Fem Speak

The Solution To The Gay Marriage Issue

by Pat Gundry

Historically, marriage has been many different things. The only thing it has consistently been is a more or less personal relationship between two people, usually a man and a woman.

It has usually been a secular legal agreement between the marriage partners, or between two families.

Not until relatively recently, as time goes, has it been considered a religious ceremony, with vows made before God.

Therein lies the problem, and the solution.

If we allow marriage to be a legal agreement for the purpose of protecting the persons involved and any children they might have, and their property, then the solution is to require marriage to, again, be, first and foremost, a legal agreement with certain minimum requirements set forth to qualify for entering into the agreement.

If we create a basic marriage contract that all must agree to in order to have the legal protection of marriage, we could eliminate the present conflict about whether people of the same gender should be allowed to marry.

If persons desiring to have the legal protections of marriage could simply go to a courthouse and prove their identities, meet reasonable and minimum requirements set forth for everyone, and sign the marriage document, the problem is solved.

And, if those persons desire to have a religious marriage ceremony, of any kind whatsoever, they are free to do that also.

Or, if the marrying parties want to create their own invention for an auxiliary marriage ceremony, they are free to do that.

Let those who want to marry women marry them, and those who want to marry men marry them.

And, this seems to be lost on the majority of opponents to gay marriage, inter gendered people should be free to marry whomever they wish without having to choose a gender and then be restricted in their choice of a marriage partner to a declared opposite gendered partner.

Gender is on a continuum, all the way from what we might think of as totally male to what we might think of as totally female. Many people think they are one or the other gender when they are actually a mixture to one degree or another.

Insisting that we must know the gender of a person and then restrict them to what we may erroneously think of as the opposite gender is forcing individuals to comply with a very out of date understanding of what gender is.

Allowing all adults to choose who they want to marry, not asking them if they are one gender or another, allowing that to be private, as it should be, will solve not only the problem of the gay marriage issue, but that of discriminating against and invading the privacy of inter gendered people.

Why Women Should Support Hillary, Not Obama

If you want proof that Hillary is the smarter, more capable candidate, just look at how Obama's campaign is trying to dodge and put off upcoming debates with Hillary. The reason? The Obama team knows that Hillary does better in debates. She is better at discussing issues on the spot, has deeper knowledge, and responds better than he does to tough questions.

Yet people are enamored with Obama over his motivational speaking. Who cares if he has experience or know-how? He's inspiring, so let's vote for him!

What's really upsetting to me, however, is how many young women don't get Hillary. I actually heard a young woman speak with contempt about Hillary this past weekend, saying that Hillary shouldn't be president because she couldn't keep Bill "in line." Excuse me? Since when did someone's ability to keep their spouse from cheating (as if that's even possible) have anything to do with their ability to run a country?

Why doesn't Hillary get any credit for forgiving Bill after a huge public humiliation, and getting past it to keep her marriage strong? Isn't that what family values is all about? She lives it, and yet no-one gives her credit for it. She could have left. She could have married another man in power (if that's all it was about for her). But no. She forgave him and you can see the love they have for each other now, some 10 years later.

Women, wake up. Stop getting sidetracked by these stupid non-issues, which are all about keeping Hillary the woman down and have nothing to do with a presidential campaign. You are being hoodwinked to betray your gender.

I'm not saying that Obama is a bad candidate but GIVE HILLARY A CHANCE. Obama is young. He has time. He can be a good VP and run again for President in another 8 years (if we're lucky). But Hillary's time is NOW. She needs your support NOW.

And if you're not all gung-ho for Hillary, ask yourself, quite seriously, why?

Is it because you believe she's too "ambitious"?

Stop and think for a second. What person who runs for president ISN'T ambitious? But when a woman runs, somehow we're wary and skeptical. God forbid someone - a woman - runs for president out of ambition! Horrors!

Is it because she's not "likable"?

Whenever is a powerful woman "likable"? Powerful women are made into jokes in this country. (Look at Janet Reno.) "Likable" women are the smiling, pretty Julia Roberts. Or Britney Spears before her meltdown. Cute, non-threatening, and maybe a little ditzy. Who needs a woman running for president to be "likable" in the female sense of the word? What do you want? Hillary wearing Hello Kitty clothes? How about baring her midriff? (And for the record, I think Hillary is highly likable.)

Is it because you think she's got a vast corporate conspiracy behind her?

I was shocked to get a slanderous anti-Hillary email in my box the other day from a female Obama supporter. From the likes of this email, Hillary not only flexes her political muscles to put Obama down, but she's directly responsible for global warming, the attacks on 9/11, the death of JFK, and all sorts of other nonsense. These are the same types of ridiculous attacks the right wing used against Bill Clinton for years - only some younger folks apparently don't realize they have been duped into repeating the same tired old crap in support of Obama instead of the right.

The Truth: Hillary is Brilliant, and Has What it Takes to Lead

If you get past the knee-jerking and sexism, and open your eyes, you'll see that Hillary is the one who really knows her stuff and has the ability to lead. And when it comes to consensus building? She, not Obama, is the one who blew away her Republican "enemies" and got them to work with her while in Congress. She knows how to reach across the table and get things done.

As for heart: I constantly hear people saying that when they get up close to Hillary, they are stunned at how warm and genuine she is. So what that she doesn't give a speech as flowery as Obama's? She still cares and she has the brains and know-how to get things done.

She's made tremendous strides in this campaign while also having to battle a lot of unconscious sexism...read the following to really understand what's been going on:

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

Still doubt Hillary's brilliance, passion, and commitment to women and children? Read the following excerpt from her speech at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (taken from the above article with that writer's emphasis). Then tell me that we women should not support Hillary:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of  silence. Even today, there are those who  are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are  sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to  be heard.”

And the right to run for president. Now let's give Hillary her voice.

Stephanie Brail

More Troubles for Girls Gone Wild

Girls Gone Wild is in the news again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_en_ce/girls_gone_wild_5

Basically, some women are suing because they claim they were given alcohol (even though they were underage), videotaped while drunk, and then put into GGW DVDs without their consent.

Joe Francis, the founder of GGW, is in jail right now for tax evasion charges. From the story: "He is also charged in Florida with using minors in sexual performances, conspiring to use minors in sexual performances and prostitution." I've read other stories that he has also allegedly raped some of the girls he has lured into his van.

I'm not a fan of porn in general, but at least when you are watching standard pornography you are dealing with women who have actively decided to pursue porn as a career and who are doing it consensually while (mostly) in their right mind. (Although, it's worth noting that most major porn stars come from backgrounds where they were sexually abused as a child or raped...including Traci Lords and Jenna Jameson.)

With GGW you instead have a bunch of girls (many underage) who are being taken advantage of while they are out drunk and partying, and they are not in a place to make a proper judgment about these things.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll bet that many of us have had moments while we were perhaps drinking too much or having too much fun, where we did something stupid that we might regret later. Now how would you feel if those moments were put into a porno DVD for the world to see? And all you got for it was a lousy t-shirt?

So if you want to go out and buy some porn, go buy some regular porn, but please do young girls a favor and don't support GGW. It's not "cute and harmless." It's a sick man who is making a million dollars off of exploiting young women who aren't in a position to know any better. Girls these days are confused enough what with MySpace and the pressure to be constantly sexy...this is not helping. I have a 3-year-old niece and it upsets me that she's growing up in a world where it's normal for 14-year-old girls to post pictures of themselves in thong underwear up on the Internet.

I will be so happy when that guy is put out of business once and for all.

Stephanie Brail

The Law of Attraction, Science, and a Challenge to Rhonda Byrne

I am a mystic, but I am also a science geek. I used to teach science to elementary school students. I believe in miracles, but I believe these miracles occur within the framework of a very real world that is subject to certain laws of physics. Science is very complicated, and you cannot reduce the way the universe operates down to one simple formula.

Yet, many are accepting the idea that the so-called Law of Attraction is the way the universe works, or, in the least, the way people’s lives work. This idea, now put forth into the mainstream by The Secret, has been called “scientific” by many of its adherents. Yet, this label is not only misleading but downright false.

The basic idea behind the Law of Attraction is “like attracts like.” Adherents point to science as the reason this is true, citing magnets or quantum physics as “proof.” Actually, science does not say “like attracts like” whatsoever. In the most simplest of scientific explanations, the real truth is “opposites attract.”

Explained simply: A positively charged particle will attract a negatively charged particle and vice versa. Two positively charged particles will repel one another.

This is how magnets really work. This is how electricity works.

So right away, we see how science does not prove the Law of Attraction; in fact, science can be said to completely negate the Law of Attraction.

Yet, we’re not really talking particles here, are we? The Law of Attraction is dealing with human life and interactions, so what we’re really looking at is apples and oranges.

So let’s just step back and look at the concept that one simple law can explain everything that happens. I’ve seen, over and over again, people trying to justify the “truth” of the Law of Attraction by stating that universe is simple and runs by very simple laws. So, the logic goes, people’s lives must be just as simple.

Are the laws of the universe really that simple? Can they be reduced to one simple statement? In fact, when you study science at all, you realize that the universe functions smoothly not because of one reductionist law, but because of a complex series of forces and opposing forces that create a certain amount of equilibrium that allows for the creation of life. (Still, over time, this equilibrium will disintegrate, as entropy and energy dispersal breaks down the fabric of the universe as we know it.)

For example, if the only law of the universe was the law of gravity (and no other forces were opposing gravity), then everything would just stick to everything else and there would be no motion, no movement, no life.

The conflicting forces of the universe create a dynamic interplay that allows for the complex interactions that occur in the natural world. Inertia, for example, could keep that baseball you’ve thrown into the air moving on its trajectory for all of eternity, but it is gravity that ultimately pulls the ball down out of the sky. Inertia, however, is what helps the ball fly in the first place. It’s all interrelated.

It is thus scientific nonsense to suggest that one simple law such as the Law of Attraction is solely responsible for all interactions between humans. Is it possible that “attraction” can and does affect human interactions? Of course. But there are also other opposing forces that temper and mold “attraction” to create a complex system just like the one that operates in our natural world.

What then, of the idea that thoughts create our reality? Let’s give this the mystical benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it is possible that our thoughts have some organizing effect. Yet, those thoughts are also interacting with other thoughts and forces. What determines what will win out? The thought? Or the basic laws of the universe? Is the power of a thought more powerful than scientific law? Is it more powerful than gravity? Care to try that out by jumping off a tall building and believing you can fly?

Thus, when Law of Attraction proponents claim it is “scientific,” they are showing a poor understanding of science.

The true irony, of course, is that the people behind The Secret want you to believe the science “proves” their claims, yet, they are more than willing to dismiss science when it is inconvenient for them.

In a most egregious example, Rhonda Byrne, author of the book The Secret, claims that overeating will not make you gain weight. She writes:

“The most common thought that people hold, and I held it too, is that food was responsible for my weight gain. That is a belief that does not serve you, and in my mind now it is complete balderdash! Food is not responsible for putting on weight. It is your thought that food is responsible for putting on weight that actually has food put on weight. Remember, thoughts are primary cause of everything, and the rest is effects from those thoughts. Think perfect thoughts and the result must be perfect weight.”

This flies in the face of every study that has ever been done on the cause of obesity. It flies in the face of biology. It flies in the face of common sense.

And yet, when you look at Rhonda Byrne, she has aged. Isn’t it her belief about aging that makes her age? C’mon, Rhonda, make yourself younger already!

But it’s no surprise that Rhonda can’t take the wrinkles off her face. And you won’t see Rhonda Byrne flying around in the sky like Superman anytime soon. So one has to ask: Why isn’t she? If thoughts truly are the cause of everything, then why isn’t she defying gravity and wowing us with her mental prowess as a high-flying superhero?

So thoughts affect your metabolism, but not your aging or your flying ability? Hm.

Well, let’s give Rhonda the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe she can affect her metabolism, like a seasoned yogi on a mountaintop.

If this is the case, prove it. Here’s the way to do it scientifically. It’s called the “Supersize Me” Challenge, inspired by the documentary of the same name. So I challenge Rhonda Byrne:

Go overeat at McDonald’s every day for three months. We’ll monitor your health and fitness before, during and after. You must eat nothing but McDonald’s, and not just the salads but the hamburgers too. You must eat until you are stuffed and then some. And we’re going to follow you into the bathroom to make sure you aren’t purging yourself of the food. Finally, you cannot exercise during this time.

If, after three months, you show absolutely no weight gain or adverse health effects, then, maybe then, you will have shown some scientific evidence that what you say is true.

But Rhonda, as we can guess, probably won’t take up this challenge. There is always some sort of excuse or modifier put on these challenges. And that should be your first clue that the “truth” that they espouse isn’t so cut and dry after all.

We in America have been suffering from poor quality science education for decades. As our mystics continue to dilute the discourse with false science, we are in danger of creating an ignorant populace that bases decisions on superstition instead of critical thinking.

I am a believer in the mystical. But I don’t think mysticism or spirituality should conflict with science. The two, in fact, should support each other. True spirituality will not conflict with science whatsoever, but see science as evidence of the beautiful intelligent consciousness underneath it all.

Stephanie Brail

Domination Cults: Fundies, Jeffs, Cybelians

by Pat Gundry

After posting a link from my new War Against Women blog to a blog that features quite a bit of anti-woman rhetoric I was taken to task and denounced on the linked to blog. If you go there to read about it be sure to also read the comments. I posted a comment, but it never appeared. In my comment I simply thanked them for the link, said I was puzzled about why they linked to FemSpeak instead of the blog they were commenting about, and provided a link to it and my Noodling blog.

Though I hadn't been reading that blog, only went there because someone had forwarded the link to me of the offensive post, I've done a bit of searching and reading on it since then. It's not going to be a regular read for me, though, because I've heard all that before and don't need to read it again and again. And I have no personal need to try and convince women haters to learn to love us.

But, thinking about what I saw there, and something I happened across late last night searching Google for images relevant to a friend's forthcoming book (I'll share it here when it is released) made me notice the similarities between the fundie extremes of female restriction and oppression evidenced on the blog I linked to originally and the practices of the Mormon fundy Warren Jeffs who has just been captured by law enforcement and is being extradited to Utah for trial.

Watching the Larry King show on CNN yesterday evening, which focused on Warren Jeff's Mormonistic cult, and hearing one of the researchers interviewed say that Jeffs commanded women in his cult to produce a baby every year reminded me of the Christian fundy who said the thing he appreciated most about his wife was her fertility. I realized that both the Christian fundy and Jeffs were simply religious cultists. They have in common the use of women as baby machines, the belief in male "authority" over women, and the fortress mentality that many cults exhibit.

Then, searching online to see if there were images of "submissive women," thinking maybe I'd find a graphic or image suitable for a book cover someone was designing led me to a rather surprising site that I don't want to directly link to because it contains nude photos and one in particular that I'm sure would be offensive to many people. But, it's the site for an organization called the Cybelians: First Church of Female Supremacy.

They have everything the above mentioned cultic groups have, in reverse. Instead of forced or coerced pregnancy through unavoidable insemination, their men drink the wife's urine. Sounds really extreme and gross until one realizes that unavoidable insemination has worse consequences than urine drinking and is even more demeaning and more of a dominance act.

I'd realized that the Jeffs group was cultic, and had excused the Christian fundies of a considerable bit of that negative term until I happened on the Cybelians. I had thought the Christian fundies were just people stuck in the Middle Ages, hidebound, some of them obviously women haters, some not. But the Jeffs followers are also throwbacks to the Mormon past. The Cybelians are also past oriented, picking up an ancient religion and bringing it into play again, with innovations.

Interesting what happens if you reverse the genders and see what it looks like that way.

It seems to me that sexual bondage is at the heart of all three groups. Whether one is tied up, dressed in leather, and flicked with whips or not, it's about bondage, and those who practice it are getting their jollies to some extent by having sexual power over the submissive partner or group.

The Cybelians claim their men want it that way, and that the marriages are happy and stable and long lasting. The Christian fundies claim the same thing for their women, and I'd bet that Jeffs group says their women just love to be baby machines, living on welfare fraud money, and unable to protect their teenage sons from being expelled from the community and their teenage daughters from forced marriages to aged inseminators bent on making more Mormonites.

Everyone is happy, except those who get away. And, of course, they were just malcontent troublemakers. Not.

I happened upon just the thing for the Jeffs and Christian fundy submissive woman cultists: special underwear. I hope they are reading this so they can buy some. I haven't seen any for the Cybelians yet.

For the Male Supremacists

For Their Submissive Women

Do You Want to Know the Inconvenient Truth?

May God forgive us for the mess we have created on this beautiful, and fragile planet we call home.

Today Derek and I went to see Al Gore's documentary "The Inconvenient Truth."  The case is clear -- incontrovertible, really. Unless we -- as a planet, as a species -- make immediate and sweeping changes, life as we know it is about to end or at least change forever. But the "truth" and the greatest impact of the film isn't the dire warnings of what is to come, but the plain evidence of what has already occured.

• An increase in both quantity and intensity of hurricanes
• Increased tornados, floods and "extreme weather" of all types
• Droughts in some place, flooding in others (37 inches in 24 hours??)
• Loss of glacier streams that provide drinking water for millions of people
• Melting of the ice caps
• Loss of species
• Thousands killed in heatwaves

We hear about these things, in bits and pieces.  Or we hear stories like the news of war and genocide in Dufar, and we wonder why people would be so barbaric and cruel.  When Al Gore showed a map of the shrinking water supply in Dufar, no mention of the war was necessary.  Of course!  When people are deprived of water and basic sustenance, how can we expect them to act better than mere animals?  They are fighting to survive. 

I expected to be troubled by this film.  What I didn't expect was the sense of hope and possibility.  Al Gore is not a doom-and-gloom street preacher holding a sign that says "The End is Near."  Rather his sign says "It doesn't have to end.  Help me!"  Gore demonstrates clearly that the power is in our hands.  Human beings will decide the fate of the earth, by action if not by inaction and chosen ignorance.

When the movie ended, everyone just sat there.  We would have clapped but there wasn't a clear place to do so.  It was as if the film didn't end, it just faded away.  And everyone sat there, wondering what to DO.  If there had been a volunteer with a sign-up sheet, we'd have signed up.  If there had been a collection plate, we'd have opened our wallet.  There should have been an altar call, or something!

But perhaps that is the effect Al Gore wanted.  He left us awakened and unsettled, ready for action. I can only hope that he is prepared to lead us through this process.

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.voteformom.com

The Harsh Wake-Up Ahead for Young Women

I live in Los Angeles, which seems to magically attract the most beautiful people in the world, even those who are not directly related to the entertainment industry. Because of this, many of my female friends have been downright drop-dead gorgeous.

With drop-dead gorgeous seems to come an excessive number of neuroses - unique in flavor from that of the average woman. At best, the drop-dead gorgeous woman often walks around blithely, absolutely unaware of the perks and benefits she receives due to her looks.

Such women represent an extreme, but in dealing with some of these gorgeous, oblivious women recently, it started to hit me: Young women are absolutely unprepared to deal with the consequences of becoming an older woman.

Let me explain. Aging, in and of itself, is hard for anyone. It's hard for men and women. Much is talked about the male mid-life crisis. Oh, he'll go out and buy a new car or date a 22-year-old. But women don't get a mid-life crisis. We don't get a period where we are somehow invited to act immaturely for a few years while we grapple with old age. All we get is menopause.

And we're told we're bitter. I can see why.

I've been observing one of my gorgeous friends lately. She is a sweet girl, by the absolute standard of "sweet girl" paradigms. Fresh-faced, 28, and Hawaiian, she should be a model for Hawaiian Airlines. She's astonishingly beautiful.

And yet, she's completely full of herself. She doesn't seem to get that guys swarm after her like flies due to her exotic beauty. She states, quite innocently, that every man she dates is madly in love with her, and that she's the first woman they've ever loved, even though these guys are often in their mid-30s by the time she walked into their lives.

She expects men to treat her very well, since she's used to being spoiled by previous boyfriends in awe of her beauty, I can imagine.

This is not to say she's stupid, or mean, or has a rotten personality. She's actually smart and nice and a good person.

But I feel she's headed for a very rude awakening once she gets older and she loses her youthful beauty. If she's lucky, she'll find the right guy before that happens, who will love and cherish her for the rest of her life. But what if she doesn't? What if she finds a guy who divorces her at 48, and leaves her out on the dating scene with dating skills she acquired 20 years previous as the beautiful young thing?

I myself have already noticed that men treat me a little differently now that I'm in my thirties. I was blessed with good genes, and I can pass for twenty-something. Yet, I notice that some men do look at me differently once they find out my real age (36). Why am I still alone? Am I desperate? Is my clock ticking?

When I was in my twenties, I remember having nothing but contempt for the single women I knew in their thirties. I thought something was wrong with them when I saw them going out with 25-year-old guys. I was, like many women I know, very judgmental of them, calling them has-beens and losers.

Little did I know that in my thirties I would still be single, and often dating guys ten years younger than me, not because I'm a loser, but because those guys are the ones who seem to be available!

Now that I am older and wiser, I realize that young women are in complete denial about the future ahead of them. Buoyed by youth and arrogance, they think the party won't stop. Or, they think Prince Charming will come and save them before they age past their prime.

For some women, home and family do become havens, and these women don't have to worry about being older and in the dating pool. Maybe they worry about wrinkles, but they are satisfied and secure.

Many other women, however, grow up, believe they've found their life, and end up divorced. I recently read an article a woman posted online, about how she was in her forties, divorcing, and completely lost. She didn't know how to support herself. She had no other life than her husband. She was completely depressed and alone. She had no marketable job skills. What would she do?

Some women, faced in that situation, finally find themselves and become happy for the first time in their lives. Released from the shackles of having to please men, many older woman find their true beauty. It's inspiring and amazing to watch.

Still, other women - and I daresay the ones who were the prettiest when they were younger have the hardest time - can't get past it. The mother of a friend of mine, previously married to a rich man who dumped her for another woman, never got over it. She gained over 200 pounds, and lived off the proceeds of the divorce until the money was gone. She never got remarried, never got a job, and now lives with my friend and off my friend. She's seriously depressed and utterly useless.

How many women end up like her, because they weren't prepared for the realities of being an older woman in our culture?

I am not sure I have an answer to this, but one idea would be to find a way for women to start sharing their wisdom more across generations. Young women for whatever reason aren't finding older women to have as role models. The media is a lot to blame, but what are we doing in our individual communities?

Regardless, the peak of a woman's life should not be when she's 28 and beautiful. It should be later, as a fully mature woman, with the wisdom and history of years behind her.

Stephanie Brail

Why I Am Anti Abortion and Pro Choice

Abortion is an issue like no other. And because it is like no other, comparisons with other issues are simply misapplications of analogy.

The way I answer the question of whether I am anti abortion or pro choice is that I'm both anti-abortion and pro choice. I think every woman is anti abortion. Nobody wants to destroy their baby, nobody wants their body invaded and messed with. But, I'm wise enough, as are a growing number of both women and men, to recognize that criminalizing abortion, providing no choice to women, is not the solution to the abortion problem. Simplistic solutions do not solve complex problems.

Making abortion unnecessary is the answer. Abortions cannot be eliminated, they will always be required. But, rather than try to limit them arbitrarily by law, we need to put our efforts toward making them unnecessary even though we can never completely succeed. We need to change the way we educate our children, equipping them to make better choices both before and after pregnancy begins.

Not long ago I wrote a post on my blog Noodling about replacing sex education courses with courses on responsible reproduction. We have it wrong, as a society/culture, regarding sex and its results. Reproductive problems need to be faced as the complex and intricate problems they are, not shoved aside with slam bam thank you ma'am laws.

I consider the "make it illegal" attempt at a solution an insult to women and children, a typical male-dominant trivialization of women's reality. Women need to recognize that making abortion illegal is an inadequate and discriminatory dismissal of their true needs.

If I were running for office here in the USA, I'd tell questioners that I'm anti abortion and pro choice because it's not a clear choice between pro or anti. I'd say that I would make decisions based on fairness and respect for life, the life of the mother and the life of the child, and the lives of future mothers and children, and that there are many tasks to be done and changes to be made before abortion will diminish without harm. I'd tell them what some of those necessary tasks and changes are.

Then I'd list several changes I'd be able initiate and expedite if elected. And, I'd be sure to challenge them to do what they can do, not just elect me, but begin laying the groundwork for changes that need to take place in their own environments. I think it's important to enlist citizens to act, not just vote. John Kennedy did that very well in his "Ask not what your country can do for you..." speech.

So many women know what it's like to be faced with unwanted pregnancy. We need to hear their stories, learn what compelled them to make their decisions to continue or abort. From their experiences we can determine what we need to do, what we need to change, so that the absolute minimum number of women will have to make the painful and sorrowful choice to abort.

Women are well equipped and positioned to set change in motion and carry it forward. We need individual women, and women in groups to provide education, support, innovation, and practical solutions that do not create victims.

This is our country, our home, our shelter, our protection. The Bible says a wise woman builds her house, and a foolish one pulls it down with her hands. Let's take the abortion issue out of the streets, out of the political tug-o'-war game and get to work.

Pat Gundry
http://www.makeabortionunnecessary.com

Why We Don't Need A Marriage Constitutional Amendment

Text of a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, from About.com:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

1. It's discriminatory.
The amendment has less to do with protecting marriage than it has to do with preventing homosexuals from having equal rights with non-homosexuals. Let's call it what it is. It is a discriminatory amendment.

2. It's a recipe for persecution of not only homosexuals but other minorities as well. Has anyone seriously thought of transgendered people? They have it tough enough without being asked to choose a gender and restrict their marriage partner to someone of an opposite one, whether they actually are opposite or not.

3. It's not just a can of worms, it's several cans of worms.
In addition to the impossible position of transgendered people, there is the proof of gender issue that could, and undoubtedly would be a factor for some people. Do you really want to have to prove your gender? Who is going to be the judge of what it is?

This is not idle speculation, because gender is not as specific as the general public believe. Not only is there a one in two hundred chance that an infant will be born with "indeterminate genitalia" but gender is on a continuum, with many combinations and variations on the gender theme. A person can have male external genitalia, and internal female genitalia, never knowing of their existence. Chromosomally a person can be one gender, and have physical attributes of another gender. Which gender are they? How will it be determined? Who's going to do the checking?

Then there is the "what constitutes marriage" can of worms. You want to try to define marriage? I wrote a book about marriage, and decided I'd need to define it early on. Not as easy as you might think. Historically, marriage has been many different things. Even today, in the USA, marriage is more than one thing. For example, there is Common Law marriage. Live together for a certain number of years, in some States, and, in the eyes of the law you are married. Cohabitation can become marriage automatically, no license needed.

Under the proposed amendment, are gays who live together going to be arrested for illegal marriage after they have been together for the requisite number of years? Are same sex housemates who are not sexually active with each other going to have to prove they aren't in order to not be declared in a common law marriage and thus in violation of the law? How could they possibly prove such a thing?

Next can of worms: How would such an amendment affect divorce? If one cannot marry without proving one's gender, will one have to prove it to get a divorce if the marriage was entered into before the amendment? What else haven't the proponents thought of that could rise up to bite both hetero and homo couples in the behind?

4. It's a political move to toss a bone to religious conservative lobbyists.
You know, the ones who helped elect the President last time around. He's undoubtedly getting pressure from Republicans who want to get some help winning their congressional and senate seats in upcoming elections. Toss a bone to the religious right and they will get on board. Never mind that such an amendment will not be ratified, promoting it will bring in some religious conservative votes.

5. It's a diversionary tactic, to distract Americans from more important issues.
We are in an ill advised war in Iraq, one our President got us into on the basis of false information. He is becoming increasingly unpopular because of it and other lapses in judgment and effectiveness. Launching a nice little war is a tactic Presidents and dictators often stoop to when their administration is failing. But, that works only if it's a small war, of short duration, and if they win it. And, even then, it only works for a little while.

Since the war thing has already been done this time around, and it didn't work very well, something else must be used. Let's see, the prayer amendment is passe, and the flag amendment. But, there is still the marriage amendment possibility, let's try that.

6. It trivializes the Constitution.
We do not need to amend the Constitution over every issue that falls off an activist tree. It is a great document, created with a purpose, and making it an object of political maneuvering isn't in line with that purpose.

7. It's tacky.
I don't want some amendment to protect my marriage from gays taking it over. What are they going to do, export it to China? It's embarrassing that my political leaders and some of my fellow countrypersons think this is something to pursue.

8. It's foolish.
Why don't we find something else to waste energy and money on? Or better yet, maybe not waste it at all, but, instead invest in solving some real problems, improving health care, improving education, preparing for natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

9. It's arrogant.
Why should heterosexuals think they have an exclusive right to marriage? The whole idea that they should is based on the presuppositions that a desire to marry by homosexuals is sinful, and that whether they marry or not is the business of heterosexual people. It is perfectly all right for the heterosexuals who believe homosexuality is sinful to go right on believing it, and still allow homosexuals to decide for themselves whether they want to marry or not.

Isn't it ironic that those against gay marriage are perfectly willing to allow pedophiles, murderers, thieves, abusers, and previous bigamists to marry at will, but the most upright and law abiding, kind and gentle gay must be prevented from marrying.

10. It's worse than useless.
Not only can such an amendment not be ratified. Not only will it be a great waste of money to try to get it ratified, but it cannot be enforced. And, it would create victims if it were ratified.

We need a marriage amendment to the Constitution about as much we need another term in office with George Bush.

Pat Gundry
http://www.noodlefactory.net

Our Rights

Today's post on the  Good Morning Silicon Valley Blog concerns me greatly. Dear FBI: I lost the URL of a neat privacy site I visited last year. Can you help? The government is monitoring our online activities and, to quote a portion of the BLOG:

"Now comes word that the Justice Department has told Google, Microsoft and other major Net companies that it wants them to keep records of every Web page their users visit for two years, a polite request now, maybe a law later. Search sites, portals and ISPs are sweating, not wanting to side with the pedophiles and terrorists but not wanting to appear to bend over so readily that their customers scream. "Child pornography is disgusting and illegal,'' said Steve Langdon, a spokesman for Google. But he said any proposals related to users' data "require careful review and must balance the legitimate interests of individual users, law enforcement agencies and Internet companies."

This is no different than illegally tapping my phone line or spying on me in the privacy of my home. So, as citizens, what do we do about this?

Ann Teliczan
http://www.medmarketingblog.com