A Spectacle: Chick-fil-A Day

As I'm sure almost anyone in this country is well aware, Chick-fil-A is embroiled in a controversy for their anti-gay practices and policies.

In a show of support for the chicken chain, anti-gay advocates declared yesterday "Chick-fil-A" day. If you are anything like me at all, your various social media outlets were probably blowing up with commentary on the issue. (Luckily for me, I think I've FINALLY cleared up my list to the extent that the most virulent anti-gay comments were filtered out.)

One thing I have seen is that the issue is being distorted by the right into being about the first amendment, the idea being that people are just supporting Chick-fil-A's constitutional right to hold anti-gay views. 

Did you catch that? In typical fashion, conservatives are using the Constitution (again) to distract from their bigotry. I saw a picture yesterday which really nicely summarizes this:

[Text reads: So when anti-gay rights organizations boycott and protest JC Penny's (sic), Ellen Degeneress (sic), DC Comics, Electronic Arts, Marvel Comics, The Lifetime Network, Toys R Us, etc they are exercising their freedom of speech. But when gay rights activists boycott Chick-Fil-A they are infringing on the company's freedom of speech?]

Seriously, what the Chick-fil-A supporters seem to be ignoring here is:

1) It is a legitimate right for those of us who support gay marriage and general equality to boycott companies that do not align with our values. And really, it's about time that one such company received this much attention and negative press. 

2) It is also within our constitutional rights to speak out against the anti-gay bigotry at play here and to verbally disagree with people who continue to support Chick-fil-A, either as a strategically anti-gay statement or through passive ignorance.*  

Sadly, too many people are still in favor of hateful practices which discriminate against various individuals who are different from them. For example, yesterday, Chick-fil-A recorded record profits. Such awesome people as the Palins showed up to their neighborhood Chick-fil-A to show solidarity with the chain. 

As I said about the issue on my Facebook: If you're on the same side of an issue as Sarah Palin, rethink your views, bro.

Lastly, I want to end with a call to my fellow progressives on this issue for two points:

A) Not all support of Chick-fil-A is equal. This is something which I think deserves more attention. While I think that it is wrong to continue to mindlessly patronage Chick-fil-A if you support gay rights, there are some people on the left who don't truly have a choice in this matter and it is not productive to demonize them. For example, many people who support gay rights and might be gay themselves, work at Chick-fil-A and maintain that job out of necessity. As I recently saw on my Tumblr newsfeed from Brian Stuart: "This is something some progressives get horribly wrong on the regular. It’s fine to boycott a company. It’s fine to advocate for a boycott. It’s not fine to feel entitled to anyone’s participation."

B) Chick-fil-A is not unique. There are other companies who actively work to support conservative agendas. Sometimes it can feel really overwhelming to try to only support businesses which are aligned with your views.  And it certainly takes at least some level of privilege to do so. (I mean, think for example if you live in an area where your only access to produce is at Wal*Mart and it takes a car and a lot more money to shop at the local farmer's market.) But if you do have the means and ability to "vote with your money" then doing so by only boycotting Chick-fil-A is lazy activism. It's like jumping on the KONY bandwagon--it's a start to greater change, but it's not that meaningful if you don't let the awareness take you to the next level.

I'm sure there is much more to be said about this issue. But honestly, I think we're all already a bit tired of it, aren't we?

*See point A above.

Polygamy: I Just Don't Get It

It seems a lot of my blog posts have been inspired by my in-car radio listening. Today, on my way to work, I was listening to Friday's rebroadcast of Tell Me More. The topic was polygamy. Here's NPR's description of the discussion:

Talk of polygamy has spread nationwide, partly due to TV shows and news coverage of polygamist leader Warren Jeffs' sexual assault conviction. But some see polygamy as a lifestyle rooted in faith. Two open polygamists discuss why they've chosen such lifestyles, what burdens they bear, and how they feel about pop culture's depictions of polygamy.

It's true. There is a cultural focus on polygamy right now. From Warren Jeffs' conviction to shows like Sisterwives and Big Love, people are talking about this. So why not hear about it directly from the people living this life, right? Of course, I come to this discussion with my own set of biases, but I tried to be a good little liberal and reserve judgment. The female polygamist in the segment, Julie Halcomb, had this to say when she was discussing how she came to the practice:

Well, having been in a monogamous marriage, I realized how lonely it was, and how everything always fell on me as far as the housework, the raising of the children - at that time, just one child.

Everything was my responsibility, as my husband was a truck driver and he was always gone, and I hated it. I hated being alone. I had friends. My family was within 20 minutes of me, but there was something missing.

After my ex left, I started researching, and I grew up in a mainstream evangelical church, and I had read the Bible. I went to a Bible college. I studied the stuff, and it always seemed odd to me that, for some reason, it was OK in the Old Testament to have plural wives and to have these large families, but somehow, over time, the practice had stopped. And I wanted to find out more of why it had stopped, because it seemed to make sense. It seemed to be a logical thing, that one woman wasn't having to take care of everything.

Whoa, whoa, HOLD UP! I see a glaring problem in her logic. She's saying that she turned to polygamy because all the household responsibilities fell on her. But what I would say is that this situation could have been easily remedied with a less strict view of gender roles and a more equal balance of power in the existing marriage. In other words, all she really needed was a dose of feminism.

This is so strange to me, because throughout the segment she seems to see polygamy as the only logical solution to sharing responsibilities. She fails to see that her own antiquated notions of what it means to be a wife directly contributed to this problem. Because she is so convinced that all the household and child-rearing responsibilities are a woman's, her next "logical" conclusion is to bring more women into the equation to help out; not to seek a greater balance of power between women and men.

That's the problem I really have with polygamy: it's all too often rooted in misogyny. In my good liberal mind, I can agree that it's fine to let consenting adults do what consenting adults want, but this set up is nevertheless problematic. (And it would be remiss to not note that the most radical of these situations don't even involve adults.)

In reality, we're not talking about various adults choosing various polyamorous situations. No. We are talking about one man taking on multiple wives. And let me make one thing clear...that is not just "polygamy." That is polyGYNY and it's always polygyny. Time after time, the adherents of these practices truly believe in the superiority of men, which dictates that they take multiple wives.

In fact, let's get back to Halcomb's discussion about her own living situation:

We actually will sit down - just like, actually, it shows on the "Big Love" series. We will sit down, the three of us wives, and talk through things. And how do we do this? How do we balance this? What needs to be done? And just talk about it...

But we don't ever do anything without his permission, nor do we do anything above his head. If he tells us, no, out of respect and under the religious principles as far as he is the head of the household and we are to submit to his authority, it's not the authority of, yes, sir, I'm going to do whatever you say, sir. But when he makes that final decision, OK. I'll go with it.

(Emphasis mine.)

Well, there you have it. Even someone who has the specific agenda of trying to show that polygyny is "normal" (her word, not mine) admits that when push comes to shove, their husband has the final say. I guess what ticks me off most about that is that you would think in a pluralistic relationship, there would at least be some degree of democracy, majority rules kind of stuff. You know, four adults in the family, and if three of them feel one way, the fourth one is out of luck.

But no, the husband makes the final call.

So I could sit over here in "reserving judgment" land and continue to pretend not to have a problem with any choice that any consenting adult makes, but that would be a lie. When a relationship is inherently rooted in rigidly traditional gender roles and a little bit of misogyny, I just can't get behind it. It's the same problem I have with Michele Bachmann's submission. Yes, all adults have the right to live their lives and arrange their relationships in any way that they see fit, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with those choices.

What. Is. Happening?

Trigger warning for violence and abuse.

I feel like I'm just posting a lot of outrage lately. But there are no words for this shit.

The reasoning here is totally illogical. Watch the video at the link above. Listen to the author of the book To Train Up A Child. The parents in question appeared to receive their parenting advice from him, as a copy of the book was found in their home. (If you want to read it in all its horror, the full book is available online.) He says that if a child hits another child you punish her/him with hitting them. You tell them that their behavior was violent, which is unacceptable, and then proceed to give them 10 "licks" to teach them that hitting is wrong.

Let that sink in.

My heart breaks for all these kids, murdered, critically injured, abused, and left in foster care. I hope they find homes that grant them love, peace, and safety.

Update: So I've been reading this book online and it's making my skin crawl. I just wanted to note some of the "highlights" from just chapter 1:

• Continuous comparisons to the parent-child relationship as battle and war. (Can't you just feel the love!?)
• Comparisons to children as terrorists, racketeers, the devil, mob bosses, rats, horses, and dogs (so far.)

I'll Let This Misogynist Speak for Himself

This has got to be a joke. I was listening to Out Q on my lovely XM Radio today, and I heard an excerpt of Bryan Fischer's show in which he claims:

If you look at the Scriptures, I believe it's clear that God has designed men to exercise authority in the home, in the church, in society, and in government. So let me repeat that - that is my personal take on what the Scriptures indicate about the way God has designed man and woman to work: God has designed men to exercise leadership and authority and headship in the home, in the church, in society, and in government.

Now then the question becomes what if God can't find any men with the spine and with the testicular fortitude to provide the kind of leadership? Well, what he'll do is He'll send a woman to do a man's job.

I'm speechless. I've never heard of Bryan Fischer and I genuinely feel like my life was better off about an hour ago when I didn't know he exists. I'm not going to discuss this quote. I'm just going to let it sit there as I soak in the reality that people still (ever?) feel (felt?) this way.

To clarify this is how people who are so conservative that they don't believe a woman should be a politician justify backing someone like Michele Bachmann.

What the fuck?

Warren Jeffs: Absolutely Vomit Inducing

Trigger warning for descriptions of sexual assault

If you haven’t already heard of Warren Jeffs and you can’t stomach pedophilia, I suggest you stop reading here. In searching for something news worthy to blog about, I came across the most recent story about Jeffs on CBSnews.com chronicaling the case against him. I’ll admit, the name didn’t ring a bell for me. But upon further reading the story, I began to remember the news at the time (2008.) The Texas compound being raided. The child brides. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The women and girls in garb seemingly from the 1800s.

The headline reads, "...polygamist instructs young teens on sex." The details are just as chilling.

"A good wife is trained for her husband and follows the spirit of peace," Jeffs is heard saying. He also makes reference to "drawing close" or "being close," which is how church members refer to sex. Two female voices are heard saying "OK."

In writing about the session in his journal later, Jeffs said he told his wives they were "honorable vessels, property of your husband's kingdom and the Kingdom of God on Earth."

Jeffs is not unique in that his manipulation and rape of these girls rests on psychological control and is deeply rooted misogyny. These words dehumanize the girls and their roles as wives. He explicitly states their purpose is to be vessels and property. And much like dogs, they require "training." It's hard for me to even ponder this perspective, much less write about it. The fact that this viewpoint is present in our society, no matter by how small of a minority, is extremely troubling to me.

I don't even know what else to say.

Liberal Doesn't Mean Open Minded

I'm going to tackle something I've had an issue with for a while--many of my peers over here on the left are super judgmental. But hey! They love the gays! And they appreciate every multicultural background and acknowledge the struggles faced by various ethnic minorities! And they're totally pro-choice! And they won't oppress you with religion!

Ok, all of those are great, really. And I'm all of those things. But I have seen an increasing number of liberals and feminists who only really accept you if you believe what they do, all while claiming open mindedness. Put them in front of a woman who wants to stay at home with her kids, or a family that goes to church every Sunday, and suddenly, you'll hear them make assumptions. A lot of assumptions and judgements.

Seriously--that's not ok. Actually being open minded means that you truly accept people as they are. You let them define themselves. I'm all for challenging each other through civil discourse--but not for making unfair judgments about others and certainly not hating people. Not ever.

It's like I say in my line of work: being pro-girl doesn't mean being anti-boy. You can extend this to so many other situations...being pro-queer doesn't mean being anti-hetero. Being pro-religious freedom doesn't mean being anti-Christian, and so on.

So yeah friends, just because you're liberal, it doesn't mean your automatically open minded. It's very easy to accept others who are very similar to you. Try accepting someone who isn't.

Gay Marriage, Abortion, and the Lies the Right Tells about Small Government

In my most recent post, I wrote a little bit about how I believe that the anti-gay marriage position is a foolish one for conservatives* to champion. I would now like to submit this piece of evidence as just reported by Jezebel.

I know I'm not usually in the business of telling conservatives how to become better politicians. I'm usually in the business of simply pointing out why I think their side sucks. However, when it comes to gay marriage, I think that the right* is making a big, big mistake. They are betting against the American tendency to become more accepting of different relationships over time. For example, anti-miscegenation laws used to be commonplace. Now the idea of making it illegal for people of different races to marry is absurd to a vast majority of Americans. I think that outlawing gay marriage will someday be seen as equally absurd. To align yourself with such a viewpoint just isn't an intelligent position to take. It is painfully short sighted.

But that's not the point of this post. What I want to examine now, is one of the utter lies that we are told about the right: they favor small government. I think the best way to do this is to examine two of the positions they are most known for, anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion rights.

The idea of small government is supposedly focused on individual liberties. For example, from The Center for Small Government:

Small government means individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Small government enables and encourages self-reliance and voluntary cooperation. Creativity and productivity. Progress and prosperity.

To me, this means that the government is as uninvolved in my personal affairs as possible. However, the same people who assert this premise also are attempting to regulate some of the most personal affairs that there can be: The state of a woman's body and the intimate relationships between consenting adults.



To make my point, I submit this "rant" by Representative Anthony Weiner (greatest name for this topic, ever.) As he points out, attempting to outlaw abortion is one of the biggest examples of of government overstepping its bounds. Ever.

I think that outlawing gay marriage is another perfect example of this. Gay marriage for me highlights the intersection of personal liberties, religious freedoms, and human rights. In my mind, the government, as a governing body of all people should not have their hands in the business of allowing certain benefits to some people (straight) over other people (gay.)

Usually, the right wants to claim that marriage is a holy contract, preformed by the church, before God. Ok, let's run with this premise for a moment.

In this case, a "small government" would remove itself from marriage all together, viewing it as solely within the realm of the church. Therefore, the government would stay totally neutral to marriage and totally allow churches to make their own decisions. If a church disallowed gay marriage, so be it. If a church allowed gay marriage (which there would be many!) then so be it. To offer a religious neutral option in this arrangement, the government could offer civil unions to ALL couples (gay and straight) who did not want to unite in the church.

However, this option is NEVER discussed by the right...which I feel is due to the fact that it is well known that this would lead to a plethora of gay marriages. Conservatives in America want to limit gay marriage so much that they do not even follow their own doctrine of "small government" which would stay out of intimate affairs and a couple's relationship with their church. However, in order to argue against gay marraige they speak religious-talk in political institutions. They extol the virtues of "tradtional marriage" intended by God to be one man and one woman.

You see what they did there? They claim to act on behalf of church and God, but don't actually let the churches make the decision for themselves.

When all else fails, they turn to ridiculousness. In an NPR interview with Maggie Gallager, the Chairman (wth?--chairperson!) of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, she went to the old standby argument: If we allow gay marriage now, next we'll be allowing poly-marriages and marriages to animals. It's like they can never, ever just let it be about the right for two, loving, consenting adults to marry. That's what this is really about.

...and getting the government the hell OUT of such intimate situations. I'm not for small government, necessarily, but I am for less government where is really, really counts...such as inside my body or my relationships. The hypocrisy of it all is staggering. I'm with Rep Weiner. Don't let conservatives tell you they are in favor of small government until they stop trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion. Just don't let them feed you that egregious lie.


*I am using the terms "conservatives" and "the right" interchangeably in this blog to discuss people affiliated with the Republican party. I realize that this group of people is a diverse one with many political views represented, but here I am speaking to those who adhere to what is considered traditional conservative views.

Just a few questions...

I've been thinking about these two topics lately, so I thought I'd smash them into one blog and pretend they are some how related.

1) What is the secular equivalent of telling someone "I'm praying for you"?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately because as people share sad information online, the "appropriate" response is, "I'll be praying for you..." or "My thoughts and prayers are with you." I often find myself struggling with the right words to say that convey the same sense of care to the person I'm speaking with. When I do say something about praying, I often feel very inauthentic. My spirituality is complex, and I don't feel like conveying it here, but suffice it to say, that praying is not a part of my experience. But for the majority of people in the US, prayer is therapeutic experience, which is welcomed as both a gift to give and receive.

But the fact is, not everyone shares that perspective. In all reality, many people find other's offerings of prayers as condescending. So what do you say to a person if a) you don't pray yourself or b) you want to respect that the person your are speaking to might not welcome your prayers? I think it's tough because culturally, we assume that praying for someone is one of the few things you can "do" to help a friend who's in a tough spot.

What religious neutral words convey the same meaning? I've tried out "I'll be thinking of you" but it just doesn't have the same feeling.

2) Where are the people like me in the media?
This thought came to me as I was watching The Biggest Loser this week. (I know, I know, that was my first mistake. But I LOVE Parenthood and it's on right after it...) It seems as if the media highlights three types of people:

• People who are of "normal" body weight and enjoy a healthy lifestyle.
  
• People who are overweight but with an undying desire to achieve "normal" body weight so they go on shows like Heavy or The Biggest Loser.
  
• People who are overweight lazy slobs who eat fast food three times a day and sit on the couches for hours at a time so they are the butt of jokes or eventually turn into the second type who go on shows like Heavy or The Biggest Loser.

It's easy to see how these promotes the "hollywood ideal" of the classically attractive woman, who has the perfect 10 body, I mean...who wants to be type #3? And inevitably, it contributes to the pressures that women feel to conform to this standard.

But it also erases the experiences of so many people. Specifically, overweight women who are not conforming to the pressure to be smaller. Overweight people like me, who have learned to love our bodies despite every obstacle standing in the way of us doing so. Overweight people who enjoy a healthy lifestyle, work out three times a week, and try their best to fuel their bodies with enriching foods...but who DON'T obsess over their size or how many pounds they would like to drop.

Where are we?

Oh well, I suppose these are both rhetorical questions, because if you have an answer, I'll be stunned.

Frankly, I'm Disgusted

So recently at Feministe a guest blogger, Erica, has been collecting sex stories and retelling them. I have found the series entertaining, enlightening, and at times a sad and frustrating mirror on our society. However, all in all, I think the stories are what we need to hear.

Then, late last week, Erica wrote a piece titled "Jesus is Such a Cockblocker." The post (originally listed w/o the now included trigger warning) sparked a lot of controversy as it attempts to humorously describe a situation in which a young woman coerces her Christian boyfriend into having sex, without outright acknowledging that this is sexual assault.

Then, Erica issued an apology, also originally without a trigger warning, in response to the fact that the first post angered a LOT of people who were pretty upset that a fabulous feminist website would essentially post a story which boiled down to a rape joke. The main objections were:

1) If you reversed the male and female characters no one would be laughing. Why should we be treating men differently?
2) Why wouldn't Erica acknowledge the problematic nature of this topic?
3) Why wouldn't there be a trigger warning?
4) Why did the apology say "I apologize if some of you found the language used in it triggering..." (emphasis mine) making it seem insincere.
5) Why did Christianity have to be made fun of in the post?
6) Why would Feministe put this up?
7) Why aren't we calling this woman a rapist?

Of course, comments amassed on both of the posts...I abstained from saying anything there, because I felt everything was already very well said. I felt that a pretty healthy discussion opened up about the appropriateness of putting this on Feministe. Some people made way too many assumptions about the original story, but other than that, I felt the backlash was healthy and deserved.

I was curious why no one from Feministe (from the NONguest status) really came out and said: Yes, this is a problem, and we won't be posting stories like this again.

Then today I look at those entries and commenting is closed.

I don't get it.

I'm pretty disappointed about how Feministe has handled this. It essentially is their error, and instead of more proactively taking ownership of it, they have erased all of the comments, including the very healthy ones which tackle this problematic situation head on. I just feel that putting up the two trigger warnings isn't enough.

This story still could have been told, but through the lens of discussing it for what it really is: A tragedy examining how differing opinions, religion, and rigid gender roles can complicate sexual relationships and lead to really nasty things. Not as a joke.

I guess I just expected more from Feministe.

Annoying Anti-Feminist Quote

Good morning!

I seem to be in a bloggy mood lately. I can't remember the last time I wrote this consistently within a month. I think that can be attributed primarily to my job sitting at a computer with very little to do. I'm hoping that my occupational situation will change soon and I won't have this problem, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway, I wanted to jot down a quick note about a quote that I just find overall annoying..."Woman was taken out of man; not out of his head to top him, nor out of his feet to be trampled underfoot; but out of his side to be equal to him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved."

Now, I know this quote comes from a place of benevolent paternalism, but that doesn't make the sexist implications any less real. We all know the creation story this comes from...even if you aren't Christian or from a Christian family, you've probably heard it because our society is so saturated with Christian beliefs. I'm not going to get into a feminist analysis of the Christian creation story, mostly because that doesn't really interest me and also because it's been done. (But I will note that I love the bumper stickers that say "Eve was framed.")

The problem I have with this quote is that it is all about equality...(not to top him, not to be trampled underfoot, but to be equal) and then also says that the woman must be protected. These two premises are inherently contradictory. You cannot be equal to someone and also expect to be protected by him/her. If you need to be protected, you are at a disadvantage.

I've had this discussion with friends before. The argument they put forth is that you can be in an egalitarian heterosexual relationship where the woman's opinions and actions are respected and validated, but she still seeks to feel protected and safe with her male partner. (It's sort of confusing for me, personally, because I do feel safe with Ronald, but I don't seek to be protected...so I feel like there's a difference.)

But whenever this topic comes up, I insist that the relationship cannot truly be egalitarian because there is still this protection factor going on. And my particular friend who I was talking about this with insisted that wanting to be protected by her boyfriend didn't make their relationship any less equal. I can't say there's a right answer in all of this, but it certainly makes me think. I respect my friend and her relationship greatly. I don't think either one of them unfairly exercise power over the other. But when this theme of the protection of women comes into play, it still concerns me.

I guess it goes back to what benevolent paternalism is really all about...it doesn't matter if the sexism comes from a place of genuine concern for women as opposed to a hatred. If you believe that there is something inherently fragile about them, that's a problem. Benevolent paternalism is certainly less scary than misogyny...but sexism is sexism.

Your Time With Kim --Your Time, Indeed, If You're Ignorant

Myranda has written about this radio show before, on her personal blog, but I want to bring Kim Iverson back up.

In case you are unfamiliar, "Your Time with Kim " is a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Kim Iverson. It is played locally in Indianapolis on z995. The general premise is that her show is your time, as a woman, to get to talk and hear discussion about issues pertinent to women. You can find out more about her general show topics at her Wikipedia page.

Now, on one side I have to give Ms. Iverson some credit. She is under 30 and has a nationally syndicated radio show as a woman; a feat very few have accomplished. However, my admiration for her stops there because she has become popular on sexist premises. Her show segments are very narrowly tailored around topics which are stereotypically supposed to be interesting to women. Most nights they're not interesting, not in the least.

However, I do enjoy when current issues are discussed, using any medium. So every now and then when Kim discusses a topic with her listeners, I become morbidly curious. Once in a great while Kim says something reasonable. But usually, she spouts off her antiquated notions about family and dating, just like Myranda mentioned in her post.

Yesterday made me furious, however. She was discussing how a mother who doesn't believe in standard medicine is being prosecuted for homicide because her daughter died of a diabetic coma. Basically the mother believed that prayer was enough to save her daughter, and obviously it wasn't. Kim was defending the mother to the bitter end. I couldn't believe it.

The premise of Kim's argument was that we can't oppress other people with our religious belief that western medicine works. I could barely even follow her, it was so incomprehensible. She kept saying that in America we have the right to practice our religion. The mother wasn't negligent because she was *doing something* ...she was praying, and her chosen method of healing just wasn't working. She kept rambling about how every method of healing has a risk. Even doctors have failure rates, so the mother shouldn't be held accountable, just because her method failed. "Are we going to prosecute parents who seek medical attention and choose a doctor who doesn't save their child?" She also insisted that parents are allowed to choose a religion for their kids, and if that means bad things happen to them, then darn, but it's allowed because of religious freedoms.

Bullshit! Let's get a few things straight here:
1) Western medicine is not a belief. It is a fact! Diabetes, in this case, is an extremely manageable condition using western medicine. Not all disorders have the same success rates, but since this example is about diabetes, we can be almost 100% certain that her daughter wouldn't have died so young had she been treated by a doctor. Unlike the prayer method, we *know* that insulin manages diabetes.
2) This was a CHILD. Religious freedoms are such a difficult area here. If I had heard that the woman was trying to pray away her own diabetes and died, then so be it! But that child didn't have a chance to make an informed decision. She didn't even become old enough to choose her own religious beliefs. This atrocity was inflicted UPON her and she subsequently died at the age of 11.
3) Because she was a child, certain laws exist to protect her. In fact, neglect by definition in American law includes withholding necessary medical attention. Why should this case be any different that someone who simply ignored their child's symptoms? Where do we draw the line? What will we say is permissible just because of religion? What about radical Mormons and their child brides? What about religions that include human sacrifice?

The fact of the matter is that this should be a non-issue. This woman is being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be. Religious freedom in America does not extend to allowing the death of children. I'm sorry. It just doesn't.

All this isn't to say that prayer isn't an important and powerful force in healing. People whose families are suffering or who are suffering themselves frequently find much comfort and guidance in their faith. It can be a powerful force. However, those people are usually using prayer and faith in tandem with western medicine. God didn't make us the most intelligent species so that we could ignore the many wonderful benefits of our progressing technology. Just sayin'.

So, while this went off on a somewhat tangentially feminist topic, my point remains: Kim Iverson is an idiot and "my" time with her only makes me stupider. Now, if I could just stop being so lazy and turn the damn radio dial when I'm driving and she's on...I'd be set!

Miss California USA vs. Gay

I've been watching this whole Perez Hilton vs. Miss California USA debacle ever since Brittany mentioned it in a tweet. It's very interesting, and I think Perez has continuously stated his case well again and again. (I've watched him on MSNBC, Larry King Live, and the Today show now.) I just finally caught Miss California USA on the Today show, and she reminded me one of the biggest things that I just can't understand about anti-gay marriage people.

If you believe that marriage between a woman and a woman or a man and a man is wrong, then just don't have one! I know that a really subtle and obvious point, but it boggles my mind. I just can't see why people want to oppress this moral/religious based belief upon others. It's in the same vein as how I feel about abortion. (Now I'm treading on dangerous territory here, because gay marriage and abortion are nowhere near comparable in my mind, but if we're playing the whole Christian Right game, then we would say that all "sins" are equal.) Having laid out that disclaimer, if you're in this mindset...then just don't participate in the things you think are wrong! I mean, adultery isn't illegal, and it's in the freaking 10 commandments...and yet we feel no need to police that anymore.

At least with abortion though, I can cognitively process the Biblical thoughts on it. The Bible is so clouded about homosexuality. It's one of those things that is distorted and manipulated, and subject to translation.

And in all reality...it's a victimless "sin." Do the two married women next door to you make your marriage any less sacred? Only if your marriage was a joke in the first place, honestly. If you are a strong person who knows who you are and you are in a strong marriage based on love, then nothing that anyone else EVER does can change that. Why should you be threatened by someone else's love?

That's what it all comes down to...love. God is love...so, how can love be wrong or evil?

Of course, I'd love to go off on a tangent now about pageants in general...(Isn't it weird that I was in one once...) but now I gotta get ready for work! I'm already going to be late.