Defending The Decision

On August 4, 2010 Judge Vaughn Walker bravely ventured forward with equality instead of holding the state of California back along with the many other states in our union who still have a ban on gay marriage. Justice Walker, the Chief Justice of the northern California federal district believes in a right wing conservative legal approach.The monumental decision struck down California's ban on same sex marriage and ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. This decision will inevitably be appealed as the anti-gay marriage groups went straight to work, the case could ultimately make it's way to the Supreme Court. If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, the decision could set a major precedent for the country around the issue of gay marriage. What makes his decision even more memorable is the fact that he was nominated by George H.W. Bush, in 1989, and everyone is familiar with the Bush's and their feelings and treatments towards LGBTQ people, poor people, people of color and just about every minority group.

Groups like the National Organization for Marriage, (NOM) the American Family Association (AFA) and Prop 8 campaign leaders have come together to appeal this decision. As religious affiliated groups, NOM is notorious for the violence that they preach against the LGBTQ community. Not only are these groups rallying together for an appeal but they also are getting together to take over Congress. These groups along with other religious affiliated groups have rallied together to organize and pressure Congress to impeach Judge Walker because of his decision for equality. Claiming the Judge Walker "frustrated the will of seven million Californians" The argument is that marriage policy is not regulated by the federal constitution, therefore it is the state, according to the tenth amendment, to define marriage. But this argument can be countered with the Fourteenth amendment, this prohibits states from denying any of it's citizens from life, liberty and property. Also includes the equal protection clause, and defines citizenship.

Fundraising initiatives have begun to push this anti gay marriage agenda. Courage Campaign is a group trying to fight back and protect the decision that was made, fundraising for the appeals process but also for their "Equality on Trail" campaign. This campaign would have the trail televised to viewers as the we prepare for a tough battle on the road to equality!

Elena Kagan + No answer = Ex-Gay?!

Supreme Court nominees are often criticized for their views on issues like abortion, the death penalty and so on. In the case of Elena Kagan, there is talk about her possibly being a lesbian because former Harvard classmates claim that they knew her to be a lesbian. While her decline to answer the media's questioning her sexual orientation has caused people to share their ideas about her sexuality, one individual's hypothesis stands out...
Greg Quinlan, President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), recently claimed that Kagan should come out as an ex-gay. As an ex-gay himself, Quinlan suggests that if Kagan is a lesbian she would have come out because President Obama supports LGBT individuals and BECAUSE she has not stated her sexual orientation, she must not be a lesbian! He proposes two possible reasons for her refusal:
1. She is worried that denying rumors could imply that she discriminates against LGBT people-- Quinlan states that to prove her heterosexuality she would need to marry a man which would "be a step backward, and not forward, in liberal gender politics"-- OR,
2. She is an ex-gay!
Oh, really? Refusing to share her sexuality with the media means that she must be or was at one time a lesbian? Sorry, but that's bull. First of all, I must point out that just because she doesn't divulge her sexual orientation does NOT mean she is gay or an "ex-gay"-- maybe, just maybe, she would simply prefer to maintain her privacy. Next, I take serious issue with the term "ex-gay" and organizations like PFOX. PFOX and similar organizations use the term "ex-gay" to describe an individual that has been converted-- CONVERTED?!?!-- from being homosexual to being heterosexual. These organizations that claim to support ex-gays and their loved ones are often ran by religious groups that shame LGBT individuals and attempt to convert them.
Specifically, PFOX claims that individuals choose to be ex-gays yet the organization focuses on providing testimonies and resources that encourage individuals to "leave homosexuality." According to Truth Wins OUT, PFOX's "goal was to counter PFLAG by providing the media with parents who claimed to love their children-- while rejecting their sexual orientation. Ironically, the group has never been lead by a person who is actually the parent of an ex-gay individual."
Um... Not anti-gay? I disagree-- PFOX's goal is to counter a prominent pro-gay organization! How can an organization whose primary goal is counter a pro-gay organization not be anti-gay?
However, this organization's aggressiveness toward PFLAG doesn't surprise me. After all, the organization's founder, Anthony Falarano, claims,

"Satan uses homosexuals as pawns. They're in, as you know, key positions in the media, they're in the White House, they're in everything, they're in Hollywood now. Then after he uses them, he infects them with AIDS and then they die."

This group has been against LGBT individuals from the start. You're not fooling me PFOX. Elena Kagan should NOT "come out" as an ex-gay nor should anyone else.

Interested in learning more?

• Check out Ted Cox and contact him at ted.m.cox@gmail.com to let him know that you're interested in having him speak about his undercover work at on your campus.
• Stay up to date on the ex-gay movement at Ex-Gay Watch.

Let's Talk About Virginity

I've come across many posts on virginity lately, so it only seems right put in my two cent about VIRGINITY too. :)

Growing up Catholic (Sounds like a cool T.V. show.... lol maybe not.) I was taught that my virginity was very important in "finding a husband, getting married, and being respected as a woman." I was told that a woman was worth her purity/virginity. Thankfully I was not forced to have a purity ball, or wear a purity ring(and denied my right to make a decision about my own virginity.) In High School my view on virginity became conflicted because I was hearing more and more opinions on sex. I wasn't sure what to believe anymore, I remember thinking that God would be disappointed in me, if I had sex before I married.

During my questioning I was also realizing things about myself that would make waiting for marriage impossible. Like, what if I didn't want to get married? What if I was lesbian? (Would God accept me then? and if he/she did, I still couldn't marry legally. I still wouldn't be able to have sex.) I also wondered how sure we could be that the Bible was God's word, I mean the Bible was written by men, was it not? And since it was written by men, wasn't it possible that they could use God's word, to push their selfish desires to restrict and control women.

I noticed how HUGE this virginity thing was, and how our society seemed to differentiate women by it (virgin snobs/afraid of men or whores.) The media pushes sex at us anyway it can, and tells women that we have to be sexy at all times. My role in American society became very apparent, I was supposed to be over the top sexy (hair, nails, makeup, clothes, movements, tone of voice), I was to serve as a tool for male gratification, I was my body. I was already so confused and when I read an essay about making abstinence a feminist decision, I didn't know what to think.

Please forgive me the title of the essay has been lost in my memory forever, but the idea as basically this. Women were tricked during he sexual revolution into thinking that felt a certain "sexual freedom", but really were only serving men as a means for sex without strings attached. And I thought Hmm, How will I know if someone really cares about me if they aren't willing to wait? How will I know that I won’t just be a body? Maybe this was brainwashing, but it has some truth...I think. At the same time I think women were also having fun during the sexual liberation, so I don't think they were tricked.

This article (by Shelby Knox) responds to a similar idea,

"Sex is inevitable, even for those of us who pledged otherwise, so it seems far more proactive to challenge outdated and harmful notions about each gender's relationship to sex, not necessarily with sexual activity, but by educating both men and women toward positive, healthy expressions of sexuality that neither subjugate nor deny the humanity of either partner. The last thing anyone, male or female, needs on a college campus is a rancorous and harmful debate about the merits of sex or no sex. Instead, someone needs to start an open and honest discussion about sexual health and responsibility that encompasses everything from abstinence to contraception and personal fulfillment and pleasure"

Today my position on the whole virginity thing is this, wait until sex s not something your afraid of, wait until you understand that your having sex shouldn't disappoint anyone. Make sure that if you do have sex, whether its the first time or not, that you want to have sex just as much as your partner, this is to ensure that you don't feel used at the end of the day. And be safe.

Now that I've expressed my opinion on the whole virginity subject , I'd love to hear your views on virginity.

Photo Credit: Tatiana P. on Flickr

New CPC Targets Jewish Women

Last week, Washington Jewish Week reported on the creation of In Shifra's Arms, a new crisis pregnancy center (CPC) targeting Jewish women.

I've spent the last two years at FMF organizing students to take part in our Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics. I've traveled the country and seen CPCs of all shapes and sizes, in office buildings and church basements, all close to college campuses and advertising the "choices" they offer. It's a promise on which they never deliver, because a CPC doesn't offer real choices. A CPC offers dangerously false information, condescension, and judgment. It offers short-term support for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, in the form of baby clothes, diapers, or parenting classes. But it does not offer the support and trust that women need when they are facing an unplanned pregnancy.

As a proud Jewish feminist, I'm really troubled to see a CPC targeting my community, claiming to be grounded in Jewish ideals. Judaism is actually a remarkably pro-choice and pro-women religion. I encourage you all to check out a great piece on this subject from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. In the essay, Rabbi Raymond A. Zwerin and Rabbi Richard J. Shapiro conclude, "Whatever their opinions on abortion in any given situation, a vast majority of Jewish thinkers agree that decision-making with respect to abortion must be left in the hands of the woman involved, her husband, her physician, and her rabbi. Out of this context, in consonance with her Jewish heritage, she can make a decision as she is permitted to do by the United States Constitution. "

For a more detailed examination of In Shifra's Arms, check out my guestpost at the Jewish Women's Archive's blog Jewesses With Attitude. To take action against CPCs, check out our toolkit or email campusteam@feminist.org for more information.

The Latest (En)rage(ment) in Keeping Women Oppressed

I was relieved to read in the New York Times about Pope Benedict XVI meeting with some of the sex abuse victims from the ongoing scandals in the Catholic Church. Finally, after so many years, this Sunday, he came face to face with the people whose suffering he tried to keep a secret. It gave me hope that the religious figures of our time are not without (ironically) souls...

...but, then my friend forwarded this doozy:
An Iranian cleric believes promiscuous women cause earthquakes.

And once again, instead of using its great influence for positive change, this cleric is using religion to keep women oppressed. And what's the latest update? Young women in Iran dare to wear form-fitting coats and scarves instead of the traditional burqa, which leaves only a slit showing their eyes. These rebellious Iranian women showing their faces (and hair...whow) in public rather than hiding behind a cloth causes...yes, seismic activity.

The cleric in question, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, was quoted by Iranian media, "Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes." It appears Tehran, Iran's capitol city, is located in an area of increased seismic activity and many fault lines. But I suppose cleric Sedighi saw this as a great opportunity to try to shame women into wanting to dress in something other than a head-to-toe blanket.

Upon reading the story, Shanna Bolden, a George Mason University graduate student, commented, "This prayer leader is basically saying that men are animals, react only by instinct, and have no control over their own actions? In that case, women should have taken over Iran by now!!!" Excellent point, Shanna.

On a related subject, a poll was recently taken, following French President Nicolas Sarkozy's announcement of potentially banning the burqa. The poll showed that 70 percent of French respondents supported the ban, 65 percent showed support in Spain, and 63 in Italy. Furthermore, even 57 percent of UK voters were in favor, and 50 percent of those from Germany wanted to see this head-to-toe women's garment banned.

However, only 33 percent of Americans who took the poll were in support of its riddance. We claim to be such a liberal country, with freedom of choice and expression. So what's the issue here? Perhaps it has to do with our idea that church and state should be kept separate, as James Joyner of the Atlantic Council brought up.

But at the end of the day, the women of Iran were not demanding a ban of any sort. They simply want to dress in a way that allows them to move more comfortably and to feel more free in their daily lives. It is disheartening to think that the men who control these women's lives are coincidentally too weak to control their own sexual urges. So who should be ashamed?

Photo credit: Associated Press

"Hard Punches! To the Head! Do it for Jesus!"

Looks like mixed martial arts, a violent sport that combines kickboxing, wrestling and other fighting styles, has made its way into America's churches. The pastors of a variety of ministries across the country now do more than just preach the word of the Lord.

In an effort to raise the church-going rate of young men between ages 18 and 34, an estimated 700 churches have taken up mixed martial arts. This Feb. 1 article from The New York Times, my main source of information, says the youth ministry affiliate of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 45,000 churches, sees it as "a legitimate outreach tool."

John Renken is the pastor who founded the Xtreme Ministries church and academy; he doubles as the team's coach. Their motto? "Where feet, fists and faith collide."

As I was reading this story, I had a hard time containing both my laughter and my irritation. Especially as I read the concept behind this program is to "inject some machismo into [the] ministries." It appears many ministers feel their churches have become "too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility."

"The man should be the overall leader of the household," said Ryan Dobson, 39, a pastor whose father founded Focus on the Family, a prominent evangelical group. "We’ve raised a generation of little boys."

Apparently, these men grew up going to church with their families and falling asleep in the pastel-painted pews. Why not just repaint the pews electric green?

Instead, the solution to the problem is setting up a church group that imitates the makings of Fight Club? After all, about a decade ago, mixed martial arts was banned in most U.S. states. But about five years back, it made its return with the persistent marketing of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, or UFC, brand. Since then, Christian mixed martial arts clothing brands have cropped up, with names like "Jesus Didn't Tap" (a reference to tapping out, or giving up, in a fight).

Here's an update: maybe Jesus didn't tap because he didn't fight.

In the article, a pastor from Seattle says that what led him "to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter."

Every other reference to Jesus I have ever heard in my 22 years of life has been of peace and love, and every other synonym to those words. "Kicking ass" has never come up in that discussion. In fact, wasn't Jesus a proponent of loving thy fellow man, not taking him on in the ring? Well, pure and true Christ, your ideas are too girly for the modern pastor.

Please don't misunderstand me: I think this is a great program if it helps bring faith into young men's lives and helps them find fulfillment. But I wonder why the ministries could not have chosen a martial art like Karate or Tae Kwon Do, which have some sort of zen aspect involved and resonate much more with "inner strength and peace."

Photo credit: Flickr

Church Uses 68,000 Lives as Bargaining Chips

By now most of you have heard about DC's Catholic Archdiocese threatening to pull funding from homeless services in DC for fear of being forced to "extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples" under the DC marriage bill. (They are allowed to deny marriages.)

The Church, through the non-profit Catholic Charities, serves 68,000 people in the District and supplements DC funding for programs with $10 million. Jos of Feministing pointed out that "[the Church's] willingness to use the lives and health of 68,000 people in need as pawns in their fight for the right to discriminate is unconscionable. D.C. needs more social services, not less."

Personally, I'm not surprised. The leadership in the Catholic Church never had much of a pro-LGBT stance (I'm not denying that Catholics can have one though). I can't help but wonder how queer homeless youth are being impacted by this. LGBT homeless youth suffer disproportionally in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts. The Catholic Charities don't offer this group of people any services (I called and asked).

Regardless, the point that the Church shouldn't use 68,000 lives as bargaining chips still stands.

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/livenature/

Church Punished for Perceived Acceptance of Homosexuality

Yesterday, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) broke ties with the Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. The reason: the church allowed pictures of homosexual church members to be published in its membership directory. While a number of religious institutions are outspoken regarding their rejection of homosexuality, this latest action by the SBC proves once again how homophobia is alive and well among many religious communities.

Broadway Baptist Church had been affiliated with the SBC for 125 years, and it took the convention 30 seconds to officially sever ties over the church's membership directory. Article III of the SBC Constitution states, "Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior". Proir to the meeting of the SBC this year, a group of deacons from Broadway Baptist church wrote a letter regarding their stance on homosexuality. In it, they wrote, "We have not denied that we, like most other churches, have a few gay members. We do not inquire about sexual orientation when people present themselves for membership. We do require their profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord followed by believer's baptism". Apparently, the SBC saw the inclusion photographs of "a few gay members" in Broadway's membership directory as a ringing endorsement for homosexuality.

There appear to be few viable options for queer-identified individuals who would like to be affiliated with the SBC. Aside from being "cured" of their infliction, what's a queer baptist to do? Perhaps it is time for the SBC, along with other religious organizations, to reconsider their stance on homosexuality - before homosexuals reconsider their stance on religion.

Feminization from an Anti-Choice Website

While perusing the Internet, I stumbled across the "Farside Commentary" section from the Missionary to the Unborn Website. I think that it is always worthwhile to try and understand "the other side" of debates, so why not start with an anti-choice website? Author Steve Wetzel mentions that he hopes to create controversy, so I just thought I would share a link to his "piece," entitled The Feminization of Christianity for anyone looking for a good laugh.

He mentions the fact that culture has nothing to do with the oppression of women, but rather he quotes lines from the bible, explaining why women should continue to be oppressed. I don't want to spoil the entire piece, but he more or less goes on to say that women were not meant to have careers, or be able to be teachers, unless they are teaching their children religion in their homes. To quote directly from the article,

"The modern liberated Christian woman might ask, 'Do I have to suffer for what Eve did?'

According to Wetzel, the short answer to that is, 'Yes.' "

I'm sure you get the idea, so I hope you have as much fun reading the article as I did!