Another new missive from the Sheriff...

More news...

Officials: Obama to reverse abortion policy

By LIZ SIDOTI and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writers Liz Sidoti And Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – In a long-expected move, President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

Liberal groups welcomed the decision while abortion rights foes criticized the president. Known as the "Mexico City policy," the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since GOP President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method.

It mentions later in the article that both President Obama (damn, it feels good to write that) and Secretary of State Clinton promised to rescind the policy during the election campaign.

Mind-blowing shit, here...a politician promises to carry out a responsible policy with regard to sexual freedom, and then he follows through.

Wow.

Just to be absolutely clear...

It's official policy now...

Reproductive Choice
Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

There IS a new sheriff in town.

As A Public Service...

I feel compelled to dispel an ugly (okay, not ugly at all, very lovely, in fact) rumor...



This is a photo circulating the net which is allegedly of the latest pop icon, Katy Perry, buck nekkid...





















And this is unmistakeably the singer of the mega-hit "I Kissed A Girl"





















After careful examination, I have concluded that the former picture is in fact not of Ms. Perry, not unless she recently had both a nose job and a boob job. My sources inform me that Ms. Perry has a size 32 D bust, and in my expert opinion, (okay, so I'm not really an expert on women's breasts, but I'm definitely an enthusiastic amateur), the aforementioned former beauty is at least a 34.

Now, if the divine Ms. Perry wishes to forward her own nude photos for comparison of said breasts, I'll be more than happy to conduct a rigorous analysis.

Just doing my duty as a citizen...

One more thing and then I'll call it a day...

Voting for marriage equality doesn't hurt...

From Freedomtomarry.org

January 12, 2009

PRESS CONTACT:
Evan Wolfson, Executive Director
212-851-8418
Mobile: 646-263-5552
evan@freedomtomarry.org


New York, January 12, 2009 — Contrary to some political expectations, voting to support the freedom to marry and opposing anti-marriage measures helps rather than hurts politicians, a new study unequivocally shows.

For many years legislators across the country have voted on laws aimed at ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Others have been asked to vote on state constitutional amendments aimed at discriminating against same-sex couples and their children by denying them the freedom to marry and other legal protections.

A review of all of these votes from 2005 to the present shows that legislators who vote to end marriage discrimination for same-sex couples are consistently re-elected. The success of more than 1,100 state legislators who voted to support the freedom to marry stands in bold contrast to the commonly held belief that supporting marriage equality ends political campaigns and careers. In fact, these legislators are re-elected no matter what party they represent or if they changed their vote from opposing to supporting marriage equality. Even better, legislators who run for higher office win after voting in favor of marriage for same-sex couples.

Just something I found interesting. Okay, enough about marriage equality for a while. Time to get back to some good old fashioned porn!

From the Rockbound Shores Of Maine...

I don't like just blogging about gay marriage. There are lots of other sexual-freedom-oriented issues out there to discuss, but I admit gay marriage is the one getting most of the press lately. It's the hot issue, so to speak.

Anyway, on to the good news.

For Immediate Release: 01/13/2009
Contact: Betsy Smith, Executive Director, (207) 939-7779

EqualityMaine Announces Bill for Civil Marriage Equality
At a State House press conference today, EqualityMaine and several coalition partners unveiled a bill that would extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples in Maine.

The bill, titled "An Act to Prevent Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom," is sponsored by Sen. Dennis Damon (D-Hancock).

Even though the bill hasn't even been submitted to the Maine legislature yet, what makes this good news is the language that EqualityMaine is using.

"An Act To Prevent Discrimination In Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom."

The emphasis is mine. Rather than raise the issue of gay marriage as a matter of making a new right, EqualityMaine is raising it as an issue of correcting an old wrong. It's what linguists like George Lakoff call "framing the debate."

Simply put, (and Dr. Lakoff is much better at explaining all this than I would be, you really ought to read his books) half the battle in politics is the words and phrases that are used to describe the issues being discussed. For example, people who are in favor of Roe v. Wade don't call themselves "pro-abortion", they call themselves "pro-choice." Those who oppose Roe v. Wade aren't "anti-abortion" or even "anti-choice," they're "pro-life." Each side is attempting to make the debate not about abortion itself, but about choice versus life, and each side is likewise emphasizing the "pro" angle of their argument, conversely trying to "frame" the other side as being "anti" or negative in their position.

But I digress. Anyway, EqualityMaine seems to have gotten the hint that the debate about gay marriage needs to be framed as a civil right of which homosexuals have been deprived. Which I've been advocating for some time.

From EqualityMaine's website:

Why do you call it "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage"?Because we're not talking about creating a separate institution called "gay marriage." We're talking about providing equal access to the existing institution of civil marriage.

They're also taking the right tack when it comes to the issue of religious objections to marriage equality.

How would marriage equality affect my church?
That’s entirely up to your church. Remember, the issue is civil marriage, not religious marriage ceremonies. Religious institutions are not required to perform civil marriages, and may set their own boundaries for marriage. Some faith leaders will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced, for example, or for people of different religions.

Marriage equality does not challenge the autonomy of religious institutions in any way. Advocates of marriage equality focus strictly on civil marriage, and leave decisions about religious marriage ceremonies to faith leaders.

One of the great sleight-of-hand tricks the Holy Terrors are using on the subject of gay marriage (excuse me, Marriage Equality) is they're perpetuating the myth that in the U.S., the concept of marriage is inexorably tied to religious authority and what churches and scriptures and preachers believe is right and wrong.

Simply put, that's bullshit. Marriage is a civil institution. Marriages may be performed by members of the clergy, but it's not a requirement. For example, a justice of the peace may perform a marriage. Common law marriages exist in 11 U.S. states, which means that no ceremony is required at all, religious or otherwise. Certain religious groups may oppose elements of marriage and divorce, but they wouldn't necessarily hold sway when it came right down to the legal implications.

If two faithful married Catholics opted to get divorced, the Catholic Church might not be too happy about it, but the state wouldn't be obligated to abide by the Church's wishes and refuse to grant the divorce. By the same token, if a Catholic and a Jew opted to get married by a Justice of the Peace over the objections of both churches, those two crazy kids would be considered married by the state in which they lived.

I'll be closely following this one. I have high hopes.

Book Review--XXX 30 Porn Star Portraits by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders

XXX: 30 Porn-star Portraits by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders
published by Bulfinch Press

This isn't the sort of coffeetable book you actually put on a coffeetable. At least, not the sort of coffeetables where anyone under the age of eighteen might happen by.

Mr. Greenfield-Sanders is famous for his celebrity portraits, usually taken with an enormous antique box-camera. This book features, as the title suggests, portraits of porn-stars of various vintages, in a unique format. Inspired by Goya's paintings, "Maja, Clothed and Nude," Mr. Greenfield-Sanders features two photos of each pornstar, one fully clothed, and the second of the pornstar in the same pose, only in the nude.

The effect is striking. I can't speak for the exact point at which Mr. Greenfield-Sanders was driving, but what moves me is the fact that the person or persons in the left-page photo (clothed) might be someone you see on the street or in the convenience store, and then the photo on the right page (nude) is clearly someone who has no reservations about being nude in front of other people. In fact, in some of the photos, (e.g. Brianna Banks, Belladonna, Sean Michaels) appear more comfortable in front of the camera with their clothes off than on.

That, I think is what makes this book interesting. It's not that these people are comfortable being viewed in the nude, it's that they're confortable being viewed DOING things in the nude, things most of us couldn't do with the lights off in the bedroom with the family dog present.

One of the side-effects of the porn pundit game is that in a way, the topic is wide-open; it's difficult to start a discussion group about the elements of porn punditry, erotica, and/or the politics of sex because it's just not discussed in "polite society." You don't get much opportunity to have critical discussions. Was "Asian Sluts And Black Cocks IV" a good example of gonzo-form cinematography or not?

Mr. Greenfield-Sanders' book is a good way to start a dialogue. The photos themselves are very well-done, even artistic in every sense of the word. The subjects are interesting, not just for the photos, but for the ease with which they're showing it all off.

And then there are the essays. Mr. Greenfield-Sanders has invited essays on the subject of porn from commenters as varied as Gore Vidal, Witley Striber, Salman Rushdie, and John Waters. We finally get the chance to have a sample of the sort of intellectual, artistic discussion of porn that some of us dream of, if not for the fact that most people still avert their eyes and turn three shades of red when someone even mentions the name "Jenna Jameson."

Great book, great photos, great essays, I highly recommend this one.

Just don't actually put it on your coffeetable.

Addressing The "Why?" Part II

Fear is a key element in the collective mindset of the Holy Terrors. It's true of virtually everything they believe and advocate, but I want to focus on fear as it relates to sex.

There's a general belief that the Holy Terrors are adamantly afraid of sex in general, but that's not really true. When you look at the specific range of sexual practices that meet with fierce opposition, one such practice remains untouched.

The Holy Terrors target elements of the sex lives of Americans in three general categories:

1. Sexual practices which prevent or discourage procreation (abortion, birth control, substantive sex education) or in which the chances of procreation are nil (sodomy [oral or anal sex], homosexuality),

2. Sexual practices which enhance the enjoyment of sex or otherwise make it appear more interesting or appealing (pornography/erotica, sex toys, "deviant" sexual practices such as BDSM or "swinging"),

3. Outside-the-bonds-of-matrimony sexual practices (pre-marital or non-marital sex, homosexuality again, swinging again, general promiscuity).

So what's left? What's an appropriate summary of the Holy Terrors' belief system?

Simply put:

Sex is a chore, a necessary burden, the only acceptable practice of which is to procreate, and only within the bounds of holy matrimony.

Furthermore, marriage is the only acceptable forum in which people may engage in sex, AND ITS PRIME FUNCTION IS FOR PROCREATION.

All that guff about love and companionship is a bunch of hooey. It's all about making babies, baby.

Think I'm exaggerating? Let's step back into the Wayback Machine to take a closer look at some of the anti-gay marriage rulings of state courts in New York and Washington.

Without getting into too much legalese, the New York and Washington high courts have gone on record as stating that marriage is an institution necessary to preserving and maintaining the "one-mother one-father" family unit for the raising of children. Love and affection? Meh.

And let's not forget my own post from earlier this month about New Hampshire.

Rep. David Hess in the last paragraph of the article. That speaks volumes.

(Hess said) "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.

"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."

Nice of them to state their agenda so bluntly, isn't it?

So, to recap: In the eyes of the Holy Terrors and their whores in the Republican Party, sex is a terrible burden upon mankind and it must be treated as such, because we can't have people going around having sex for fun now, can we? After all, sex's sole purpose is the making of babies and its sole acceptable forum is marriage. If we've got unmarried people making whoopie, or just as bad, married people treating sex not as a burden, but as a fun way to spend an evening (or morning, or lunch break or whatever...) then...what?

What's the big deal if people just want to have sex for fun? Married or otherwise?

I'm glad you asked.

More later.

And another thing...

Not that I'm apologizing for anything right now, I just had the urge to demonstrate one of those positive benefits...

Porn Industry In Crisis???

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Addressing The "Why?" Part I

One of the side-effects of the recent election (and especially the Proposition 8 mess in California) is that we're getting a lot of post-mortem analysis asking "Why?" Why do the neo-cons so vehemently oppose gay marriage? For that matter, why are they so dead-set against sexual freedom in general? For example, from L'Hote:

(the essay is short and worth quoting in its entirety)

Thursday, December 11, 2008
the hot stress injection

I think the idea that social or cultural conservatives are generally people who are afraid of sex is little more than a gross caricature. As I've tried to demonstrate, I equally think a lot of self-professed "sexually liberated" people are, in fact, the ones most likely to feel actual fear for sex, because their attempts to make sex mundane are usually about removing the danger, immediacy and emotionality of sex-- that is, the things that make sex so special in the first place. When I hear someone talking about a naked party, sometimes, they may just think that's a way to have a good time, although frankly I think the average naked human, even a particularly attractive one, isn't something you'd like to look at in most social contexts. Very often, though, I think people who are interested in naked parties or the like are people who are paradoxically terrified of sex. They're attempting to de-eroticize shared nakedness. That's not liberating sex from anything, it's robbing sex of its power.

I do think, however, that conservatives allow general unease and fear about sex to carry a lot of rhetorical water for them. It seems to me that often enough, conservatives can just sort of invoke sexual ephemera and conjure emotional reactions, out of proportion with what they've actually proved logically. We're evolutionarily and culturally cued to react to invocations of sex, and I wouldn't want to change that. But I think conservatives, when agitating against this or that current sexual practice, use that general sense of heightened emotionality or stress to rhetorical advantage in a way that doesn't actually benefit the conversation.

I'm not quite accusing James Polous of doing this here. My assumption is just that James is hearkening to previous posts where he's already laid the groundwork of why bisexuality is bad. James certainly isn't one to not do the necessary intellectual homework. But I would have appreciated a link to get at his actual arguments, here. Invoking the painfully obvious does us little good. James has a pretty strong case for the origins of bisexual affect, although I can't accept it on the grounds that I don't believe in one person or another judging the internal sexual and emotional content of another. More to the point, though, that doesn't get us anywhere about why this is all to our detriment as a society.

Of note here is probably my philosophical stance that the best, most humane and liberating framework for understanding human sexuality is to think in terms of sexual behaviors and not sexual orientations.

Update: Just about everyone in comments, or near enough, is telling my I'm a moron for this post. I don't know, I think I'm on to something here. Look I'm not saying "don't go to naked parties, it's immoral." I'm saying "I won't go to a naked party, because I don't think the people involved are accomplishing what they think they're accomplishing; and anyway, I want to keep shared nudity for sex, because I value sex."

The emphases are mine. While I appreciate the effort to come up with an explanation, I have to confess the analysis is off the mark, IMHO.

In the first place, while I'm speaking only anecdotally, I've found that the people whom I've encountered that Freddie DeBoer calls "self-professed sexually liberated" are not afraid of sex at all. If they ARE afraid, they're doing a damn good job of hiding it. Rather, these people, (and again, I admit I'm speaking only anecdotally, and only from personal experience) want to get over or have gotten over their fear of sex and instead treat sex as a mundane thing precisely because that's what it is, at least in their eyes. It must be stressed that being mundane makes sex no less important or significant than would be the mundanaeity of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Rather, in my opinion these people have in fact overcome their fear of sex, and are thus empowered. Rather than having the value of sex removed, they've had the SHOCK value removed.

Consider this website, one of my favorites, by NY photographer Jordan Matter

While he does all sorts of photography, Mr. Matter's main appeal, at least to me, is of all the nude and topless women he photographs in the streets of New York City.

For example:






Aren't all these women treating nudity as something mundane? Aren't they all therefore removing its shock value?

And aren't they all sexy as hell?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think sex is powerful because it's dangerous, immediate, or emotional. It's powerful because it's SEX. It's one of the most basic, fundamental drives in nature. Its power is inherent. Sex doesn't need to be dangerous to be valuable. In fact, IMHO it's the element of danger that keeps people from enjoying its value as much as they might.

And that's what the Holy Terrors are fighting against. I do agree with Mr. DeBoer that the Holy Terrors and their whores in the government are exploiting that fear, but before we can address the "why" we should also consider the "how."

I just disagree with Mr. DeBoer's assertion that removing (or attempting to remove) the fear element leads to a bad result; that sex is "rob(bed) of its power."

On the contrary. Removing the fear element makes it more fun and alluring. In fact, Mr. DeBoer's position admits that in his eyes, the Holy Terrors have a case for treating sex as a bad thing. He admits the element of fear is great; so great in fact, that attempts to remove that element are counter-productive.

I take a different tack.

More later.

Shocking, SHOCKING News From Mississippi

From Think Progress

By Ryan Powers on Jan 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Mississippi, A Hotbed of Abstinence Education, Now Boasts Highest Teen Pregnancy Rate In America»

The Centers for Disease Control released a new report today that found that Mississippi “now has the nation’s highest teen pregnancy rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title.” The report found that in 2006, the Mississippi teen pregnancy rate was over 60 percent higher than the national average and increased 13 percent since the year before.

While the new report does not explain why the state’s teen pregnancy rate is increasing, one reason may be the poor quality of its sex ed programs. As the Sexuality Information and Education Center explains, Mississippi focuses heavily on abstinence education and teachers are prohibited from demonstrating how to use contraceptives:

Mississippi schools are not required to teach sexuality education or sexually transmitted disease (STD)/HIV education. If schools choose to teach either or both forms of education, they must stress abstinence-until-marriage, including “the likely negative psychological and physical effects of not abstaining.” […]

If the school board authorizes the teaching of contraception, state law dictates that the failure rates and risks of each contraceptive method must be included and “in no case shall the instruction or program include any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied.”

A reporter for ABC News’s Jackson, MS affiliate explained, “The Mississippi Department of Human Services says abstinence is the only birth control that is 100 percent effective. And that’s the only message teens need to hear.” Unfortunately, numerous studies show that abstinence-only education is not effective. As one study found:

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

Further, a review by the House Oversight Committee found that “80% of the abstinence-only curricula…contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.”

Pregnant teens in Mississippi face few options. Access to facilities that provide abortions in that state is extremely limited. Indeed, because of an unusually effective anti-choice campaign in the legislature, only a single abortion clinic remains open in the state.

Update: The report also found that the teen pregnancy rate is rising fastest in Alaska, where Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is a strong proponent of abstinence-only sex ed.

No surprise here. Anybody out there surprised?

DOMA Sponsor has changed his mind...

On a slightly different, but similar note...

From the L.A. Times

No defending the Defense of Marriage Act
The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays.

By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009

In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.

I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.


The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise.

DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause -- which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A -- from being used to extend one state's recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.

Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.

However, we did incorporate into DOMA's second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic -- and, at the time, widely accepted -- view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.

The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.
I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.

Not sure if I want to applaud Congressman Barr's about face or roll my eyes. Right conclusion, wrong reasoning.

Gay marriage can't and shouldn't be left up to the states to decide. It's a civil rights issue, and that means the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clauses must be applied for the right of all consenting adults to be validated. Furthermore, we can't count on fifty individual state governments to do the right thing, here. It's got to come from the highest levels, in the same way desegregation had to come from the U.S. Supreme Court and from Congress's passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Still, if DOMA were repealed it'd be a great first step in the ultimate legalization of gay marriage, and it does count that one of the far right's biggest spokesmen is reconsidering his position.

The Battle over California's Prop 8 goes on...

Back to the courts...

California gay marriage battle turns to court role

By Peter Henderson Peter Henderson – Mon Jan 5, 9:46 pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The legal battle over gay marriage in California turned on Monday to whether the state's top court could strike down a change in the state constitution that was approved by voters.

Gay marriage opponents said overturning a same-sex marriage ban would change the nature of California government by gutting the people's right to make law.

Giving such power to the court would create "a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed," they said in court papers filed on Monday.

"It is essentially changing the constitution-making function from the people to the courts," lawyer Andrew Pugno, a supporter of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, said by telephone.

Gay marriage proponents, led by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, argue that the right to marry is part of the "inalienable right" to liberty, so the state Supreme Court must strike down even an amendment to the constitution limiting it.

Unfortunately, this is where the issue will ultimately be decided. Gay marriage is highly unlikely to be accepted through the ballot box. To my knowledge, no state that has permited gay marriage or same-sex unions has done so by a vote of the state's voting population; they've all come through the courts.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has it pegged right, though. It's not just a personal preference or privacy issue, or even an issue of "common decency"; the debate has to be framed as one of civil rights. Simply put, it has to be argued that the states have no good reason to deprive homosexual couples of the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Stay tuned.

News Out of New Hampshire

From the SeaCoastOnline.com website.

Splaine pushes for gay marriage in N.H. House
By Karen Dandurant
kdandurant@seacoastonline.com
December 29, 2008 6:00 AM

PORTSMOUTH — When legislators meet in 2009, there will be several bills to consider that deal with civil unions and gay marriage.

State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, submitted a bill asking that civil unions, which are currently recognized by the state, be changed to allow marriage. State Rep. Paul McEachern, D-Portsmouth, is co-sponsoring the bill.

"The bill would essentially provide for full marriage equality," Splaine said. "I submitted the bill because I think it's important that we keep this dialogue going."

Splaine said the bill will be presented on Jan. 7 along with the other bills introduced for the session. He said then it will be scheduled for a public hearing or sent to a committee.

Splaine said that although civil unions are recognized in New Hampshire, gay marriage is not. He said a bill introduced by state Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, would prohibit New Hampshire from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states as civil unions here.

This is generally good news, IMHO, as "civil unions" have served only as a foot in the door with regard to the legalization of gay marriage. Rep. Splaine is trying to break down that barrier, and I applaud that.

What gets me is the quote from Rep. David Hess in the last paragraph of the article. That speaks volumes.

(Hess said) "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.

"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."

Emphasis is mine.

Every once in a while, the homophobes let slip a tiny little bit of truth that somehow amazingly avoids detection. Everybody get that? Marriage isn't about love or companionship, it's about procreating. Making babies. Gay people don't do that, so the concept of gay marriage is therefore abhorrent.

Of course, it's an easy step to extend that logic. If marriage is about procreating, shouldn't heterosexual couples who choose not to have children (or are somehow unable to do so) therefore be required to divorce?

Rep. Hess? Hello?

Is this thing on?

Part of my humble apology...

In keeping with my practice of a little gratuitious nudity to make up for being away so long...




And actually, a few months ago I got a comment wondering why all my gratuitious nudity was so blatantly oriented toward the feminine gender, and I honestly couldn't think of an appropriate response, so...

Speaking of New Mommy Bristol Palin...

This just came down the pike as I was sending the last post...

Sarah Palin's daughter warns against teenage pregnancy

In a statement issued by the family, Bristol said she "obviously discourages" teen pregnancy and understood her previous plans had now been changed forever.

"Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with – this isn't ideal," she said.
"But I'm fortunate to have a supportive family which is dealing with this together. Tripp is so perfectly precious; we love him with all our hearts. I can't imagine life without him now."

Hm. Now it occurs to those two crazy kids that maybe unprotected sex wasn't such a hot idea.

Better late than never, I suppose.

I have to preface this next statement by adding that I have in fact no idea what sort of sex ed Bristol and new daddy Levi got in their respective homes and/or their schools (or lack thereof), so I'm only speculating.

However...

In light of the fact that for most of the neo-cons and Holy Terrors out there, premarital sex is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

made even worse by the fact that preventing pregnancy as a rule is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

worse still by the notion that EDUCATING teens about AVOIDING unexpected pregnancies is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

Small wonder these two crazy kids had this happy little "accident"...

And I echo Bristol's sentiments in the above quote. She's lucky to have such a supportive family. Not all the girls in her situation are quite so lucky.

But again, better late than never when it comes to unexpected pregnancies, right?

Abstinence Pledges Don't Work---What A Shock

No surprise at all. The pledges seem to work as well as does ignorance-only sex ed.

(Excerpted. The emphases are mine).

New study finds that abstinence pledging teens still have sex

December 29, 11:58 AM
by Michele Johansen & Lexie Tigre, Seattle Eastside Parenting Examiners

For several years, teens pledging abstinence until marriage have been on the rise. While this may give their parents some peace of mind, a new federal study announced today that teens who pledge abstinence are just as likely to have premarital sex than teens who do not pledge abstinence. Even more unsettling is the finding that teens planning to save themselves are less likely to use birth control when they do have sex. Well, moms and dads, you might want to put a hold on that abstinence party you were planning for your teen. Looks like that peace of mind was really just a false sense of security.

***

The federal government has spent over $100 million dollars on abstinence education and the question of whether or not they are effective is now in the spotlight. Adding to the frenzy is the discovery that students that had taken the pledge were less likely to use condoms or other forms of birth control when they did have sex. Rosenbaum says this is due to the difference of what youths learn in abstinence-focused programs. 'They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control' in such programs, a statement that Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association vehemently disagrees with. "Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she says.

First, I'm not sure if Ms. Huber is drinkin' the Kosmic Kool Aid or if she really believes that tripe, but it's absolutely not true that abstinence only sex ed tells kids the truth about what they need to know.

A blast from the past...

To recap...(from one of my 2007 columns) documenting the findings of Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman's 2004 report

Abstinence-only sex ed programs have “educated” teenagers that:

Condoms have little to no effect in preventing pregnancies, HIV/AIDS, or other sexually transmitted diseases. (Bullshit. When properly used, condoms have a success rate of greater than 97%).

Abortions render one woman in ten sterile and increase the risk of fetal birth defects in subsequent pregnancies. (More bullshit. The most common abortion procedures have no impact at all on subsequent pregnancies).

The HIV/AIDS virus can be spread through human sweat and tears. (Unbelievably outrageous bullshit, here. There’s never been a documented case of HIV/AIDS contracted through tears or sweat.)

One program stated that “twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create” a new individual. The correct number is twenty-THREE chromosomes, Dr. Science. Even Wikipedia got this one right. This same program also proclaimed that “boys produce both male and female sperm,” which should be news to biologists and physicians the world over.

And the abstinence-only programs aren’t just perpetuating scientific myths, either. They’re telling our teenagers that “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success through their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.” Women are more concerned with financial support and men are more concerned with domestic support. Women are naturally weaker, more emotional, and need more protection from the world while men are naturally more aggressive and emotionally shallow.

But where was I? Oh, yeah.

So, abstinence pledges don't work any more effectively than does abstinence only sex ed. That is to say, not at all.

I just think it's fitting this story came down just as G.O.P. Vice-Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced she'd just become a grandma at the ripe old age of forty-four. Palin's eighteen year old unmarried daughter and the girl's teenaged boyfriend Levi Johnston had a baby boy on Dec. 30th. It hasn't been talked about much, but Gov. Palin's as Holy as any Holy Terror in politics today, so while the neo-cons have been applauding Bristol's decision to keep the baby, they haven't made much of the fact that these two teenagers sure as hell didn't plan to have a baby, nor that they could have avoided this whole mess if they'd invested seven bucks in a box of condoms.

Ah, well. Youth.