Friday, May 6, 2011

Redefining rape and attacking women: the Republican Agenda

People elected the Republicans to Congress because they wanted attention paid to jobs and the economy. Instead, the Republicans have voted to eliminate Medicare as we know it, eviscerate government, and are perilously close to defaulting on our debt. Not satisfied with that swatch of attacks on our nation, they have also waged significant attacks on women and women's rights. ThinkProgress tells us that yesterday,
House GOP Unanimously Passes Anti-Abortion Bill That Redefines Rape, Raises Taxes, And Creates Rape Audits.
They claim this prevents federal funding of abortion, but the Hyde amendment assures there is no federal funding. Instead, this bill does the following: redefines rape to require physical violence (because otherwise, she wants it....?) using legislative tricks, increases taxes on women and small businesses by taking away tax credits if they have a health plan that supports abortion; requires the IRS to audit women to prove that any abortion they have is actually due to rape or incest, and bans abortions in DC.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country. People can, and do, passionately disagree on the subject, but it remains a legal medical procedure.

How about in Indiana, where the Republicans in the statehouse say there shouldn't be a rape exemption because women would lie about it.

Lets also see another recent decision about rape, which is sickening-- and not covered in the US Press.
A teenage girl who was dropped from her high school's cheerleading squad after refusing to chant the name of a basketball player who had sexually assaulted her must pay compensation of $45,000 (£27,300) after losing a legal challenge against the decision.

The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a review of the case brought by the woman, who is known only as HS. Lower courts had ruled that she was speaking for the school, rather than for herself, when serving on a cheerleading squad – meaning that she had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud.
She was expelled from the team for refusing to applaud her attacker.
She was 16 when she said she had been raped at a house party attended by dozens of fellow students from Silsbee High School, in south-east Texas. One of her alleged assailants, a student athlete called Rakheem Bolton, was arrested, with two other young men.

In court, Bolton pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour assault of HS. He received two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes. The charge of rape was dropped, leaving him free to return to school and take up his place on the basketball team.
We really are moving into the territory of the HandMaid's Tale, where we are required to cheer our rapists and even bear their seed. THis case may turn on the details of the timing, but at the very least, there is a startling amount of insensitivity. More here.

Are these just a few examples, or is there a real anti-women trend in the New Republican (Tea) Party? It seems the latter. Remember the tea party is heavily Evangelical Christian. As Alternet points out,
the press and political watchdogs have been duped into whitewashing the religious zealotry that underlies the GOP's legislative goals. Without a full understanding of those religious beliefs -- and how those beliefs define women and their role as wives and mothers -- we have only a surface understanding of the motivation behind the anti-Planned Parenthood efforts. It is not solely about shutting down Planned Parenthood's federal funding because the organization provides abortion services (indeed federal funding of abortion is already banned by the Hyde Amendment). It's about shutting down Planned Parenthood because it provides contraceptives. That is a target because, as Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has put it, "an arrogant corrupt Washington elite" has "declared war on marriage, on families, on fertility, and on faith." (Emphasis added.)
Even more examples here. Where the Republican party sees women: barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

How many gays does God have to create.....?

Video of the debate in Minnesota about a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. Sadly, the state house and senate committes have approved this, and it will go to the full legislature, where it is likely to pass with Republican majorities in both. But full kudos to State Rep Steve Simon for this argument!

[He} referenced a clergy member who testified to the committee that sexuality was a gift from God.

"I think that's true [...] and I would ask everyone on this committee [...] if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that do to the moral force of your argument?"

"How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?" he asked to applause.


Alternate video source here (thanks Paul(A))

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Faith for Equality: Prop8 update

The story so far: In a Federal court challenge to California's Prop8 (the voter initiative which took away the rights of lesbian and gay couples to marry), Judge Vaughn Walker found that this amendment is unconstitutional and motivated by animus. However, this finding was immediately stayed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, which is considering two questions: standing, and the constitutionality issue.

The question of standing asks, do the supporters of Prop8 have a right to defend this case in appeal? The Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend Prop8. Because this falls under California law, the 9th Circuit (federal) court has sent this "certified question" back to the California Court, which moves slowly and will consider it in the fall.

Several groups have filed amicus briefs in this case, and I thought you might be interested in this one, from a large coalition of faith groups, including (among others) California Faith for Equality, the California Council of Churches, and Episcopal Bishops Marc Andrus (CA) and Jon Bruno (LA). Yay, Bishops! The brief takes down the argument that the proponents are somehow protecting religious liberty. It concludes,

Proposition 8's proponents may believe that the federal constitution accords same-sex marriages celebrated in Unitarian Universalist churches and Reform Synagogues less dignity and regard than the mixed-race marriage of Catholics at issue in Perez.*

But they suffer no particularized injury when the fundamental rights of others are sustained, and same sex couples are permitted to marry.

Same-sex marriages celebrated in Unitarian Universalist or other churches, in Reform Synagogues, or indeed, in the county clerk's office before a secular employee, threaten no harm to the religious liberty of those whose churches or synagogues disallow same sex unions.

Nor do Proposition 8's Proponents possess any special Commission to act as representatives of the People, and to override the authority and discretion that California's Constitution has vested in the Governor and Attorney General to represent the people's interest in litigation.

*Perez v. Sharp was the case in California that challenged anti-miscegenation laws in 1946

It is estimated that 18,000 same sex couples married prior to the passage of Prop8 in California, including yours truly. These marriages remain legally valid. Since then, other lesbians and gays are only allowed to enter into Domestic Partnerships, which are supposed to give them all the same rights except for the name. If you want to read more about the Prop8 case, visit my other blog, Gay Married Californian.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Osama Bin Laden killed

He's dead.
JCF comments,
As a Christian, I HAVE to hope he rests in peace. I have to.

The pacifist in me wonders if this will really accomplish anything (I suspect not).

The political animal in me is please it happened under our "Kenyan Mooslim" President, Barack Hussein Obama.

The American (USA! USA!) in me is slightly relieved.

All of me is pondering, pondering...

Your thoughts?

Tipping point?


The New York Times believes that the refusal of a law firm to take the House of Representatives case agains gay marriage represents the tipping point in the US about marriage equality:
It’s not every day that a leading law firm fires a client for holding a position so extreme that it may be said to be unworthy of a defense. And it is rarer yet — unheard of, really — when that client is the House of Representatives and the position in question is a federal law.

Yet that is just what King & Spalding, a venerable Atlanta firm, did last week. Under pressure from gay rights groups and apparently fearful of criticism from the law students it recruits and the corporate clients it serves, the firm said it would not defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act against a challenge that it violates the Constitution.

The episode has so far mostly been discussed as a matter of legal ethics, and the firm has had a rough ride. But there is something larger going on, too.

For many gay rights advocates, the decision amounts to a turning point in the debate — the moment at which opposition to same-sex marriage came to look like bigotry, similar to racial discrimination and the subordination of women.

To opponents of same-sex marriage, the firm’s decision is the latest evidence that elite opinion generally and the legal culture in particular is racing ahead of popular opinion and shutting down a worthwhile debate.


Read it all here.