tonight i will attend my first lesbian wedding. two of my good friends have decided to form a lifelong commitment with each other, and i am excited about this prospect, especially in light of the recent events on my blog and in Fannie's Room (where she also offers her glimpse into tonight's ceremony).
i'll be sure to post my experiences after the wedding, although i'm sure it will be the same as any other wedding i've attended.
i wish them happiness and all the best as they start their new life together as a family.
Friday, August 31, 2007
tonight i will attend my first lesbian wedding. two of my good friends have decided to form a lifelong commitment with each other, and i am excited about this prospect, especially in light of the recent events on my blog and in Fannie's Room (where she also offers her glimpse into tonight's ceremony).
Posted by Jane Know at 12:35 PM
Thursday, August 30, 2007
that it's fun for people who aren't really into musicals-turned-movies to sit and watch one with someone who is really into them. and better yet, to listen to that person's rendition of said musical at the same time said musical is on. (especially Grease, Jesuschrist Superstar, Rent, or anything else). while said musical is probably amazing on the stage. or even really good when it's a movie, it's never fun to watch a musical as a musical-turned-movie virgin with a musical-turned-movie ho.
really. something must be done about this. maybe some sort of alliance? meetings? perhaps there is already a support group?
Posted by Jane Know at 10:07 PM
Ellen was on the Today Show this morning and announced her candidacy.
Her platform, "This is my announcement I decided right now I’m going to run for president, and I stand for joy and laughter for all. If you’re not for joy and laughter, I’m not your girl.”
Okay, she was joking. She's really interviewing Hillary Clinton on the Sept. 4 season premier of her show, and she was playing into that. But sounds good to me. :-) I was all ready to start making the "Lezzie for Prezzie" posters.
Posted by Jane Know at 12:29 PM
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
I'm slightly scared that "Jason," who commented on my "AFA Alert #1" blog is going to come after me in my sleep because of the whole bible thing. it really got his panties in a bunch that i ordered a bible from them. i went to his blog, and it was the epitome of anti-liberal. yikes. he's like my polar opposite.
(although some may say that this means we should get married...)
i got an email today from the AFA Truth for Youth campaign, saying they are fresh out of the bibles. so they won't be sending me one this time. But, as soon as the new ones are printed, i will get an "even better, newer" version of the bible. jackpot!
Posted by Jane Know at 10:52 PM
So i'm sure you've all heard by now the story of Senator Larry Craig (Idaho-R). Yet another prime example of a politician's hypocrisy. Yet another tale of a homobigot's hypocrisy. A politician who has been an adamant supporter of anti-gay measures in Congress has been having sex in bathrooms with men. And now he is denying that he is gay. Girl, you gots bigger fish to fry than whether or not you are gay. And I would bet that one of them is explaining to your wife why you were cheating on her with men.
Craig is being attacked my nearly everyone from every camp. His Republican party, the Log-Cabin Republicans, as well as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
This dude is wack. In 1982, a male page reported having sex with 3 congressmen, and Craig immediately issued a statement denying any wrongdoing. The page hadn't even named him as one of the 3 congressmen.
Regardless of political party, because i'm sure the Dems are just as naughty behind closed doors, this story is sad in that this man is in major trouble because he was too scared to come out of the closet. So scared, in fact, that he married a woman. That he has built an entire life built around homobigotry, "support of institution of marriages," and conservatism. So scared, that he supports anti-gay measures.
I don't know if his actions are more of an insult to Republicans or gay people.
As Matt Foreman, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says, "For most people living in the closet, and particularly for people in power, they dig themselves in so deeply they can't see a way out," he said. "When they are found out, their life does come crashing down around them — not because they were gay, because of the way they covered it up."
True that. Maybe if more people in positions of power came out of the closet in the first place, those who are so afraid of homosexuals would see that we are normal. But this man was so terrified of that "gay" label, he is now in major trouble because of it.
Or maybe he isn't gay. Men who have sex with other men don't always identify as gay. Yet the hypocrisy stands. He was having sexual desires for other men, yet he relegates male-on-male sex to airport bathrooms. As if that is the only type of sex that two men can have.
Any many more men really are gay, but will never, ever admit it. Kinda like the football star at my high-school who is now married, but used to (and probably still does) enjoy extra-curricular activities with my gay guy friend. So I'm guessing Mr. Craig is in this category. And he's going to continue his homophobic ways. Continue to deny his sexual orientation. And continue to have those urges and cheat on his wife.
Sad. He could've had a happy life had he just come out sooner. Even if he would just come out now.
Posted by Jane Know at 5:47 PM
Monday, August 27, 2007
dedicated to the lovely members of Opine Editorials.
So let me get it straight. The reason most of you are against same sex marriage is because homosexual unions are “a perversion of human nature,” void of any procreative abilities. Here is what led me to that conclusion, before you quickly refute this premise:
Jose—“ If you allow same-sex “marriage” there is no rational way to deny a marriage license to any relationship that meets the legitimate criteria for marriage, that is, the conjugal relationship of man and woman with its procreative potential.”
“Please try to understand Jane Know that homosexual practices are a perversion of human nature.”
“They are being brainwashed into imagining there can be some sort of safe anal sex. You are clearly ignorant of the medical findings related to such practices. Lesbian practices, though not as physically harmful are nevertheless disordered as they also misuse the sexual organs and prevent women from forming natural procreative relationships.”
Renee—“ Our sexuality is rooted in our reproductive elements. We don't even know if we might procreate but children do not stay children and they become adults.”
“It is our responsibility as persons engaging in sexual activity to honor our procreative elements and acknowledge we are opening ourselves to life”
“It isn't that marriage is just about procreation, the problem lies with those who want to believe that marriage has nothing to do with procreation”
“Homosexual behavior can NEVER be brought to fulfillment (sic) of the conjugal act, it always trys (sic) to twist itself and downplay the goodness that sexuality and reproductivy (sic) brings to humanity, because in the begining (sic) we're all created from the act of sex.”
Marty—“ Sex feels good for the same reason food tastes good. And sure, sugarless bubblegum does taste very good -- but there's no there there.”
Fitz—“ The insistence that she can pleasure women as good as any man, that heterosexual intercourse is the equivalent of same-sex acts, and the stubborn refusal to accept the term “natural” at face value – (procreative in kind) – in the obvious way its presented and explained. All very telling.”
Here is my reasoning as to why you are all wrong.
The fact that you all are using the same sex relationships/sex/couplings/marriages “are unnatural” argument shows that the charge is highly idiosyncratic and has little, if any, explanatory force. It does little to show what it actually wrong with it.
Basically you are assuming that homosexual unions are wrong because they violate the function of genitals, which is supposedly only to make babies. This is wrong for many reasons. For one, there are lots of body parts that have lots of different functions. Just because some one activity can be fulfilled by one organ, this activity does not condemn the organ to only that activity. For example, the mouth’s main function is for eating. Yet, we also use it to kiss, to chew gum, to blow bubbles, and more. Yet these actions surely are not deemed “wrong” by you. So, the use of genitals for reasons other than procreation (achieving intimacy and ecstasy) surely can not be wrong either.
Unless you propose to find the “correct” function of each organ, and then abide by those set of rules, it doesn’t follow to say that genitals are to be used only for procreation. thus, your descriptive morality doesn't really follow in a society that places more value on normative morality.
Sex organs seem well-equipped to give their owners immense pleasure. Pleasure is often a good thing in moderation, and not innately evil. And since the genitals are full of nerve endings, it would seem that they were designed, if designed by someone, for the purpose of producing pleasure, as well as procreation.
Women have sex organs that can produce babies. Yet why should the use of those organs for another purpose, such as bringing immense pleasure to herself or her partner, constitute convincing justification that her actions are perverse or unnatural? If someone “misuses” his teeth by opening a beer bottle, he is not accused of being immoral.
You may now say, “but genitals are only created for procreation.” But now I ask you to name who gets to decide that. Is it God? Surely you are not holding others accountable for your religious beliefs. And if it is you, how can you tell what its purpose is simply by looking at it? Or feeling it, too, I suppose.
Or maybe you are just confusing moral laws with natural laws. You see, here is the difference: inanimate objects and plants are predictable in that they follow natural laws by necessity. Much like Newtonian physics. Animals rely on their instincts. And humans (that’s us, to the layman) have a thing called rational will. People are special in this way. They don’t have to follow natural laws, they get to discover them and define them. So I guess if you still want to argue that people should follow the same natural laws as plants, objects, and other animals, then lead me the way as to how we should discover these laws that we humans should follow. If you just take a minute to look at the history of people, you will see that we are a diverse group, that homosexuality and same sex unions date as far back as 5th century Athens (that we know of), you will see that people are capable of abstract thought and the ability to make their own world.
Furthermore, as I have stated previously in my blog, homosexuality is found in other species in nature.
Or, on the other hand, maybe we shouldn't follow nature. Orangutans, our “genetic kin” live completely solitary lives without any kind of social organizations. Maybe we should follow their suit and be hermits. Oh, and look at bees and ants… they only have a couple members their entire generation reproducing. Actually, that may not be a bad idea.
I say leave the gays and lesbians alone, if your main argument is that they can’t procreate, because I have yet to hear of a world underpopulation problem.
To sum up my argument, the proposition that any use of an organ that is contrary to its principal purpose or function is unnatural assumes that organs have to have just one purpose or function. This may be denied on the ground that the purpose or function of an organ may vary depending on the desires and needs of its owner. You know... that human being with rational and abstract thought processes.
(Acknowledgements also to James Rachel’s book "The Right Thing to Do.")
Posted by Jane Know at 8:30 PM
apparently some internet bloggers think that it is acceptable to minimize the brutal murder of a gay man. (ie-on some "marriage protecting" blog, in response to me telling someone to Google "Matthew Shepard," some guy wrote "well, did he die because he was gay or because he was a meth-head?" with the link to some obscure internet reference. because i responded very negatively to that remark, my comment was deleted, while the other guy's hateful comment was left up.) in light of that, i was inspired to do some research on Matthew Shepard. just to see what good--because i know that some did--came out of his murder. most of those positives are thanks to his mother, Judy Shepard, and the millions of people who are capable of sympathy, empathy, and recognition that threats to GLBT people are very real.
i had the amazing opportunity to listen to Judy Shepard speak, to a standing-room only crowd at my conservative college twice. i don't think anyone who left the room had dry eyes. or would have made the disparaging remarks that the thoughtless blogger above made.
anyway, kudos to Senator Gordon H. Smith (R-Oregon) for being one of the few Republicans (along with Arlen Spector, R-PA; Olympia Snowe, R-ME; and Susan Collins, R-ME) for co-sponsoring the Senate Bill 1105, on April 12, 2007 known as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. the Bill is sponsored by Edward Kennedy (D-MA).
in a speech the day it was introduced, Smith stated: “A principal responsibility of government is to protect and defend its citizens and to come to the aid of the mistreated. As a nation founded on the ideals of tolerance and justice, we simply cannot accept violence that is motivated by bias and hate,” Smith said. “Current law is limited. Our proposal would change that, and change it permanently. As a tribute to Matthew and in recognition of the tireless effort of his mother Judy, this legislation will be known as the “Matthew Shepard Bill.”
this bill is supported by a broad coalition of over 210 religious, law enforcement, and civil rights groups. not only does the Matthew Shepard Bill expand the definition of hate-crimes to include sexual orientation, it also includes gender and disability.
so far, it looks like (from my laywoman legislative research) this Bill is in Committee.
However, it's sister HR Bill 1592 has been passed in the House (5/3/07) and will next be voted on in the Senate. neat.
for more information and arguments in favor of this Bill: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/08/19/breaking-down-myths-of-the-matthew-shepard-bill/
i would post a link to arguments not in favor of the Bill, but any fool who knows how to Google can do it himself or herself.
i'll be watching the media for any more news on this Bill.
*a side note, in my searching, i also noticed that Senator Smith sponsored a Bill to provide ADAP (AIDS Drug Assistance Programs) funding from alternative sources. all of this from a Republican. :-)
Posted by Jane Know at 11:47 AM
Saturday, August 25, 2007
I've been in the midst of a nasty gay marriage argument over in Fannie's Room. Somewhere between being shot down again after I had listed several sources from (what I believe) are reputable, scholarly sources and being called close-minded (for vowing not to change my stance on gay marriage) I realized that it was pointless to argue. Pointless to try to reason my way to a bunch of men who the issue doesn't, and will never, affect. They sit in their safe, male comfortable heterosexual priveleged worlds and victimize themselves. For surely, their world will crumble if two loving partners are allowed to marry. Similar to the way white men often paint themselves as victims in the war against white racism. (which is another myth I will get to later). men who are afraid to let go of perhaps a tiny bit of their power. or are scared of change, when they don't realize that change can often be a very good thing.
I could go on and on about their arguments and our counter-arguments. and their counter-counter arguments... ad nauseum.
but i fear they would come to this blog and see an opportunity for more arguments.
thus, i am throwing in the towel with that particular group and that argument. finito.
i will never change my stance on gay marriage. i believe that as a tax-paying, hard-working, lesbian, i should have the liberty to marry my girlfriend and have that marriage recognized by the government for all the benefits and penalties that's worth. if that makes me close-minded to a small group of people, so be it. to me, they are the close-minded ones. and i feel that they are, simply, scared of creating a world where gays and lesbians are treated as equals in their hetero-priveleged worlds.
i know who i am in the real world. and i know the people (gay and straight) that i help on a daily basis. but a little part of me can't help but be saddened by the on-line discourse that took place over the past couple days. and how such different views can be had by people who would probably be friends in the real world.
this is something i will have to think about as i blog more.
I'll end with these quotes (from: http://www.buddybuddy.com/quotes-2.html):
"“Marriage is a civil right. If you don’t want gay people to marry in your church, good for you. But you can’t say they can’t marry in your city.”-- Julian Bond, National NAACP chair, October 2006 Spoken at a University of Virginia forum where Bond is a professor
"The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests. With the proper issue in mind — whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry will encourage procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, or child rearing in households headed by opposite-sex parents — I would hold that there is no rational basis for denying samesex couples the right to marry.
“I would hold further that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right, the denial of which has historically received heightened scrutiny. It is error to artificially limit the inquiry, as the plurality and concurrence do, to whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. It is equally incorrect to limit the definition of the right to marry to the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Because the Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA’s) denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is not rationally related to any asserted state interest, it is also not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest.
“Therefore, for both of these reasons, I would affirm the two trial courts in declaring RCW 26.04.010(1) and .020(1)(c) unconstitutional. The plurality uses the excuse of deference to the legislature to perpetuate the existence of an unconstitutional and unjust law. I dissent.”--Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, dissenting opinion in Andersen v. King County, July 26, 2006
“The DOMA denies fundamental basic human rights to Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens, human rights that impact the very core of their everyday lives. The plaintiffs in this case represent the ever-growing diversity of the openly gay community in Washington. They are teachers, attorneys, ministers, and foster parents. In their everyday lives they are bosses, coworkers, neighbors, clients, parents, friends, and volunteers. It is in these seemingly mundane, everyday roles that the discrimination imposed by the DOMA is deeply felt, but it is nowhere more wounding than in their very homes. Unless the concept of equal rights has meaning there, it has little meaning anywhere.”-- — Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, dissenting opinion in Andersen v. King County, July 26, 2006
“The National Lawyers Guild strongly opposes the New York Court of Appeals ruling upholding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The Guild believes that everyone should be entitled to equal protection under the law, which includes affording the same status, privileges and protections that exist for heterosexual couples to same-sex partnerships.”--— National Lawyers Guild, press release, July 11, 2006
"Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.”--Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, dissenting opinion in Hernandez v. Robles, July 6, 2006
"“I believe all New Yorkers should have the right to marry whom ever they choose regardless of sexual orientation.
“I do not believe the government should be in the business of telling us who we can, and can’t marry … as mayor, I have an obligation to enforce the laws of the city and the state, but I also have an equal obligation to work to change laws that I believe are not in our city’s best interest.”-- Michael Bloomberg, NYC Mayor, in his weekly radio address, May 28, 2006
" ...A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.” --Coretta Scott King, Richard Stockton College, New Jersey, March 23, 2005
"For Planned Parenthood, marriage equality is a critical social justice and equality issue, and the denial of marriage is a threat to our basic human and civil rights. Planned Parenthood stands firm in its vow to end inequality and discrimination, and supports the rights of same-sex couples and their families to enjoy the protection of civil marriage.” --Planned Parenthood, Washington State branch, March 2, 2007, Communication to members concerning the Washington State Civil Union Bill.
Posted by Jane Know at 3:17 PM
Friday, August 24, 2007
Awhile ago, I thought it would be fun to subscribe to "AFA Alerts" via email. Just to see what "the other side's" arguments are. And maybe to catch wind of anything that may be of interest to other homos. or something.
FYI-AFA stands for American Family Association. To summarize from their website: "AFA believes that the entertainment industry, through its various products, has played a major role in the decline of those values on which our country was founded and which keep a society and its families strong and healthy. For example, over the last 25 years we have seen the entertainment industry "normalize" and glorify premarital sex. During that time we have suffered a dramatic increase in teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS and abortion as a means of birth control.
We believe in holding accountable the companies which sponsor programs attacking traditional family values. We also believe in commending those companies which act responsibly regarding programs they support."
you can expect semi-regular blogs regarding these emails.
for example, this week's AFA Action alert tells us about the "Truth for Youth" bible that we can order to distribute to teens. according to the website, this bible is the New Testament in color comics, that includes "Absolute Truths" on the evils of homosexuality, evolution, rock music, pornography, and peer pressure, among other things. finally! an answer to these universal questions. well, i signed up for my free bible and will be sure to post on here if it ever makes it to my house.
also of note, but i don't want to waste my money on this organization, was the "Harry Polarity and the Sinister Sorcery Satire." which, i'm told, will reveal all the dangers of witchcraft and sorcery that the Harry Potter series contains. phew. just when i was about to learn the spell to become a serpent animagus...
Posted by Jane Know at 10:21 PM
converted from my 6/8/07 myspace blog.
i was doing my daily scan for interesting headlines in the health section of msnbc and came across this story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18769275/. the title is "STD shot stuck in the middle of U.S. culture war."
yes i have blogged about this before... but the fact that this is still a cultural/moral/political red herring instead of a public health non-issue is ridiculous.
of course it is. why? because this country is run by religious conservatives.
and why? because we allow them to run this country.
ie--Georgia legislature nixed a plan by a REPUBLICAN lawmaker who was trying to make HPV vaccines mandatory for girls entering 6th grade... after aggressive lobbying by religious conservatives who argued that, " vaccinating young girls could promote promiscuity."
further, the article said, "The religious conservatives did not want the government to mandate a vaccine for "something that is only contracted through sexual activity," said Sadie Fields, executive director of the Georgia Christian Alliance.
right. because true christians don't have sex before marriage. and if you do, then you deserve to die of cervical cancer.
if little sally isn't allowed to get the HPV vaccine when she's 11, and then chooses to have sex a couple years later, which in turn gives her HPV, which in turn gives her cervical cancer... THAT is what she gets for being so promiscuous. THAT is definitely what our Lord and Savior wants for our teenage girls who have sex before marriage. they deserve to die for their sins. let the punishment fit the crime.
the article says, "Cervical cancer kills 10 women a day in the U.S. and one in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with HPV, according to a recent report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While Gardasil is not a magic bullet, it protects against the strains of HPV that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases."
i dunno. as a nurse, i don't get it. as a woman, i don't get it. as a human being, i don't get it. unless someone is suicidal, why would anyone turn this vaccine down?
"Moira Gaul, director of women's and reproductive health at the conservative Family Research Council, said her group doesn't oppose the vaccine, but doesn't want it required.
'We think parents ought to be given a choice about what is best for their children,' she said."
What a shame that some parents think "what's best for their children" is living in a cloak of denial that may one day kill the daughters they are trying so hard to protect.
this is converted from my 6/29/07 myspace blog.
former Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washinton said racism was a factor in his firing from the tv show. for those who don't remember (as if there is anyone who doesn't know this story), Washington was in the hot-seat for using anti-gay slurs to his co-star during a confrontation. he was eventually fired from the show because of public backlash towards him for using the word "fag."
now, he is saying that he was fired because "someone heard the booming voice of a black man and got really scared and that was the beginning of the end for me."
my first instinct upon reading this was annoyance. sadly, i thought what many white people think... "another black person using the race card to excuse his failure."
the fact of the matter is, he DID use the word "fag" multiple times during a confrontation.
but, was he already disliked before this?
was he a so-called "angry black man?"
and if so, is this really any different from an "angry white man?" or "angry woman?" he said people were intimidated by him because he didn't buy into the slave mentality that so many black people allegedly buy into..."Well, it didn't help me on the set that I was a black man who wasn't a mush-mouth Negro walking around with his head in his hands all the time. I didn't speak like I'd just left the plantation and that can be a problem for people sometime," he said."
the problem with this is that most white people don't want "mush-mouth Negros" walking around. they just want normality in their interactions with people. and that does not include anger, shouting, and drama. i think that's what everyone wants in their interactions with other people. and if he was a constant source of this type of drama, i can understand why he intimidated people. there are lots of angry, loud people out there (white, black, latino, etc), and all of them are a little scary.
but, this is also why i hate the media. they can blow anything out of proportion, and NO ONE in the general public knows what really went on daily on the set.
and sometimes people ARE intimidated by a minority (or woman) who doesn't always agree with the white people (or men). and just because they don't agree with the majority, they are deemed "another angry black man/woman." or the woman "must have PMS."
because we all know that woman who are assertive and able to speak their mind are bitches. yet men who are assertive and speak their mind are ambitious and successful.
but black men, by far, get the worst of this in the US.
so there are two sides here:
1. the people who will side with Washington, and say that minorities who speak up are discriminated against because they intimidate white people.
2. the people against Washington, who will say that he is a homophobe looking to use racism to excuse his actions.
maybe both are correct.
so, maybe i was too quick to judge.
is he making up a bad excuse for his blatantly homophobic remarks?
or does he have a legitimate claim based on years of racist oppression? i wish there was some way to know before the media was able to distort the truth and paint their own picture for the masses. in the end, people are going to believe what they want to believe.
but hopefully, some will stop to wonder first that perhaps both sides of the argument are right. and wrong.
Posted by Jane Know at 4:50 PM
HEADLINE OF THIS ARTICLE:
"Video shows people stepping over dying woman"
Surveillance camera captures shoppers bypassing Kansas stabbing victim
the appropriate category for the subject of this blog is "bullshit." unfortunately, that is not an option. or "lost faith in humanity, reason #992199." that is not an option either.
the first lines of this article, for those too lazy to read it are "As a stabbing victim lay dying on the floor of a Kansas convenience store, five shoppers, including one who stopped to take a picture of her with a cell phone, stepped over the woman, police said."
this was a 27 year-old woman. an innocent victim. yet 5 people decided their fat-ass snacks were more important than her life. and 1 of them even took a picture of her on their cell phone, yet didn't help her.
also, apparently, there is also a "police department policy" that requires emergency medical personnel to wait until a "crime scene is secured" or some bullshit law. so let me get this straight... EMTs are not allowed to save a victim's life now, in this day and age, until the police are done collecting all their evidence or whatever?! i can just see some power-trippy-loser-in-high-school cop making an EMT wait to save this woman's life because "it's against the law." i call bullshit.
and, if this is true, why are the police blaming other shoppers for ignoring the victim when they did the same thing?
what really happened? surely there is more that the press is leaving out.
Posted by Jane Know at 4:46 PM