Civil Union Bells? Wedding Bells? Which Will It be In VT?

Last night was the VT [LGBTQ] Marriage Comission’s final hearing. Testifiers addressed the semantic challenges of civil unions early and often. VT statute makes it clear: One “becomes party to a civil union” with one’s same sex partner instead of getting married, and “dissolves” a civil union instead of getting divorced. This creates challenges both serious and odd. As a particularly witty participant noted: “My [divorced] Friends get to be divorcees, even gay divorcees. [when my civil union was dissolved] I was… disillusioned?” She also pondered what to say when one has just gotten hitched, civil union style: “I’ve been… unionized? Great. Teamsters or AFL-CIO?”

Attending the hearing last night affected me more than I expected it would. Several people exposed civil unions for what they were: a good step in 2000. And what they are: a second rate substitute for marriage that makes sense only from a standpoint of fear or bigotry. In addition to showing clearly that civil unions aren’t equal to marriage, the testimony affirmed LGBTQ people, and partnerships. One woman opened by noting the state couldn’t make her 11 year relationship any stronger, she and her partner were the only ones who could do that. But, she asserted, the state should give them legal rights because their relationship was equal to that of their heterosexual neighbors, and to remove barriers to their taking care of each other. Of course she said it all better than I just did. Gray haired parents got up to talk about their gay children, their same-sex partners, their gay friends. The litany of stories made its mark. I left with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

But the warm and fuzzies were tempered with mild discomfort**. Even though most of the testimony was pro same-sex marriage, it is inherently hard to sit through debate about whether your relationships are worthy of legal status heterosexual couples can take for granted. As more than one married straight person said, it is embarrassing that we even have to have this conversation.

* As the legislature saw it when they passed the law, the only other difference between civil unions & marriage is that one has to be 18 to enter into a civil union, but minors can get married. In practice, it turns out there are other differences.

**Another source discomfort: That I get so fired up about marriage at the expense of devoting energy to more pressing social justice issues. It's realted to my annoyance that the pro marriage equality crowd so readily appropriated the language of civil rights movement. This is a whole 'nother topic , however, so i'll go there another day.

Monday: A Good Lazy Post Day

For example: mushycat.com is witty so I don't have to be.

I'll write a real post someday soon. . .

ps. more on gay tofu. Makes you want to give attractive straight women tofurky doesn't it?!

Latte Math

Seattle WA: pop 572,600. Number of Starbucks: 27

Chittenden County, VT: pop 150,069 Number of Starbucks: 4.

They may have more Starbucks stores per-capita, but I am quite sure that this corner of VT has more Starbucks per starbuck- drinking-capita. Take that Seattle!

Happy Blog For Choice Day

A government that serves women’s interest must acknowledge that it is a women’s right to decide for herself if and when to bear children. Without this right our sexuality, morality and citizenship are automatically constrained.

Americans can’t count on the Supremes to protect our reproductive rights. If there was any question after the appointment of Roberts and Alito, Gonzales vs. Chart et al. made that abundantly clear. The court okayed the federal abortion ban on the grounds that: we need to protect women from decisions they might regret, and besides, abortion is yucky.* To me, the decision was a wake up call: the continued legality of reproductive health care from abortion to birth control depends on our ability to elect pro-choice candidates.

Here’s the catch: we can’t just vote pro-choice and live happily ever after. Reproductive rights are a necessary but not sufficient condition for reproductive justice. 35 years after Roe v. Wade legal abortion is still a practical impossibility if you live hours from the nearest abortion provider in a state with mandatory waiting periods. Simillarly, to a woman who lacks money for food, daycare and healthcare parenting can become a non-option. We must work for a world in which all women can access comprehensive reproductive health care as well as the resources necessary to parent. In this atmosphere of reproductive justice reproductive rights can achieve their full significance.

*This was the wisdom of Kennedy---- our new swing vote!

Not Quite Sex Ed. Quite Funny

Midwest Teen Sex Show: if you haven’t seen it, check it out. You’ll laugh in an enjoyable way, not those nervous giggles you remember from health class. Host Nikol Hassler’s dead pan delivery, and turn of phrase make the show funny in its own right.

The show is entertainment, not real sex-ed, and they’re semi-up front about that. Even so, I can see your average teen, especially your average teen who has been fed abstinence only sex-ed, confused by statements like “never wash your vagina” and the false implication that everyone is having sex. But teens are bombarded plenty of confusing messages around sex in these united states. It is refreshing to see something sex positive, potentially informative, and created to encourage “frank discussion about . . . teen sexuality” not shame.

(A Shot of Love Makes Me) Want My MTV?

I am waiting with baited breath to see who wins a shot of love with Tila Tequila. This is embarrassing on many levels. Like any other piece of reality TV whose premise is that someone will find true love, A Shot of Love is a crappy show. I got hooked while visiting folks who have MTV. I’d watch on the sly, flipping channels to CNN to avoid detection whenever footsteps came remotely near my door. So please don’t tell anyone my dirty secret. On second thought, do tell. Spread the word. No one will believe you anyway. This vice is way out of character.

Or maybe it’s not. The force behind my obsession with the reality soap-opera is Dani, a firefighter from Florida. Dani is easy on the eye, and, compared to other lesbians on TV, oh so butch. I am captivated by how her “futchness” plays out in popular entertainment. As we approach the finale, I wonder whether a non-feminine woman can succeed “win” in mainstream media, especially at the expense of her 16 strapping male competitors.

Following A Shot of Love reminds me of my teenage habit of reading Annie on My Mind or Two Teenagers in Twenty to assure myself other queers existed. Even in the age of the L Word ‘mos (homos) on TV are as invisible to me as they were in the halls of high school, so their presence is intriguing. Apparently this still applies when the show features a silly plot and perpetually tipsy lesbians who I don’t for the most part find attractive. Go figure.

Does Picking the Lesser of the Evils Count as a Luxury?

Last week, a self-assured, politically-savy colleague sprung the following idea on me: Financially well-off Americans us have the luxury of voting based on social issues, but for the rest of the country choosing a candidate is a matter of economics. I’ve been mulling it over ever since.

First of all, which vote will improve my economic well-being? According to the GOP mantra, Democrats may be “Tax and Spend Liberals,” but the way I see it, the other option is Spend Don’t Tax Conservatives. I have a hard time seeing politicians who throw money at pet projects like the war in Iraq and abstinence only sex-ed with out regard for their efficacy, or the billions in debt foisted on the next generation, as the fiscally conservative option. If there were a group of candidates who’d make quality health care affordable, I’d vote that ticket in a heartbeat, and consider it the economically responsible thing to do. Alas, the option just isn’t there right now.

And then there are the “social issues.” There isn’t much to get excited about here either. The Dems may be pro-choice, but they get squeamish when it comes down to the nitty gritty (partial birth abortion ban anyone?), and aren’t motivated to take on (and get rid of) abstinence only education. They say they are pro-equality, but they can’t get behind gay marriage. They participate in pride parades, but their willingness to chop the T out of ENDA reveals a discomfort with queerness. The list goes on. It doesn’t feel great to get behind democratic candidates when they have such a weak record on social issues. Gems like Huckabee, however, remind me that I’d be crazy to do otherwise.

What do you think?