I’m reading the Feminine Mystique right now. One of the things I’m attempting to do – go through some classic feminist texts. For one, I don’t trust the way society reinterprets the texts, but also because I believe for me to ever fully develop as a feminist legal theorists, which is a goal that I have, I need to have the solid foundation. One of the things about the Feminine Mystique that is standing out for me is the vitriolic reaction to women trying to establish themselves as full human beings.
Clergy, politicians, and average males violently fought against women owning property, voting, existing in the public sphere. Women died for this struggle. One of the thoughts that I want to figure out how to develop is the idea that struggle against gay marriage and gay existence is based in sexism. As a movement, our favorite comparison is to that of anti-miscegenation efforts. There is a distinctive similarity in the legal struggle and the logic employed by those upholding the discriminatory laws, namely that that because everyone is treated equally in the ban, it isn’t discriminatory (i.e., because all blacks can only marry all black, but the same is true that whites can only marry whites OR since all men can only marry women, but the same is true that all women can only marry men).
Nevertheless, this comparison is shortsighted and forgets to ask, “Why is there such resistance?” In the case, of anti-miscegenation laws, the basis was racism, a belief in the need to use the law to protect the purity of the races. As with the anti-gay marriage movement, there was a willful desire to ignore the fact that regardless of the laws, people fall in love and the passion involved in that feeling made many people ignore the law and live their lives dangerously, knowing full-well that they could be beat on the street or sometimes prosecuted for their relationships. But the reason is not the same.
The reasoning cited in the anti-gay movement engages in sexist rhetoric. There are discussions of disrupting the traditional family. The cornerstone argument against women’s equality. Much of the language about the detriment of same-sex marriage mirrors the resistance to women’s equality. I believe that the LGBT movement does itself and the movement a disservice by not exploring the overlap of sexism embodied in the movement that has so much to do with sex.
Is part of the struggle against homosexuality embodied in the desire to have women’s sexuality constantly available, the fear of heterosexual men losing their importance? Is the fear of gay men on the part of straight men based in the idea of how little respect males are trained to have for their sexual objects in our society? Several studies have showed that more than 1/3 of college-aged men would rape a woman if they could get away with it, and 1 out of 2 would force themselves upon a woman (i.e., rape by another name) if they knew they could get away with it. Is the idea of being viewed by men in the way that they view women the basis of fear of the homosexual male? There seems to be some sort of truth in this idea, especially in light of the collective acceptance of the idea that the heterosexual male is justified in using force to respond to even the suggestion of attraction on the part of a homo/bisexual male.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
It's not about the Old People
Okay - here's a pet peeve of mine. Domestic Partnerships are not about the old people. It sometimes makes me feel a little dirty how our movement is using them.
You see for the domestic partnership laws, several states have wooed the senior vote by including them in the domestic partnership law. The idea is essentially it allows legal recognition of an important relationship without interfering with federal benefits and pensions available to widows (and the occasionally widower). But gay people (as a general overarching amorphous group) don't want domestic partnerships. We want marriage. We want an end to discriminatory laws around marriage. We aren't really seeking a better understanding of protecting ways that we organize our families that don't fit within an outdated male/female and then children nuclear family model.
We will also readily throw our 62+ people under the bus and not even acknowledge that's what we're doing. So when we have this everything but marriage d.p. law and the fight to keep the law in place (i.e. to approve the Referendum) and we talk about the benefit it provides seniors, we are neglecting to realize that if we end up converting domestic partnerships into marriage, they will lose all the benefits they were trying to have protected.
Maybe some people are fine with this, but I'm not. We need to have a non-marriage option that allows people certain legal connections without all the economic and other complications. Something that merely says, you're the person who gets to be there and make decisions when I'm sick you can make decisions for me and visit me regardless of our bloodline (without having to understand all the various types of powers of attorney and spending all the money on lawyers to get it).
Okay that's all for now. And probably for tonight as I'm blowing this popsicile stand - if I do turn the computer back on it will be for other work, not for blogging.
You see for the domestic partnership laws, several states have wooed the senior vote by including them in the domestic partnership law. The idea is essentially it allows legal recognition of an important relationship without interfering with federal benefits and pensions available to widows (and the occasionally widower). But gay people (as a general overarching amorphous group) don't want domestic partnerships. We want marriage. We want an end to discriminatory laws around marriage. We aren't really seeking a better understanding of protecting ways that we organize our families that don't fit within an outdated male/female and then children nuclear family model.
We will also readily throw our 62+ people under the bus and not even acknowledge that's what we're doing. So when we have this everything but marriage d.p. law and the fight to keep the law in place (i.e. to approve the Referendum) and we talk about the benefit it provides seniors, we are neglecting to realize that if we end up converting domestic partnerships into marriage, they will lose all the benefits they were trying to have protected.
Maybe some people are fine with this, but I'm not. We need to have a non-marriage option that allows people certain legal connections without all the economic and other complications. Something that merely says, you're the person who gets to be there and make decisions when I'm sick you can make decisions for me and visit me regardless of our bloodline (without having to understand all the various types of powers of attorney and spending all the money on lawyers to get it).
Okay that's all for now. And probably for tonight as I'm blowing this popsicile stand - if I do turn the computer back on it will be for other work, not for blogging.
Women's Space and More
Amazing how easy it is to fall of the wagon. It's been almost two weeks since my last post. It's not that I'm not thinking about the world around me. On the contrary, I'm thinking and engaging with it, which is part of why I wanted this pressure of trying to do a daily blog. I want to be thinking about things, not just engaging in the world.
Anyway some thoughts:
Women's Space: For some reason the issues of women's space, particularly in the world of the Michigan Women's Festival. One of the things that has come up is a complaint that they don't allow men in, even trans men. Forgive me if I mentioned this thought before here - but Women's space is important. As is any separate space for minorities. Interesting how we don't question it with religious institutions. Don't question that sometimes a space where you can share your experiences and build your community is important. Interesting how it's accepted for male golf clubs and other clubs that provide access points to power. No - we question it about spaces that are meant to be sources of empowerment. So often we cut down places and events that work to create greater equality, confidence, power, etc.
I was on a website where people were critiquing the women's movement, and I had to chime in and add my two cents (shocking I know). But really, the women's movement has fought like hell to give us the vote, reproductive choices (I'm talking about access to even learning about birth control, not just abortion), sexual freedom, equal pay, nondiscrimination in employment and education. And so much more.
Is it perfect? No. But I'm not entirely sure that perfection is capable of progress. We exist in a world where things seem to have to happen incrementally. It's not really my preference, but I will take some progress over no progress. I also think it's important to realize that we have no idea what we're going to think in 20 years. We don't know how our ideas about gender, race, sexuality, etc., are going to evolve. The trans experience was virtually non-existent in the public arena 20 years ago. Which isn't to say that there were no trans folks, it's just to say that we didn't really know it existed.
We also barely acknowledge intersex individuals, and they are probably more prevalent than trans individuals, but as a society, we are more comfortable with a gender binary - so I think in many ways we'd rather have trans than intersex. In many ways trans identity doesn't make us question our gender binary. There are two and maybe sometimes you're born in the wrong body, but there are still two.
It's kind of like people understanding homosexuality more than bisexuality. Somehow the grey area or the flexibility is more threatening to our own identities.
Okay that's all I've got for now. Too many other things to do. But maybe I'll get back on the wagon.
Anyway some thoughts:
Women's Space: For some reason the issues of women's space, particularly in the world of the Michigan Women's Festival. One of the things that has come up is a complaint that they don't allow men in, even trans men. Forgive me if I mentioned this thought before here - but Women's space is important. As is any separate space for minorities. Interesting how we don't question it with religious institutions. Don't question that sometimes a space where you can share your experiences and build your community is important. Interesting how it's accepted for male golf clubs and other clubs that provide access points to power. No - we question it about spaces that are meant to be sources of empowerment. So often we cut down places and events that work to create greater equality, confidence, power, etc.
I was on a website where people were critiquing the women's movement, and I had to chime in and add my two cents (shocking I know). But really, the women's movement has fought like hell to give us the vote, reproductive choices (I'm talking about access to even learning about birth control, not just abortion), sexual freedom, equal pay, nondiscrimination in employment and education. And so much more.
Is it perfect? No. But I'm not entirely sure that perfection is capable of progress. We exist in a world where things seem to have to happen incrementally. It's not really my preference, but I will take some progress over no progress. I also think it's important to realize that we have no idea what we're going to think in 20 years. We don't know how our ideas about gender, race, sexuality, etc., are going to evolve. The trans experience was virtually non-existent in the public arena 20 years ago. Which isn't to say that there were no trans folks, it's just to say that we didn't really know it existed.
We also barely acknowledge intersex individuals, and they are probably more prevalent than trans individuals, but as a society, we are more comfortable with a gender binary - so I think in many ways we'd rather have trans than intersex. In many ways trans identity doesn't make us question our gender binary. There are two and maybe sometimes you're born in the wrong body, but there are still two.
It's kind of like people understanding homosexuality more than bisexuality. Somehow the grey area or the flexibility is more threatening to our own identities.
Okay that's all I've got for now. Too many other things to do. But maybe I'll get back on the wagon.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
When Does Congress Legislate Medical Procedures?
I'm listening to Carheart right now and am curious, aside from abortion, what medical procedures does Congress try to legislate? I'm guessing there is research out there about this, and I will try to look into it.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Women's Athletics and Equality - Responding to my First Comment
Well this is exciting. I've received my first comment, by someone I don't even know. What's even more exciting about it, is that it teases out differences in agreement. Helen and I share an interest and passion for women's athletics, particularly it seems, the WNBA. She had some interesting points and some points I disagree with, so this post is about exploring this issue further.
1) Women in the WNBA make less because it's a business and that's what their business model can afford to pay them. (This isn't exactly what Helen said, but I think it's the point she was getting at.)
I don't think there's any disagreement in this theory. The analysis is really about why is there such a disparity? Let's talk t.v. and media coverage. I'm a Seattleite. The Storm are my team. One year a win during the play-offs did not make the cover of the sports page. Instead it was something about some male sports team in the off-season. Seattle also apparently has some of the best coverage in the WNBA. The standard response to this kind of critique is that news is a business and they are printing what people want to read (side note, I disagree with this premise, but will, for the sake of discussion accept it for this discussion). That argument creates a chicken and the egg debate. Are people not interested and therefore news doesn't publish stories, or are people not interested because the news doesn't publish stories?
I think don't either answer would be completely correct. From my own personal experience, I will say the more I learn about the ins and outs of the league and my team, the more invested I am in the season (having had season tickets since almost the beginning, and even when I haven't had season tickets, going to almost every game, I know that some seasons I care more about making every game). When I understand the importance of a game, a match-up, etc., it's more exciting. Understanding all of this is largely dependent on being told. I was pretty much anti-professional sports prior to the Storm, so my learning curve is steep. Not as steep as it would be if I hadn't played basketball at some point in my life. Getting this information can be challenging.
It is hard it is to watch the games or even listen to the games when I'm not at the game. I don't get AM radio in many places, I can't stream the online version at work (my work doesn't filter, I just can't seem to make the radio station play and the WNBA pass online to watch it doesn't work, and not really going to ask IT about it). Unlike the MLB, there's no app I can purchase on my iPhone to hear all the games (although the ESPN app is awesome).
The easy to access information (i.e., a local paper), barely covers the local team, let alone providing information that could allow you to get excited about the league. My dad tries to track the NY Liberty because Lelani Mitchel is a Washington native, and there are never any articles about any team other than the Storm (and limited articles about them, but always the box score) in the Tri-City Herald (for non-Washingtonians, this would be the south eastern side of the state, which is more rural/small city).
In contrast, I could care less about the Seattle Sounders (soccer) or the Seahawks (football), but it is impossible to avoid knowing how these teams are doing. Their wins sometimes make the front page of the entire paper, not just the sports page. I know (though don't waste the memory cells) which male teams make it to the March Madness Final Four (the fact that I even know there's a March Madness speaks volumes). I do not know, without extending effort, which female teams are in the female equivalent (in fact I don't even know if it's March or what it's called) (I'm not really into college ball, but because of my love of the Storm, I have actually toyed with the idea of at least going to a few games).
2) Title IX
Title IX is my pet law. I love Title IX. However the improvement over the past 10 years cannot be attributed to Title IX. The reality is that Title IX has been a law since 1972 (we could even use 1975 as the date, since that was when schools were supposed to be in compliance). Assuming kids enter the school system when they're 5, women who are 39 grew up with Title IX in place. If you acknowledge that it's probably about middle school where sports begin to get serious, theoretically, anyone who was about 13 in 1975 grew up with Title IX in place (i.e., 48 year olds).
That theory aside, NO school has ever had equality (which I would define as proportionate spots available, so if you had a school of 100 and 60 students were female and 40 were male, for every 6 out of 10 athletic positions available would go to female athletes). In fact we've never even had 50-50 compliance. As of 2000, there were only four colleges in "compliance" with Title IX which at that time was essentially that female athletes represented 40% of the athletic population. The regulation the Bush Administration passed through evolved the "meeting athletic interest prong," which was modified to allow schools to fill out a survey (with no guidelines on how that survey would be filled out) and if women didn't seem interested they wouldn't need to make any effort to provide female athletes opportunities to compete.
Between that and all the backlash against female athletes based on a mis-guided blame for the loss of male sports on Title IX, throughout the last 10 years, female participation opportunity in colleges athletics is actually taking a bit of a hit. This is why, even though without Title IX there is no way we would have the WNBA, Title IX cannot be attributed to the improvement in the league.
In fact, I believe the league is what can be attributed to improvement in the league. The fact that girls who play basketball have something that inspires them, is huge. The fact that putting in the time and energy in high school and college might actually lead to a career doing something the love is huge. I still remember playing hoops the first time after I watched a WNBA game (sadly I was away at school for the ABL season, so I missed all their games). For the first time in my life, I shot hoops envisioning myself at the buzzer of an important game making the winning shot. Representation is huge.
3) Doing Something Else/Comparison to the Past
It's hard to figure out how to respond to this because there's so much embodied in it. First, one of my main points is that professional female athletes should be able to play the season and not have to do other things (other than all those endorsements and whatnot involved in professional athletics). So saying they could do other things is a non-sequitor. The women playing for the WNBA are getting to live a dream. Allowing the inequality to end the league would achieve the opposite of what I think we both want.
Second, I don't think that the commitment of today's WNBA players should be pitted against the AAU players. The reality is that both leagues are fighting the same fight. Female athletics would not be where it is today if girls and women had not always been fighting for opportunities to play. The WNBA is carrying that torch.
4) Success. The comment of how I'm measuring success misunderstands what I mean when I said that female athletes will be seen as inferior. I bet fans of the NBA have never had to sit near other spectators at a game who claim that it's not a real sport and they aren't real athletes. When I said inferior, it is the lack of value female athletes receive for the athletic achievements because they are not male. I don't think I will see a day where female athletes are seen as real athletes by most men, and a lot of women. Sadly, I think until we reach a society where sexism does not run as rampant as it does in our society, female athletes will always be treated with a bit of a patronizing tone. I also think as the gap between men and women and their success in the public spheres increases, that sports will be held on to as firmly as possible as the last bastion of male superiority (and this isn't an original thought, there's a great book called The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football that explores this in more depth).
1) Women in the WNBA make less because it's a business and that's what their business model can afford to pay them. (This isn't exactly what Helen said, but I think it's the point she was getting at.)
I don't think there's any disagreement in this theory. The analysis is really about why is there such a disparity? Let's talk t.v. and media coverage. I'm a Seattleite. The Storm are my team. One year a win during the play-offs did not make the cover of the sports page. Instead it was something about some male sports team in the off-season. Seattle also apparently has some of the best coverage in the WNBA. The standard response to this kind of critique is that news is a business and they are printing what people want to read (side note, I disagree with this premise, but will, for the sake of discussion accept it for this discussion). That argument creates a chicken and the egg debate. Are people not interested and therefore news doesn't publish stories, or are people not interested because the news doesn't publish stories?
I think don't either answer would be completely correct. From my own personal experience, I will say the more I learn about the ins and outs of the league and my team, the more invested I am in the season (having had season tickets since almost the beginning, and even when I haven't had season tickets, going to almost every game, I know that some seasons I care more about making every game). When I understand the importance of a game, a match-up, etc., it's more exciting. Understanding all of this is largely dependent on being told. I was pretty much anti-professional sports prior to the Storm, so my learning curve is steep. Not as steep as it would be if I hadn't played basketball at some point in my life. Getting this information can be challenging.
It is hard it is to watch the games or even listen to the games when I'm not at the game. I don't get AM radio in many places, I can't stream the online version at work (my work doesn't filter, I just can't seem to make the radio station play and the WNBA pass online to watch it doesn't work, and not really going to ask IT about it). Unlike the MLB, there's no app I can purchase on my iPhone to hear all the games (although the ESPN app is awesome).
The easy to access information (i.e., a local paper), barely covers the local team, let alone providing information that could allow you to get excited about the league. My dad tries to track the NY Liberty because Lelani Mitchel is a Washington native, and there are never any articles about any team other than the Storm (and limited articles about them, but always the box score) in the Tri-City Herald (for non-Washingtonians, this would be the south eastern side of the state, which is more rural/small city).
In contrast, I could care less about the Seattle Sounders (soccer) or the Seahawks (football), but it is impossible to avoid knowing how these teams are doing. Their wins sometimes make the front page of the entire paper, not just the sports page. I know (though don't waste the memory cells) which male teams make it to the March Madness Final Four (the fact that I even know there's a March Madness speaks volumes). I do not know, without extending effort, which female teams are in the female equivalent (in fact I don't even know if it's March or what it's called) (I'm not really into college ball, but because of my love of the Storm, I have actually toyed with the idea of at least going to a few games).
2) Title IX
Title IX is my pet law. I love Title IX. However the improvement over the past 10 years cannot be attributed to Title IX. The reality is that Title IX has been a law since 1972 (we could even use 1975 as the date, since that was when schools were supposed to be in compliance). Assuming kids enter the school system when they're 5, women who are 39 grew up with Title IX in place. If you acknowledge that it's probably about middle school where sports begin to get serious, theoretically, anyone who was about 13 in 1975 grew up with Title IX in place (i.e., 48 year olds).
That theory aside, NO school has ever had equality (which I would define as proportionate spots available, so if you had a school of 100 and 60 students were female and 40 were male, for every 6 out of 10 athletic positions available would go to female athletes). In fact we've never even had 50-50 compliance. As of 2000, there were only four colleges in "compliance" with Title IX which at that time was essentially that female athletes represented 40% of the athletic population. The regulation the Bush Administration passed through evolved the "meeting athletic interest prong," which was modified to allow schools to fill out a survey (with no guidelines on how that survey would be filled out) and if women didn't seem interested they wouldn't need to make any effort to provide female athletes opportunities to compete.
Between that and all the backlash against female athletes based on a mis-guided blame for the loss of male sports on Title IX, throughout the last 10 years, female participation opportunity in colleges athletics is actually taking a bit of a hit. This is why, even though without Title IX there is no way we would have the WNBA, Title IX cannot be attributed to the improvement in the league.
In fact, I believe the league is what can be attributed to improvement in the league. The fact that girls who play basketball have something that inspires them, is huge. The fact that putting in the time and energy in high school and college might actually lead to a career doing something the love is huge. I still remember playing hoops the first time after I watched a WNBA game (sadly I was away at school for the ABL season, so I missed all their games). For the first time in my life, I shot hoops envisioning myself at the buzzer of an important game making the winning shot. Representation is huge.
3) Doing Something Else/Comparison to the Past
It's hard to figure out how to respond to this because there's so much embodied in it. First, one of my main points is that professional female athletes should be able to play the season and not have to do other things (other than all those endorsements and whatnot involved in professional athletics). So saying they could do other things is a non-sequitor. The women playing for the WNBA are getting to live a dream. Allowing the inequality to end the league would achieve the opposite of what I think we both want.
Second, I don't think that the commitment of today's WNBA players should be pitted against the AAU players. The reality is that both leagues are fighting the same fight. Female athletics would not be where it is today if girls and women had not always been fighting for opportunities to play. The WNBA is carrying that torch.
4) Success. The comment of how I'm measuring success misunderstands what I mean when I said that female athletes will be seen as inferior. I bet fans of the NBA have never had to sit near other spectators at a game who claim that it's not a real sport and they aren't real athletes. When I said inferior, it is the lack of value female athletes receive for the athletic achievements because they are not male. I don't think I will see a day where female athletes are seen as real athletes by most men, and a lot of women. Sadly, I think until we reach a society where sexism does not run as rampant as it does in our society, female athletes will always be treated with a bit of a patronizing tone. I also think as the gap between men and women and their success in the public spheres increases, that sports will be held on to as firmly as possible as the last bastion of male superiority (and this isn't an original thought, there's a great book called The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football that explores this in more depth).
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Expanding on the Get Back in the Closet Comment
The Referendum 71 post was something I put up on my Facebook page - and there's a thought in that piece that I want to explore explaining further.
In my mind a big part of what this bill is about is really an opinion poll on the legitimacy of my existence (and that of all other gay people, coupled, singled, etc.). Most people (on either side) are not going to take the time or effort to understand what is at stake. If King5's report that I watched today is any indication, media is going to do very little to provide accurate information. Basically what people are voting on is how much the state can discriminate against the gays. If we approve the law, we're saying the level of discrimination should be minimal, possibly even indicating that we reject this stupid separate but totally unequal set-up. If those voting to reject it win, they will be saying go back in the closet faggot/dyke.
The thing is I believe that all the Defense of Marriage Acts, the Constitutional Amendments banning marriage, etc. have far less to do with actually trying to prevent gay and lesbian people from existing. I don't even think any of them truly believe that it stops us from having children. Florida and Oklahoma are the only states that have taken serious steps with regard to preventing us from having children. Or at least from adopting.
So when the fight actually accomplishes little, at least substantively, what is it about? Sure it's a culture war. But is it really that simple? What is the point of all of it? Why on earth do people spend so much time fighting over whether other people can have a life with the same legal protections as other couples? What do they gain from it? Why on earth is it worth the energy? We are constantly being told we're an apathetic society, yet people will rail against things like same-sex marriage and abortion. They will devote their lives to fighting against it. In some situations they will even be violent, to the point of murder over these things. This is what I don't understand. Is it possible to understand? And let's be honest the point of understanding would be to change behavior. Not to stop it necessarily (well except for that killing people thing), but to refunnel it. Imagine that kind of veracity for fighting drop-out rates, ending child-hunger, or so many other causes that promote a better life.
In my mind a big part of what this bill is about is really an opinion poll on the legitimacy of my existence (and that of all other gay people, coupled, singled, etc.). Most people (on either side) are not going to take the time or effort to understand what is at stake. If King5's report that I watched today is any indication, media is going to do very little to provide accurate information. Basically what people are voting on is how much the state can discriminate against the gays. If we approve the law, we're saying the level of discrimination should be minimal, possibly even indicating that we reject this stupid separate but totally unequal set-up. If those voting to reject it win, they will be saying go back in the closet faggot/dyke.
The thing is I believe that all the Defense of Marriage Acts, the Constitutional Amendments banning marriage, etc. have far less to do with actually trying to prevent gay and lesbian people from existing. I don't even think any of them truly believe that it stops us from having children. Florida and Oklahoma are the only states that have taken serious steps with regard to preventing us from having children. Or at least from adopting.
So when the fight actually accomplishes little, at least substantively, what is it about? Sure it's a culture war. But is it really that simple? What is the point of all of it? Why on earth do people spend so much time fighting over whether other people can have a life with the same legal protections as other couples? What do they gain from it? Why on earth is it worth the energy? We are constantly being told we're an apathetic society, yet people will rail against things like same-sex marriage and abortion. They will devote their lives to fighting against it. In some situations they will even be violent, to the point of murder over these things. This is what I don't understand. Is it possible to understand? And let's be honest the point of understanding would be to change behavior. Not to stop it necessarily (well except for that killing people thing), but to refunnel it. Imagine that kind of veracity for fighting drop-out rates, ending child-hunger, or so many other causes that promote a better life.
Referendum 71 - What it is and What Will Happen?
I was just talking with my roommate and realize that there is probably a lot of confusion about what Referendum will do (and genuine confusion, not crazy conservatives who think rejecting the law will make it so same-sex couples don't have children - way to go King5 for providing that completely inaccurate b.s. some air time).
Okay, so first, what is a referendum?
A referendum is a process for citizens to vote on a law before it becomes final. It happens after the legislature passes the bill and after the governor signs it. To do this, you have to first gather enough signatures to put it on the ballot (equal to four (4) percent of the total votes cast for the office of Governor in the last regular gubernatorial election). Once you have reached that threshold, the issue goes to the ballot. The vote before the citizens then becomes "I approve the law" or "I reject the law." If enough people approve the law, it then becomes the law of the land.
The Secretary of State's explanation is also available here: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/ReferendumQuickFacts.aspx
What Happens if voters Reject the Domestic Partnership Law?
The referendum only deals with the most recent domestic partnership law. Our state already has two domestic partnership laws on the books. The rights and responsibilities embodied in these laws will continue unchanged (death and dying benefits, community property, divorce, etc. (you can see a January 2008 Note I posted that discusses the second bill). Regardless of the outcome, we will still have Domestic Partnerships in Washington, they will just not have the as many rights.
We were probably about half way to having all the rights of marriage, the new bill took us the rest of the way. The summary of the new bill describes it as:
Declares that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit, or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was a spouse, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a state registered domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a state registered domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.
Provides that the act shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, of state registered domestic partners and married spouses.
I really haven't done an analysis of what the two previous laws provided versus the third law (really together they are approximately 300 pages). What I do know is that there are three big things in the most recent law:
(1) The legislature's expression that what they are attempting to create is a segregated marriage structure. Hets get marriage; gays get domestic partnership, but the state should view both institutions the same.
(2) Presumption of parentage - this extends the legal presumption that if one partner has a child during the domestic partnership, the other person will be presumed to be the other legal parent unless they take formal steps denying parentage. This already exists for heterosexual married couples (even for alternative reproduction). While this is a lovely provision, it's not something any lawyer I know would want you to hang your family security hat on. The reason being that you connection to the child would be based on your relationship to your partner. The fear (and legitimately so) would be that you would travel to a state that rejected domestic partnerships and they wouldn't recognize your relationship to the child because it was based on the relationship to your partner, which they don't recognize. Thus, despite this change, as long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and baby DOMAs exist, interstate travel really isn't available for gay families.
(3) The new bill takes away the easy out for gay couples dissolving their relationship. Currently if you get registered and you don't have property or kids, you basically get to just file something saying you broke up. The new bill makes you go through a real divorce.
You can find out more about the new almost law if you want by going here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009
In my mind a big part of what this bill is about is really an opinion poll on the legitimacy of my existence (and that of all other gay people, coupled, singled, etc.). Most people (on either side) are not going to take the time or effort to understand what is at stake. If King5's report that I watched today is any indication, media is going to do very little to provide accurate information. Basically what people are voting on is how much the state can discriminate against the gays. If we approve the law, we're saying the level of discrimination should be minimal, possibly even indicating that we reject this stupid separate but totally unequal set-up. If those voting to reject it win, they will be saying go back in the closet faggot/dyke. And yes I do believe that is not some sort of visceral reaction or extreme response. I say this because it is not like Referendum 71 eliminates Domestic Partnerships. A rejection of the most recent D.P. law won't prevent us from existing, from falling in love, from wanting our relationships recognized by our friends, family, and state (and for some people churches, but churches get to decide what to do regardless of the law). We will still find ways to have children (foster, adoption, alternative reproduction). We will still occasionally break up. We will still die. Rejecting Referendum 71 only means that we will not have the structures that have developed to address the issues that arise as our families grow and change that have developed for families with a heterosexual couple at its helm.
Okay, so first, what is a referendum?
A referendum is a process for citizens to vote on a law before it becomes final. It happens after the legislature passes the bill and after the governor signs it. To do this, you have to first gather enough signatures to put it on the ballot (equal to four (4) percent of the total votes cast for the office of Governor in the last regular gubernatorial election). Once you have reached that threshold, the issue goes to the ballot. The vote before the citizens then becomes "I approve the law" or "I reject the law." If enough people approve the law, it then becomes the law of the land.
The Secretary of State's explanation is also available here: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/ReferendumQuickFacts.aspx
What Happens if voters Reject the Domestic Partnership Law?
The referendum only deals with the most recent domestic partnership law. Our state already has two domestic partnership laws on the books. The rights and responsibilities embodied in these laws will continue unchanged (death and dying benefits, community property, divorce, etc. (you can see a January 2008 Note I posted that discusses the second bill). Regardless of the outcome, we will still have Domestic Partnerships in Washington, they will just not have the as many rights.
We were probably about half way to having all the rights of marriage, the new bill took us the rest of the way. The summary of the new bill describes it as:
Declares that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit, or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was a spouse, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a state registered domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a state registered domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.
Provides that the act shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, of state registered domestic partners and married spouses.
I really haven't done an analysis of what the two previous laws provided versus the third law (really together they are approximately 300 pages). What I do know is that there are three big things in the most recent law:
(1) The legislature's expression that what they are attempting to create is a segregated marriage structure. Hets get marriage; gays get domestic partnership, but the state should view both institutions the same.
(2) Presumption of parentage - this extends the legal presumption that if one partner has a child during the domestic partnership, the other person will be presumed to be the other legal parent unless they take formal steps denying parentage. This already exists for heterosexual married couples (even for alternative reproduction). While this is a lovely provision, it's not something any lawyer I know would want you to hang your family security hat on. The reason being that you connection to the child would be based on your relationship to your partner. The fear (and legitimately so) would be that you would travel to a state that rejected domestic partnerships and they wouldn't recognize your relationship to the child because it was based on the relationship to your partner, which they don't recognize. Thus, despite this change, as long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and baby DOMAs exist, interstate travel really isn't available for gay families.
(3) The new bill takes away the easy out for gay couples dissolving their relationship. Currently if you get registered and you don't have property or kids, you basically get to just file something saying you broke up. The new bill makes you go through a real divorce.
You can find out more about the new almost law if you want by going here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009
In my mind a big part of what this bill is about is really an opinion poll on the legitimacy of my existence (and that of all other gay people, coupled, singled, etc.). Most people (on either side) are not going to take the time or effort to understand what is at stake. If King5's report that I watched today is any indication, media is going to do very little to provide accurate information. Basically what people are voting on is how much the state can discriminate against the gays. If we approve the law, we're saying the level of discrimination should be minimal, possibly even indicating that we reject this stupid separate but totally unequal set-up. If those voting to reject it win, they will be saying go back in the closet faggot/dyke. And yes I do believe that is not some sort of visceral reaction or extreme response. I say this because it is not like Referendum 71 eliminates Domestic Partnerships. A rejection of the most recent D.P. law won't prevent us from existing, from falling in love, from wanting our relationships recognized by our friends, family, and state (and for some people churches, but churches get to decide what to do regardless of the law). We will still find ways to have children (foster, adoption, alternative reproduction). We will still occasionally break up. We will still die. Rejecting Referendum 71 only means that we will not have the structures that have developed to address the issues that arise as our families grow and change that have developed for families with a heterosexual couple at its helm.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
WNBA and the impact of inequality on women's bodies
The best players in the WNBA are dropping like flies. They are suffering from injury after injury because, while the WNBA season is only a few months long, most of the players play internationally. They play internationally partly because of the discrimination that exists in the league. If I remember correctly from some research I did a little while ago, the lowest paid NBA player makes more than the best highest WNBA player. By about 10 times. So women ball players play year round, partly because they make better money overseas. Probably also partly because the WNBA season is so short and these women love this game. They have to. The amount of resistance they face in our society for being strong females is insane.
Playing overseas means the WNBA players get NO time off. Their bodies get no down time to recoup and heal. They are constantly pushing themsevles beyond that of what any normal human being does with their body. And far past what any male player is forced to do.
Female ball players are insanely committed, proving once again that women have to work harder and be better in order to be seen as still inferior. And proving once again how passionate they are that they will fight like hell until eventually we get through this moment in time. And things are better than they used to be. I grew up without professional women's basketball. And the quality of play in the last 10 years has improved exponentially.
Playing overseas means the WNBA players get NO time off. Their bodies get no down time to recoup and heal. They are constantly pushing themsevles beyond that of what any normal human being does with their body. And far past what any male player is forced to do.
Female ball players are insanely committed, proving once again that women have to work harder and be better in order to be seen as still inferior. And proving once again how passionate they are that they will fight like hell until eventually we get through this moment in time. And things are better than they used to be. I grew up without professional women's basketball. And the quality of play in the last 10 years has improved exponentially.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
