t have the rights to legalize moral wrongs.
“Mr. Cain, Congresswoman (Michele) Bachmann and Governor (Rick) Perry all believe 50 different definitions of marriage is fine, I strongly disagree and will continue fighting for traditional marriage between one man and woman.”
Right. The Emancipation Proclamation was just like a nationwide mandate that civil marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples. Of course.
Former Senator Santorum apparently hasn’t gotten the memo that keeping Teh Gheyz out of marriage is no longer the position of a majority of Americans. We want to hear more about jobs, healthcare, the foreign occupations, immigration, and so on. You’re not going to win a national election by going in front of a country that’s struggling to pay the bills and boasting of your commitment to making sure same-sex couples can’t get married. I mean, Herman Cain, for example, at least has a tax plan. It’s a bullshit tax plan, but he has some ideas about how government pays for itself, which is actually relevant for those of us who work a regular 40 hours a week. And here we have Santorum talking about how he’s going to end the scourge of marriage equality. It’s like he’s trying to out-cuckoo Crazy-Eyes Bachmann, and he just doesn’t have the charisma.
Leisha Hailey and her partner were booted off a Southwest Airlines flight for smooching where other people could see them.
Leisha Hailey took to Twitter to call for a boycott of the carrier after a flight attendant told them other passengers had complained after witnessing the affection.
Her first tweet said: “I have been discriminated against.” She later added, “Since when is showing affection to someone you love illegal?”
Southwest Airlines Co. responded on its website that Hailey was approached “based solely on behavior and not gender.” The airline’s four-sentence response said passengers were characterizing the behavior as excessive.
A discussion followed on the flight, and the airline said it “escalated to a level that was better resolved on the ground.”
Yeah, I think I know what happened.
Leisha and her girlfriend were making out while the plane was in the air—like heterosexual couples feel free to do in public spaces everywhere—and some passengers got all hot and bothered and complained to the flight attendants that there was ZOMG lesbian PDA going on. And, rather than tell those passengers to find something else to do with their time, unless they also make similar complaints about het couples sucking face where strangers can see them, which I’ll bet none of them do, the flight attendants told Ms. Hailey and her partner to knock it off because they were offending the bigots’ delicate sensibilities.
Since Ms. Hailey and partner declined to roll over like good little invisible perverts who stay in their room, make no noise and pretend they don’t exist, Southwest is now acting like it’s not because they’re a lesbian couple, oh not at all, it’s because the other passengers complained about them getting “excessive.”
I don’t like to see PDAs, either. I have had more than my fill of seeing man/woman couples standing on the Metro escalators with their arms wrapped around each other, often with their tongues in each others’ mouths, just letting it all hang out for all to see. I would like to be able to get from my home to my workplace and back again without being subjected to the slurping sounds of some dude and his girlfriend making out like their relationship would suffer irreparable damage if they didn’t nom on each other RIGHT THEN AND THERE. So many times, I’ve made my way to the end of the platform at Rosslyn to wait for the Orange Line, and found some entitled straight couple using the area like their own hotel room.
You see, heterosexual couples feel free to give each other tongue wherever they happen to be, and nobody complains.
Politifact brings us the news that NOM’s frothing over public schools “teaching gay marriage” to kindergarteners is, big surprise, a load of bullshit:
We contacted Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of NOM, who told us that many schools in Massachusetts — where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004 — have books on the subject in their libraries.The “poster child,” he said, is a picture book called “King & King,” by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland.
The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels “a stir in his heart.” But it was for the princess’s brother, Prince Lee.
The two marry, and the book says “everyone lives happily ever after.” On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.
The book “glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage,” said Plante. And he said the courts have ruled that the educational system has a duty to “normalize” same-sex marriage for grades as low as kindergarten.
Asked for examples of where the book is taught to kindergartners, Plante offered just one location, Lexington, Mass., where it became an issue in 2006.
That year, two couples — David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin — filed a federal lawsuit against Lexington school officials. The suit alleged that the Parkers’ son was given a book in kindergarten that depicts various forms of families, including one with parents of the same gender. And, the suit said, when the Wirthlins’ son was in first grade, he was read another book, “King & King,” in school.
The parents said they have religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and that marriage is a holy union only of a man and a woman. They alleged school officials were attempting to indoctrinate their children with the belief that same sex marriages are moral.
In 2007, The U.S. District Court in Massachusetts dismissed the parents’ claims, finding that parents don’t have the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children, even if the teachings contradict the parents’ religious beliefs.
First, try as they might, Politifact couldn’t find any incidences of schools teaching little kids about gay marriage aside from, like, one school in 2006 where kindergarten teachers (or maybe just one teacher?) showed this storybook to the kids. It isn’t the new big thing in Massachusetts to have schoolteachers instruct impressionable children on the joys of gay and lesbian love. Schoolteachers in Massachusetts have far bigger fish to fry.
Second, is this their idea of the LGBT lobby using the power of the school system to corrupt the innocent helpless minds of God-fearing children? Really? A storybook where two princes fall in love and marry? They’re suing the school system over that?
The “real consequence” of marriage equality is that same-sex relationships will become more accepted, there will be more open discussion about different formations of family, and it will become increasingly difficult for bigoted parents to pass their prejudices on to their children. That’s what folks like the Parkers and the Wirthlins are really afraid of: that their bigotry will become increasingly unpopular. And on that much, they’re absolutely right. By the end of this century, our grandkids will look back on this debate and marvel that anyone could possibly think this way.
I would like to point out to Ross Douthat that, those nice wealthy couples who are so desperate for healthy (and white!) newborns to adopt? Yeah, some of them are gay. Sometimes, famous wealthy gay guys like to get married, and sometimes they also want kids, and that’s going to be part of the demand for those children whom Ross is so terribly distressed to say are not in such generous supply as they used to be. Now that contraception is available, abortion is legal, and single motherhood is not the life-ruiner that it once was, and therefore vulnerable women can no longer be tied down and forced to bear children for better-off families, Ross would have us believe that it’s so, so very unfair that well-off infertile couples have to wait for the babies they want. If only we selfish not-rich single young (and white) women would give up our birth control and abortion rights, then there would be plenty of healthy (and white) newborns for rich couples to choose from, and wouldn’t that be so much better? (Say nothing about all the brown babies in the system; no one gives a shit about them.)
Oddly enough, I don’t see new parents like Elton John or Melanie Thernstrom wailing and gnashing their teeth about how this cruel world of reproductive freedom unfairly denies them the steady stream of adoptable children their ancestors could choose from. If they need to find women who are (this is the part that Douthat finds offensive) willing to sign up to give birth to their children, with all the waiting, expense and risks of disappointment that it takes to become a parent through surrogacy, then they…buckle down and make it work. Douthat seems to think such people are treated unfairly, though I’m sure families like Elton John’s are not quite what he has in mind. They seem to be a mite too busy enjoying their kids to rail against the selfishness of women who keep their wombs to themselves.
You know, I’m starting to think that Douthat actually enjoys being the pro-choice blogosphere’s favorite fish in a barrel. There is so much wrongness in his new column that I won’t even try to address all of it. Amanda Marcotte has been generous enough to do that for us. I’m just pointing out to the under-control-of-fertility crowd, that some of those surplus babies they want us selfish women to be forced to create? Would go to gay couples. That tends to be the place where the “family values” movement isn’t so concerned about how many kids need families.
Via RD.net, who got it from Ophelia Benson, we have Bishop Olmsted’s letter to Catholic Healthcare West. It is a beautiful piece of correspondence, if we are to define “beautiful” as “exemplifying the enjoyment of watching an old man lie down and beat his fists on the floor.”
The story is basically that, some time last year, a young mother staggered into St. Joseph’s Hospital with end-stage pulmonary hypertension precipitated by her 11-week pregnancy. The hospital ethics committee approved an abortion to save the woman’s life. The result was that the hospital sent a living woman home to recover with her husband and four already-born children, a nun on the ethics committee was demoted and excommunicated by the Diocese, and now Bishop Olmsted is throwing a tantrum, shouting “Respect mah authoritah!”, beating his fists on the floor, and threatening to take his ball and go home.
Shorter version, if you just don’t have time to slog through the letter: the Bishop makes the rules, anyone who disagrees with the Bishop is out of the club, and the Bishop says that next time you see a woman with a life-threatening complication of pregnancy, you had better let that woman die. It is better to let four other kids lose their mom than to deny a nonviable fetus its right to kill its mother.
Jen McCreight takes on the non-troversy of the Orchid Project:
D’Arcy beats her fists on the floor:
This is one of many occasions where I have found the liberal body at Dartmouth to completely violate those principles that it purports to advance: respect and freedom. Regardless of the offensiveness of the message, if the Orchid Project’s main goal was to encourage consideration, what possessed them of the idea that a direct attack on all faiths was the way to do that?
“Respect” and “freedom” here mean: don’t you dare say anything less than overwhelmingly positive about my religious beliefs!
McCreight points out:
I can’t even conceive how someone can read that initial statement to mean that all religious beliefs are completely wrong, unless they’re trying to play the victim. And then turn around and presume to speak for every religious person at Dartmouth. And then go and condemn “acting on this knowledge in a sexual fashion,” thus proving the initial point that some religious beliefs can lead to sex-negative beliefs.
A sex-negative, religion-dependent conservative, trying to play the victim? I am shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked.
This is freaking rich.
Over at Jezebel, Anna North reports on the kerfluffle at Dartmouth over the Orchid Project, which involved passing out mirrors to female students so they could look at their vaginas:
According to IvyGate, Mayuka Kowaguchi gave out the mirrors on October 18 as part of her training for an on-campus sexual health advising group. The mirrors also included a note explaining how to employ them in va-jay-jay examination.
I hate the term “va-jay-jay” (“vadge” is far more sensible, in my opinion), but I’m not going to dwell on that.
This is where the fun REALLY begins:
Another criticism came from Grace D’Arcy, a columnist at The Dartmouth, who took issue with Kowaguchi’s statement that the mirrors could “shift [women’s] perspective from the expectations and limitations of belief patterns, societal cultural or religious conditioning.” D’Arcy wrote, “If these mirrors were truly meant to encourage the consideration of issues surrounding body-awareness, then, I believe, those who consider themselves to be members of Dartmouth communities of faith — which do not support acting on this knowledge in a sexual fashion — would not have been offended.” However, she said Kowaguchi’s statement about the “limitations of belief patterns” was “a direct attack on all faiths.”
Let’s break this down a little:
1. Kowaguchi includes a note with the mirrors, suggesting that religious upbringing might possibly play a role, along with other factors, in instilling in women some preoccupations about what to do (or not) with their erogenous areas.
2. D’Arcy finds this suggestion offensive, calling it a “direct attack on all faiths.”
3. D’Arcy still reminds us that “communities of faith” don’t want young women using their vaginas for recreational purposes.
4. But my favorite part of all is where D’Arcy basically comes right out and says that Kowaguchi must have intended to offend people of faith because…people of faith find the project offensive.
This case isn’t really an example of how young women need to be encouraged to look at their vaginas—though I do think it’s something every woman should do now and then—but it is an example of how even the most non-confrontational, diffuse criticism of religion is just too much. Mention how religion has something to do with the body-ambivalence you’re trying to clear up, and it’s your fault if people are offended, even while revealing that your critique was spot-on.
So, by all means, Dartmouth ladies: do get acquainted with your vulvas. Just don’t make anyone uncomfortable.
In the further annals of “I thought it would look like a squid!” and “Don’t make us uncomfortable” and “This pro-choicer is no longer surprised at antis spouting nonsense,” some whackaloon in DC named Missy Smith is pretending she has a snowflake’s chance in Hell of winning the Congressional seat against Eleanor Holmes Norton, and this is her message:
I killed two of my babies by abortion.
I was told, “It’s not a baby.”
They exploited me.
Then I learned the truth, and I have suffered for years.
And believe me, I am angry; my heart has been ripped out.
Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Norton, they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women.
It’s time to make child-killing illegal again.
I’m Missy Smith and I approve this message.
Translation from anti-choicer to English:
The best thing that can happen to women is to be forced to give birth as many times as they happen to conceive, no matter how little say they had in becoming pregnant. I feel crappy about having abortions, so I blame others for failing to protect me from myself. I regret my choices, so you can’t have any. If I had just gone ahead and had those babies, then I would feel just peachy now. THEY will lie to you to get you on that baby-killer’s table, but the pro-life movement NEVER lies about anything. Now I will show you doctored/staged photos of third-trimester stillbirths and pretend they’re from first-trimester abortions, because when arguments fail, we resort to gross-out tactics.
All that is assuming, of course, that Missy Smith isn’t lying out her ass about her earlier reproductive decisions, which I don’t assume for a second.