In case it wasn't already confusing enough on who can get married in what state depending on if you're gay or straight... what if you're transgendered? I forget where I found this... but here it is in all of its glorious confusion and nonsense.
"Some people are aware that transgender individuals are often able to enter into a heterosexual marriage after undergoing sex-reassignment. What may be less well-known, however, is that a transgender person may also be married to a person of the same sex. That situation arises, for example, when one of the spouses in a heterosexual marriage comes out as transsexual and transitions within the marriage. If the couple chooses to stay together, as many do, the result is a legal marriage in which both spouses are male or female. Alternatively, in states that do not allow a transgender person to change his or her legal sex, some transgender people have been able to marry a person of the same sex. To all outward appearances and to the couple themselves, the marriage is a same-sex union. In the eyes of the law, however, it is a different-sex marriage because technically speaking, the law continues to view the transgender spouse as a legal member of his or her birth sex even after sex-reassignment. In short, marriage is a very real option for a variety of transgender people in a variety of circumstances."
Monday, October 09, 2006
Regarding Vic Toews
Here's a letter I sent in to my favorite news show, As It Happens. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Barbara & Carol,
I listen to your show at 5am in the States while driving to work. Normally, I am very pleased with the insights that your guests provide into issues about which I may not know much. However, this morning when I tuned in, there was a man proclaiming falsehoods as truths to further his agenda of discrimination and dislike toward gay people.
I am sick and tired of being told that as a gay person, I have no values or that I am destroying the institution of marriage or that I am not "pro-marriage." Just because my values differ from those of your guest, it does not mean that I have no values. Nor does it mean that I am destroying or in any way hold no value of the institution of marriage. In fact, I am "pro-marriage." I am for *everyone's* marriages. Not just those that resemble my own. Your guest should instead call himself "anti-same-sex-marriage" or "pro-heterosexual marriage."
My wife and I were married in Niagara Falls, ON on December 22, 2003. We wanted to get legally married by a minister even though we knew the marriage would not be recognized by our federal government nor our home state of Wisconsin. We believed, and still do believe, that it was important for us to have our marriage sanctioned by an authoritative body. We proudly display our marriage certificate which is framed and hung in our family room. We also understood, because of the way the laws work, that we cannot get divorced. If for some reason our marriage took a wrong turn, we would just have to work it out. In order to get a divorce, one of us would have to immigrate to Canada and live there for at least a year before we could file for a divorce. Our home state of Wisconsin, as well as the surrounding states, does not have the authority to grant us a divorce for a same-sex marriage performed in Canada. This was the second reason why we chose to marry in Canada. We had to be certain that when we said "until death do us part," we meant it.
Your guest stated that religious persons opposed to homosexuality are forced to perform our marriages. This is simply not true. We had a tough time finding a minister who would perform our marriage. We were turned down by every Christian minister that we contacted. They said, rather curtly, that they could not perform our marriage because it was "against their religion" or that it was "against God's law." After we completed our pre-marriage counseling here in the States, we eventually found that we would have to be married by a minister who was not of our faith - a Unitarian minister. He wrote a wonderful ceremony for us and even included some of our favorite Bible versus.
Also, the woman who worked in the chapel in which we were married took the cross down off the wall on which it was hanging before our ceremony... to which my thought was "Who do you think you are? How dare you make the judgment that you can take Jesus away from me!" It was infuriating, but I did not make an issue of it because it was to be a joyous day, not one filled with argument.
Your guest also stated that marriage has always been between "one man and one woman" and that the so-called "activist judges" (funny how they're only 'activist judges' when one disagrees with them) were re-defining marriage by allowing gay people to marry. This is simply fallacy.
Defining marriage as "one man and one woman" would actually be redefing it. To your guest I would ask, "How many wives did Abraham have?"
Marriage has historically been between:
If *anything* has destroyed the historically defined definition of marriage, it has been the idea that one can marry for love and that once that love ceases to be as strong, one can easily obtain a divorce. By your guest claiming to "protect marriage" by barring gay people from it (oh... wait... I thought he was claiming to be protecting religious freedom... well... anyway) he is in fact, doing it a great disservice.
Your guest is doing nothing to protect my marriage... whcih I value greatly. If your guest were truly interested in "protecting marriage" then he should protect all marriage - from divorce. Your guest would be better suited to protect marriage by attempting to toughen divorce laws and by advocating for pre-marital counseling.
Your guest also stated that it was necessary to "protect children." I would ask your guest how revoking my wife's and my marriage would possibly protect our children? I would think that they would have a hard time grasping why and how any religion of love could possibly be protecting them by either taking away recognition of their parent's marriage or by making it possible for teachers to say mean things about them and their parents in class.
Your guest also stated that people who disagreed with same-sex marriage should not be forced to recognize them. This is a very dangerous and slippery slope on which I hope Canada does not tread. Here in the States the idea of a "consiencous objector" status for persons who disagree with *anyone* for *any reason* has been brought into light... or into darkness in my opinion. This would essentially create the type of "religous protection" your guest seeks. It could, and has been, used to deny basic (and necessary) medical proceedures to; single moms, gays and lesbians, persons of differing faiths, persons preceived to be of different faiths or sexual orientation, persons of differing ethnic background, and persons of questionable legal status. While this has not been publicized, it has personally happened to me and to some of my friends. This might seem avoidable if one lives in a large city like Toronto. One could simply go to a different medical provider. In rural areas of Canada however, there are people who would be caused great harm and who would have to go through teh painstaking and expensive process of trying to find a doctor in a geographic area not their own, who will treat them.
Also, this opens the door for discrimination in the workplace. Religious businesses or even a corporate institution that is headed by a person of a faith that disagrees with homosexuality (or any for any other reason they feel is wrong) would be allowed to fire someone because they do not agree with the person.
It would place children in danger because teachers would be allowed to teach their class that a certain child's family is worth less or that their family is somehow immoral. These children could be the endless subject or ridicule and persecution by other students. This bill would do serious and real harm to many families across Canada.
A friendly warning from one of your southernly neighbors... It's already happening here, this isn't hype, don't go this route.
What your guest is really looking for is a legalized free pass to discriminate. He is looking for a way to spread his way of how he thinks the world should be and to persecute those that do not fit his definition of what is right. To your guest, I would ask how a Jesus, who loves and welcomes all, would respond to this action? I would ask if God will judge me for whom I love, or him for whom he hates and harms?
Your guest also mentions that he would like to see a review of how same-sex marriage affects society and marriage. This is simple... count the percentage of divorces that have occurred between opposite-sex couples and the percentage of divorces that have occruued between same-sex couple in the time frame in which same-sex marriage has been legal. If it's anything like it is here in the states... there's a lot more straight marriages ending in divorce.
Also, studies here have been done that show that the states that are most opposed to same-sex marriages and who proclaim to rate "family values" and religion as their most important values, also have the highest divorce rates. Interestingly, the only state that allows same-sex marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Now, how is it again that my marriage is somehow a threat to the institution?
Finally, I would ask, rather beg, that you *please, please, please* invite a guest on your show to discuss the *real* history of marriage, not just the recent Western history of marriage. It is important that people are informed and that they do not remain ignorant regarding this topic.
As always, I'll be listening attentively.
Happily (gaily) Married,
ShayShay
----------------------------------------------------
I listen to your show at 5am in the States while driving to work. Normally, I am very pleased with the insights that your guests provide into issues about which I may not know much. However, this morning when I tuned in, there was a man proclaiming falsehoods as truths to further his agenda of discrimination and dislike toward gay people.
I am sick and tired of being told that as a gay person, I have no values or that I am destroying the institution of marriage or that I am not "pro-marriage." Just because my values differ from those of your guest, it does not mean that I have no values. Nor does it mean that I am destroying or in any way hold no value of the institution of marriage. In fact, I am "pro-marriage." I am for *everyone's* marriages. Not just those that resemble my own. Your guest should instead call himself "anti-same-sex-marriage" or "pro-heterosexual marriage."
My wife and I were married in Niagara Falls, ON on December 22, 2003. We wanted to get legally married by a minister even though we knew the marriage would not be recognized by our federal government nor our home state of Wisconsin. We believed, and still do believe, that it was important for us to have our marriage sanctioned by an authoritative body. We proudly display our marriage certificate which is framed and hung in our family room. We also understood, because of the way the laws work, that we cannot get divorced. If for some reason our marriage took a wrong turn, we would just have to work it out. In order to get a divorce, one of us would have to immigrate to Canada and live there for at least a year before we could file for a divorce. Our home state of Wisconsin, as well as the surrounding states, does not have the authority to grant us a divorce for a same-sex marriage performed in Canada. This was the second reason why we chose to marry in Canada. We had to be certain that when we said "until death do us part," we meant it.
Your guest stated that religious persons opposed to homosexuality are forced to perform our marriages. This is simply not true. We had a tough time finding a minister who would perform our marriage. We were turned down by every Christian minister that we contacted. They said, rather curtly, that they could not perform our marriage because it was "against their religion" or that it was "against God's law." After we completed our pre-marriage counseling here in the States, we eventually found that we would have to be married by a minister who was not of our faith - a Unitarian minister. He wrote a wonderful ceremony for us and even included some of our favorite Bible versus.
Also, the woman who worked in the chapel in which we were married took the cross down off the wall on which it was hanging before our ceremony... to which my thought was "Who do you think you are? How dare you make the judgment that you can take Jesus away from me!" It was infuriating, but I did not make an issue of it because it was to be a joyous day, not one filled with argument.
Your guest also stated that marriage has always been between "one man and one woman" and that the so-called "activist judges" (funny how they're only 'activist judges' when one disagrees with them) were re-defining marriage by allowing gay people to marry. This is simply fallacy.
Defining marriage as "one man and one woman" would actually be redefing it. To your guest I would ask, "How many wives did Abraham have?"
Marriage has historically been between:
- one man and many women (or as many women as the man could afford - remember, women were chattel)
- one woman and many men (only a couple of cultures exist with this history)
- one man and one man (as in marriages between Japanese men - these marriages were considered the purest form of love, or as in Emperor Nero and two of his husbands, or as in Diocletian and his husband, or as in Khnumhotep and Niankhkhum - who shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the Fifth Dynasty of Egyptian pharos)
- two people of the same sex (as in the many Native American tribes that celebrate formal marriages between two same-sex "two-spirit" people)
- two women (as in "Boston Marriage")
- a man and a woman (arranged marriage for political or geographic reasons)
- and more recently, one man and one woman (marriage for love)
If *anything* has destroyed the historically defined definition of marriage, it has been the idea that one can marry for love and that once that love ceases to be as strong, one can easily obtain a divorce. By your guest claiming to "protect marriage" by barring gay people from it (oh... wait... I thought he was claiming to be protecting religious freedom... well... anyway) he is in fact, doing it a great disservice.
Your guest is doing nothing to protect my marriage... whcih I value greatly. If your guest were truly interested in "protecting marriage" then he should protect all marriage - from divorce. Your guest would be better suited to protect marriage by attempting to toughen divorce laws and by advocating for pre-marital counseling.
Your guest also stated that it was necessary to "protect children." I would ask your guest how revoking my wife's and my marriage would possibly protect our children? I would think that they would have a hard time grasping why and how any religion of love could possibly be protecting them by either taking away recognition of their parent's marriage or by making it possible for teachers to say mean things about them and their parents in class.
Your guest also stated that people who disagreed with same-sex marriage should not be forced to recognize them. This is a very dangerous and slippery slope on which I hope Canada does not tread. Here in the States the idea of a "consiencous objector" status for persons who disagree with *anyone* for *any reason* has been brought into light... or into darkness in my opinion. This would essentially create the type of "religous protection" your guest seeks. It could, and has been, used to deny basic (and necessary) medical proceedures to; single moms, gays and lesbians, persons of differing faiths, persons preceived to be of different faiths or sexual orientation, persons of differing ethnic background, and persons of questionable legal status. While this has not been publicized, it has personally happened to me and to some of my friends. This might seem avoidable if one lives in a large city like Toronto. One could simply go to a different medical provider. In rural areas of Canada however, there are people who would be caused great harm and who would have to go through teh painstaking and expensive process of trying to find a doctor in a geographic area not their own, who will treat them.
Also, this opens the door for discrimination in the workplace. Religious businesses or even a corporate institution that is headed by a person of a faith that disagrees with homosexuality (or any for any other reason they feel is wrong) would be allowed to fire someone because they do not agree with the person.
It would place children in danger because teachers would be allowed to teach their class that a certain child's family is worth less or that their family is somehow immoral. These children could be the endless subject or ridicule and persecution by other students. This bill would do serious and real harm to many families across Canada.
A friendly warning from one of your southernly neighbors... It's already happening here, this isn't hype, don't go this route.
What your guest is really looking for is a legalized free pass to discriminate. He is looking for a way to spread his way of how he thinks the world should be and to persecute those that do not fit his definition of what is right. To your guest, I would ask how a Jesus, who loves and welcomes all, would respond to this action? I would ask if God will judge me for whom I love, or him for whom he hates and harms?
Your guest also mentions that he would like to see a review of how same-sex marriage affects society and marriage. This is simple... count the percentage of divorces that have occurred between opposite-sex couples and the percentage of divorces that have occruued between same-sex couple in the time frame in which same-sex marriage has been legal. If it's anything like it is here in the states... there's a lot more straight marriages ending in divorce.
Also, studies here have been done that show that the states that are most opposed to same-sex marriages and who proclaim to rate "family values" and religion as their most important values, also have the highest divorce rates. Interestingly, the only state that allows same-sex marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Now, how is it again that my marriage is somehow a threat to the institution?
Finally, I would ask, rather beg, that you *please, please, please* invite a guest on your show to discuss the *real* history of marriage, not just the recent Western history of marriage. It is important that people are informed and that they do not remain ignorant regarding this topic.
As always, I'll be listening attentively.
Happily (gaily) Married,
ShayShay
----------------------------------------------------
Pro-What?
I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy and the labeling of things with names that are exactly the opposite of what they mean.
Take, for example, the gubernatorial debate that happened here in Wisconsin on Friday between Doyle and Green...
Green stated that he makes "no bones about it," he's pro-life. He also did not dispute that he opposes abortion in *all* cases. Green also says that he does not support the use of tax dollars to "destroy living human embryos."
Then, Green turns around and voices support for the death penalty.
Pro-life should mean just that. Not just pro-embryo or pro-fetus. Pro-life should mean pro-all life. If you label yourself as "pro-life" but are for the death penalty and/or for war, you're nothing but a hypocrite. What you should call yourself is anti-abortion... not pro-life.
To go even further, I should hope that anyone who *does* call themselves pro-life is also a vegetarian. Life is life... it should not matter if it is human or other animal. It should also not matter that you consider your life to be of greater value than that of other animals. I'm sure that the dear that hunters shoot value their lives more than the lives of the hunters. If you were to ask the dear, I'm certain that it would consider itself in the definition of what it would mean to be pro-life.
It is the ignorance of self-importantance that is promoted by religion that makes humans think that they should value themselves more than any other of Earth's creatures.
And... just for the record... I'm pro-choice and an omnivore. I personally wouldn't get an abortion unless it wasn't my choice to conceive a child. But I don't feel that I have the right to impose my belief system on everyone else. As for eating meat. I'm allergic to all kinds of grains, so meat is a huge staple in my diet. I do not consider myself more important than any other animal on the planet... we all have a purpose... but I will gladly eat a tasty bit of meat and live knowing that something may one day decide that I also look like a tasty bit of meat.
You may ask how I feel that I can be critical of other's beliefs when I do not wish to impose my beliefs on others. The answer is simple. I won't impose *my* beliefs on anyone else, I *will* impose someone else's beliefs on themselves. (And I like it when others point out to me when I fail to live by my own standards. It forces me to re-evaluate myself and my beliefs.) If you believe in something, then believe in it. Don't pick and choose. Don't be a hypocrite. Have reasons to back up your belief... or at the very least do not label yourself falsely as pro- something you're not.
Take, for example, the gubernatorial debate that happened here in Wisconsin on Friday between Doyle and Green...
Green stated that he makes "no bones about it," he's pro-life. He also did not dispute that he opposes abortion in *all* cases. Green also says that he does not support the use of tax dollars to "destroy living human embryos."
Then, Green turns around and voices support for the death penalty.
Pro-life should mean just that. Not just pro-embryo or pro-fetus. Pro-life should mean pro-all life. If you label yourself as "pro-life" but are for the death penalty and/or for war, you're nothing but a hypocrite. What you should call yourself is anti-abortion... not pro-life.
To go even further, I should hope that anyone who *does* call themselves pro-life is also a vegetarian. Life is life... it should not matter if it is human or other animal. It should also not matter that you consider your life to be of greater value than that of other animals. I'm sure that the dear that hunters shoot value their lives more than the lives of the hunters. If you were to ask the dear, I'm certain that it would consider itself in the definition of what it would mean to be pro-life.
It is the ignorance of self-importantance that is promoted by religion that makes humans think that they should value themselves more than any other of Earth's creatures.
And... just for the record... I'm pro-choice and an omnivore. I personally wouldn't get an abortion unless it wasn't my choice to conceive a child. But I don't feel that I have the right to impose my belief system on everyone else. As for eating meat. I'm allergic to all kinds of grains, so meat is a huge staple in my diet. I do not consider myself more important than any other animal on the planet... we all have a purpose... but I will gladly eat a tasty bit of meat and live knowing that something may one day decide that I also look like a tasty bit of meat.
You may ask how I feel that I can be critical of other's beliefs when I do not wish to impose my beliefs on others. The answer is simple. I won't impose *my* beliefs on anyone else, I *will* impose someone else's beliefs on themselves. (And I like it when others point out to me when I fail to live by my own standards. It forces me to re-evaluate myself and my beliefs.) If you believe in something, then believe in it. Don't pick and choose. Don't be a hypocrite. Have reasons to back up your belief... or at the very least do not label yourself falsely as pro- something you're not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)