There are a few things about this proposition that I just don’t get. 

1 – Is it just about gay? If so, why? Despite what some bigoted pastors and priests say, being gay (according to the Bible) is not any more of an abomination than, say, wearing a suit made from mixed cloths. It takes a special, completely ignorant reading of the Bible, stretching the understanding of what’s written in it (and of course putting aside the interests of those who wrote it in the first place), to find support for this hatred. For a much more eloquent take on the Biblical aspect of this, I highly recommend this great film: “For the Bible Tells Me So.” Clearly, using religion to support hatred happens all the time, but regardless, it’s unconstitutional for the state to endorse religion is such a way. So it can’t (legally, at least) be just about this.

2 – Is it about tradition? If so, how is that a reasonable argument? Tradition is what kept black people from being allowed to marry white people in 16 states as recently as 40 years ago. That’s creepy. Tradition is not always right, frankly, and while there may be some skinheads up in Idaho who still think the races shouldn’t mix, for most people it’s a given that it is well within a black person’s rights to marry a white person, and vice versa. So clearly tradition can change.

And, as Jon Stewart pointed out so hilariously on his show last week, ‘traditional’ marriage has been kind of a crock of s–t. It was about securing property and control – why do you think women traditionally changed their last name when they got married? I certainly don’t want to be forced into a marriage and required to provide a dowry. I don’t think the ‘traditional’ concept of marriage was all that good – why do the Mormon and Catholics who supported this measure seem to think that loveless marriages secured based on property decisions are the ones that should remain the model?

3 – Is it about family? I’ve heard some say marriage exists solely for the purpose of family, and by family, they mean at least a kid or two. If that’s the case – why haven’t the supporters of Prop 8 also introduced propositions to prevent women who have gone through menopause from marrying? I mean, they certainly won’t be having any kids. Or what about people who are naturally infertile? Should there be a fertility test? Should all couples, when applying for a marriage license, also sign their pledge to reproduce? No? Okay then. This argument is clearly ridiculous.

The point, for me, is this – it is not okay for the majority to deny civil rights to the minority. It’s not okay to prevent blacks from marrying whites, and it’s not okay to prevent gays from marrying each other. 

I believe marriage is a very precious thing. It’s pretty amazing to think that so many people find someone with whom they want to spend their entire life. That’s beautiful, and something that should be celebrated and supported, not denigrated with hatred and bigotry.

Keith Olbermann put it quite eloquently last night; I encourage you to read his message.

I’m tired. It’s 11 on a Monday night. I’m still getting over a cold, and I should really be in bed with my book, getting in one last chapter before drifting off. But I can’t sleep until I get this off of my chest. I could probably say this more eloquently, but for now, here it is.

I’m tired of the claim that I am not a real American. I’m tired of turning on the TV to hear someone, in front of a crowd of (white) people in a (small) town that THEY are the true, real Americans.

Because guess what? I am an American, too. I am a ‘real’ American. I am also “pro-America” (so long, of course, as that doesn’t mean I have to be “anti-everyone else”). That’s right. Even if we don’t agree with you, Sarah Palin, John McCain, and Michelle Bachmann, we are still American, and we are still rooting for things in this country to turn around.

Some of us are straight. Some of us are gay. But our sexuality doesn’t make us Pro-America or Anti-America. Me being attracted to members of the opposite sex doesn’t make me more of an American, or a better American, than the fact that one of my best friend’s is attracted to members of the same sex.

Some of us are Catholic. Some are Jewish. Some are Muslim, and some are Quaker. Some are agnostic. Some are Protestant. But our religion doesn’t make us Pro-America or Anti-America, or less of an American than you. You don’t get a larger claim on the right to call yourself American just because you make a big show of sitting in a pew on Sundays. 

Some of us live in small towns. Some of us live in big cities. Some of us live in neighborhoods that feel like small towns in the middle of big cities. But our zip codes don’t make us Pro-America or Anti-America. You don’t get to call yourself more of a citizen because you live in a zip code with fewer than 6,000 residents and I live in a zip code with over 62,000. 

I own a passport. I’d love to spend more time exploring the world. Never wanting to leave America is fine if that’s your choice. But it is ridiculous to suggest that people who want to see the world, or who go and talk to other people in the world, or who care about the other 5.7 BILLION people who share the earth with us are less American than you. What we do in this country has a direct impact on the rest of the world, and it is preposterous to suggest that we should ignore them all.

I like knowing that if I call 911, police, fire and EMS will show up. I like knowing that I can get to my job without having to pay for a car, because I take the subway. I like knowing that if something happens to me and, for awhile, I can’t find another job, I might be able to ask the government for some assistance. So yeah, I do think it is patriotic to pay taxes, because even if I don’t ever need those emergency services, I accept that because you and I pay those taxes, someone else’s life might be saved. It’s not “Pro-America” to suggest that paying taxes is a bad thing, and it’s not “Anti-America” to be able to see the bigger picture on this issue.

I’m tired of hearing about how the real Americans come from the states between the coasts. How, because my path in life involved getting a master’s degree, and not going straight to work in a factory, I’m less of an American. It’s ridiculous to suggest that working hard to educated yourself and move up in life is somehow not American. And it’s bull to suggest that because I have a degree I someone look down upon people who don’t.

I’m tired of the hypocrisy of those who claim to treasure the “American Dream” and with their next breath tear down those who not only fulfilled that dream but want to make it available to others. 

I love small towns and big cities. I love mountains and the ocean and snow and sun and rain. I love that in America in February you can fly from a blizzard in NYC to the beach in Miami and still be in the same country. I love that on the train to work I can hear different languages and see people who don’t look like me all living and working and loving together. 

One reason this is a place so many people want to come to is BECAUSE there are so many different people here. Not everyone is white, works at the local diner and has three or four kids. Not everyone goes to a Baptist church. Not everyone thinks that Beverly Hills Chihuahua is the greatest movie of the year. But if they do? That doesn’t make them less of an American either.

You know what? I think it is patriotic to have the courage and the strength and the honesty to recognize that there are some areas at which America ISN’T the greatest. The fact that we even have to discuss the possibility that there could be a ‘Bradley Effect’ on the election disgusts me. There are still plenty of racists and bigots in this country, and that does not make me proud. The fact that the one thing that the candidates seem to agree on is their dislike of gay marriage – that does not make me proud. 

If, as a parent, you point out that your child could improve in an area, maybe work a little harder, does that mean you don’t love your child? OF COURSE NOT. It means you care enough about your child to try to correct him or her so that he or she can grow and be even better than he or she already is. Criticizing the government, asking for change, and pointing out the problems we have in this country doesn’t mean we love it any less than you do – it just means that we care enough to be honest so that maybe, just maybe, it will become a better place.

Protesting the government and seeking change? THAT is  American, damn it.

And so am I.

So, Friday morning I was in a meeting when I got the CNN breaking news e-mail about Sarah Palin. Of course, my first reaction was ACK. Then, my reaction was well, at least no matter what happens it will be a first. But, as I read more, I went back to ACK. 

Most women I know are not as virulently anti-choice as Sarah Palin, and most women I know are not as virulently anti-science as she is. The “any woman is better than no woman” argument doesn’t work for me, as evidenced by the fact that I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I’d love for a woman to be president, or vice president. I’d also love for that woman to share my ideals. In the case of this election, Obama was closer to my views than Clinton. 

Now, it seems, some conservatives think that women will just drop their support for Obama (or, if they hadn’t yet gotten on board, just not choose him) in favor of McCain. As my dear friend Reagan put it on Friday, how stupid do they think we are? “She has a vagina, I have a vagina! I’m going to vote for her!” Even ignoring the fact that her positions are not good for me personally, I also think they are bad for the nation as a whole.

I’d love to support her because she’s a woman. But my alliance lies with the vast majority of women who would suffer if McCain and Palin are elected.

So, I’m assuming you’ve seen and/or heard about this week’s New Yorker cover. I used to subscribe to that magazine, but I found that while some issues were amazing reads, others were just unreadable.

Anyway, I was initially annoyed with it – not because I don’t understand or respect satire, but because I fear the things that the magazine was satirizing are things some people think are so true that they won’t recognize the satire. It’s just so freaky – both that Senator Obama is constantly being called Muslim, AND (and this is even more important to me) that this would be considered a detriment were it true. I realize it’s a stretch to even imagine a woman as president, or a black man, and that’s so freaking depressing. And you can’t even try to factor in other variables, like non-traditional religions (our first pagan president – in 2440!).

But I do have to say that Jon Stewart really said it best – ‘We really shouldn’t get all worked up over a cartoon depicting Barack Obama as a fundamentalist Muslim. Because you know who gets worked up over cartoons? Fundamentalist Muslims.’

Heh. Good point.

Last week I came across this interesting article from The Women’s International Perspective.

Why U.S. Women Earn So Little Money: The Wage Gap Isn’t Getting Any Better

I’ve been sitting on this topic for a couple of days because it’s really complicated, and yet shouldn’t be. 

Since I work in government, I know (or should I say, can know) the salary for every single person in my office. I can see if I’m making more than people performing similar work with similar experience, or if I’m making less. I haven’t compared because I’m content, for the most part, with my salary.

When I was in the private sector, however, we weren’t allowed to know what other people made. Yet I wasn’t too concerned then, either. I’ve never been good at negotiating salaries, or even determining what a fair salary would be for me. I have always just accepted what I’ve been offered. Some have argued that this is part of the reason why women make less than men: we don’t negotiate. Funny story, though – according to studies referenced in the above article, women face repercussions when we try to negotiate. Good times.

Money is a huge issue, and equality is a tricky thing, especially when some men might think that by bringing women up to their level in pay that means they might lose something. I have my own savings, my own money, and a job that allows me to live sans roommates for the first time since college. If I were to get married, though, what would happen? Assuming I have kids – and that’s a topic for another day – what would happen? Would I be expected to stay home? Would my imaginary husband be in a field with higher earning potential, thus making moot whether either of us wants to stay home? And if things didn’t work out and we got divorced and I had to go back to work – what would my earning potential and experience be then?

Women choose to have children, so are women at fault for needing more flexibility (and thus often less responsibility and less money) than men? It’s a choice, and isn’t choice what women have been begging to have for generations? Here’s the problem – it’s still not much of a choice to care for children. It’s still not as socially acceptable for men to stay home with the kids while the women work. There was an article in the New York Times Magazine this week – When Mom and Dad Share It All. It’s an interesting look at attempts to share the load as equally as possible. The fact that this even merits attention in a national Sunday magazine shows it’s obviously not the norm.

How many guys around my age think they’ll end up working part time or quitting when they have kids? I do wonder what it’s like to have that pressure of being expected (by society, if not by your wife) to support a few people. At times I do think it might be nice some day to have kids and get to hang out with them. My mother worked really hard at home to make sure my sister and I turned out normal. She didn’t go back to work until I was in high school, and while I don’t think she resents us for that, I know I appreciate her for it.

Well, it’s an interesting day for media.  

First off, Fox News. Well, Fox News and the media. And the folks who control and reward the media.

Have you heard about Barry Nolan? He was fired from his TV news job. He did something CRAZY. Insane. I can’t believe anyone could have done anything so horrendous. Seriously, you won’t believe what he did. You ready?

He protested Bill O’Reilly being awarded the Governor’s Award at the Emmy’s. The Governor’s Award exists to “recognize outstanding achievements in the television industry. The feats and commitment of [Governor’s Award Recipients] are extraordinary and unique, falling beyond the scope of our annual awards.” Sadly, I don’t think being woefully ignorant and narcissistic makes for an extraordinary or unique person these days.

Barry Nolan was (rightfully) shocked and wrote to his colleagues in protest when he learned that this supposed honor would be bestowed on such an undeserving person. They demurred. So guess what he did? He compiled a sampling of some of the absurd and inaccurate rantings Mr. O’Reilly has foisted upon the world and distributed copies at the Emmy ceremony. 

And he was fired.

Now, a reporter becoming the story can be unappealing. Anderson Cooper turned his outrage at the Katrina Response into the Anderson Cooper hour. But I have to say that I think this was an appropriate protest. It was clever, it was not disruptive (he didn’t storm the stage, or even yell ‘boo’ when O’Reilly went on stage), and the comments he reproduced spoke for themselves.

——————————————————————————–

The other issue I wanted to bring up today is the Women’s Media Center’s new campaign “Sexism Might Sell, But I’m Not Buying It.”  They are shining a light on an issue that, unfortunately, has been pretty prevalent this campaign season: sexism in the media.

I’m not a huge Hillary Clinton fan, but I do think she’s been an effective Senator representing my interests. Nonetheless, I voted for Obama in the primary, and hope to have the chance to vote for a winning presidential candidate for the first time when I vote for him again in November.

But the thing is, I don’t dislike her because she’s a woman. And I do think that she has been treated unfairly by the media. Her appearance (Cleavage? On a woman? THE HORROR), her voice (Oh, she reminds men of their nagging wives. Clearly she’s not qualified to lead the country), and even her ability to bear children (God forbid someone with PMS has their finger on the big red button) have all been used as fodder for those who can’t keep their sexism under wraps.

I find it disgusting that I live in a city that has yet to have a female mayor, in a state that hasn’t had a female governor, in a country that hasn’t had a female president. 52% of the folks in the country are female – 16% of our members of congress are as well.

Why is that? Is it because women have the integrity to not just vote for a woman because she’s a woman, while there are plenty of men who will not vote for a woman because she’s a woman? Or is that me just being sexist toward men? Is it because women don’t have as much money, or are busy having children, or are doing things to help others in different ways? Should I be concerned if men are underrepresented in some fields?

I don’t know the answer to general under-representation of women in positions of power and influence. But I do know that it makes me mad. I suppose I could run for office, although I don’t think I’d really like it.

I hope you’ll check out the Women’s Media Center video that shows some of the more painfully egregious sexist comments from this campaign season.

Film With Same-Sex Parents Splits School District

There is a documentary about many different types of families – step-families and interracial families – designed to educate young children. Evesham Township, New Jersey has stopped showing it, because one of the families shown is a gay couple who adopted children.

I am completely closed minded on at least one thing. If I date someone who doesn’t think that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, or think being gay is “evil” or a “sin”, the date is over. I can tolerate differing viewpoints on welfare, belief in god, taxation, stem cell research. But not gay rights. I’m an extremist when it comes to treating people equally.  

So this article really bothered me. Not because I don’t think that parents have a right to control what their children are exposed to (people will continue to teach their children racism, bigotry and misogyny outside of school), but because this decision means that they are controlling what OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN are exposed to. Instead of allowing parents to opt out of letting their kids watch the video, the district banned the showing of the video.  

One quote really pissed me off: “Something that controversial should have been discussed,” Ms. Stepnowski said. The children “shouldn’t learn questionable things in school that they’re not ready for and don’t understand.”

“That controversial”?! “Questionable”?! Really? How is this STILL controversial? I’ve yet to see an anti-gay argument that isn’t based in religion, so if it’s controversial because of someone’s religious beliefs . . . too bad. Your religion shouldn’t govern how another person’s child is taught.

ARG.

I did, however, enjoy the quote that ends the article:

“People who don’t want the school to show the video say, ‘We can teach our own kids.’ Sure you can. But who’s going to teach you?”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.