The Tiny Voice of Reason

Commitment: You, Me.....And Who Invited These Folks!?

I've been spending time trying to figure out what bothers me so much about marriage.  First it was the whole equality issue.  I've been in three long term relationships since I was thirteen.  An on again off again nine year relationship with my eldest daughter's father, a volatile four and a half year relationship with the father of my three sons and now an evolving one with the father of my youngest daughter.  One thing was the same for all of them, each guy had this idea about what a "woman's" place is.

I have never sat around waiting for anyone to throw their jacket over a puddle for me.  I have never stayed home and waited for anyone to grant me a spending allowance.  I've never expected anyone to want to pay all my bills either.  I would much rather split everything.  I admit to being independent to the point I've forgotten I can ask for help from a partner instead of analysing and finding a course of action.  I'm not one for pretending to be delicate and fragile allowing that I also suck at acting.

While getting to know a partner can be positively great one moment and the biggest headache the other, I'm fine with two person relationships.  My partner and I.  Each child and I.  I've told my partner that if and that's a big if, I were to ever get married I don't want some big thing with hundreds of relatives.  I don't even want parents there.  I'd prefer only immediate family.  Us and the kids. 

What makes me break out in a cold sweat and gives me nightmares is in-laws.  Not just my in-laws.  My family too.  When people get into committed relationships the in-laws seem to think they are also marrying or dating you.  Piss of a sister-in-law?  She then wants her sibling to divorce or dump you because she can't stand you.  Or the running commentary from your own family?  It's why I keep saying that I'm fine with a long term relationship or even a common law marriage.  

I guess I keep hoping that if we stay together long enough the families will stop asking questions like "When are you guys gonna make it official?"  Well hell, I thought it was already official.  Our relationship has been longer than most people's "official" marriages.  Six years so far.   I'd rather hear "You guys are good?"  You know?  As if family cares about the relationship instead of how it looks.

In the back of my mind I have this hope that after year twenty, when we elope, it will cease to matter whether we have a paper or not.  That people will finally get the idea that the paper is never what's most important.  It took me till this morning to realise that I never feel uncomfortable around my partner.  It's us around marriage rabid family members eager to dole out ridiculously bad marriage and relationship advice that gives me the heebie jeebies.  The "Rules of Marriage".  When they think you're just dating they don't focus on you with such laser like precision.

You're always afraid in the back of your mind that somehow these people.  These family members have more power over your relationship than you do.  That who your partner knows you to be and loves you for anyway will become the issue of an ultimatum, and long lectures about how bad you are for them, later.  I recently had an argument with my partner after his sisters made my asexuality an issue with him not me.  I was never spoken to directly.  They didn't want me in contact with their children on Facebook.

Even though my partner has access to my Facebook and blog, even though he has read the blog and was there while I was writing, he still doubted me for a few seconds.  Family should not have such power over whom you love, trust and accept.  I guess what I think sucks about the inevitable in-laws is that I picked my partner.  I wanted to have an emotionally intimate relationship with this person.  Suddenly it's considered "serious" and a bunch of strangers want to meet me, grill me and judge me on a daily basis on whether I'm a fit partner.  Their opinion shouldn't matter.

If I ever get married, and that's a big if, no family is invited.  I'd rather throw anniversary parties and never let them know about the marriage.   I can commit to a partner.  I just can't seem to commit to in-laws.   I guess that answers the question.  I would get married.  I just want to make sure I we all, my partner and I, understand that it's a two person relationship.  If family has a problem with either of us, they should speak directly to that person.  That is their relationship or lack of one with either of us and has nothing to do with our relationship with each other.

Observations on Prejudice, Bigotry, Hatred, Violence & Equality

I'm familiar with prejudice.  Prejudice is a result of lack of information and/or experience.  People with prejudices usually do not realise they are prejudiced since it is all that they and the community around them know or have experienced the world around them. 

Like a housed person, someone who is not nor has ever been homeless, living under the assumption that all homeless people dropped out of high school, started drinking, using drugs and living on the streets.  That's prejudice.  More life experience, whether it is volunteering at a shelter and talking directly to the homeless or by becoming homeless at some point in life, is the only way to dispel prejudice against the homeless. 

Bigotry on the other hand is more of a sort of classism.  Being on a higher level or upper echelon of society than others who are not like oneself.  Whether by race, religion, gender, sex, sexual orientation, income, geographics and many other diversionary tactics.  Every prejudiced individual is not a bigot, yet every bigot is prejudiced.  One must believe oneself to be above the other religion, race or other labels and base this on the very few facts and/or experience one has in regards of the other religion, race or other labels. 

For example, a sexual bigot believes they are on a higher level than those who are not of their sexual orientation and bases this on the few facts and/or experiences they have with other sexual orientations and/or sexual minorities.  A straight individual believing they are better than gay, bi or asexuals due to assumptions of promiscuity of gays and bisexuals or sexual dysfunction of asexuals.  A gay individual believing they are better than straights, bisexuals or asexuals due to belief of rampant reproduction of straights and bisexuals or sexual dysfunction of asexuals. 

One can be a gender bigot where one gender is placed above another or where both genders are raised above those who are physically transitioning and affirming their gender.  There are gender bigots, racial bigots, religious bigots, nationality bigots, reproductive bigots, as the lists go on and on.  The use of a stereotype or one bare individualistic fact to raise oneself above others.

Hatred, in some cases, is the seeming change of certain personally held facts about another and the sudden realisation of similarities between individuals causing intense fear.  For example, two uber macho individuals who have the similar likes and dislikes yet different sexual orientations.  One holding personally held facts about gay individuals only to realise there are very few differences.  If there are so few differences, then how do you prove you are different?  How do you set yourself apart?  Some choose distance, some believe everyone is different, some become victims of random violence, others situational violence, while others choose intimate terrorism.

Situational violence is a mutual occurrence.  Cause and effect.  One person says something, another responds, and it escalates to where both become violent.  Random violence though, is just that, random.  One vulnerable stranger randomly selected for violence to prove something to oneself or society.  Intimate terrorism on the other hand is about control.  Control over every aspect of a person's life.  Reparation therapy is a form of intimate terrorism of a child from a parent, an individual from a family, or an individual from a community and/or church.

Intimate terrorism is about isolation and control.  There is no one to talk to.  No one to trust.  No one to share with.  No one to entrust all of yourself with.  No feeling of emotional safety.  No love.  No hope.  Only isolation, pain, distrust and fear.   No psychological escape until you begin to sink into the very depths of utter desolation and despair.  Where it feels as though you have even deserted yourself.  Even thoughts are bullying, derogatory and spiteful.  Where death feels as if it would be better than the non-life one is already living.  Yet, the cage is based on a prejudice.  Self-prejudice.  The constant distraction of benevolent jailers is meant to keep one from finding the cracks in the foundation and digging out from under the despair, fear and self-loathing.

One day, you begin to use the facts you have been given about yourself as questions.  When we begin to answer them in our own words instead of those we have been given do the locks on our prison finally begin to open.  A friend once asked me about prejudice, bigotry and slavery.  I responded with a story regarding my family.  My family won freedom from slavery generations ago, yet we still were the caretakers for generations of our former masters after slavery ended. 

When, as children, we were found in straight-forward equal conversation with one of our former master's generations our elders chastised us and reminded us of our place.  That we should not approach this person with disrespect.  Let me explain something.  In order to be anything, slave, social minority or equal, one must believe that is what you are.  It is all psychological.  As a child, I saw myself as an equal thus I conducted myself as an equal and no matter who told me I was not, that was their belief not mine. 

Physical chains are made of materials that disintegrate with time.  They erode in the wind, rain, sleet and snow with the seasons.  Mental chains can only be placed and removed by the individual who wears them.  As Pinocchio said "There ain't no strings on me."

Coming Out: There Are Other Types Of Closets

When I first met my ex-partner I thought he was a very nice guy.  I did not realised how far in the closet he was until after a month of dating he made excuse after excuse as to why I could not meet his family.  I would hear from his co-workers that his parents heard that he was dating someone but did not know who and wanted to meet the girl.

So I confronted my ex-partner with this information and he broke down.  I could never, ever meet his parents he said.  They would disown him if we were to meet.  They would never accept our relationship.  I remember thinking that this was the nineties.  Who the heck gets disowned anymore?  His parents eventually took matters into their own hands and used their keys one day to enter the house.

It does not leave a very good impression on the man who might possibly be your future pseudo father-in-law, since I was sure I was never getting married, to be wielding a Louisville Slugger and yelling "Who the fuck are you!?" when you first meet.  I smile instead of cringe at that memory because it amuses me even now.  He identified himself and carefully watched me lower the bat before calmly stating "You're black."  To which I replied quite confused "Yes...and?"  He simply shook his head and left.

I never hid from anyone that I dated outside of my race.  I am very open about it.  The opinion of my neighbours hardly mattered to me since they were complete strangers.  I have had my apartment in Brooklyn shot at for it.  I've been threatened with rape because of my daughter, who's father is actually black even though she looks Hispanic.  I've been called names, had bottles thrown at me and my apartment broken into.  Yet, I am who I am and I date whomever I please.   I live by no other dictate but my own and everyone else can get over it.

When my partner came home later that day, I said while toting laundry "I met your parents today."  He actually screamed like a six year old, dropped his pile of laundry on the floor and ran praying up the stairs.  After hiding me from them for a month his worse fears had come true.  They had found out.  Did I mention my partner was 30 to my 20 years?  He was so sure he would be disowned and from the yelling, pleading and begging I heard from his end of the conversation, it was almost a sure thing until his father put his foot down.  Yes, my partners mother wanted to disown her own son.

It's not a good thing to stand there and listen to your partner beg, plead and vow to leave you.  I started packing my bags.  If he wanted to please his parents that much then maybe he should stay single and closeted.  I was not the first person of colour he had dated and I knew I would not be the last.  I got partway to the door when his tearful conversation ended and he noticed me and my bags.  I was shocked that he actually had the nerve to ask me "Where are you going?"  I replied "Somewhere between "It was just a thing" and "It doesn't mean anything." I decided I'd rather be in my empty apartment than here with you."

What shocked me more was his next reply where he told me "But I told them you're pregnant"  Now that was news to me.  When did this happen and how was it medically possible?  I was on birth control as well as using condoms.  Well, I was pregnant I found out a few weeks later.  Life got pretty strange after that.  His sister had a christening party and he was all excited to go until she said he was welcome to come by as long as I stayed home.  That was the same for birthdays and other holidays. I thought this only happened in LGBT movies.

His mother tolerated our relationship you see.  It was his choice to stay with me so he could see his family on her terms.  I was to stay away so our relationship did not corrupt the children into thinking it was okay.  It got a little better when our son was born.  His mother quickly brought a priest over to bless the house and our son. 

I later found out what was really going on.  Our son was the first son of the first son so our son inherited his grandfather's name and the family fortunes.  My presence as his mother was tolerated until I decided I'd had enough.  I never found out how I got pregnant until the day, the mother who so quickly wanted to disowned him, dutifully paid $50k to try to end my parental rights.  My ex-partner purposefully got me pregnant in hopes of having a son so he could inherit.  His very words.

I endured negro comments, racist questions and astonishment over our son's skin colour where his sister asked "What happened? I thought black genes were dominant.  Why is the baby white?"   His immediate family were so concerned with his "dirty little secret" coming out that they didn't even invite me to my own son's christening party.  My partner kept saying to go with it, his family will eventually come around. It didn't matter most of the time since we never saw them.

The day I met the extended family was when my ex-partner's aunt showed up at their place of business unannounced.  She took one look at me, turned to her younger sister and said "The way you were carrying on you would think she was the shade of the black crayon."  Then she turned, grabbed my arm and held it up for her sister to see "She's brown."  Suddenly I was invited to Thanksgiving dinner but I was never, ever, comfortable around them.  They seemed to instantly forget what was said and done.  I never could. 

I eventually realised, after living with my ex-partner for a three more years where I mysteriously got pregnant every time I decided to leave.  Just like there is such a thing as dating a same-sex partner and being a homophobe, some can date an partner of another race and still be racist.  As far as their family is concerned, our children are not black.  To them, I do not exist.

The Non-Equality Equality Movements

There have been several civil rights movements in the United States starting with the simultaneous Black and Women's Suffrage movements for the rights of blacks and women to enter the voting sphere currently occupied only by white men.  The Black Suffrage movement included some men of colour.   From Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern and African descent, with the exclusion of Native American men, fell under the Black label due to the varied dark colours of skin pigmentation. 

In the end, the black men in the Black Suffrage movement while agreeing that every man should be equal believed it did not apply to women of any race.  Women of colour suddenly were left in limbo, not accepted within the Black Suffrage movement due to their gender and excluded from the Women's Suffrage movement due to their skin pigmentation. 

Men of all colours believed in the current gender roles of the societal binary system which held that the man was the head of the woman and above her in all financial, familial and religious decisions leaving little need, they concurred, for Women's Suffrage as women already had freedom from decision making.  The equality idea suddenly had restrictions of privilege.  What were considered rights at the beginning of the equality battle were now viewed as special privileges that women wanted.  What drew the men together, their eventual common ground, was the belief in the traditional man.

This theme carried out within the Women's Suffrage movement with traditional women who supported the traditional gender roles began campaigning against the Suffragists.  They were called The Antis or the Anti-Suffragists.  The term feminist was used to describe the militant woman who was aggressive in the fight to free women from the restrictions of the gender roles, never gave up regardless of arrest or persecution like one would believe the "fairer sex" the "weaker sex" were incapable of.  A militant woman in the fight for Women's Equality.  A Feminist.  A woman with a "man's" attitude stepping into the masculine gender role.  What many considered an "abomination".

There was no equality all around within the Women's Suffrage movement just as there is no equality all around within the LGBT movement as there will always be overly militant factions who prefer equality only for those who resemble them whether by race, class, religion, education, marital status, gender identity, gender expression and/or sexual orientation.   Just as some gay people of colour are today excluded by, or in turn exclude, gays of another race, or trans sexual/gender and gender queer are excluded by, or exclude, those of matching sex and gender, so did the women from the late 1800s to 1900s. 

It took women 72 years to get the right to vote but not full equality and while men of colour had won their right to vote 72 years earlier by breaking with the Women's Suffragists, they found that was all they won.  The second civil rights movement began the fight to end the separate but equal stipulation to both Suffrage movements. Both people of colour and women faced bias through racism, classism and sexism with separate grade schools, colleges, and employment opportunities. 

Elementary education was now compulsory since the abolishment of child labour in the 1930s where the children of the poorer classes were finally seen as more than products of their class and undeserving of the right to rise above their station.  Colleges on the other hand were still reserved for the upper and middle classes.  There were separate colleges for women and men and again for men and women of colour.  Such as Howard University, Elmira Female College of NY, Barber-Scotia College, Morehouse College and Wesleyan College, to name a few.  There was no true equality only levels of privilege.

At the same time women won the right to vote in 1920, a Eugenics policy of sterilizing certain mental patients, the poor classes of society and criminals was enacted under the guise of 'improving the human gene pool" but was initially focused on social class and intelligence.  Racial segregation, marriage restrictions, segregation of the mentally ill, and compulsory sterilisation were all part of the Eugenics movement. 

Nearly every state had eugenics laws on their books with California leading the way in compulsory sterilisations, which finally ended everywhere during the second Civil Rights era.  Psychiatrists used the captive gay patients, the mentally ill, and the criminals, from prisons and mental institutions as guinea pigs for shock therapy, compulsory sterilisation, and libido-suppressing medication among others.   As I said, there was no true equality for anyone just levels of privileges.  The highest privileges going to those who were traditional men and women. 

During second civil rights movement there were two groups fighting for equality.  The Black civil rights movement fighting for equality of people of colour and the Gay Liberation movement.  The first commercials against the "homosexual disease" were aired during the 1950s (Boys Beware 1950s PSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqIIeGmhL2Q&feature=player_embedded) and the first steps to employment discrimination for gays were created when Republican President Eisenhower signed an executive order barring gays and lesbians from federal employment.  Marriage restrictions were already present due to the sodomy laws which not only made anal but also oral sex illegal.   Many today still assume that all gay men exclusively perform anal sex and the sodomy laws should be reintroduced to prevent same-sex marriage.

Many of the LGBT community were also present in the Black civil rights movement and I dismiss any clamour to say different.  You can be any race and gay, you can be any gender and gay, you can be any class and gay, and you can be any sex; gender normative or trans and gay.  Baynard Rusting, the black gay man behind the organization of the march on Wasington DC with Dr. King Jr. was right there fighting for equality for all. 

Again, there were tossed only privileges given to those who are traditional instead of full equality for all.  Men of any race are paid higher than women of any sexual orientation.  Men and women cannot be fired due to race, religion, gender granting job security.   Gay, lesbian, asexual, bisexual, trans men and trans women have no employment security due to sexual orientation yet those who are considered traditional as in heterosexual and gender normative are protected.

We might say that all this should have been covered under the civil rights, gay liberation and women's rights movements but what really happened instead was not a granting for full rights but a protection of the privilege of those who are physically, psychologically and sexually traditional.  First by the inclusion of traditional black men, then by the inclusion of traditional women and I am now watching the inclusion of traditional gays, lesbians and gender normative post-operative transsexuals only. 

When the Republicans are the only ones starting to be inclusive to this new civil rights movement, it usually means another compromise on equality is on the way.  After all, "radical" congressional Republicans backed Black Suffrage and they were also the first major political party to back Women's rights, even when they didn't fully agree on a personal level.  The new civil rights movement is already splintering again with the decisions to wait until later for some groups of non-traditional men and women to achieve equality with the delay of passage of ENDA and repeal of DADT.  The last few civil rights movements were more of a "let's toss them a few things that seem like full equality so they will vote for us" deal.

Why else would we be here again, still fighting the traditionalist men and women for the dignity to be ourselves?  Fighting to retain reproductive control, sexual freedom, marriage equality, employment security which were battles that began in the US almost 200 years ago in the 1800s.  Every attempt that is made is met with the fretful squeal of "traditionalists" against full inclusion of, what is now their privileges, so everyone can gain full equality; "Another attempt to destroy the traditional family!"

Let's not be deflected again.  Support the American Equality Bill for full inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act (I hope gender expression is included):  http://www.change.org/petitions/view/petition_for_full_equality_for_all_americans

Freaking Out About Non-Binary Individuals & Couples

When a society dies and another rises from it's ashes it is only reborn and hopefully a bit wiser than the last incarnation.  Our society was born from dissent of the class, religious, racial and financial restrictions of the past society.  A bit simplistic yet close to the truth.  Though the social restrictions were tweaked, changed or abolished entirely we still adopted the social binary system from the previous few social incarnations.

There is always a continuous fight over adoption of laws that seek to restrict class, wealth, race and religion.  We have only had one previous battle over our social binary system, before the current battle for non-binary couples, and that was for one group of non-binary individuals; independent women.  Women who no longer wanted to be forced into the pretense that they were the "weaker", "inferior" and/or "submissive" sex.

I would say that it was only after Hitler's great adaptation of United States Eugenics theory and the ultimate horror of innocents being tortured, starved, experimented on, gassed and burned that the world took notice.  Even them I am not sure if the fight was to save the people or protect the wealth of nations threatened.  Before Hitler, and long after his death, the United States Eugenics program continued well into the 1970s. 

Ironic that is when the LGBT community also started fighting back from being involuntarily committed, treated to shock therapy, sterilisation, experimental medication and the like as punishment for their "perversion" of the binary.  "Deviant behaviour" they called it, where men and women adopted the "sexual and social behaviour" of their binary opposites.  A deviation from the binary system.  Against the "social nature" of the binary.  A dire grievance against society they claim.

Eugenics was seen as a way to cure the Human Race, although the Neo-Nazis and the KKK eliminate the human part to that as they believe the White race IS the ONLY race, of impurity, inferior stock and create a stronger human.  As the binary is seen as our societal model then those who are non-binary are seen as the inferior stock to be eliminated. 

The physically feminine men, the physically masculine women, the sexually feminine men, the sexually masculine women, the feminine sounding men, the masculine sounding women, any trans sexual or gender queer, those with no sexual drive, and dependent upon which societal group we are in the lesser qualities each group qualifies as non-binary. 

The stay-at-home father, the working mother, single parents, because they believe the binary must always be present in all of society for society to continue existing.  There must be a man and a woman.  There must be a physically, sexually masculine man who sounds like a man with the high sex drive of a man paired with a physically, sexually feminine woman who sounds like a woman with the lower sex drive of a woman who then produce perfectly binary children.  That is their idea of perfect society.

Human normalcy had to be "standardized", medically and psychologically.  A normal human has functional limbs, easily identifiable genitalia, a binary gender identity that matched physical genitalia and gender behaviour according to their side of the binary as identified through visual sex.   Those who do not are abnormal, not fully human, inferior and must be cured, re-educated or purged.    Today's society has only abolished the last and barely protested the first. At birth a doctor glances to see which category of the binary we are on and that becomes our official status in society.

Today's society does not fit that strict binary image.  The family is not a perfect binary family, the individuals are not perfectly binary and neither are the couples.  This is the war that is waging not simply between the LGBT community and the religious fundamentalists but between the binary fundamentalists and singles, unmarried couples, non-binary aka non-nuclear families, feminists, the poor, immigrants and the races. 

We are not immune. The LGBT or GLBT or TLGB or whatever letter you wish to put first or exclude entirely is not in the fight alone.  We are simply focused on one hillside to be captured or lost and the outcome will impact all of society.  When Prop 8 is finally struck down parents everywhere will finally have full equal rights and hopefully, the gender privilege of parenting will legally end.  The major threat to families in society is not non-binary individuals and couples, it is the binary itself.

The incorrect information provided to us at a young age that we must adhere to certain social rules based on visual sex and that all those we encounter will behave according to these social rules.  Yes, even in same-sex relationships.  The social rule society perpetuates that gay people are promiscuous, body conscious, vain, materialistic and habitually fit or that all women love and nurture babies and men do not.  That is the number one cause of divorce; the inability to get to know the individual we date in lieu of what society tells us they should be, act and believe. 

No wonder after 16 years of marriage some people realise not only are they married to an utter stranger but they are also a stranger to themselves.  It is also why the younger generation cannot seem to last more than 1 year married.  They have no patience with the pretense that older couples adopted years ago in order to create the illusion of that perfect binary family.  In order to have a solid family and relationship we must be true to, and happy with, ourselves.  One day society may finally realise that there is no man and wo-man; there is only human.

What IS Race?

What is race? A label we are given by appearance but appearances can be deceiving. I gave birth to my last child and was taken to surgery for my tubal ligation. The nurse who filled out the birth paperwork labeled my daughter as white based on my daughter's appearance, until they wheeled me back in hours later where... it was hastily changed to black. I've done telephone interviews for apartments, jobs; even ordering food, only to be greeted by people, regardless of race, who are taken aback by my appearance. It seems my voice and way of speech does not match my appearance. So what is race?

Upon seeing my youngest son many believe him to be White or Latino based on appearance alone; until I am introduced as his mother then suddenly he is black. I've read that some in the African American community do not consider the current gay rights fight to be on par with the civil rights fight of yesteryear. The civil rights fight was not just about the oppression of the African American community but for anyone with dark skin.

Indian, Native American, other black ethnicities, Asian, Bi-Racial and Middle-Eastern. The segregation laws were by skin color and anyone fitting that description regardless of race were targeted, which is why the signs said "For Colored Only". That sign meant Red, Yellow, Brown and Black. They did not care what ethnicity or race you were just that you were not white. If you passed as white and were found to be bi-racial or otherwise known as a half-breed retribution was swift.

What is race? Today there are many who still cannot tell the difference between Native American and some Latinos. Many of us cannot determine by sight those who are bi-racial. Bi-racial children are assumed to be many different races by different people within society. Within those races are a multitude of ethnicities.

Who determines race? Who determines ethnicity? The individual or society? It's the same with sexual orientation when you think about it. A man can spend his entire life living the masculine gender role to a tee until he shares his sexual orientation with the world and is accused as trying to hide. Suddenly he is a "gay", should be living a "gay" stereotype and not "pretending" to be straight. The man's sexual orientation did not change. Society's perception did. It's like being bi-racial and then showing up to a company party with your black parent. Suddenly you are not white anymore.

I find this idea that gay rights is unlike civil rights because race cannot be hidden, to be an excuse for continued sexual prejudice. Society has changed and that excuse is no longer viable.

The Study Tony Perkin's Keeps Misquoting: Reproductive Urge, Rights, Gender, Sex and Sexual Orientation

This may come as a shock. Reproductive urge is dependent upon the individual not gender, sex, or sexual orientation. Some of us have absolutely no urge to have children, which is why we have seen many relationships end due to one individual in the couple who has the reproductive urge while the other does not. Whether it is to have a child by way of sex, in-vitro, adoption, or surrogacy.

It does not matter if we are gay, straight, bisexual, trans gender, married, single, male or female (although I believe trans gender falls under male or female); some of us just need to nurture. To parent. It is devastating to realise that in many states that right to reproduce, to nurture, to be a parent, is denied.

Not due to any parental deficiency. There are disabled, addicted, incarcerated, abusive, and other biological parents with mental health issues. Nothing these parents have done, or are physically unable to do, bars them from their reproductive right, and should not, unless they have physically hurt their children. Yet some gay and straight individuals are not granted reproductive rights due to bigotry against individuals who are "socially infertile".

The current argument for barring those who are "socially infertile" is that children need two parents. I will agree that the ideal would be a two (employed) parent household. Not a specific heterosexual two parent household. Simply a two parent household regardless of sex, gender and sexual orientation that has the income along with emotional stability needed to raise a child. There is a unique difference between mother or father and parent. Anyone can be a mother or father. It takes a special person to be a parent. A parent bases all decisions due to the well being of the child.

A parent will not get married to provide a mother or a father to a child based on societal belief, or simply due to the love that person has for the parent. A parent will get married to another parent. Another person who will also base their decisions on the well being of the child. Who loves that child.

The one thing in the study everyone keeps quoting from, Charting Parenting: A Statistical Portrait of Mothers and Fathers in America, was that it had NOTHING to do with marriage. It was a study on Parenting. I had looked it up previously in 2006 while answering a man going through a heterosexual divorce in a bid to make sure his ex-wife did not cut him out of their child's life. Something for his attorney to use in court. It stated that children with two parents (divorced, single or married) do better than children who have only one parent involved in their lives. It defined a parent as:

Who is a parent? This answer is not as obvious as one might think. Definitions of parenthood can include genetic, legal, and practical criteria. Throughout this report we do not use any single definition of parenthood. For this indicator, however, we define parenthood in two ways: genetically (have you ever had a biological child), and practically (are you living with your own child under age 18, regardless of the type of relationship). Both measures have their limitations: the genetic definition does not say anything about the current relationship, and is doubtless under-reported for men; the practical definition adopted here leaves out nonresident parents of minor children, an important group. Together, however, they give us a good starting point for the report.

The part that is taken out of context states that:

Marriage is one of the most beneficial resources for adults and children alike. Children in married parent families tend to have fewer behavior problems, better emotional well-being, and better academic outcomes, on average, than children in single parent or divorced families.

Gay couples are NOT single parents or parents in a divided and/or conflicted household. In the same paragraph it also states:

Marriage is less beneficial for children’s emotional and behavioral well-being in families marked by high parental conflict. Fathers’ attachments to their children are often contingent upon marriage - fathers tend to disengage from children they no longer live with, making less frequent visits and calls to them over time.

And in regards to Divorce:

Divorce is linked to behavior problems among children, including depression, antisocial behavior,
impulsive/hyperactive behavior, and school behavior problems. It places daughters at greater risk of having nonmarital births. Often these outcomes are the result of the processes that are set into motion when parents divorce.

Children living with one parent are more likely to have household income below the poverty line than children living with both parents, and these children are often uprooted to new neighborhoods and schools supported by fewer financial resources. Spending time in a family that is not headed by two married parents increases the likelihood that a child will experience subsequent changes in his or her family status. Thus, changes in a child’s family situation can cause short-term instability and also interrupt important pathways for a child’s social-economic well-being in adulthood.

I would love to suggest reading the study in it's entirety.

Charting Parenting: A Statistical Portrait of Mothers and Fathers in America
http://www.childtrends.org/files/ParenthoodRpt2002.pdf

Sexual Orientation: Isn't everyone simply sexual or asexual?

I have never related to the term hetero sexual as I am not sexual which led me to briefly contemplate that I might be homo sexual or bi sexual. I did not fit either as I STILL am NOT sexual. The terms seem woefully outdated as the suffix means "sex with" and the prefix specifies the "gender".

I know folks within all communities. Straight, gay, bi and trans who are not overly sexual and still struggle to find an adjective that best describes how they feel. They have a sex drive yet prefer sexual acts other than anal/vaginal sex. When conveying these feelings society says "well maybe you are not hetero or homo sexual, maybe you are bi sexual?". Yet, that is NOT it. They ARE attracted to the sex they say they are attracted to, they simply are not overly sexual. The same characteristics of a romantic/asexual, whether homo/hetero/bi romantic, yet they HAVE a desire to have sex.

I formerly moderated a forum for gay men and every day there was someone questioning whether he was gay or not because every gay man he met was extremely sexual and he was not. They would complain that they love sexual contact but the constant demand to be extremely sexual was leading them to question if sex is all there is to being gay and if so maybe they were not. I have seen this with hetero/bi/gay women also. One partner is extremely sexual while the other is less so.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who are extremely sexual and have no desire for any relationship. Sex is satisfying enough and any romantic entanglement is found to be irritating. Confirmed bachelors, or bachelorettes, whom society feels obligated to nag into disastrous marriages. For the sake of society of course.

Then there's what I call sexual identity. Whether you are dominant/submissive/switch

. Even this seems to lead to sexuals questioning their sexuality since being "submissive" is always used in reference to women and gay men. I've talked to men who were attracted to women yet were submissive who actually wondered if they were gay simply because they needed to be the submissive partner during sex. Or men who questioned if they were gay simply because they had an urge to only be the penetrative/dominant partner during sex with their male partner. I'm straying off topic here.

So what I'm saying is this, as they are different types of asexuals, whether romantic/aromantic, hetero/bi/homo romantic etc. The same can be said for sexuals. The terms homo, hetero and bi sexual do not adequately describe sexuality as every one is either sexual or asexual regardless of WHICH gender they find sexually/aesthetically/romantically pleasing.

If orientation was all about "gender" then all sexuals would have sex with EVERYONE who falls into their "gender" of choice regardless of physical/intellectual/aesthetic attraction. Which is why I feel sexual orientation is outdated and essentially seems to spread confusion and infighting amongst sexuals. There are different types of sexuals, not simply due to "gender of choice" but due to their individual approach to sexuality (i.e. sexual acts, romantic attraction, sexual identity) .

Well. Maybe I should have given examples. Sigh. I always assume everyone knows what I'm talking about. lol Then again, it WAS 2 am. So essentially, what I'm trying to say is that those outdated terms cannot define anyone because WE define ...OURSELVES. All those terms do is say we fu*k x, y or xy gender..hmm..bad analogy. Make that a, b or ab gender.

Those terms hetero/homo/bi SEXUAL never defines how you individually view your own sexuality and what you are looking for in a compatible partner. Might be less divorce this way. lol I definitely would never have assumed that since my past 2 partners were hetero, in favour of my sex, that they would view sexuality in a comfortably compatible way. I would never had said yes because a submissive sexual fetishist or a dominant/sexual is NOT what I'm compatible with. Nearly every fight we had SEX dominated the conversation more than finance and parenting. It was ever ONLY about the sex or lack of. My current partner is a romantic sexual so we are not ideal but a lot better matched than the 1st two.

I simply cannot buy into the idea that as one of the female SEX, I must choose ANY person of the male sex as immediately compatible. That's just ridiculous.

Will note that what I'm saying is not to "replace" the gender target of sexual interest but to highlight that gender and sexual interest is not where sexuality begins and ends. 

So far there's only three available pigeon holes provided by society. I'd like to be able to define myself...by myself. Everyone doesn't like the same things, no one is exactly the same, yet the labels try to do so. There are endless combinations of sexual expression. Just as there are endless combinations of gender expression instead of the two binary system that are our only options at the moment.

Minority Discrimination: An Abuse of Priviledge

Discrimination of minorities has always been an abuse of privilege with the secondary characteristics of race, sex, ethnicity, sexuality, intelligence, and social status as mere excuses for degrading and dehumanizing behaviour. During the civil rights movement of the 1950s to 60s, there was one common theme that was seen during the peaceful protests. I AM HUMAN and I AM A MAN. It was the reason why, when Dr. King called, everyone came.

The treatment of minorities as sub-human can be seen in regards to laws targeting minorities of all walks of life. From the poor, the mentally ill, the disabled, the uneducated, people of colour, sexual minorities and women. Dr. King's I AM HUMAN campaign jolted the nation and everyone, not just those of colour, heard the call for equality. If we watch the Civil Rights marches closely we can see them all. Marching. Protesting. Standing up with everyone who has ever been denied the right of dignity and freedom. All those who have been tortured, lynched, beaten, raped simply due to, not just the colour of their skin but their nationality, sex, gender, sexuality or societal class they were born to.

a. Lynching of Minorities : http://amath.colorado.edu/carnegie/lit/lynch/home.htm
b. Anti-Immigration View of Minorities: http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080307112004ebyessedo0.1716272.html
c. Minority Privilege over other Minorities: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/johnson.html
d. Violence Against Gays & Lesbians: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32353
e. Gender, Minorities and Indigenous Peoples: http://www.minorityrights.org/download.php?id=115
f. Gays & The Holocaust: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html
g. Child Labour in U.S. History: http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html
h. Eugenics: "The State Boys Rebellion": http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/29/60minutes/main614728.shtml
i. Compulsory Sterilization of the Socially Disadvantaged: http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

It was the successful strategy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, to show the civility of social minorities in the face of accusations of violence such as potential for rape, murder, robbery and promiscuity. I have no idea if the civility of ALL social minorities was indeed the original intended strategy but it was the outcome. Everyone recognised a part of themselves in Dr. King's speeches. In order to combat those false concepts of minorities, they would have to show that they were the shining examples of their respective genders. No one gave a thought to Bayard Rustin's sexual orientation during the time he spent at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement along with Dr. King, all they saw was a man. All they saw was just another man, and that was good, right and as it should be. (Bayard Rustin: Quaker Civil Rights Leader: http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/bayard_rustin.htm)

Today, we have no Dr. King to lead us and keep us focused on the fact that we are all human. We are all fighting for the same goal. Equality. We cannot start out fighting for equality and then fight each other for the privilege of it. That is how we BECAME the minority. The many Amendments to the Bill of Rights shows the truth of it. We fought all fought for religious freedom yet some of us became the religious majority, we all fought for the right to vote; yet one sex became the voting majority and we all fought for civil rights; yet today some of us are still fighting for ours. When do we support everyone's right to dignity and freedom?

Those who were in mind to abuse their privilege contemplated adding another Amendment to the Bill of Rights to permanently claim the right and dignity of monogamous civil marriage for themselves. If it were not for those of conscience who remembered those who came before them and their fight for the dignity of everyone; we would not be fighting here today. It would be a much harder road to repeal a constitutional amendment.

It is time to check our priorities. Are we fighting for equality for the chance to grab and hold a bit of this exclusive privilege for ourselves and shout "MINE!" at whomever get's close enough for us to feel threatened? Or are we fighting for equality so we can look out at all the families and individuals who are hurting, suffering in despair and know we are helping, to finally, finally, make this right? Equality has to be for ALL or else it simply becomes another temporary privilege.

Marriage Is Either Civil Monogamy or Civil Polygamy Nothing More

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Merrill Anti-Polygamy Act which made the United States a Monogamous nation. In 1878, the Anti-Polygamy law was taken to the US Supreme Court with the case Reynolds vs United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145).

In Reynolds vs United States, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US was a monogamous country and the civil marriage contract would consist of only two persons. This civil marriage contract could only be terminated by death or divorce before another civil marriage contract could be issued. In regards to religious freedom, the US Supreme Court said that the government could not regulate religious belief which would be in violation of the First Amendment.

The government can, however, regulate the actions of its inhabitants. The court then used ritual human sacrifice as an example. If a person believes that the sacrifice of another is part of their religion, there is no crime committed as it is still a belief. When this person carries out the actions of this belief it is no longer protected under religious freedom as it has gone from idea to action; the civil crime of murder. Religious freedom is protected, as we can believe anything we want, we simply cannot harm another living creature in accordance to the laws of the Nation.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s laws preventing the marriage of those considered mentally ill began to appear on the legal books. These laws were in response to the Naturalization Law of 1790 which stated that the privilege of US Citizenship was for free white citizens only. Then they realised that law did not prevent the socially undesirables, such as the mentally ill, criminals, the sick and poor, from entering the country.

The government built Ellis Island to process these immigrants initially to make sure they could financially take care of themselves without risk of becoming dependent upon the government. Everything evolved from there. Soon they were testing for potential sicknesses, then someone suggested a literacy test, then the Eugenic scientists stepped in to provide a biological reason for preventing immigration. The state of Indiana was the first to pass an Eugenics law in 1907 although it was repealed in 1921. (1907 Indiana Eugenics Law: http://www.in.gov/history/markers/524.htm) So it began.

The Eugenics laws led to the commitment and compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill, the disabled, homosexuals, the poor, socially inadequate and criminals. While created in the United States to initially combat immigration, this idea was later adopted by Hitler's Nazi Army. You can read the history of US Eugenics here (http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html) The Eugenics Act would not be repealed until 1965 with the US Immigration and Nationality Act (http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html). Marriage is a step to citizenship.

In 1962 Loving vs. Virginia overturned the miscegenation laws. The laws prevented non-whites from entering a monogamous civil marriage contract with a white person, based on the religious belief that the races should not mix. The State of Virginia argued that since it's law equally punished whites and non-whites for marrying, that their statutes were not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The US Supreme Court countered, that since the State of Virginia only punished marriages involving whites, their logic was incorrect. The law only protected whites, as whites and non-whites could still marry. They were only being punished for marrying each other. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1)

During the Reformation of the Catholic Church, the laws of the Church were transferred to the Civil Courts. and the first law against sodomy was issued. During the Ratification of the Bill of Rights most of the new states had adopted some form of the English common law and/or statutes. The state of Rhode Island was the first state to pass an anti-sodomy law in 1662. The anti-sodomy laws were part of the morality laws of the Church of England targeting the sexual behaviour of the citizens. When the US States began tailoring the Anti-Sodomy laws to target only one group of citizens, violating their privacy to enforce it and using it to prevent them from entering a civil monogamous marriage; it culminated in the US Supreme Court hearing Lawrence vs Texas in 2003. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102).

The US Supreme Court concluded that the Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional and stated in the opinion that the Constitution offers it's citizens the liberty to enter into relationships in the privacy of their homes, private lives and still retain their dignity as free citizens. Today we are waiting on another case to be tried, not at the US Supreme Court level but on the Federal level in regards to Proposition 8. Proposition 8 does not punish with jail time or a fine as the bigamy and miscegenation laws did. Proposition 8 prevented marriage based on the religious definition of gender; one man and one woman and was the result of the Lawrence vs. Texas decision opening the way for same-sex marriages within the nation. It punished individuals and their families by denying equal protections in family court, health insurance, and other benefits simply due to the gender of the couple/parents involved. (1138 Benefits and Legal Protections of Marriage: http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons and the UAFA Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111%3AH.R.2709:)

What the State of California's Proposition 8, and the Federal government's DOMA legislature, have in common with the Miscegenation laws is that it prevents, and punishes, certain civil monogamous marriage contracts by gender. Where the gender of the persons who wish to enter into a consensual monogamous civil marriage contract are prevented only if the people involved meet the religious definition of gender.

The religious definition of gender in the US is based on the book of Genesis in the Bible where it states that God made man then made woman as his helper through life. This religious belief states that God gave man a woman to marry and produce children therefore a civil marriage must be between opposite gender heterosexual couples. The states claim constitutionality of the law as it seems to equally ban both men and women from marrying. Yet, it does not ban men and women from marrying each other. It only bans homosexual and/or transgender men and women, in essence protecting only heterosexual couples.

The religious definition of gender should never be allowed within our civil statutes as there are so many gender anomalies. The religious definition of gender is inaccurate and based on the visual physical sex of the individuals involved (i.e. gender observed at birth by viewing genitalia). Which is why there is such different legislature in place when it comes to those of indeterminate gender, where their birth certificate does not match, or questions, the gender that was observed at birth. I say observed, as there are genetic anomalies that present after birth. For example, a person who presents as female at birth, can be chromosomally male or, though it is rare, spontaneously change physical gender without medical intervention later in life. There can be no legal definition of gender as it is impossible to determine without asking the individual. (Intersex Initiative: http://www.intersexinitiative.org/articles/intersex-faq.html)

Therefore, in my opinion and hopefully the Federal government's, the Anti-Gay laws are all unconstitutional.