Archives for category: Feminism and Sexuality

Because I went to graduate school at a seminary, I am privy to many ministers (and/or pre-ministers) thoughts and issues they are dealing with involving religion (Christianity, for most of them) and their church. Recently, one person asked for advice on a group page, because they are struggling with opposing viewpoints in their church over LGBTQPIA+ equality/rights/justice.

One out of many people commented, advising that this person allow both sides to speak, saying that people can be Christians and have different opinions. This sounds very nice, but honestly, readers, it infuriated me.

Non-LGBTQPIA+ people speak from a place of privilege when they say that “both sides” should be heard in any discussion about LGBTQPIA+ rights/justice. They can say this, because they are not fighting for their own humanity in the same way that LGBTQPIA+ people are in these discussions. They say this and allow people to think that these “opinions” are equal because they are all opinions and “nothing else”, when in reality some people’s opinions are literally the reason LGBTQPIA+ people are being killed, stalked, abused, etc.

This is not an equal conversation. One side is saying that they deserve basic rights -like not being fired for being LGBTQPIA+, or being able to get married, or actually having some semblance of safety through their lives. The other side is saying that being LGBTQPIA+ is a sin, that these people are immoral, that their love is not as good as heterosexual love, and some are saying that they deserve to die because of it.

Let me rephrase and restate: LGBTQPIA+ people are literally being killed because of other people’s (heterosexual, cisgender people’s) “opinions”.

If your “opinion” contributes to the systematic inequality, dehumanization, and ultimately murder of LGBTQPIA+ people, it is not an opinion I am willing to listen to in any way.

If you are a person of authority in a church who is struggling between two sides in a discussion about LGBTQPIA+ rights/equality/justice, I want you to consider which group you think is more important, because that is the one you are going to listen to. Also consider:

Which group has been systematically kicked out of the church for being who they are -LGBTQPIA+ people or cisgender heterosexual people?

Which group has been condemned by many aspects of Christianity, making some of them reject all faith entirely -LGBTQPIA+ people or cisgender heterosexual people?

Which group needs a supportive church, who most likely won’t be able to easily find a new one if they choose to leave -LGBTQPIA+ people or cisgender heterosexual people?

We need to stop the cycle of abuse of LGBTQPIA+ people by the church. And there have been some great steps towards that goal, but dear god sometimes it is staggering how far we are from treating LGBTQPIA+ people as humans with rights and dignity. (The same can be said for people of color, disabled people, and other oppressed groups as well.) I really hope that the original poster finds the answers they are looking for, but I also really hope that they don’t do what so many other people think is ‘okay’ -to be “neutral”.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” -Desmond Tutu

Advertisements

Happy World Contraception Day, everyone!

I’m gonna talk about some different types of contraception and sex education today, in order to spread the knowledge!

There are “Barrier Methods” of contraception, which are meant to prevent the sperm from entering the uterus in order to prevent pregnancy. These would include both external and internal condoms (I refuse to say ‘male and female condoms’ because those terms are inherently cis-sexist and support a gender binary), and it also includes Diaphragms, Cervical Caps, and Contraceptive Sponges. These forms of contraception are to be used and then removed in order to prevent pregnancy and the passing of different diseases/infections.

Next, there are “Hormonal Methods” of birth control, which regulate and/or stop ovulation in order to prevent pregnancy. (At some point, I’m going to make a post about the process of ovulation and menstruation, but not today!) The most well-known method is called the pill, which has a combination of synthetic estrogen(s) and progestin(s) (unless it’s the placebo week) and you take one pill a day in order to prevent pregnancy. (There is also a pill that has progestin-only, which thickens cervical muscles to make it harder for sperm to swim around and enter the fallopian tube.) Then there is the patch, which releases hormones to the bloodstream through the skin and should be applied once a week for three weeks. Vaginal rings (NuvaRing) are thin and flexible and are inserted into the vagina for three weeks, and then removed for one week for a period. Then there are shots -Depo shot is pretty well known, and this method lasts for three months. Implantable rods are surgically inserted under the skin of the upper arm, and can remain there for up to 5 years.

After the hormonal methods, there are intrauterine methods, which are commonly called IUDs. There are copper IUDs, which cause an inflammatory reaction in the uterus that prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg, and can remain in the body for up to 12 years. The other option is hormonal IUDs, which can be used for up to five years, and causes the thickening of the cervical muscles, thinning of the uterine lining, and can prevent ovulation.

Now, all of this is, obviously, a very brief overview, and there are many other sites you could go to for more in-depth information about each of these methods. I recommend doing research before starting a new method of birth control, in order to completely understand how effective it is and how to properly use it. Then you can discuss more in-depth matters with your doctor, who will write the prescription for you.

I also wanted to pull your attention to the new Health Care Reform and how that impacts birth control. As you might’ve noticed from above, most of the methods that are available really only impact people with vaginas. Hormonal methods and intrauterine methods only impact people with vaginas, barrier methods are a little more open but still mostly focus on the same. This is to say that birth control and sexual health is commonly left up to the women* to deal with and handle and pay for (even though the best birth control is for people with penises), and now the health care reform is trying to, at least, remedy the cost. If you have a prescription, your birth control should be free if it’s the patch, pill, ring, shot, implant, IUD, or sterilization. This can be extremely exciting and liberating for those of us who have had to pay for birth control methods every month or so for a long period of time.

And, just a general word of advice, please use your method of contraception in the proper way! That means that if you’re taking the pill, you should take one pill around the same time every day -if you miss/skip more than two pills in a single pack, you need to switch methods. This means that if you’re using an external condom, get the right size -there is so much misinformation about how condoms stretch and expand and can fit any penis, but seriously you need to get the size right or there is a bigger chance of it breaking and, thus, pregnancy (it also is bad for the penis if the condom is too tight, and it can slip off if it’s too loose). Seriously, do your research and use contraception properly if you want to avoid pregnancy.

Happy World Contraception Day -I hope you learned something new about sexual health and wellness, and that you spread the information to others as well!

Today I want to discuss the rapper Macklemore. Specifically, I want to talk about his song “Same Love.”

Now, when I first heard this song, I loved it. I thought it was brilliant and amazing and basically perfect in every way. It gave me chills. Parts of it still do.

Then I started seeing some critiques of it -very important critiques that I think need to be more talked about.

If you have never heard the song (where have you been?) you can listen to it here.

You can read the lyrics here.

The first critique that I have heard about this is that Macklemore (a.k.a. Ben Haggerty) is heterosexual. He is not gay, or queer, or bi, or any other form of a LGBTQ identity. This is not inherently problematic in and of itself, obviously.

The problem is that he has now become an icon for the LGBTQ activist movement because of this song.

Instead of listening to actual queer rappers (and there are plenty), people have instead decided that a heterosexual man can accurately rap about the difficulties of being gay even when he has never experienced those difficulties himself. As one article wrote, “Whether it is intentional or not, Macklemore has become the voice of a community to which he doesn’t belong in a genre that already has a queer presence waiting to be heard by mainstream audiences.”

There is also the issue (second critique) of his whiteness, because along with whiteness comes White Privilege. (Macklemore discusses his White Privilege in a song titled “White Privilege”.) The same article cited above talks about how Macklemore conflates LGBTQ rights with Black civil rights. He completely overlooks his White Privilege as well as his Heterosexual Privilege throughout the song.

For example, the first line of the second verse is “If I was gay, I would think that hip-hop hates me”. Hip hop specifically emerged from Black communities in New York as a response to White suppression and dominance. In this one line, Macklemore is attacking an entire genre of music -as well as the Black people who created and sustained it -for being homophobic.

He continues to critique hip hop (and Black people) with the line: “A culture founded from oppression, yet we don’t have acceptance for ’em”. This is even more problematic than the first line. It completely erases any queer person of color -especially queer rappers/singers of color -who are involved in LGBTQ activism, and it shoves more blame on people of color who are homophobic than White people who are homophobic. “This line of argument suggests that homophobia perpetrated by people of color is somehow worse because they should have known better as people who are also oppressed. Furthermore, when white people are homophobic, it is less condemnable because they don’t know what it is like.” (x)

Basically, this song is full of “microaggressions” against people of color (mostly Black people) as well as LGBTQ people. “What?” you say, “Same love doesn’t demean gay people -it’s all about equality!” The biggest microaggression against LGBTQ people is when Macklemore decided to drop the word “f*gg*t” in the second verse, even thought it is an extremely offensive and homophobic slur. That is not okay. It will never be okay.

Just because Macklemore is “standing up” for LGBTQ equality with the song “Same Love” does not mean that he can’t get things wrong and/or make mistakes. Just because he has a song called “White Privilege” doesn’t mean that he will always recognize it when it appears, or that it just suddenly disappeared when he wrote the song. No matter what, he is still a white heterosexual male and while that is not inherently bad, it is something that needs to be remembered when he’s rapping about hip hop and homophobia.

Upholding him and this song as an icon for the LGBTQ community activism is not okay. People who are actually LGBTQ rappers should be heard over him -people who have actually experienced homophobia or other types of cis-sexual/heteronormative aggressions. Again, you can find lists of them here.

I’m not saying that heterosexual people can’t talk about homophobia, or that white people can’t talk about racism. However, I am saying that when people with privilege talk about oppression that they do not experience themselves, they need to listen very intently when people talk who do experience that oppression. That is the only way we will learn -by listening, by reading, by talking with other people who are different from us and trying to recognize our own privilege.

There are parts of “Same Love” that are great -I love his critique of religion/religious institutions, and his mention of LGBTQ bullying and suicide. But this song is not without its problems, and people need to realize that.

I do not know how to start this post. I am angry. I am tired. I am tired of being angry.

There is often a lot of discussion surrounding ‘privilege’, at least there is on the Tumblr community. Privilege is what people in positions of power have in society. So, there is male privilege, which allows men to access things (capital, in the Marxist/Bourdieu-ian sense)  more easily than women. There is also white privilege, which allows white people to access better capital than people of color. There is cis privilege over trans* people; heterosexual privilege over LGBT*Q; and so on and so forth.

For examples of male privilege, see here or here.

Now, it has been my absolute honor to come across an article claiming female privilege.

Let me now explain how this article is complete and utter bullshit.

1. I’m allowed to be far more open about my sexuality than a man is. In fact, if I’m bisexual, it’s encouraged (both male and females encourage it funnily enough). If I’m hetero, I’m allowed to make comments about how hot men are, compliment men without others thinking it’s harassment and generally can make lewd comments about any person, be them male or female, and it’s considered ok. I can say “I fancy him so much I’d  even rape him” or “I need to pull him into the storeroom and show him I mean it” or “He is mega hot” about any male whether  he is seventeen (I am forty) or seventy. I can sit in a Twilight movie and drool at Jacob (for instance), and not be seen as a dirty old woman.

Women can only be open about their sexuality when it is approved of BY MEN. If you didn’t notice, she did not mention lesbianism, which only involves women. If a woman identifies as a lesbian, she will be told that she only likes women because she hasn’t had a good dick or a good fucking yet. In fact, even porn with “lesbians” in it is made for the men who watch it, and not for actual lesbians, which can be shown by the heavy emphasis on vaginal penetration. Bisexuality is only acceptable when she eventually settles down with a man, because then she will be seen as “really heterosexual”.

She is also completely erasing the Madonna/Whore complex. If a woman has sex before marriage, she is seen as a slut and a whore and deserving of any sexual assault that befalls her. Meanwhile, if she doesn’t have sex, she is a prude or a stuck up bitch or an ice queen. So tell me again how women’s sexualities are not controlled by men and how women are so free?

2. If my partner and I were in a domestic dispute and both violent, or both shouting, and I hit him … if the police were called, my male partner would still be the one far more likely to be taken into custody for the night. If my male partner tried to report domestic violence, it would be harder for him to have the charges laid, than if I did so. In fact, while there is a charge of Male assaults Woman in my country, there is no Woman assaults Male. That would be classified instead as General Assault.

Perhaps the male partner would be arrested, but let’s talk about what happens afterwards. The average prison sentence of men who kill their women partners is 2 to 6 years, while women who kill their male partners are sentenced on average to 15 years. This is despite the fact that 86% of female offenders kill in self-defense, while males are most likely to kill out of possessiveness (82%), abuse (75%) and during arguments (63%). Women are eight times more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner.

Also, let’s talk about the fact that men are only allowed to show two emotions: anger/rage and lust. This is EXTREMELY harmful to the men in our society, and it is (one of) the reason(s) why men are disproportionally the one’s who commit assault (sexual assault, general assault, and domestic violence), have road rage, and commit murder. This is a problem and it needs to be fixed! THIS IS PART OF FEMINISM.

3. If my relationship with the father of my children was to break up, I’m far more likely to get the kids. And if I want a child, but don’t have a partner, I can do that too. I get to choose whether I have the baby or not, I get to choose whether the father’s name is on the birth certificate or not (and if he queries it, he’s the one who has to pay for the DNA test) and if he’s named as the father, he then has to pay child support, whether he was aware I was trying to have a child or not.

Yes, the reproductive rights of women are absolutely brilliant right now. No, really, it’s great.

Left out of her claims are the following facts:

1 –there are currently 31 states where a rapist can sue for custody of his child born from the rape. Also, let’s not forget that this happened

2 –the reason why women are often given custody is because of the sexist idea that women are better with children and more nurturing while men cannot be tied down that way because they have to be able to move to work

3 –working mothers lose more custody battles than they win

Also, are we just going to completely ignore the fact that if a woman does not want kids, people think there is actually something wrong with her? If a woman says that she never wants children, people will try to CONVINCE her that she actually does want kids, or that she’ll change her mind, or that kids are such a blessing. Are we just ignoring that? I guess we are.

4. I’m allowed to be as education- and career-driven as I want to be, and push for the top, seeking equity and equality in everything. But when it comes to dating and relationships, I’ll want the dates paid for, the doors opened, the bling bought. And if I want to choose to not be career-driven, and be instead at home, and not work, then I can far more readily choose that option too than a male partner could.

Women are “allowed” (by men) to be educated and career-driven, but it will cost them in many ways. Women are “allowed” to be career-driven, as long as they somehow figure out how to work and still do all of the house work and childcare. Women are “allowed” to be career-driven, as long as they are okay with never making more than their male peers and never being in a position of authority over them. Women are “allowed” to be career-driven  as long as they work above and beyond their male companions in order to even be noticed, and even then their achievements will probably be awarded to the men they work with.

Also, if women do well in academia or in the work-place, then they are immediately suspect. Claims are made that they “slept” their way to the top, because CLEARLY a woman cannot get into any position of power without having sex. This accusation has been leveled on me before, because I graduated with honors and won academic awards before moving on to date one of my previous professors.

In regards to the second part of her statement: the idea that men should pay for everything on a date is sexist and it comes from the idea that men are the breadwinners in society and women don’t/shouldn’t work, so how could they pay for anything? This is also a problem in society, and it needs to be fixed, but I’m not convinced it happens epidemically.

5. If I write an inflammatory comment, or a blog, or article, and a man questions anything in it, all I need to do to shut the conversation down is call him a bully, or say he’s a privileged male. I can also make disparaging comments about his sexuality, his economic standing, the size of his penis, and his ability to do pretty much anything in return for him disagreeing with me. I can do this, because when I do, I KNOW there will be a bunch of other women who will stick up for me. Because as a woman … I now have privilege.

Sure, a woman can try to “shut a man up” by calling him privileged or a bully. Want to know how to shut down a woman during an argument? Claim she’s on her period. Or, wait, no –just say she’s a crazy bitch who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Or, I’ve got it, this one’s good –say that she is being a typical woman and over-reacting. These things are called “gaslighting”, and they are all a form of mental abuse that happen all the time. So, let’s be honest, it is MUCH easier to silence a woman than a man during an argument.

Any notion of “female privilege” is either bullshit or is perpetuated by different strains of sexism and patriarchy. I will accept, however, that cis women have more privilege than trans* women (also due to patriarchy and trans-phobia). I will also gladly take responsibility for and accept my white privilege, because I definitely have that.

I refuse to accept that I have any form of female privilege that is NOT directly perpetuated by sexism and/or patriarchy. Just because patriarchy and sexism can backfire and hurt men as well as women does not mean that women have any sort of dominance or privilege over men. Period.

Someday I will actually write something that is not a response to something else that is completely wrong, but today is not that day.

People, it has been a bittersweet week in America.

First, the good news:

1.) A section of DOMA has been found unconstituational by the supreme court, which will allow gay and lesbian married couples to receive federal benefits like heterosexual couples. Prop 8 has also been overturned, so now California can recognize equal marriage.

2.) An extreme anti-abortion bill in Texas was successfully filibustered by primarily Senator Wendy Davis as well as many others (I would like to personally mention Senator Leticia Van De Putte, because she was amazing and should not be forgotten.) Honestly, this ended as a “people’s filibuster”, because protesters were screaming so loudly that the republican senators could not hear the roll and so could not sign the bill before midnight. This was a good victory.

And now, the bad news.

1.) Texas governor Rick Perry has called a special session, beginning on Monday July 1st, in order to attempt to pass the anti-abortion bill again. In my mind, there is less than a slim chance that this bill will not pass.

If this bill passes, it will prohibit abortions after 20 weeks from fertilization with no exceptions. (Meanwhile, having the age of the fetus be determined by fertilization rather than from the gestational age determined by the LMP (last menstrual period) actually makes the gestational age less than 20 weeks.) This bill will also require doctors that perform abortions have hospital privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. It would also require that the minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to the minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers. This would effectively shut down almost all of the clinics in Texas which offer abortions, leaving only five in the entire state.

Let’s also be aware that the republican senators attempted to commit fraud in front of millions of people shortly after midnight passed by changing the time stamps on the official record. This has been screen-caped and passed around on social media networks, causing outrage.  Meanwhile, do you think anyone will be held accountable for this? Me neither.

2.) The supreme court has FUCKED UP twice this week. The first was when they declared that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) does not protect a Native father’s parental rights. This article sums it up so well that I will quote from it and hope that you read the whole thing:

Christy Maldonado gave birth to a baby in 2009 whose father, Dusten Brown, is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Because of self-determination, the Cherokee Nation decides who its citizens are—and because Dusten Brown is Cherokee, his baby, named Veronica, is Cherokee as well. Maldonado and Brown lost touch by the time the baby was born, and Brown was never informed of the baby’s birth. Maldonado decided to put the baby up for adoption, and a white couple named Melanie and Matt Capobianco took Veronica into pre-adoptive care.

Just to be clear, although the case is called Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Copabiancos never adopted Veronica. When Brown was served with Maldonado’s intention to place the baby up for adoption, he immediately fought the decision. A South Carolina court agreed that a non-custodial Native father was, indeed a father for the purpose of the case, under ICWA.

So what does ICWA do? The act was created because of incredibly high rates of white parents adopting Native children; in states like Minnesota, that have large Native populations, non-Natives raised 90 percent of Native babies and children put up for adoption. Those adoptions sever ties to Native tribes and communities, endangering the very existence of these tribes and nations. In short, if enough Native babies are adopted out, there will literally not be enough citizens to compose a nation. ICWA sought to stem that practice by creating a policy that keeps Native adoptees with their extended families, or within their tribes and nations. The policy speaks to the core point of tribal sovereignty: Native tribes and nations use it to determine their future, especially the right to keep their tribes and nations together.

But leave it to the Supreme Court to miss the point altogether this morning. The prevailing justices failed to honor tribal sovereignty in today’s ruling. In writing for the court’s majority, Justice Samuel Alito opened his delivery on the ruling with these words:

This case is about a little girl (Baby Girl) who is classified as an Indian because she is 1.2% (3/256) Cherokee.

What Alito (along with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer) is perhaps willfully missing is that the Cherokee Nation does not classify its citizens in that way. Baby Veronica is not a certain percentage Cherokee—she is Cherokee, as determined by her nation. The high court’s first sentence, based in the colonial practice of blood quantum instead of the way that citizenship is determined by the Cherokee Nation, illustrates that the justices made this case about race—in their mind—and not about tribal sovereignty in the law. By this flawed logic, the high court ruled that Baby Veronica is somehow not Native enough to be protected by ICWA.

So the Supreme Court fucked that one up. And if you think that’s big, just wait.

It also completely gutted the Voters Right Act of 1965. Basically, the supreme court has stated that we have changed as a country, and racism at the polls isn’t relevant. This decision will allow states (that were previously flagged in this act as needing federal approval for voting changes) to change any voting standards or voting districts without the approval of the Department of Justice.It took Texas two hours to declare that it was implementing a voter ID law and that it would be changing the voting districts to a plan that was already deemed by federal judges to be discriminatory to Texas minority voters.

There are already more states joining the bandwagon, and I’m sure this will continue.

So, honestly, readers, I feel like maybe I lied at the beginning of this post. This week has not been bittersweet. It has been horrifying with a few beams of light that will be shut out, or will be attempted to be shut out. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that all marriages will receive benefits from the federal government, but the amount of racism, sexism, and discrimination that has been and will continue to be allowed is literally sickening.Readers, do not celebrate our victories too much. We are not done fighting yet. There is still too much to be done for people who are not being heard -for women, for people of color, for Native Americans, for trans* people, and so many others. Please do not forget them.

Please, stay angry. And if you’re not already, where the hell have you been?

Today I would like to take the time to discuss what is going on in the Supreme Court at this period of time, because everyone else seems to be freaking out about it.

First, let me give some background as to what’s actually going on.

The Supreme Court is deciding the fate of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and California’s Proposition 8. Basically, both of these oppose same-sex marriages at different levels (DOMA is federal, while Prop. 8 is within a state) and they are now being contested. Advocates for gay rights want both of these to be repealed by the Supreme Court.

It has been years since these have passed (DOMA in 1996, Prop. 8 in 2008) but now the case is finally being heard, and people are holding on to high hopes.

Now, I wanted to use this space not just for a history lesson, but in response to an article I found via a facebook friend.

The article is called “Why the Arguments for Gay Marriage are Persuasive” by a Christian pastor, Kevin DeYoung. It can be found here.

There are multiple places that I want to pick at from this article, so please read it, because then it will make more sense.

He writes that “For a long time, homosexuality seemed weird or gross. Now it seems normal.” I disagree with that -or, more specifically, I would like for him to admit that he is only talking about the American context  in very specific time periods. In COLONIZED America, homosexuality seemed weird or gross. Homosexuality and Trans* people were not always “gross” in “America”, because there were tribes of people who accepted these people in their cultures, until white people came in and basically destroyed everything. (If requested, I have actual articles on this, and I will reference them if necessary.)

And, even if we ignore the fact that this land was once filled with people who had Two-Spirit traditions going back centuries, other cultures had similar ideas too –Africa, for instance, before it was colonized, and India too. (Basically, let’s just agree that European colonization screwed everything up in every way.) In ancient Greece, homosexuality usually took place between an older man and a younger man/boy, and it was seen as healthy.

So, in short, no one should make sweeping generalizations about how homosexuality was “weird or gross” however long ago, because I assure you that there is more than enough research to prove that even longer ago than that time, people were cool with it and it wasn’t a big deal.

After he writes this very general and wrong statement, he makes a list of how gay marriage fits in to our common cultural assumptions:

“1. It’s about progress. Linking the pro-gay agenda with civil rights and women’s rights was very intentional, and it was a masterstroke. To be against gay marriage, therefore, is to be against enlightenment and progress. It puts you on the “wrong side of history.” Of course, most people forget that lots of discarded ideas were once hailed as the inevitable march of progress. Just look at Communism or eugenics or phrenology or the Volt. But people aren’t interested in the complexities of history. We only know we don’t want to be like the nincompoops who thought the sun revolved around the earth and that slavery was okay.

2. It’s about love. When gay marriage is presented as nothing but the open embrace of human love, it’s hard to mount a defense. Who could possibly be against love? But hidden in this simple reasoning is the cultural assumption that sexual intercourse is necessarily the highest, and perhaps the only truly fulfilling, expression of love. It’s assumed that love is always self-affirming and never self-denying. It’s assumed that our loves never require redirection. Most damagingly, our culture (largely because of heterosexual sins) has come to understand marriage as nothing but the state sanctioning of romantic love. The propagation and rearing of children do not come into play. The role in incentivizing socially beneficial behavior is not in the public eye. People think of marriage as nothing more than the commitment (of whatever duration) which romantic couples make to each other.

3. It’s about rights. It’s not by accident the movement is called the gay rights movement. And I don’t deny that many gays and lesbians feel their fundamental human rights are at stake in the controversy over marriage. But the lofty talk of rights blurs an important distinction. Do consenting adults have the right to enter a contract of their choosing? It depends. Businesses don’t have a right to contract for collusion. Adults don’t have a right to enter into a contract that harms the public good. And even if you think these examples are beside the point, the fact remains that no law prohibits homosexuals (or any two adults) from making promises to each other, from holding a ceremony, from entering into a covenant with each other. The question is whether the government should bestow upon that contract the name of marriage with all the rights and privileges thereto.

4. It’s about equality. Recently, I saw a prominent Christian blogger tweet that she was for gay marriage because part of loving our neighbor is desiring they get equal justice under the law. Few words in the American lexicon elicit such broad support as “equality.” No one wants to be for unequal treatment under the law. But the issue before the Supreme Court is not equality, but whether two laws–one voted in by the people of California and the other approved by our democratically elected officials–should be struck down. Equal treatment under the law means the law is applied the same to everyone. Gay marriage proponents desire to change the law so that marriage becomes something entirely different. Surveys often pose the question “Should it be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to marry?” That makes it sound like we are criminalizing people for commitments they make. The real issue, however, is whether the state has a vested interest in sanctioning, promoting, and privileging certain relational arrangements. Is it unjust for the state not to recognize as marriage your group of four friends, close cousins, or an office suite just because they want their commitments to be called marriage?

5. It’s about tolerance. Increasingly, those who oppose gay marriage are not just considered wrong or mistaken or even benighted. They are anti-gay haters. As one minister put it, gay marriage will eventually triumph because love is stronger than hate. Another headline rang out that “discrimination is on trial” as the Supreme Court hears arguments on Proposition 8 and DOMA. The stark contrast is clear: either you support gay marriage or you are a bigot and a hater. It’s not wonder young people are tacking hard to left on this issue. They don’t want to be insensitive, close-minded, or intolerant. The notion that thoughtful, sincere, well-meaning, compassionate people might oppose gay marriage is a fleeting thought.”

So. My first issue comes to play in his #2, where he apparently assumes that marriage is not about love between two people, and that if the USA grants same-sex marriage, then love will be confused with sex somehow. I’m not entirely sure how he makes this jump: ” But hidden in this simple reasoning is the cultural assumption that sexual intercourse is necessarily the highest, and perhaps the only truly fulfilling, expression of love.” Because gay/lesbian people and their allies are NOT arguing for the right to have sex, they are arguing that they can be legally recognized by the government as being married and get the rights involved with that distinction. Sex is not a problem here. Rights are.

Also, what is the problem with marriage being about love? Because, literally, that is the reason most people list when you ask them “why did you get married?” It’s not ‘because we wanted kids’, ‘because we wanted to have sex’, ‘because we wanted to show people socially beneficial behavior’. It’s because they loved each other so much that they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. I assure you that marriage fails for a number of reasons, one being that they didn’t love each other any more, but any marriage based off of those three examples I gave above is practically doomed to failure from the start.

AND, let’s talk about kids, because I don’t think that marriage is REALLY about procreating (or that it should be at all) when more than 250,000 kids are put in foster care every year and over 136,000 are waiting to be adopted per year. So, let’s not make this a ‘kid issue’, because I am positive that some same-sex couples would LOVE to adopt and would not increase these rates about kids needing adoption. We do not have a procreating issue, I promise.

My next problem with the article is, of course, #3. DeYoung writes, “the fact remains that no law prohibits homosexuals (or any two adults) from making promises to each other, from holding a ceremony, from entering into a covenant with each other. The question is whether the government should bestow upon that contract the name of marriage with all the rights and privileges thereto.”

The question is actually if the government can recognize separation of church and state  in order to give these couples their damn rights. There are same-sex couples who have been together as-long-as or longer-than many opposite-sex couples, and they have nothing to show for it. They have no say in life-and-death matters in hospitalization, they don’t get tax benefits or social security benefits when their partner passes (or if they are disabled or laid off), and any of the other 1,138 rights married couples get.

Meanwhile, I sense a lot of hypocrisy coming from this man who is so willing to tell gay/lesbian people “you can make promises to each other and that should be good enough for you” when he benefits from all of the rights that these people don’t have and are fighting for.

In #4, he argues that legalizing same-sex marriage would forever change the meaning of marriage, so that it becomes “something entirely different”. This is crap, honestly, because the definition of marriage has changed before in history. (He should know this, especially since in #1 he was commenting on all the ‘complexities of history’ that we tend to ignore, kinda like he did in this case.)

Marriage, before the women’s movements I discussed in my first post, was about ownership. Men literally owned women -they were property. That is why the woman took the man’s name, because he owned her. It was a practice called coverture. Let me restate this: THE HUSBAND LITERALLY OWNED THE WIFE AS THOUGH SHE WAS A PIECE OF LAND OR FURNITURE. She went from having her father’s name -from being property of her father -to having her husband’s name, being the property of her husband.

Clearly, marriage has been VERY redefined since then, so I feel that the argument “We can’t redefine marriage, it’s always been the same!” is bullshit. Especially when it’s spouted by Christians, because in the Bible, marriage is rarely ever the same thing. The Bible has one man-one woman, one man-multiple women, one man-one woman-one slave, one man-lots of concubines, men-who-never-get-married, one woman-one relative; it also has remarriage (but only after death), sanctions against divorce, messages of coverture, sanctions against mixed-religion relationships, rapists marrying their victims, sanctions to remain unmarried, etc. (And don’t get me started on David and Jonathan…)

Basically, when Christians say that redefining marriage is against the Bible, or that God only defined marriage in one way, I want to slap them in the face and tell them to read the Bible, because it is just not true. (I also want to point out all the other verses that we ignore in this culture, like the kosher regulations (“but those are just for Jews!” they cry) and not wearing clothing of mixed fibers. We seemed to forget about those ones.)

I’m just sick of hearing/seeing people being bigots, because that’s what denying equality makes you. If you are so scared that someone else’s happiness is going to somehow take yours away, you need to re-evaluate what makes you happy. If you think that someone else’s marriage is going to de-value your own, you have very messed up ideas about how marriage works, and honestly your marriage is probably already broken.

I’m not even going to try to tackle the rest of his article, because it is ridiculous and bigoted and hateful. It is backwards in so many ways, and wrong in so many other ways. I am tired of people shouting with their eyes clenched shut and their hands over their ears. I want to be a person who is shouting with joy when same-sex marriage is legalized, and I want to go to my friend’s weddings when they finally legally marry their partners. I will be on the right side of history, and I don’t care if that makes me ‘part of the culture’ or whatever, because all I am working to do is make this culture a better place for everyone, and to make it more equal for people who are discriminated against.

Straight people need to check their privilege and start actually caring about people who are different from them, and it starts here.