Rational/Logical Challenge to the November 2008 Initiative to Ban Same-Sex Marriage in California

Logically, how can the constitution be changed by a vote of the people after the state supreme court has already ruled on the matter with the majority of the legislature's approval? Another thing that doesn't make sense is why should gay marriage be voted upon by a body of voters that consists of a majority of heterosexual voters? Gay marriage is a matter that should be decided upon by those that it specifically is designed to impact - namely, gay men and lesbians. Only those who identify as gay or lesbian should be allowed to vote on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Rationally, if two branches of the government, along with the Governor (the executive branch), have already approved of same-sex marriage in the state of California, does it make sense for the electorate (who elected the officials in the three branches of it's government) to decide to reject the elected officials' opinions? Probably not.

The judiciary, legislature and the executive branches have all said that same-sex marriages are legal and should be considered as part of the law. Why would Californians want to go back to the polls, spending so much more money and time in the process, to vote against all of these legitimate powers' opinions/rulings on the matter? This doesn't appear to be a wise or useful way to spend time or resources. Since the majority of the government has already ruled in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage, the voters themselves would be saying that it has no confidence in it's government. Thus, if we follow these lines of thought, it would not be unthinkable for the people of California voting in favor of taking away any of the various powers it has already granted it's government. If this happens, then there would be no legitimacy to the powers of California's three branches of government.

Just because some people (a vocal minority) feel that gay marriage is an abomination against nature should not give them the right to thwart the power of the judicial or legislative branches of government. Same-sex marriage is legal and has been ruled constitutional and part of the law of California. It should take a lot more than a ballot initiative to reverse this. At least two-thirds of the California Legislature should be required to vote to allow this ballot initiative to be placed on the 2008 statewide ballot. The voters have a say, yes, but when the Judiciary votes in favor of something, and the Legislature has voted twice in favor of it, the popular vote should not have the final say, because equal protection of the law to protect minorities is essential to civil rights, due process, and fairness in the democratic process in general.

Heterosexism

Heterosexism: the assumption that only heterosexual relationships are normal and that they should therefore be privileged.

Heterosexism is about assumptions & building a community/society around them. Specifically, heterosexism is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual…& if they're not, they should be. It is the belief that heterosexuality is natural & universal -- that it's the bedrock of society, the blueprint for all interpersonal social relations, the norm. Heterosexism acts to enforce heterosexuality, thus leaving those who work within its grasp little choice but to assume that heterosexuality is the only sexuality.

Heterosexism makes heterosexuality compulsory. It does this through society's institutions, which, through their practices & attitudes, single out the heterosexual couple as the social norm. By defining the social norm through their practices & attitudes, our society's institutions add support to the belief that heterosexuality is the natural norm. It thus follows that anyone who falls outside of this norm becomes either invisible or relegated to the realm of the deviant. This is how heterosexism maintains the assumption that heterosexuality is the only sexuality.

Tourism literature calls Newfoundland & Labrador Canada's friendliest province. But is it for everyone? Do our government, our health system, our social service agencies, our educational institutions, or our workplaces acknowledge, respect, & treat with dignity all people of this province?

Because of heterosexism, at least 10% of Newfoundland & Labrador's population--its lesbians, gays, bisexuals & transgendered -- would answer no. And, as THE has discovered, LGBT across the country, & internationally, would respond identically!

If, for example, you are a lesbian woman living in our province, or in any other predominantly rural area, what is it like to be invisible in your community or within your own family? For your partner to be unacknowledged & ignored? For your sexual health concerns to be belittled because you're a woman who chooses not to have children? For your health insurance policyholder and pension plan to refuse to accommodate your life partner &/or her children? For your physician, your financial assistance worker, your social worker to assume that there is a significant male other in your life -- leaving you with the choice of ignoring the assumption or correcting t which is not a great choice when you consider the risks of coming out. This is heterosexism.

Comic Heroes unite in an a battle against heterosexism

Jeffery Driscoll August 14, 2002.

The battle against heterosexism can come from surprising places. Some comic books have joined LBGT and their supporters to confront heterosexism. The comic book audience is large Thousands of youths and adults relish the latest issue of their favourites.

According to http://365gay.com/ by Mary Ellen Peterson, DC comics has taken on gay bashing. "The Green Lantern" will feature a hate crime committed against 17 year old Terry Berg (above left ) and his boy friend. Terry " came out" in 2001 in issue No.137. Kyle Rayner, the recent green lantern (above right), is Kyle's boss, friend and confident who openly embraces and accepts him, while keeping the secret that he is the Green Lantern. While many comic books have since featured LBGT themes, this is the first comic to depict the brutal reality of hate crimes.

"The issue has Terry and his boyfriend walking down the street when three men start yelling out a derogatory anti-gay word and chasing them. They catch up with Terry, who's brutally beaten. Eventually The Green lantern nabs the attackers, and Terry recovers" said Peterson.

It's great for young people to see that the Green Lantern doesn't care that Terry is gay. He's a person. Terry represents acceptance. And now, in this hate crime, we're discussing the worst side of the gay issue," said cartoonist Judd Winick.

Other LBGT characters have appeared in the 1993 coming-out of Marvel comic's Northstar (pictured below center) of the Canadian X-Men group of Alpha Flight, the X-Men characters Mystique (pictured below left) and Destiny and Shadow and Yukio (pictured below right) who each have an implied lesbian relationship. The Green Lantern features lesbian characters Lee and Li, and The Authority features LBGT superheroes.

Gay is Over?

from The Washington Post, Salon Magazine and Forum Discussion

In an article by Hank Steuver of the Washington Post, entitled, "Straight Arrows in Gaysville, U.S.A.", gay culture is described as mainstream! A Forum participant posted the April 27th article in the Forum in order to convey how ridiculous this notion was to anyone living outside of a major urban centre or rainbow district.particularly to LGBT living alone in rural parts of this province or country. The gist of the article is that the "Love That Dared Not Speak Its Name" is now so accepted, & so trendy, that it’s becoming boring. "Who are now the most square people on Earth? Who are the only people left who want to go into the Army and get married? Homosexuals," states Fran Lebowitz. A writer for Salon magazine, quoted in this article, observes, "Gay culture is boring because gay culture is going away & gay culture is going away because the oppression is going away. I think that's a pretty fair trade." A fair trade that The Heterosexism Enquirer maintains is a fallacy. As stated in the Forum, "I can tell you that I would not want to be traveling in middle America with a rainbow T-shirt and LBGT bumper stickers." Middle America, central Newfoundland, western Labrador heterosexist & homophobic attitudes & behaviors still exist, everywhere & still determine the laws that tell LGBT that their relationships don’t count. Gay as boring? Don’t we wish.

©The Heterosexism Enquirer
2003
www.mun.ca/the/

The Impact of Heterosexism On Our Emergency Blood Supply

by Angela Lambert, June 2000

Blood. Everyday thousands of Canadians need to receive blood for one reason or another. Everyday people flock to blood banks to donate it. Yet, also everyday, the blood supply is insufficient to meet the demands of those in need. Often, I receive telephone calls from representatives of Blood Services stating that they need my blood type and that it would be greatly appreciated if I could donate today. This phone call is polite yet urgent.

The new ad campaign for Canadian Blood Services says, "Blood. It’s in you to give." It makes you feel kind of guilty -- it is in everyone to give. An act of kindness and goodwill to all people, because one day it may be you who needs the blood. So why are so many perfectly healthy males with perfectly healthy blood turned away from blood banks? The answer is simply because these men choose to have intimate relationships with other men. Meanwhile, somewhere, someone is in a hospital waiting for this perfectly healthy, untainted blood and may die because they cannot get it.

In the early 1980's a "new" deadly virus became a great concern to the public health system and, consequently, to the Canadian Red Cross. The possibility of the HIV/AIDS epidemic spreading through the blood system prompted the Red Cross to set up a screening process. But it was already too late for some recipients of tainted blood. In the absence of an effective test to screen out HIV infected donations, a system of screening out ‘high-risk’ donors was put into effect. Included in this group were homosexual and bisexual men with multiple partners. Eventually, two statements on the pre-donation screening sheet were born. They were: "If you are a man who has had sex with a man even once since 1977" and "If you are a woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man even once since 1977." Ticking "Yes" in the block next to these questions would automatically disqualify you from giving blood.

The HIV scare that began in the early 1980's quickly became known as "the gay man’s disease" and soon fuelled people's homophobic attitudes. Being gay became equated with having AIDS. This was particularly apparent in the early days of AIDS when the illness was known as GRIDS or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome", due to its prevalence in gay communities. It is speculated that this initially high rate of AIDS in gay communities may have been due to the lack of knowledge about HIV/AIDS during that time frame & thus a corresponding lack of educational information. Also significant is the fact that gay men were not using condoms. Not fearing pregnancy, & not being aware of this new disease, gay men were not practicing what is now known as safe sex. While the straight community were often protecting themselves against the horrid plague of pregnancies, they were also protecting themselves against possible HIV infection.

Fortunately, since these times, HIV/AIDS education has spread throughout most all of the Western Hemisphere. As teens, we are warned of the risks of STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections) and HIV. People have become more open about the use of condoms and, as my mother did for me (prior to my coming out), many parents are providing condoms to their children so they may not have to risk the embarrassment of buying them at the local drug store.

The message now is that everyone can get HIV. In fact, statistics received from the Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS committee, reveal that between 1991 and present, more people had received HIV through heterosexual activity alone than through homosexual activity alone. Everyone must be more careful.

So, now we turn our attention back to the Canadian Red Cross which, during this period of education and enlightenment, had been replaced by Canadian Blood Services. This was an exciting time for many people. With the move into the 21st century, many people hoped that the homophobic attitudes so evident in the1980's questionnaire would be gone. It was a wonderful opportunity for CBS to change discriminatory practices toward gay men. However, when nothing did change, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) began an awareness campaign to address some of these issues.

In an interview with a student of Memorial University of Newfoundland who was involved with this campaign (who wishes to remain anonymous), some of the goals of the CFS were discussed. The main goal was to fight myths and discrimination that were found in much of the screening process. The CFS felt it was important to screen out high risk behaviors -- not entire groups of people. The statement in the screening process states that if you engage in male homosexual sex, you are at risk for HIV. There are many different sexual activities that constitute "having sex", but not all are high-risk. One high-risk activity is unprotected anal sex. The screening process assumes that all homosexual males have unprotected anal sex. But, not all gay men participate in this activity -- nor is it an exclusively gay activity. Some, maybe many heterosexuals have unprotected anal sex. So, why are heterosexual couples, according to this assumption, safe from contracting HIV while gay men are not? Unprotected vaginal sex is also a high-risk activity, yet it appears that it is not screened as such. Therefore, it appears that heterosexuals can have as much unprotected sex as they like and still be able to give blood, while a monogamous gay male couple can't -- even if they have protected sex consistently and have tested negative for HIV.

There are also two other myths the CFS wants to dispel. First, accepting money for sex is not a high-risk activity while unprotected sex is. Second, using drugs is not a high-risk activity but sharing needles is.

In light of the readily accessible information presented in this article, why does the Canadian Blood Services appear to be ignoring the research? With the installment of HIV/AIDS screening for all donations, why are they still interviewing potential donors? Some may say that this will "help" screen out tainted blood. But why are such obviously discriminatory statements used? Why are they posing questions that are based on heterosexist assumptions? We know that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease and that HIV/AIDS does not discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, class, or race. You would think that an agency whose business is blood would also know this.

SCIENCE JOURNAL By SHARON BEGLEY

When Terror Strikes,
Liberals and the Right
Vote Further Apart
October 13, 2006; Page B1

On the weekend before Election Day 2004, al-Jazeera broadcast a videotape in which Osama bin Laden, addressing the U.S., boasted about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and tore into the Bush administration. Four days later, the president won re-election.

Three days before the March 2004 elections in Spain, terrorists bombed commuter trains, killing 191 people. The ruling party, which had strongly supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, went down to defeat.

Two cases in which terrorism was front and center in voters' minds. Two different outcomes. In Spain, the attack sparked a growing fury at incumbents for not keeping them safe. In the U.S., voters in greater number embraced candidates they perceived as stronger on national security.

A growing number of studies offer clues as to how terrorism and other deadly events affect people's voting decisions. The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different, and more supportive of extreme military policies, according to a study in April in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

For 20 years, researchers have been exploring how people manage the fear engendered by intimations of mortality. Reminded of the inevitability of their own death (which happens to a lesser degree by merely walking past a funeral parlor), people try to quench or at least manage the resulting "existential terror" in several ways. They become more certain of their worldview or faith. They conform more closely to the norms of their society. They show greater reverence for symbols of their society, such as flags and crucifixes.

All of these make people feel more secure and, crucially, a part of something larger -- something that will outlive them.

Building up your own worldview requires disparaging (even unconsciously) that of others. If beliefs that contradict yours have any worth, then by definition they call into question the absolute validity of your own. The result is stronger feelings of hostility toward those with different values and beliefs.

This "worldview defense," says psychology researcher Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College, "reduces the terror that reminders of your own death bring." These results have been replicated in some 300 lab experiments, including in cultures with very different ideas about an afterlife.

Which brings us back to the effect on voters of a terrorist attack and its brutal reminders of mortality. Although some voters would feel betrayed by incumbents who failed to protect them, researchers say, these days that trend would more likely be swamped by a surge toward candidates perceived as hawks on national security.

"We feel that unconscious thoughts about death do influence people's voting decisions, especially for folks who are not strongly committed to a candidate," says Prof. Solomon, expressing a consensus of those who have studied terrorism and voting behavior.

The link between thoughts of death and actual behavior shows up not only in labs but in the real world, too. After 9/11, Americans sprouted flag lapel pins. Patriotism and approval of the president soared. Tolerance for dissent plummeted. ("All Americans...need to watch what they say," warned a White House spokesman.)

Even what seem to be exceptions support the rule that reminders of death cause people to hunker down in their own worldview. New Yorkers living or working near Ground Zero are regularly reminded of death, yet tend to be liberal, opposed to the Iraq war and critical of President Bush. Why don't intimations of mortality push them toward nationalistic fervor?

"Reminders of death do make New Yorkers cling to their worldview more strongly," says psychology researcher Tom Pyszczynski of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. "If that worldview has to do with tolerance and peace and prosocial beliefs, then those positions strengthen."

Prof. Solomon and Prof. Pyszczynski and colleagues explain this conservative/liberal divide in the Bulletin study by suggesting that extreme militarism violates liberals' core beliefs. Since thoughts of death make people more committed to their worldview, hawks, but not doves, would increase their support for military action in the wake of a terrorist attack.

"A worldview that has your nation engaged in a heroic battle against evil seems to be especially effective at soothing fears of your own death," says Prof. Solomon. "That makes leaders who talk about fighting a righteous battle more appealing."

Needless to say, voters weigh many factors before they pull the lever. The bin Laden tape did not produce a Bush landslide, so horrific reminders of death just before Election Day have only so much power.

"Not every vote in 2004 was based on thoughts of death, but these reminders can make a big difference," says Prof. Solomon. "There is nothing like a terrorist attack to bring thoughts of your own death to the fore. My gut tells me there would be a significant movement toward candidates who describe the U.S. as engaged in a righteous fight against an evil worldview."

Star Wars and Psychology: Embracing the Dark Side

By Kyle Varner

A few evenings ago, some friends and I decided to watch the latest Star Wars film, Return of the Sith. This film got me thinking about a concept that is key to much of the hypnotherapy that I do, and is an excellent example of how not to lead one’s life. Much of what makes the Star Wars story so alluring is the puzzling change that occurs in Anakin Skywalker. How is it that a man can turn from supremely good to the embodiment of evil? We’re led to love Anakin the Jedi and hate the same man, only a few days later. It is both puzzling and troubling. What is even more puzzling (and perhaps troubling) is that, on the surface, it seems that Anakin’s love for Padmé is what leads him, ultimately, to the dark side.

This is an excellent example of the way the Jung claims that the human shadow works. The shadow, according to Jung, is a huge portion of our personality that we disown. We disavow it, and lock it away. Once it is locked away, it becomes destructive. We can see this in many ways: a person who denies something about themselves turns to self-destructive behaviors such as excessive drinking, or even worse, becomes violent. It is commonly accepted that many anti-social behaviors have their roots in a person’s inner conflict.

Anakin’s inner conflict is severe. He lives like a Jedi—which is, more or less, a monastic life. So many of the other Jedi do this very well—and Anakin fails. He fails the moment he starts to let his shadow express itself. What has been locked up for so long has grown vicious, and now consumes and destroys him. The image of Anakin locked into the hood of Darth Vader shows that he has really become consumed; he shadow has gotten loose; all that is good about him has been destroyed.

There is a lesson to be learned from this; and it’s a lesson that goes back thousands of years. There are parts of us that we, or society, don’t like. We have instincts, desires and urges that are, in some ways, unacceptable. It is only natural that we should try to repress them—by doing so we can be accepted by those around us. Unfortunately, when we oppress what we don’t like about ourselves, it causes problems. It is the root of many neuroses and other problems in our lives.

The solution to this problem seems simple and is a monumental task: we must strive to make ourselves whole. That means, when we feel an urge to do something unacceptable, we must step back and examine that urge. We have to figure out what is at the root of that urge, and we have to integrate it into our lives in a positive way. We must understand that we are good—and that applies to everything about us. Something that has been shoved aside and allowed to become bitter and vicious is simply a natural part of us gone bad, and it is incumbent upon us to address that. In order to live good, healthy and happy lives, we have to embrace our dark side.

If Anakin Skywalker (and the Jedi) were to embrace the Dark Side in a healthy way, they would be more powerful than ever. They would feel emotions—love, anger, fear, and hate—and all of those emotions would be in proper perspective. Additionally, they would have access to the power that all of these emotions affords their adversaries, the Sith. Keeping the ill effects of some human emotions at bay does not help the Jedi at all; it just leads to dramatic outbursts of those same emotions. The lesson here is simple and very important: embrace your dark side in a healthy way, and you will be happier and more powerful.

Kyle Varner
http://www.mindchanginghypnosis.com