Lines Crossed

The title of the House oversight and Government Reform committee's panel to discuss birth control coverage by religious employers revealed disturbing single-mindedness on an issue that impacts more than one group, and carries severe ramifications for health care policy & gender equality in the US:

“Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

That's it. No mention of women. By framing this as a religious freedom issue, reproductive rights and women's health are consequently irrelevant to the discussion.

The misogynistic policies and rhetoric in this country have been getting out of control for a while now, but the frightening thing is the relative lack of outrage and protest they've been garnering. The fact that the committee chose to title the above mentioned hearing as they did, and that women were literally not allowed to partake in it, is soaked in patriarchal oppression and discrimination. It really shouldn't be so difficult for Americans to tell wrong from right. In a democratic society, not allowing women to testify on a measure that directly and negatively affects their well-being is WRONG. Plain and simple.

Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) justified his decision to block women from testifying against the issue by claiming it was about religious freedom, and NOT birth control. A decision that would prevent female employees of religious institutions from receiving coverage for birth control is not about birth control, and thus you get to see this picture of the people who were allowed to testify:



This picture has been spread like wildfire on the internet, which indicates that people might have some uneasy feelings about it. We know that it is wrong. We know that it is unfair. As Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezebel put it, this hearing "showed the particular brand of contempt, disdain, and dismissiveness with which the right wing and some religious leaders approach women's health."

These men (and women who internalize their oppression) must really feel threatened by the power and strength of women, otherwise they wouldn't be so frantically trying to infringe on our rights. It would be funny, if it didn't have such dire consequences for health and equality in the United States, and if it weren't so indicative of the hateful fantasy world that many influential people in our country live in.

"And you never ask questions, when God's on your side..."

Our Families are Fine, Thanks

Sidetracking slightly from its primary mission of denying civil rights for gay people in Iowa, THE FAMiLY LEADER, a powerful Christian fundamentalist group based in that state has begun to focus its influence on the 2012 presidential election. TFL has asked that republican candidates sign a pledge condemning divorcees, gays, Muslims, single parents, and [until the edited version was released] African Americans in order to receive monetary support from the organization. True to form, republican candidates inspired by white bread religious extremism, mixed with a little outright bigotry and elitism, were enthusiastic about the opportunity to prove how truly American they are: white, straight, and married for better or worse.
In the original document, which claims to uphold "human rights, racial justice, and gender equality," the following language can be found:

• "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American Families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of USA's first African American President." (This statement was removed from the pledge, due to obvious controversy, AFTER Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum had already signed it.)
• Pornography, sexual promiscuity, the notion that homosexuality is innate, and non-wed cohabitant couples are just as much a danger to the integrity of marriage as is spousal abuse.
• The document calls for a "rejection" of Sharia Islam
• It also calls for the "fierce" defense of the First Amendment's rights of religious liberty (But not for Islam??)
• And of course, it calls for support for DOMA: Marriage is between one man and one woman etc. etc.
  

Wow. Dictating what a "family" should look like... Religious Intolerance... The intimation that slavery had ANY benefit to children and families?? This type of ignorance, hatefulness, and big-brother-type interference into our personal lives should not be allowable in a free society, let alone endorsed by our so-called political leaders. And by republicans, no less, who argue that government is already too involved in our lives. I guess telling us what kind of family lives we should be leading is ok, but telling us to buy health insurance isn't. Gotta love conservative hypocrisy.

Change of Heart?

Has the Catholic world gotten a new Pope? I don't recall seeing a tower of black smoke billowing from Vatican City, but it seems like the former Benedict XVI- you know, the one who said last year that condoms increase the AIDS problem in Africa- has disappeared and been divinely replaced by a Pope who has some sort of a grasp on reality.

It seems difficult to believe that a Pope would have any semblance of sensibility when it comes to issues of dirty, scary, sinful s-e-x, but it seemed as if the public health fairy had knocked him on his highly-hatted head when comments that he made on HIV and condom use were publiziced this past weekend. The comments came from a book which is to be published by Ignatious Press, titled "Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and Signs of the Times." In it, Pope Benedict addresses the controversial issue of contraception and the AIDS epidemic by saying that there MAY be SOME situations where condom use is SORT OF accepted.

Whoa. That's a big step, no? The Vatican actually endorsing condom use? Ok well no not exactly. What the Pope REALLY said was that condom use is the "first step" on a sort of moral ladder... that using condoms in cases of, say, prostitution, is a way of assuming responsibility and acknowledging that what one is doing is wrong. Sure. Leave it to the Vatican to instill some sort of plaguing guilt on what would otherwise have been a solid ethical lesson. Here's Benny's words, in context:

"There could be single cases that can be justified, for instance when a prostitue uses a condom, and this can be a first step towards a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to develop again the awareness of the fact that not all is allowed and that one cannot do everything one wants."

It seems tricky, but somewhere in there is a light of hope for AIDS activists and others around the world who see condoms as a solid, albeit not exclusive, means of combatting the disease. Because even though his holiness spoke in very vague and confusing language, his statement was a reversal of the Church's typical outright denunciation of contraceptives. And for an institution that bases its belief system on a 2,000 year old moral code, in which global epidemics and HIV did not exist, these statements made by their glorified leader are quite a miraculous step forward.

Politics, not Prejudice

There has been a lot of ugliness in our political world recently, with desperate politicians spewing out some of the most blatant, unchecked and hateful language to have ever been considered as legitimate political dialogue. Ruthless, cruel verbal attacks have been made on low-income individuals, immigrants, and gays on the part of many Republican Candidates seeking to divert an angry populace's attention away from the policies and problems that have rooted so much of our unease.

But besides being a pathetic platform for any politician to stand on, these comments, which are made by influential public figures, have a profound effect on the perceptions and actions of their audience. The open discussion of hate and discrimination has brought many fringe racists and homophobes to the forefront of the issues, resulting in hate crimes, paranoia, and suicides in populations that may have been very vulnerable to begin with.

Perhaps it takes an elected official who is NOT currently campaigning to have the guts to speak to what is right, but Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York City has been quite vocal recently on issues of civil rights. First, he openly spoke of his support for the proposed Mosque to be built in downtown Manhattan, much to the chagrin of many anti-Muslim protesters and the praise of those who support freedom of religion, as well as those who see the irrational fear of Muslim people in our country as a highly dangerous form of cultural ignorance. Now, continuing his trend of speaking out for personal freedoms, Bloomberg shows his support for gay love and civil rights.

Speaking at the 30th annual Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Awards Dinner last night, the mayor of New York had this to say:

"To those of you who have been the target of bullying and bias, whether you happen to be in this room or any neighborhood in the city, I say this: this great city stands with you. We believe in you. We want you here. We will do anything in our power to keep you safe. And we will do everything in our power to punish those who dare threaten the well-being of our citizens...."

"...Our city- and our nation- have come a long way, but our journey is not yet complete. I wish for you the same thing I wish for any parent in this city: the joy of seeing your son or daughter fall in love, the joy of walking your son or daughter down the aisle on the most important day of their lives. Government should not be in the business of telling people whom he or she can and cannot love. And believe me, I will fight every single day to make that a reality."

These are powerful words coming from a politician, and I wonder whether he would be so brave with his stances if he himself were coming up for re-election. Still, this is an important point for a politician to emphasize in light of so many tragic deaths of young people across our country. More of our leaders need to be brave like this, to reject hateful commentary, and to show the American people that we are indeed still a free and democratic society, that we are all equal and deserve respect, and that part of the benefit of being an American is the joy and freedom of being and loving whoever you want.

Happy Lent!

For those of us who follow any type of religious doctrine, sacrifice and penance are usually regarded as means of achieving a higher state of mind, and are used to attain a closer relationship with the spiritual self. This is true across many denominations, and for Christians that time of resolution comes with Lent. Starting on Ash Wednesday and lasting for 40 days until Easter, Lent is a time of penance and reflection. It is an opportunity for us to realize and take responsibility for our lifestyles and how they affect everyone around the world. That is why a Carbon Fast for lent is a great way to reflect on the impact of our day-to-day activities, and to make the positive changes that are necessary for creative a better world. It is a means of sacrifice, as energy consumption has become such a central part of our lives, but it is also a means of spiritual cleansing and social responsibility.

Here is a copy of a Lenten Carbon Fast Calendar, put together by some lovely people at the National Council of Churches Eco-Justice Program, which gives great "going green" tips for all of the 40 days of Lent! Whether you are religious or not, these simple suggestions are truly helpful, each being easy and interesting. The calendar is a tool we can use to reduce our carbon footprint, and to brighten our souls at the same time. It could also be useful for all 365 days of the year ;-)

Congrats, D.C.!

Congratulations to the Washington, D.C. city council who made a monumental decision yesterday to recognize gay marriages. This means that same-sex couples who had been married elsewhere may be granted their inherent civil right to benefit from all of the privileges of legal marriage within the nation's capitol. Of course, the council's decision will now have to go to Congress to be reviewed, as is done with all of the district's legislation. And while there is some sneering opposition within the GOP, the outlook is mostly positive for the Democratically-led House of Representatives to give little effort to stop the bill from passing.

The 12-1 decision to pass the measure was ranked with some controversy within the city council itself, as its one opposing member, Marion Barry, cited an obligation to remain faithful to his religious constituents, many of whom were on the street protesting as the council deliberated. Barry was accused by council member David A. Catania, an openly gay representative, of being "bigoted," a charge which Mr. Barry denied, claiming that, despite his vote, he is a supporter of gay civil rights.

But despite the little bit of conflict, the council's move was brave, and has set the stage for a possible full-fledged legalization of same-sex marriage within D.C. Overall, it is a victory for marriage and for civil rights in the U.S. But most importantly, it is a victory for LOVE.