The Tiny Voice of Reason

When Did I Realise I Was......What?

I get this question so often I thought it would be wiser to write down my answer instead of decking the next person to blithely voice it again.  I will endeavour to keep the sarcasm to a bare minimum since I usually reply with the question "When did you realise you were an arsehole?  How about brainless imbecile?"  Here in the realm of written English language I do believe I can straighten my shirt, dust off my sleeves and hold onto my temper.

I was told I was black when another child in primary school pointed it out as why I could not henna my hands.  I was told I was female when a boy tried to prevent me from playing soccer and pointed it out.  I was told I was a darker shade of brown and did not have the "nice" skin and/or hair when another family member received better clothing, toys and respect from other members of the family.  I was told I was a bastard by other children who pointed out my parent's marital situation.

I was told I was an immigrant with lesser rights when an African American at college requested I repay my EOP grant and speak to him when I got citizenship.  I was told I was a whore and slapped on the Number 4 train in NYC after picking up my baby from day care since I had no husband present.  I was told I was frigid and should see about a cure when I told a partner I preferred intimacy to sex.

I was told many things only after someone else used one part of me to categorise me and pointed out those parts.  I have been told many things by many people.  That I am unworthy, unloved, unwanted, abominable, a bastard, frigid, a whore, trash and many other things.  Will you ask me now when I realised I was all of these things simply because these words are what others use to describe me?  To realise in this definition of the word, is to accept the definition provided by another.  I realise nothing.  I know who I am.  There is nothing to realise.

You may see many separate things and others may see many more separate things as though I have been overly pixelated to distorted proportions.  To you I am a piece of something; to me,I am whole.  There was no realisation.  I did no realising.  I live and I am.  There was no "Eureka!" moment.  No "Hey, they are right and I am wrong" moment.  It implies a lack of self-awareness, knowledge and acceptance.  I already know there is no other me.  Even if I had a twin, there would be no other me.  Of course I am different.  Of course I am not like you.  I have no wish to be you, as I love being me.

Why not ask me; "When did you first fall in love?", or "When was your first crush?" or "When did you find your best friend?"  That would be more accurate in this concept of realisation you speak about.  I realised I had a crush on a boy at primary school when I was in 2nd form and he actually listened to what I had to say.  Or better yet, ask me when did I know who I was.  I was asked the silly questions "Who are you?" and "What's your name?" at the age of 2 and every few years before I attended school as if I would suddenly forget.  My name is Jo.  It is the only label I accept since I customised it to fit and I had to keep repeating it until others realised that is the only thing that's important.

I hope you know you can be a total #($#&!

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."

Sometimes A Lawyer Is More Effective than Cops

We say to lots of people who suffer routine abuse at the hands of another to "Call 911."  This only works if a crime is in progress.  Sometimes after the cops have shown up, and it is your word against your abuser, the cops will tell you "There is nothing we can do.  Call a lawyer.  This is Civil not Criminal."   I know this first hand as a survivour of domestic violence.

So what is the difference?  A criminal matter is when the government files a lawsuit against a private citizen and/or corporation.  In a civil matter an individual files.  The government, will only file charges if they can prove a crime has been committed.  Visible wounds to the victim, the victim's statement, witnesses to the assault.  There will then be a trial where the government prosecutes the defense and the defense is either made to pay a fine directly to the government or be incarcerated by the government.

If it is a verbal dispute between two people, hearsay, they will take a statement from both parties as substantive evidence in any future pending litigation.  The party wishing to file civil charges will retain a lawyer and present evidence in support of their civil case.  The case will be heard by a judge who will decide if damages should be ordered.  This is a simplified explanation of the differences between criminal and civil law, yet, it should bring understanding as to why in many cases the police can do nothing to help you.

In civil cases there are steps you should take in order to build a strong case against the defendant.

1.  Keep a Journal:  Write down the date, time, name of the assailants, clothing they were wearing, where it took place, names of any witnesses, what was said and what physically took place.

2.  Take pictures:  If you sustained any injury at the time of the incident.  Wait until you are safe and take pictures of your injuries.  Make copies and keep the originals in a safe place.

3.  Make a complaint:  If you are a grade school student, talk to your Guidance Counselour, Principal or Asst. Principal.  Bring copies, never the originals, of your evidence.  Like any other person of authority they like to know all "i"s are dotted and "t"'s are crossed.  Make sure you take notes during your meeting of whom you spoke to and the correct spelling of their names along with the date of your meeting, the time it began and the time it ended.

4.  Follow Up:  After you have filed your complaint with the school authorities, follow up with a written letter thanking them by name for their time, mention the meeting, what you spoke about, the evidence you presented, any promises that they made to you and the time frame they gave you for these promises.  Mail it certified mail and keep the Certified Mail tracking stub originals with your other originals.

5.  Go to a higher authority:  If nothing happens within the time frame, send another follow up letter AND a letter to their supervisors.  Mention in the 2nd follow up letter that their supervisors, Mr/Ms X, has been notified of the situation.   Mention in the letter to their supervisors your previous meeting with x, y and z.  Give a brief out line of the incidences, the meeting, what was said, and what was promised.  Send this letter Certified Mail.

6.  Call your lawyer:  Give them copies of your evidence, the letters, any telephone/cell phone records proving contact with the school and the Certified Mail stubs.  They will know how to press charges and the detailed evidence you have collected will help in litigation.  In Civil law you have to be your own investigator unless your lawyer suggests different.  Your lawyer will also let you know what is and is not submissible in court.

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.

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

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.

Reparation Therapy: Religious Trans Panic?

First, what the hell does "reparation" mean anyway? Reparation means to make amends, to repent, to apologise for your misdeeds. The "therapy" is the religious atonement process you go through to repent for turning one's back to the church. What exactly was the trespass? Well, in the major Western religions, the head of the church is Christ and the head of "woman" is man. In the eyes of the church gays and lesbians are going against the law of the church; the gender binary. In secular societal terms, the church believes gays, lesbians and bi-sexuals to be trans gender.

How exactly does society teach societal gender? Yes, there is a difference between our true gender and our societal gender. Societal gender varies by society, culture, religion and is based solely on appearance, expression and clothing. Our true gender is our identity.

Gender normative behaviour around the world is based on religion. In some religions there is a binary, others a triad and others none. In Western society we classify our gender behaviour by a binary system and anything outside the binary is considered "unnatural". There are certain gender requirements and restrictions that go with the Western Gender Binary.

Biblical law states that binary men have sex, marry and love binary women in order to produce binary children. It states that binary men think, dress and behave one way while binary women think, dress and behave another. A binary man/woman who has sex, wishes to marry and loves another of the same sex is considered unnatural and an upset to the binary balance. Man on one side and woman on the other. The Western Gender Binary also mandates that gender is defined by biblical requirements not the individual, therefore gender cannot be changed/altered.

Binary means opposite, or two separate "equal" parts. If the church "allows" a same-sex couple to exist they believe that to be apocalyptic, portends the destruction of the binary and the end of the "natural" world as they know it. A bit much, yet, that is what has been preached in church. Reparation therapy was created as a way to stop the transition of those thought to be going outside the binary back into the system. Of course it does not work because the binary does not exist outside of the Bible. The bible is the binary.

Reparation therapy seeks only to reintroduce the binary laws to recalcitrant members of western religious society. The binary law that binary men should not behave like binary women, which in secular society, translates to being trans gender. The therapy sessions of re-establishing binary masculinity do not work since there is nothing to re-establish. For reparation therapy to be successful, in religious reasoning, the repentant binary male/female must simply state the they have no wish to fully transition to the opposite sex and abstain from further transition to opposite sex (i.e. sex, marriage and/or relationship with a same-sex partner). Dependent upon the religion, this may simply mean no more same-sex relationships, yet, in others it may mean binary reaffirming clothing, expression AND no more same-sex relationships.

The majority of gay/bi individuals fit comfortably enough into the binary with the exception of who they love, want to establish a relationship, have sex or marry (everyone has issues with the binary) . To be binary compliant, reparation therapists promote a substitute for the same-sex partner; a binary opposite. To a person who is not trans gender (outside the Western Gender Binary) the final step reparation therapists suggest that they are headed, (i.e removal of genitals etc., also known as emasculation/defeminization respectively) is horrifying and in a blind panic they follow all the suggested steps to prevent such a thing from happening no matter how uncomfortable, demeaning, or humiliating. A very subtle form of trans panic.

Both those in favour of reparation therapy and those opposed still adhere to the Western Gender Binary. One believes that same-sex partners violates the binary and the other claiming they do not, yet both agreeing that the binary is correct and just. The fatal flaw to the Western Gender Binary is that it does not exist. The many fights for civil rights throughout history have proven that quite effectively.

Indeed this article is about breaking down what reparation therapy actually is and why fundamentalists insist that sexual minorities atone for what they consider to be "sinful". With every story I hear regarding reparation therapy, there is always reaffirmation of physical sex and the gender roles of said sex. From my observations I consider reparation therapy a subtle form of trans phobia.

In our society there are considered to be only two sexes. Male and female based on biblical history of Adam & Eve, according to the many people who have argued vociferously with me. The first man and woman. The original binary of our society. The one that is being defended today with DOMA, gay marriage bans and, so far, a steadfast refusal and protest against trans gender rights protections within local, state and national legislature.

The slogan of Exodus International is, after all, "Freedom from Homosexuality Through Jesus Christ" and their real-life stories, when you truly read them, are about what would be considered gender struggles. A little boy dressing in his mum's clothing and wanting to wear make up, another was his mother's favourite and one woman questioned what it meant to be a "woman". None of this has anything to do with sexuality. It's all rather mundane behaviour for a kid. What should be interesting is how anything to do with straying outside of the Gender Binary is considered a "sin".  It is trans phobia at it's purest.

Why Marriage Equality Matters

The opposition to same sex marriage states that marriage is between one man and one women in compliance of society's gender binary rules. This law was based on the idea that gender is determined by society instead of by the individual and this concept was the idea behind Proposition 8. So how exactly does society determine gender? By physical attributes, such as facial features, width of shoulders, Adam's apple, timbre of voice, jaw line and clothing. This determination, of course, is only visual. After all how else would you determine gender? Everyone knows what a man looks like and that is remarkably different from a woman, correct? Not exactly.

We know that in order to obtain a marriage license, one must provide documentation to prove we are whom we say we are. This was to prevent bigamy and incest yet now it's causing quite a stir when it comes to gender and the birth certificate. There is an individual who wants to be married to their partner; visually they are the opposite gender yet the birth certificate says they are a same gender couple. What to do? What to do? Which gender does the government official go by and why? The visual determination of the adult in front of them or the visual determination of the doctor at birth?

The gay marriage ban sought to take care of visually same sex couples from being included in civil federal marriage and make issuing a marriage certificate easier. If a clerk sees two of the same gender at the counter asking for a marriage certificate it is an automatic "NO!" Viola! Danger to the binary eliminated! Now this birth certificate is telling the clerk that they have no idea what gender is? How is this possible?

Laws written using gender determination are based on visual input, yet gender is much more complex than that. There is no way to visually or genetically determine gender. There are so many individual interpretations of gender only the individual knows how they identify. Male, female, intersex, androgynous etc. So how can they write a law based on a concept that is shown to be medically incorrect?

Society's way of determining sexual orientation is by looking at the visual gender of the couple. If the visual gender says one thing and the birth certificate says another then how does one determine sexual orientation of couples applying for marriage? Is the couple's sexual orientation gay due to visual gender or straight due to birth gender or vice versa? How can you legally discriminate?

The only way to be fair and just is to let all consenting adults who aren't committing a crime be allowed to marry. At this time the only crimes that can be committed by marriage are bigamy, incest and statutory rape.