Kate Middleton & the Trouble with Fairytales

I just finished reading this article, the upshot of which was that

...there are certain undeniable truths about the sacrifices this young woman [Kate Middleton] has already made for her upcoming nuptials in addition to her career in fashion (Kate shortly worked for the British clothing brand, Jigsaw), and her photography (Kate had planned an exhibition she ended up not showing). As Cochrane states, "What's deeply dangerous about Kate for the monarchy, is that she looks as purposeless as the rest of them."

In many ways, Middleton has already failed to use her entry into this family as an opportunity to make them more modern. Instead she has convinced the Queen that she will not been reaping havoc and causing scandals galore like Diana, making herself much easier to "manage" (read: control). Kate is more willing to adjust to the royal family's ways than have them adjust to her, and in the process allowing the monarchy to remain unchanged when what it so desperately needs is to change.

All this being said, Kate clearly loves William and maybe at the end of the day, she is doing all this for love. But something about that doesn't sit too well with me. Perhaps it's the whole fairtytale factor thing.

Or maybe, just maybe, Kate Middleton has bigger plans than any one of us could imagine. I mean, Queen Elizabeth is not getting any younger, and guess who happens to be waiting in the wings to be Queen? Perhaps that was the ambition of "Waity Katey", as the British press famously dubbed Middleton, all along.

Maybe Ms. Middleton will get to have her fairytale, the last laugh, and show us all how it's done- as Queen of England.

Thoughts? Does Kate Middleton represent a new, more feminist version of women in the English royal family? Is it even fair to use her as a starting point from which to discuss the role of fairytale and marriage in modern society given her exceptional circumstances?

Gay Parenting Most Common in South

This article is very interesting and enlightening on a number of levels.

In addition, the data show, child rearing among same-sex couples is more common in the South than in any other region of the country, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the University of California, Los Angeles. Gay couples in Southern states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas are more likely to be raising children than their counterparts on the West Coast, in New York and in New England.

The pattern, identified by Mr. Gates, is also notable because the families in this region defy the stereotype of a mainstream gay America that is white, affluent, urban and living in the Northeast or on the West Coast.

“We’re starting to see that the gay community is very diverse,” said Bob Witeck, chief executive of Witeck-Combs Communications, which helped market the census to gay people. “We’re not all rich white guys.”

My first reaction is to hope that the fact that the South is home to the most gay parents will serve as a wake up call to residents of other states that consider themselves progressive but aren't forcing their state legislatures to make a real push for gay rights (I am looking at you, New York). What are your reactions? What stood out to you about these findings?

Civil union bill passes IL House and Senate

Good news from my home state today.


The Illinois House and Senate have both passed SB1716, the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act" which would give gay couples similar rights and legal status to other married couples. It is now up to Governor Pat Quinn to sign the bill into law.


For more, read here.

SCOWisconsin to take on same-sex marriage ban

News from my home state:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether the state's 2006 ban on gay marriage was properly put to voters.

A ruling striking down the amendment would not legalize same-sex marriage because state law still defines marriage as a union between husband and wife. However, it could pave the way for lawmakers to eventually allow it, or for advocates to file lawsuits seeking that right.

...

The 2006 referendum asked whether to rewrite the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman and outlaw the state from granting a similar legal status to unmarried individuals.

The justices are expected to decide two issues. The first is whether the two-part question violated the clause in the constitution that limits referendum questions to a single subject.

The second is whether an individual voter such as McConkey, a straight man who has a gay daughter, has the legal standing to sue. Van Hollen argues he does not.

Interesting on the second issue - If an individual voter doesn't have the ability to address state referendums which become policy, then who does?

While this court case wouldn't legalize gay marriage, it would take away significant barriers in the process of legalization.

On Wisconsin!

via Dan Savage.

Good news, bad news

Good News: Maine becomes the fifth state to allow gay marriage!

Bad News: Franklin County High School assistant principal Karen Buzard allegedly told teachers that gay students should not be allowed to leave class in order to use the restroom. The reason? Two female students had reportedly been seen kissing in a bathroom.
(Thanks to Jenn's blog, XXBlaze for the head's up on this story.)

Miss California, protecting the real kind of marriage - the opposite kind

Miss California. We haven't blogged about her at Female Impersonator, but I think many of you might have heard about Carrie Prejean's answer to a question from Perez Hilton at the Miss USA pageant on April 19.

From Telegreaph:

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," Miss Prejean said. "And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Prejean came in first runner up, and it is believed that her answer may have cost her the title at that pageant.

Well, she couldn't stop there just believing that same-sex couples don't deserve to marry. Now she's in Washington D.C., working to launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."

The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

For more on this topic, read here, here.

Marriage certificates don't make families

This is one practical reason why marriage equality is important: Lesbian couple loses appeal in health club discrimination case. Amy and Sarah Monson were not able to sign up under a family member with a health club because they were not married.

Amy and Sarah Monson have been together for seven years and are raising a daughter together. They co-own a business, have joint finances, and had a commitment ceremony in 2002. They have drafted estate plans for themselves and their daughter, and Sarah changed her last name to Monson.

The Rochester Athletic Club had a policy that only married couples could apply for a family membership package. The courts have said that since unmarried heterosexual couples also cannot get the discounted membership the policy does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. But the Monsons contend that since they don’t have the option to marry, they should not be compared with unmarried heterosexual couples who have the option to marry.

It doesn't matter how they view themselves, how they live together as a family, or anything like that. The Monsons, while not bound in marriage through civil law, are family. Pieces of paper don't decide what's family and what's not - in my opinion, love is what makes a family.

The Rochester Athletic Club is just hiding prejudice behind their own self-imposed rule of marriage as the qualifying aspect of what signals a family. In addition, they're also discriminating against all non-traditional forms of family that aren't bound by marriage. For example, the Tanner family in Full House wouldn't be able to get the family membership from the athletic club because two of the members aren't joined through marriage.

Essentially, because these women cannot marry, they're being legally discriminated against. Nice work, Minnesota.

Bride Wars - Because every woman desires marriage so she can free her inner crazy beotch

Just saw the trailer for the movie Bride Wars, and here are some reasons I will not be seeing it.

1) Seemed to make a huge deal out of marriage. Marriage, apparently, is totally worth trying to make your best friend miserable over. Sounds like a pretty special deal, even though many people in this country either choose not to marry or legally cannot marry.

2) The "Bride-zilla" stereotype. Where brides-to-be can't help but be super-bitchy because it's their day to be given away to their husband, damn it, and it has to be exactly the way they want it! How can my BFF have her wedding on the same day as mine!? Ah!

3) The just plain catty woman stereotype. Could someone please explain to me the appeal of watching a movie full of two friends trying to coerce each other into changing their wedding dates through humiliation?

4) "Your wedding will be huge. Just like your ass at prom." Yep. Because all women can relate to (and find hiiiilarious) low-blows about a female's body. Nice touch.

Okay, so I guess I'm judging the film only be a two minute trailer, but I am firm in my resolve to not see this movie.

I know films have always been a form of escape from everyday life, and for the most part they cater to the wants of those who pay to see them. For me, the worrisome question becomes this: Why do people seem to want to watch women be cruel to each other or be objectified and needlessly sexualized in movies?

Freedom to marry and freedom of religion have a lot in common

On some earlier posts regarding gay marriage, discussion has often come to an impasse because I think homosexuality isn't a choice and some people think it is. People are entitled to their opinions just as much as I am.

Basically, because some people think that homosexuality is a choice and race isn't, marriage equality doesn't fall under the same guidelines as the previous ruling of Loving v. Virginia that said banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional. For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuality is a choice and gay people everywhere are simply choosing to be queer.

The United States Constitution protects certain inalienable rights, many of those which we are unable to determine (race, age, disability). However, the Constitution also protects rights which we do choose. According to the First Amendment, I can choose to worship anything I want and the government protects my right to do so. The Framers included rights for things unable to change and those that could.

To those who say that sexual orientation is a choice, I want to know this:

In light of fact that some inalienable rights we're able to choose, how can you still deny marriage equality on a Constitutional level? Take into account the changing/unchanging nature of the protected rights of race and religion and the decisions of the Supreme Court to grant marriage as an inalienable right when answering.

I'm interested to see what people have to say. I have some thoughts on the issue, but I want to start some dialogue first.

WhiteKnot.org

Some people decided marriage equality deserved it's own symbol, thus: whiteknot.org.

Much like awareness ribbons, the White Knot symbolizes the ability for everyone to get married, regardless of gender of partner. They've mixed two traditionally American symbols of marriage - tying the knot and the color white - to visually support marriage equality.


Erica of swirlspice and cinna.mn says,

That’s cool and all. I get where they’re coming from. But who decided this? A bunch of white guys in West Hollywood? Because there are lots of marriage traditions out there and this seems like an awfully white-culture-centric choice of symbol.

I’d still wear one, though.

She's got a good point - it's representative of White American marriage culture, which is reflected in the very symbol they chose. But like colored ribbons or those plastic blank-strong bracelets, they're a very visible sign of support for marriage equality.

I'd wear one too.

CT Voters: Vote NO on Question 1

Even though Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and gay couples will start to get married some time during the week of November 10, there's still a possibility that might allow for the possibility of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

On Connecticut's ballot next week, people have a chance to vote on Question 1 which reads, "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the constitution of the state?"

Every 20 years, the state of Connecticut requires a vote on whether or not to change the state's constitution, and the convention would be used as an arena to establish laws without being promoted, approved, or checked by taxpayers. Although a constitutional convention sounds like a good example of democracy, the convention delegates would be picked by state legislators, not citizens. The constitution would potentially be altered by lobbyists and special interest groups. Many anti-gay marriage and anti-choice proponents would see the convention as an opportunity to push for rights reducing changes, such as banning gay marriage and taking away a woman's right to choose.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has stated that a convention would be unnecessary, adding, "The convention proposal is a risky and costly process. The State Constitution is not a document to be rewritten carelessly."

So, anyone out there in Connecticut, vote NO on Question 1. There's more info here at CT Vote No and Love Makes a Family. If you're interested in standing at the polls, distributing information on Question 1, either group would love to have you volunteer.

Matthew Shepard, Coming Out Day 2008 and Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in CT!

Some other sites have already posted the news, but it's worth repeating:

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that marriage and civil unions are separate entities that are not equal, making gay marriage legal.

In the CT Supreme Court's words: "Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means 'equal.' As we have explained, the former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not,"

Also: "Despite the truly laudable effort of the legislature in equalizing the legal rights afforded same sex and opposite sex couples, there is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs have alleged a constitutionally cognizable injury, that is, the denial of the right to marry a same sex partner."

Cara at the Curvature makes a great point that since the ruling is based on Connecticut's constitution, the decision isn't under the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. How's that for states rights?

If you're in Connecticut and want to celebrate, head on down to the Capital steps in Hartford at 5:30 and join Love Makes A Family to celebrate the decision!

Also in LGBT news, it's National Coming Out Day tomorrow so be sure to see if there are any Coming Out Day events in your area.

Sunday is the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death. He was robbed, tortured, and left tied to a fence to die, simply because of his sexual orientation. In our rejoicing today, let's also remember. It's not enough to simply tolerate those different than us... one of my friends pointed out in chapel today that there's a fine line between hating the sin and hating the sinner. We need to stand in solidarity with those who struggle for justice and those who struggle to simply be accepted.

Gay Marriage and Popular Sovereignty

At 5:01 on June 16th, gay marriage became legal in California. If you check out some pictures, they're adorable and the first couple to legal marry are Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both in their 80's, who have been together for 50+ years (pictures of those two are just soooo cute in their old lady-ness).

Elsewhere I've discussed the legality of the case - because other cases have ruled the right to marry an inherent civil right and because sexual orientation is protected under the equal protection clause, it's unconsitutional to limit marriage between two people based on gender and sexual orientation.

However, citizens in California and elsewhere are trying to circumvent the court's ruling by gathering signatures to get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballet in November. "It's the will of the people!" they cry, hoping to sway opinion and rule through that argument.

Marriage equality activists say that denying gay people the right to marry creates a group of second-class citizens who are discriminated against through laws and practice. It's an inherent right that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to marry (and this is an argument the CA Supreme Court agrees with in their May 15, 2008 decision on In re: Marriage Cases - the CA Supreme Court decided people should be able to marry regardless of race in 1948 in Perez v. Sharp and the SCOTUS made it federal in 1967 with Loving v. Viriginia).

We've heard these two arguments before - or at least the history of the United States has, not anyone alive today. These are almost exactly the same positions Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas took on slavery in the 1858 Illinois Senate race and then again in the 1860 Presidential race.

For several years, Douglas was the champion of popular sovereignty, or popular rule - the concept that people should be able to decide what's best for their state/territory. Lincoln agreed with popular sovereignty, or at least up to a certain degree, like when popular opinion tread on a cause that wasn't moral. For Lincoln, slavery was immoral and violated the natural rights of Black people.

In seven different debates held throughout Illinois (including one at the fine institution of Knox College, where Amelia and Kate currently attend), Douglas and Lincoln verbally sparred back and forth over popular sovereignty and the morality of slavery. Douglas and Lincoln were debating the merits of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise (the Compromise contained new slave territories to beneath the southern border of Missouri, with Missouri as the exception). Kansas-Nebraska stated that the rule of the people should decide if a new territory was to be slave or free, designed by Douglas and popular sovereignty. Other things complicated the debate as well, such as the Dred Scott SCOTUS ruling and Douglas' race-baiting of Lincoln (that's another story for another time). The debates were incredibly popular all over Illinois and they were published in various Chicago newspapers and newspapers all over the nation.

Douglas won the 1858 Illinois Senate race, however, Douglas and Lincoln faced each other again two years later on a much wider stage - this time for the President of the United States. They reiterated much of the positions and arguments throughout the 1860 race, and that time, Lincoln won.

This isn't the first time US politics has heard the popular will/natural rights debate, and it won't be the last time. However, we can make sure that the voices speaking for the expansion of rights are heard as opposed to the voices trying to limit rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights wasn't created to close off freedoms - it was crafted so to explicitly say, "These are the specific rights that cannot be taken away from us and that goes for any other rights as deemed necessary in the future" - the right to vote based not on gender or race, for example. I believe the right to marry falls under this category as well, and the CA Supreme Court agrees with me.

So next time you hear someone say, "The people don't want gay marriage! We should follow the popular opinion of the people!" remember that this argument has been tried before and when it comes down to inherent rights, it's not going to work.

This post was influenced by Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America.

Bill O'Reilly asks for a good reason against gay marriage - pigs now flying

First Chris Matthews, now Bill O'Reilly? Holy crap, is the media actually starting to come around to the fact that we want our news without a side of punditry?



O'Reilly hasn't changed his opinion on gay marriage, as discerned from the introduction, but he's actually demanding real answers from someone. Call Stephen Colbert - he might be out of a job soon if O'Reilly keeps it up.

When you shed away the conservative religious argument against gay marriage, it comes down to an issue of equality. Andrew Sullivan writes:

Once you accept that gay people are gay in the way that straight people are straight, and once you remove purely religious arguments from a secular debate, the case against marriage equality simply collapses. One reason I have been so eager to have this debate on rational grounds is that, if reason is your guide, the pro-gay side wins overwhelmingly. What's left is a base-line argument for caution.

I argued for this point earlier, that since marriage has been viewed as a fundamental right in both state and federal cases (Perez v. Sharp in CA and Loving v. Virgina federally), it comes down to equality. Since CA has ruled that sexual orientation falls under the equal protection clause, any law denying something based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Even that lawyer on O'Reilly can't argue against that.

H/T to my friend Sam at Brazen Maverick and Andrew Sullivan.

Clarifying the CA Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

After reading a bit about people's reactions to the California Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, I want to clarify some misconceptions about the verdict.

First, the court wasn't debating whether gay marriage should be legal; they decided if calling same-sex unions "domestic partnerships" and hetero unions "marriage" was constitutional. The decision states,

"Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a "marriage" whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a "domestic partnership." (3-4)

Basically, if both domestic partnerships and marriages carry the same legal benefits, is it constitutional to limit marriage to just between a man and a woman?

It somewhat reminds me of Plessy v. Ferguson that ruled "separate but equal" based on race. If civil unions and marriages have the same legal benefits, they are separate but equal. However, Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 ruled that separate but equal isn't equal, and this Californian court decision is saying the same thing.

The court points out that sexual orientation doesn't limit a person's ability to form a loving relationship and a family and that sexual orientation isn't a reason to deny rights to people, even the right of marriage.

Marriage carries a certain social weight and respect that domestic partnerships don't have. Allowing gay marriage gives same-sex couples the same dignity as opposite-sex couples, to embrace the full humanity of everyone and say "Your relationship is just as valid as mine; your love is just as life-giving as mine; and you, as a person, are worthy."

"But what about the will of the people?" some ask. "The people of CA don't want gay marriage and have voted against it!"

The court ruled on whether denying gay marriage was constitutional, not if the people of California agreed with it. Popular opinion doesn't hold any sway on the Constitution; it's a living document that guarantees inalienable rights. At times, popular opinion didn't want the emancipation of slaves, but that doesn't mean popular opinion was right. In some places in the United States, popular opinion probably says that guns should be outlawed, hunting or otherwise. You know what though? Tough shit. The right to bear arms is written in the Constitution so unless there's an amendment, all guns will never be banned. I'm generally under the idea that the Constitution shouldn't be used to limit rights, but instead guarantee freedoms, so I wouldn't necessarily be for an amendment in the first place. If we say we're for protecting rights, we've got to protect all of them - free speech, guns, assembly, a trial of peers, speedy trials, religion, and yes, even marriage.

If the three presidential candidates were running just in California, their positions on gay marriage would be unconstitutional, by the way.

Here's what I want to know: How does two people of the same gender getting married hurt anyone? Why is it so threatening to someone that two people want to join together and publicly declare their love as people have been doing for centuries?

Obviously I'm biased and think gay marriage is great, but I honestly see no harm in ensuring that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, have equal rights.

Thanks to Disagreeably Right for prompting the post. You can find the full text of the court decision here.

Yay!

Seriously, this totally brightened my day.

Decidedly Not Revolutionary

Another thought-provoking, article from the New York Times:

Sex, an always controversial practice, is the topic, as the author highlights the growing number of abstinence clubs on elite college campuses. Harvard has its own, secular club, "True Love Revolution," led by Janie Fredell; the club's goal is to spread the message of abstinence and convince students' to opt out of the "hookup culture."

Now, from a feminist perspective, I have no qualms against saying no to sex. Pressure, whether individual or societal, is damaging. Women (and men) should have total autonomy in their sexual decisions.

However, I take issue with the implications of the message, and the way it has been presented to Harvard students.

Firstly, the club promotes abstinence until marriage. Yet, many lifestyles do not have the option of marriage, marriage, itself, is a flawed institution, and is not the only way to declare love for a partner. However, it is the life goal of most members of the organization: "Finding true love for me is the point of life,” said Fredell.

I agree that finding someone you are compatible with, care for, and want to spend time with is an important aspect of life. I disagree that it should be the point of one's life. Marriages end in divorce, more often than they don't, and when life has become simply a search for that "true love" which has gone awry, pain is more acute and, often, women how have not had steady careers due to raising children and caring for their partner are left in financial ruin. One of the reasons that many members promote abstinence is based on the hormone Oxycontin, which heightens a sense of connection to one's sexual partner, and if the relationship is not stable, one will feel that instability more acutely and feel much more pain upon its end. However, I believe that to experience the break-up of a marriage, without having had relationships with any other partner would lead to an even more acute sense of loss and perhaps fear to now be living in a world where one knows so little.

My bigger issue with this club is the way it frames masculinity. The clubs other leader, Leo Keliher, said that masculinity was “being able to deny yourself for the sake of the woman.” “To have that kind of self-control is really what it means to be a man."

To define masculinity in direct opposition to femininity is troublesome. It reinforces stereotypical gender roles and norms. By framing masculinity as denial for the sake of women, is to basically claim that women must be protected by men, that women are weaker, more innocent and pure, and that men must deny their urges in order to keep women pure. It is to deny that women also enjoy engaging in sex, and it equates virginity with innocence, both very outdated and disproved concepts.

Again, I truly support people's decisions to abstain from sex. However, I believe that the approach taken by groups like True Love Revolution is faulty. It reverts back to gender roles and traditional marriages and calls for ignorance of one's own body.

Also, what's with the rose? Does it remind anyone else of Georgia O'Keffe's paintings, which were definately NOT flowers? Just wondering. Ha.