On Appeasement April 1, 2009

Today, we have two recent examples of political appeasement – one in Afghanistan, and one in the United States. In the U.S., Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, who is nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, has signed into law a bill passed in the Kansas legislature, restricting women’s abortion rights (via).

As far as fetal ultrasound mandates go, I think Twisty says it best:

Because stupid ignorant women apparently don’t have the slightest idea what pregnancy is; they need this vital information, available only through a medical procedure, about what is really going on in their lady-ovens. If they are given the opportunity (i.e. forced) to endure a fetus-screening (”Here’s baby’s precious little beating heart, here’s his adorable little brain stem …”), they will see the error of their ways and comply with the godbag mandate to shut up and be punished for the sin of fornication by incubating to term, followed by a lifetime of child-rearing drudgery.

[...]For a woman seeking an abortion, this weepy ultrasound intervention, like most state and medical interference in private lives, is wildly inappropriate. It’s nothing but pressure to conform by shaming the woman into a culturally-mandated response. No “information” is imparted, only social cues. The only possible rationale behind any [...]anti-abortion bill is to make abortion as inconvenient, shaming, and difficult as possible.

Links Round-Up! October 23, 2008

I don’t feel like typing a lot today, as I have a midterm to study for and a mouse bite on my finger to nurse (yes, for serious. Yes, it hurt quite a bit. Yes, I’m milking it for all it’s worth). So, here’s some recommendations on some of the topics being bandied about the blogosphere today:

• The incomparable David Sedaris on the election:
  

  To put [undecided voters] in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

  To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

Are Democrats Throwing Gays Under The Bus? October 14, 2008

This article does a good job of explaining (one of my reasons for) my reluctance to wholeheartedly endorse the Democratic party in general, or even Senators Obama and Biden in particular – they’re just not wonderful on LGBT rights. And before people descend like a horde of winged monkeys onto this post yelling BUT MCCAIN IS WORSE!!!! – I know, okay? It will be a cold day in Circles 1-8 of Hell before I vote for McCain or another member of the Republican party. But that doesn’t mean I have to be perfectly satisfied with the slightly more advocacy coming from the left side of the aisle.

To stress: if you care about LGBT rights, there’s only one way to vote (assuming you’re going with one of the two major parties).

Quick Hit October 10, 2008

Same-sex marriage was just legalized in Connecticut today! Woot! I have to go take a lab practical now, but will be sure to post later giving thoughts on what this means and what it bodes for the future of LGBT rights in America. But right now I’m just HAPPY! Yay!

Mawwiage October 5, 2008

Yes, my friends, mawwiage is what bwings us togethuh today. Mawwiage – that pwecious event, that dweam within a dweam…More specifically, same-sex marriage (gasp!). As the current Hot Topic, civil rights-wise, this issue has gotten a lot of coverage. I think it’s fairly obvious that this question serves as a proxy for people to advertise their views on LGBT rights in general. I haven’t seen any primary literature on the subject, but I imagine that there are very few people, if any, whose feelings on the specific issue of same-sex marriage differ greatly from their feelings on other queer rights-related issues, such as adoption or right to hold religious office. Marriage, in and of itself, is not the issue here. Intolerance is. But, since the prevailing struggle in this country is, presently, marriage, we will talk about marriage.

I just want to reiterate, for anyone who might not have gotten it the first time, that marriage is not the be-all and end-all issue for queer acceptance in this country. It is not an isolated question, it is not some unique arbitrary matter that everyone suddenly cares about for no good reason. It is the current battleground on which Bigotry is fighting against Acceptance. It is not the only battleground, or even (perhaps) the most important one. But, whichever side gains some ground finds their ultimate goal (societal shunning of those who are ‘different’ vs. the right to live one’s life undisturbed) that much easier to obtain. So, even though I personally feel that marriage is in some ways a flawed institution, and there are many reasons for everybody (queer or not) to take a good long look at its history and how it might affect your current life, the right to get married is a very important stepping stone in the journey to some kind of absolute acceptance (in addition to being a major goal in and of itself, for many people). So it is a worthy topic to spend a minute or 100 on.

The argument against same-sex marriage is frequently couched in terms calculated to not connote oppression of any particular group, but merely defending against some enemy or onslaught: “protection of marriage”, “defense of marriage”, “preservation of marriage”. And this word “marriage” is frequently modified by the moniker “traditional” – “preservation of TRADITIONAL marriage”, and so on. I could (and will, at some point) write a whole post about what is actually connoted by “traditional marriage” and how a lot of people don’t think about what means or doesn’t mean, and how arbitrary it is, but right now, for brevity and clarity’s sake, I will focus merely on the institution of marriage in the present-day United States.