Another reason to avoid marrying men.
everything about this makes me sick. yes, go marry your daddy, because clearly you still belong to him and I can’t own you myself. fucking hell.
I’d rather not belong to my Dad or my partner… So a woman’s family name isn’t important, but his is? If the core of love is ownership, I don’t want love.
Who knew there could be so much fail in one short paragraph? I don’t even know if I can unpack it all, but what really stuck out to me was, “We really don’t care how important your dad’s name or your family name is to you…” That says it all right there. I know that not everyone has the same relationship to their name as me, but to some people their name is pretty important. For me, I have a horrible relationship with my entire name; my first and middle because I’m trans* and my last because it reminds me of my dad and our strained relationship. I plan to change my entire name eventually and that’s a source of power and pride for me. Naming myself is fucking important to me. Once that happens I’m sure as hell not going to give it up for a man’s ego and linguistic insecurities.
This literally made me sick.
The right to… not be grossed out by gay people? What right was stripped away? Seriously, somebody explain to me how a law that allows people to get married “strips away” rights from others.
Well, obviously the activist judges stripped Californians of their constitutional right to vote on and take away the human rights of others. That’s in there somewhere, right? Right?
On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community’s successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an “illicit affair” with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.
oh my god this letter is amazing! another excellent paragraph:
“Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that “gay marriage” is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.”
Natural Family Planning and Marriage Covenant
When man and woman marry, they pledge that they will exercise faithful love toward each other for better and for worse until death separates them. When they engage in the natural marriage act, at least implicitly they are saying with their bodies, “We love each other and we take each other again for better and for worse. We are renewing our marriage covenant.”
On the other hand, when a couple uses a contraceptive drug, device or behavior, their body language says, “We take each other for better but definitely not for the imagined worse of possible pregnancy.”
-Natural Family Planning Manual
Because it’s so hard to believe that two married people simply don’t want kids. Maybe they can’t afford them. Maybe it’s dangerous for the person who could get pregnant to have them. Use of contraception is a personal choice. People don’t get married only to have children. They get married because they love each other. Not wanting children does not diminish that. If anything, they’re family planning smartly by waiting for the right time for them to conceive.
Feminist marriage is a three-way contract between two women and government. Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the extreme of using artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children born in these marriages.
Children will be born of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements. Feminist marriages are automatically entitled with many tax-free, governmental income sources for having children.
Feminist marriage is a marriage between any two women and the welfare state. It constitutes a powerful feminist takeover of marriage by government, and places the NOW in the position of dictating government policy as a matter of “feminist Constitutional rights.”
Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to women than heterosexual marriage. Sexual orientation does not matter when two women marry and become “married room-mates.” They can still have as many boyfriends as they want and capture the richest ones for baby-daddies by “forgetting” to use their invisible forms of birth control. On average, a feminist marriage will have at least four income sources, two of them tax-free, plus backup welfare entitlements.
Feminist marriage is government-sponsored serial polyandry, uniquely enriched by one or more substantial income sources not available to the other two planned subordinate classes of marriage.
I don’t think I ever got this memo, you guys. I can’t believe you would plan something like this without telling me.
This totes sounds like a plan, we should totally form a feminist marriage guise, so we can have ALL THE LESBIAN SEX!!!
Why was I not informed of this when I picked up my feminist membership card at teh lezbian seks store?! And, quite frankly, who wants legal polyandry?
The majority of abortions are due to Fornication.
Couldn’t help myself, I found that little gem while scrolling the abortion tag. That little nugget of stupidity just made my night.
Well, actually, fornication is sex outside of marriage. And that sentence is not true because the majority of abortions are not due to fornication, because “Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions,” according to the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html).
Actually, that statistic from Guttmacher isn’t saying quite what you think it’s saying. It’s true that 45% of people obtaining abortions have never been married and were not cohabiting at the time of their abortion, but that doesn’t mean that 55% of people getting abortions were therefore married. It means the remaining 55% of people are married, have been married previously (though not necessarily currently), or were cohabiting but not married. At the Guttmacher link they cite this study: Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.
From the study [should be pregnant people]:
Women’s desires to have children, as well as their ability to negotiate the responsibilities of childrearing, may be influenced by relationships with male partners, and abortion varies substantially by union status. Nearly one-half of women having abortions were living with male partners: Some 15% were married, and an additional 29% had been unmarried but cohabiting with male partners in the month they became pregnant. Fifty-six percent of women had not been living with their partners, and most of these (45% of all women who had abortions) had never been married. Abortion patients were slightly (but significantly) less likely to be married in 2008 than in 2000; however, this drop can be attributed to a decline between survey years in currently married women as a proportion of the general population of women aged 15–44 (from 48% to 44%). The proportion of abortion patients who were cohabiting was significantly higher in 2008 than in 2000. Over the last few decades, cohabitation has become a more common living arrangement, and the change among abortion patients may simply reflect this trend; unfortunately, we lack comparable information about this living arrangement among all women in 2000.
Married women were underrepresented among those who had abortions; their likelihood of having an abortion was one-third that of all women (abortion index, 0.34). Both never-married and previously married women were overrepresented among abortion patients and had relative abortion rates slightly above the national average (1.13 and 1.33, respectively). Cohabiting women were substantially overrepresented among women who had abortions; their relative abortion rate was more than three times that of all women (3.46).
While most women accessing abortion services were unmarried and not cohabiting, many were in relationships at the time of their abortion. Sixty-two percent had been in a relationship with their male partner a year or longer, and only 12% reported that they had not been in a relationship with the man who had gotten them pregnant (Figure 1, page 7). Even among never-married women, almost one half reported that they had been in a relationship with their male partner for a year or more.
Here’s a portion of the study’s result chart:
Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights
So, I’ve actually heard people say that not only is abortion not a human right but that reproductive rights themselves don’t exist. That it’s just “feminist rhetoric” made up by feminists.
No, I’m not even kidding.
Due to the UN’s special report talking about how making abortion illegal is a human rights violation, and the antichoice backlash this is causing, I wanted to compile a list of human rights treaties and other documents that can be (and are) used to make the case that reproductive rights are human rights. I think it’s also important to remember one thing: these documents are often short and broad, not extensive and covering every minute right that every human on earth could possibly think of. They are much like the (US) Constitution in the respect that they have broad categories in which derivative rights can be attributed to: essentially, just because a right isn’t explicitly named doesn’t mean it can’t be upheld with a particular document, nor does it mean that it “doesn’t exist.”
[These documents are all, unfortunately, cis-centric and binarist.]
A great place to start is the legal scholarship done by the Center for Reproductive Rights. They participate in several legal battles each year and often use human rights treaties to argue their cases from a legal standpoint. They’ve compiled a few documents that outline how various treaties uphold reproductive rights as human rights.
First is their pdf Twelve Human Rights Key to Reproductive Rights. From the pdf:
All individuals have reproductive rights, which are grounded in a constellation of fundamental human rights guarantees. These guarantees are found in the oldest and most accepted human rights instruments, as well as in more recently adopted international and regional treaties. A series of documents adopted at United Nations conferences, most notably the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), have explicitly linked governments’ duties under international treaties to their obligations to uphold reproductive rights.
As stated in Paragraph 7.3 of the ICPD Programme of Action:
"[R]eproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. These rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence, as expressed in human rights documents."
These legal principles have been given added force and depth in a series of interpretations made by UN and regional human rights bodies in groundbreaking cases. In addition, the UN treaty monitoring bodies, which are charged with monitoring government compliance with major human rights treaties, now routinely recommend that governments take action to ensure sexual and reproductive rights for women.
Building upon these developments are two new instruments that explicitly recognize women’s reproductive rights. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Disability Rights Convention) is the first comprehensive international human rights instrument to specifically identify the right to reproductive and sexual health as a human right. At the regional level, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa) expressly articulates women’s reproductive rights as human rights, and explicitly guarantees a woman’s right to control her fertility. It also provides a detailed guarantee of women’s right to reproductive health and family planning services. The protocol affirms women’s right to reproductive choice and autonomy, and clarifies African states’ duties in relation to women’s sexual and reproductive health.
In this document they outline twelve human rights which are important to upholding reproductive rights. These are:
- The Right to Life
- The Right to Liberty and Security of Person
- The Right to Health, including Sexual and Reproductive Health
- The Right to Decide the Number and Spacing of Children
- The Right to Consent to Marriage and to Equality in Marriage
- The Right to Privacy
- The Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination
- The Right to be Free from Practices that Harm Women and Girls
- The Right to Not be Subjected to Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
- The Right to be Free from Sexual and Gender-Based Violence
- The Right to Access Sexual and Reproductive Health Education and Family Planning Information
- The Right to Enjoy Scientific Progress
They then go on to examine a multitude of international and regional human rights treaties and the specific articles in each document which relate to each of the twelve key rights. They examine:
International Treaties and Conventions
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
- International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979)
- Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984)
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
Regional Treaties and Conventions
- European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950)
- American Convention on Human Rights (1969)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981)
- Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (1994)
- Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1992)
- European Social Charter (Revised) (1997)
- Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (1997)
- Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003)
International Conference Documents
- Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, United Nations World Conference on Human Rights (1993)
- Programme of Action, United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (1994)
- Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (1995)
In Case You’ve Missed It: The Week of November 7, 2011
From sexual health, mental wellness, relationships, and everything in between, these are some of the news highlights that have happened this week:
Thank you Mississippi! Voters rejected Amendment 26 (aka Personhood Amendment) that would have defined life as starting at conception, and outlawed abortion and many forms of birth control if passed. Here’s why it failed to pass and what its failure really means for women’s reproductive health nationally. (*Hint: This ain’t the last of the Personhood movement*)
Why personhood, and not pregnancy prevention?
Harassment, male privilege, and jokes that women just don’t get.
Patriarchy eats its women and children and criminally cripples its men.
Was President Obama right is requiring health insurance companies to cover birth control without co-pays? You betcha!
if you are gay, and you are atheist, why do you want to get married?
marraige is technically a “holy union” and if you don’t believe in that shit why do it?
free logical thinking my ass
cause it’s traditional. Two people can celebrate being together whilst avoiding all of that lousy religious junk
There is so much more to marriage than just going to a church and saying a few nice words, it solidifies the relationship in some people’s eyes. Marriage is about love, not gender or religion and everyone should have the ability to marry the one person that they truly love regardless of what they do or do not believe.
First, the definition of “marriage” has changed dramatically over the course of time and different cultures, even within your own bible. Second, there is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Religious marriage is legally unenforceable, and means nothing in the eyes of the government. Due to the separation of church and state, the government can not and will not impose rules on what marriages a religious institution endorses. They’ve said that repeatedly, as well as during the senate committee hearing on the repeal of DOMA. Civil marriage is all that really matters as it gives people over 1000 federal benefits not afforded to unmarried people. Civil marriage is what enables all atheists (gay or straight) to get married, in city halls no less! Gay people are fighting for the latter, obviously. It would be nice if their churches would accept them (and many do), but that’s not what the mainstream political battle for gay marriage is about. The point is, denying civil marriage to anyone is unconstitutional. Talk about the sanctity or holiness of marriage all you want, but it has nothing to do with civil marriage or the privileges heterosexual people take for granted that are being denied to gay people, which has a profoundly negative effect on their lives.
“and if he says, ‘i will not come back to you,’ fine. i’ll find a different man. this is my life. … i don’t care if i marry you. i don’t care if i marry another man. i care if i do something that’s special.”
i hope that, twenty years from now, this girl is the same unstoppable badass she is today.