Alas, a Blog | Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about.

On this day in history

Posted on February 18, 2004 by Ampersand

(Bean returns from her trip to the tropical forests and alpine peaks of London, Canada tonight, and so “On this day” will return to its regular host tomorrow.)

February 18

1851: (Birth) Ida Husted Harper, official publicist for the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA, see below) and collaborating author of History of Women’s Suffrage, born in Fairfield, Indiana. In 1897, she moved into the home of Susan B. Anthony in Rochester, NY after Anthony requested that Husted become her official biographer. The first two volumes of the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony appeared in 1898; a third was published in 1908. She also collaborated with Anthony on the fourth volume of the History of Woman Suffrage in 1902 (the first 3 volumes were written by Anthony). In 1916 Carrie Chapman Catt asked Harper to head the newly formed Leslie Bureau of Suffrage Education within the National American Woman Suffrage Association. In 1922 she published the fifth and sixth volumes of the History of Woman Suffrage, bringing the coverage up to 1920. A prolific writer and supporter of women’s rights, Husted edited columns for the New York Sunday Sun and Harper’s Bazaar and was a correspondent for major newspapers in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and New York City and served as chair of the press committee of the International Council of Women in 1899-1902 and was a delegate to council conventions in London in 1899 and Berlin in 1904.

1874: (Birth) Mary Dewson, economist and activist. Dewson helped establish the US’s first minimum wage law, in Massachusetts in 1913.

1878: (Birth) Blanche Ames, artist, women’s rights activist, botanist, author, inventor, and political cartoonist, among other achievements.

1890: The National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association combine to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as president.

1931: (Birth) Toni Morrison, nobel and pulitzer prize-winning author.

1934: (Birth) Audré Lorde, black lesbian poet and activist. Lorde, a wonderful public speaker, had a knack for telling quotes: “Silence has never brought us anything of worth.” “Our feelings are our most genuine paths to knowledge.” “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

edited by bean to add a few important events not mentioned earlier.

Posted in On this day... | Comments Off

More about UNFPA (Diotima on Gloria Steinem, part two)

Posted on February 18, 2004 by Ampersand

(This is the fourth post in an ongoing exchange; first Sara at Diotima posted this commentary regarding a Gloria Steinem interview, followed by my response, followed by Sara’s response. Phew.)

Sara was bothered by the “nastiness” of my previous post. I apologize. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that she doesn’t care about the deaths of women in the third world. In fact, it’s just the opposite – it’s because I know Sara is not callous, that I was shocked by her apparent use of abortions in the USA to rebut Steinem’s concern for women in other countries.

Sara wrote:

We’re going to injure and kill millions of women [in other countries]? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years?

I was genuinely taken aback by this linkage – so much that I suggested in my earlier post that it might have just been something Sara said in anger, and not a reflection of her real position.

Sara has now clarified this statement, writing that “my juxtaposition of the number of innocents killed since Roe with Ms. Steinem’s claim was a clumsy attempt to remind people that pro-lifers really do believe in the personhood of the fetus.” Fair enough – thank you for clarifying that. (However, in my own defense, I think it’s understandable that I didn’t infer Sara’s intent from her original wording).

* * *

There is also some discussion of the UN Population Fund, which Bush defunded due to allegations that the UNPFA supports coercive abortion in China.

First of all, Sara believes I questioned whether she, personally, is really interested in halting abortion. However, she’s mistaken. I did question the “pro-life leadership’s commitment to opposing abortion,” in a sentence about “pro-life organizations.” When I wrote that, I was specifically thinking “I’d better make it clear I’m talking about the leaders of the big organizations here, and not Sara.” However, it’s obvious I didn’t make the distinction clear enough; I apologize for that.

Nonetheless, I stand by my criticism of the pro-life leadership; as I’ve written in the past (in a different context), they often seem more interested in scoring partisan points than in pursing substantive policies which would reduce abortion. (Once again, let me clarify that this criticism is made of pro-life leadership, not of Sara.)

Speaking of substantive argument, Sara argues in favor of defunding UNFPA, writing:

I have looked at a lot of the literature out there on the UNFPA and whether or not it supported coerced abortions in China, and I’m just not sure it’s as conclusive as Ampersand does (for example, I’m not sure why you’d decide to dismiss the Population Research Institute’s report as just pushing an anti-woman agenda but accept the Catholics for Choice report as objective, unless you’ve got an agenda yourself).

Sara implies that the dispute over UNFPA is a dispute between pro-life research and pro-choice research. In fact, Bush’s own fact-finding mission found that PRI’s report was wrong. So did the right-wing MP Edward Leigh, who before visiting China was UNFPA’s strongest opponent in British government. (There’s more detail in this post). Leigh’s study “found no evidence of UNFPA advocating or facilitating coercive FP [Family Planning] laws. Indeed, it seemed precisely the opposite applied. The UNFPA projects, based on the IDPD Programme of Action, helped empower women by ensuring that they had the fullest possible information about reproductive health and choices.”

Keep in mind, that’s a statement a pro-lifer signed on to. This is not a dispute between pro-life and pro-choice researchers; even pro-life researchers who have examined UNFPA’s program in China have come away convinced that PRI is dead wrong, and recommending that UNFPA be fully funded.

And that, Sara, is one reason I find the Catholics for Choice report credible – because it matches what the British team and the Bush team found. (Also, pro-choice organizations have no particular reason to support UNFPA other than a belief that UNFPA saves women’s lives – remember, UNFPA is against abortion, and doesn’t provide abortions or fund any abortions). Both pro-lifers and Bush’s State Department (and, yes, some pro-choice ministers and ethicists) have examined and refuted PRI’s accusations. When pro-life and pro-choice researchers agree, doesn’t it seem probable that they’re telling the truth?

In any case, I can’t imagine what – “unless you have an agenda yourself” – would lead you to dismiss the British MP and US State Department reports.

Furthermore, I’m surprised feminists aren’t applauding the President’s decision to pull UNFPA’s funding, especially because he justified it by pointing to UNFPA’s involvement in China’s One Child Policy. China is not a bastion of reproductive freedom, something I would think feminists would be a little more concerned about.

That UNFPA has any involvement with China’s “One Child Policy” – other than working to end it – is a vicious lie, one that even pro-life researchers have disproved. Of course, feminists are concerned about women in China – which is why feminists don’t want to defund the only Western organization that is successfully opposing coercive practices there.

By spreading the lie, pro-life leaders like President Bush and “Feminists for Life” are greatly hurting the interests of women in China. UNFPA has done more to fight coercive reproductive policies in China than any other organization – period. And – because the UNFPA does not support abortion, and in fact reduces the need for abortion – the net effect of the pro-life leadership’s defunding of UNFPA is to increase abortion worldwide. How does that help anyone?

Sara points out that the $34 million taken away from UNFPA went to the US Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, a US government program. That’s no substitute. The US government money is deeply politicized, so it will go exclusively to programs that are “politically correct” even to the most fanatical pro-life organizations. For instance, none of that money will go to helping the women in China President Bush pretends to feel concern for.

Furthermore, the US program is simply less extensive and provides assistance to fewer women. Overall, the US program funds programs in about 65 countries, compared to the over 140 countries UNFPA is providing assistance to.

Finally, the program Sara refers to was created in 2002; it doesn’t have the experience or the proven effectiveness of UNFPA. Moving $34 million dollars to where the money will help fewer people less effectively isn’t really a wonderful approach to policy.

* * *

Sara writes “I was under the impression that Bush was actually spending a bunch of new money to help fight AIDS in Africa.” Yes, that’s the impression Bush gave – however, after taking the credit, Bush played games with the money, making it difficult to know if there even was a net gain in funding.

* * *

There are many other issues to address, but I’ve got to run. More later..

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, UNFPA | 6 Comments

On this day in history

Posted on February 17, 2004 by Ampersand

February 17

1870: (A First): Esther Hobart Morris, suffrage pioneer and later delegate to the National Suffrage Convention in Cleveland, Ohio (1895), is appointed justice of the peace of South Pass City, Wyoming Territory, becoming the first woman the first woman to hold judicial office in the modern world. Mrs. Morris served 8½ months and handled 26 cases, none of which were ever overturned on appeal.

1897: (birth) Pioneering vocalist Marian Anderson, the first African-American to break through the “glass ceiling” keeping non-whites off opera stages. Anderson was known for her dignity, for her courage in breaking barriers, and for one of the greatest singing voices ever heard. Singer Jessye Norman described first hearing Anderson sing: “I listened, thinking, ‘This can’t be just a voice, so rich and beautiful.’ It was a revelation. And I wept.”

In 1955, rather late in her career, Anderson was the first African-American to sing at the Metropolitan Opera. As Rosalyn Story wrote:

Obviously, [the Met] could have given the honor of “first black” to someone younger and musically stronger, like soprano Mattiwilda Dobbs, who had succeeded at La Scala and the Glyndebourne Festival in England, or baritone Robert McFerrin, who was engaged at the Met immediately after Anderson. But the point was clear; Anderson, whose career had quietly and continuously broken barriers, dissolved hostilities, and awakened the consciousness of an entire country, was the only singer whose presence could signify the real meaning of the event. The length and contour of her own journey, from poor prodigy to artist-ambassador in the span of half a century, mirrored the progress of an entire movement of people advancing toward artistic and social equality. Anderson’s life, in simple terms, defined that movement.

edited by bean for additional event not previously included.

Posted in On this day... | Comments Off

Same-Sex Marriage: Why Are Gay Interests So Easily Sacrificed?

Posted on February 17, 2004 by Ampersand

Over on FamilyScholars.org, Elizabeth Marquardt made an interesting argument against cloning:

With cloning, women and children become objects, merely means to someone else’s end. If — if — “therapeutic” cloning works, people with serious diseases may have a new treatment option, but it’s also quite possible that new treatments could be found that don’t require sacrificing women and children. Cloning isn’t worth it. Please, let’s come to our senses.

Although this argument is interesting in its own right, what struck me is how this contrasts with Elizabeth’s case against same-sex marriage. Here’s Elizabeth’s anti-SSM argument in a nutshell:

Legalizing same sex marriage requires us to change the legal definition of marriage. Marriage becomes between “two persons” rather than between “a man and a woman.” Once we change the definition our law, and increasingly our culture, is unable to say that children need their mother and father. This will make it much harder to defend the proposition, still held by many people even in our weakened marriage culture, that heterosexual parents should try to marry rather than cohabit, and that they should try to stay married and avoid divorce. As a result, with legalized SSM more children are likely to grow up lacking their mother and father in the home.

There’s an interesting parallel here. Elizabeth asks why it’s acceptable to exploit thousands of women to increase the chance of curing deadly diseases. There are two premises implicit in Elizabeth’s anti-cloning argument – one, that there are potentially fruitful avenues of research aside from cloning, and two, that cloning harms women’s interests – but if you accept Elizabeth’s premises, her conclusion is reasonable. All else held equal, it is better to try to cure diseases without harming women in the process.

Well, then: Isn’t it also better to try to help heterosexual families without harming lesbian and gay families in the process?

Why is it acceptable to deprive thousands of same-sex couples and their children of marriage – of the rights to having socially recognized families, with the dignity and security that, for many, only marriage can confer – just because there’s a chance that depriving same-sex families of equal rights will reduce heterosexual divorce?

The two situations are very similar. There’s a valuable goal being sought (stronger het marriages/cures for diseases). There are multiple policies we could pursue to reach the goal. However, one of the policies treats a particular group of people (women/same-sex families) as if their well-being doesn’t count.

When the group being sacrificed is women, Elizabeth says “let’s find an alternative route.” But when the group being sacrificed is same-sex families, suddenly a group sacrifice is appropriate. Why?

* * *

Elizabeth’s basic argument could have been made against interracial marriages being made legal. It’s a statistical fact that cross-racial marriages are more likely to end in divorce; if we want to reduce divorce, it would make sense to outlaw interracial marriage. Right?

Similarly, laws giving married women the right to own property – rather than all of the couple’s property belonging to the husband – almost certainly increased divorce in the long run, by giving women the financial wherewithal needed to leave unsatisfying marriages. To reduce divorce, we should return to the traditional understanding of marriage, in which husbands owned and controlled all the family property. Right?

Of course not. I’m confident that neither Elizabeth, nor Eve Tushnet, nor David Blankenhorn, nor any reasonable opponent of SSM would endorse these proposals – even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that these proposals would in fact reduce divorce. Reducing divorce is an important goal – but it’s not the only important goal. It is not so important that it justifies sacrificing equal rights between the races, or between the sexes.

Which begs a question, doesn’t it?

When did same-sex couples become objects, merely means to someone else’s end? Why are same-sexers – and same-sexers alone – so worthless?

That’s not right.

Why the difference? Our society now widely acknowleges that women and racial minorities deserve equality. Women and racial minorities aren’t actually treated equally, of course – but to openly advocate legal inequality is no longer acceptable. Except when it comes to the treatment of homosexuals. It is only because our society is still very bigoted against lesbians and gays that advocating their legal inequality is acceptable.

Elizabeth says she’s not bigoted against lesbians and gays, and I believe her. Nonetheless, her argument is premised on bigotry against lesbians and gays. It is only in the context of a bigoted society that a reasonable person like Elizabeth could advocate treating gays as objects to be sacrificed for others’ benefit.

I agree that reducing divorce would be a good thing. I agree that children’s welfare would improve if more heterosexual parents stayed together in healthy marriages.

But I cannot, will not agree that lesbians, gays and their families are appropriate objects for sacrifice. I cannot, will not agree that their interests should be trashed for someone else’s ends. Lesbians and gays are not pawns fit for sacrifice – and to suggest they are is an endorsement of bigotry (whether or not the speaker is personally bigoted). There are other possible approaches to saving het marriage. Let’s pursue those approaches, and allow same-sex families the equality that should be their birthright.

Opposing equality isn’t worth it. Please, let’s come to our senses..

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 26 Comments

BlogAds

Posted on February 17, 2004 by PinkDreamPoppies

Brian Flemming has an interesting post about his use of BlogAds to promote his movie, Nothing So Strange, a fake documentary about the assassination of Bill Gates. One quote from his post stood out to me:

I had lunch with Blogads proprietor Henry Copeland this weekend, and he gave me some excellent advice on running the campaign. Henry told me not to try to communicate too much information with the ad, as tempting as that might be. Don’t underestimate the ‘wtf?’ aspect, he said. So I’m trying to create simple ads that create curiosity. Nothing So Strange has a densely packed website, so there’s no reason not to let the website do the work.

Curiously enough, this wtf-factor was effective with at least one consumer: me. Well, the story’s a bit more convoluted than that. Allow me to indulge myself in a brief divergence, then I’ll get back to BlogAds as a whole.

About six or so months ago, I first read about Nothing So Strange because of an interview at Film Threat. This kicked me over to the Nothing So Strange site, which kicked me to a discussion about BitPass, which kicked me over to Scott McCloud’s site, which inspired me to read Understanding Comics, which in turn introduced me to serious comics, which has in turn lead to the sheets of paper cluttering my desk on which I am drawing a comic. In the midst of all that leading and kicking, I entirely forgot about Nothing So Strange, or, rather, I forgot the title and the director. Until I saw a BlogAd over at Josh Marshall’s site, advertising discussion of “the last major murder of the twentieth century,” or somesuch. Viola! Nothing So Strange.

Anyway, that enigmatic ad, featuring a blurry photograph of a man in a red hat, caught my eye in a way that the other BlogAds hadn’t. (Incidentally, the latest Nothing So Strange ad is equally enigmatic: a police officer in riot gear, and a comment about how the 2000 Democratic Convention was “reality hacked.” The ad leads to this post which is bound to be fascinating to process junkies.) Kevin Drum, of CalPundit, noted recently that all of the BlogAds on his site seem to have become political fundraising ads.

This intrigues me. I’ve said previously that although I dislike Howard Dean as a candidate, I believe that his campaign model is something that we’ll see copied in the future. I think we’re seeing the beginning of that copy-catting with the BlogAds being flooded by political ads. Similarly, Ben Chandler has been in advertising heavily on Eschaton and at the Daily Kos (and possibly others that I haven’t seen) to fundraise for his bid in the Kentucky special election held… Today, I suppose. (I haven’t been to bed yet; it’s three in the morning.)

I’m intrigued to see how much these politicians actually end up getting through their blog-related advertising. But, it seems that the BlogAds are working for filmmakers, and presumably for the coffee-sellers and kitsch-dealers also advertising on the blogs I frequent. I’m still not sure that blogs will last or if they’ll go the way of the CB radio or if they’ll simply be taken-over by corporate sponsors, but… It’s nice to seem them working while they’re here..

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 5 Comments

Links links links links links

Posted on February 16, 2004 by Ampersand

MaryBeth Williams, of Wampum, is running for the legislature. No joke. From being a fan of her blogging, I know MaryBeth is smart, passionate, compassionate, dedicated, feminist, educated and skeptical – everything I could want in a politician. Plus she’s a woman and a minority in a state that doesn’t have enough of either in government (is there any state with enough?). I only regret she’s running in the right-hand coast’s Portland, rather than mine.
She plans to keep on blogging, so there should be some fascinating blogging in Wampum as the campaign moves on. By the way, MaryBeth’s blog has a Paypal button if you’d like to contribute to her campaign.
I can spend hours just yanking the funny flexi man back and forth. Back and forth, back and forth… If your browser lets you, zoom in so he’s bigger. Whheeeeee….
There have been tons of great posts at Body and Soul lately. ‘Cheap’ has more than one meaning, sweetheart is one of my faves, and if you haven’t read it I recommend you do so.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to reading economics journals… “The Economics of Orgasm.”
Two brief responses to this post of mine on the Family Scholars Blog: here and here. Until I have further information, I have to agree with Tom and David that NOW LDEF was being unfair and attacked what seems to be a decent program unfairly. On the other hand, I’m a little skeptical that the separate programs offered to women won’t be “lesser” – it definitely merits investigation.
I should also mention that David Blankenhorn was perfectly nice in his response to me – and even admitted error on one point – making me feel rather guilty that I was snarky in my comments to him. I’ll do better in future.
A few days ago, the New York Times carried an article on the Justice Department seeking medical records of women who have had abortions. Most chilling quote:
Citing federal case law, the department said in a brief that “there is no federal common law” protecting physician-patient privilege. In light of “modern medical practice” and the growth of third-party insurers, it said, “individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential.”

Unfortunately, at least one Judge (in New York) has taken Ashcroft’s side in this dispute. (Link via Rita Rambles).
The Chicago Tribune and Ms.Musings have both recently linked to One Good Thing. Let me add “Alas, a Blog’s” tiny voice to the growing chorus – One Good Thing is smart, funny, mean as hell (in a good way) and wonderfully feminist take on motherhood, owning a sex toy store, current events and everything else.
Speaking of sex toys, if you’re in the market, please make a point of shopping The Honeysuckle Shop; it’s a fine shop, plus the owners have good politics. Pass the word on.
Back at the Family Scholars blog, Elizabeth Marquardt argues passionately that cloning is a women’s rights issue.
Don’t know why I find this appealing, but I do. Dance, fat purple thing, dance!
Interesting post at Crooked Timber on what makes a good childhood, venturing into thoughts about public spaces and TV watching rules. Via Apt. 11D.
Excellent meta-blogging post at Feministe – you should go read it. When I started “Alas, A Blog,” there were many blogs by feminists, but relatively few feminist blogs. Now it seems to me that there are so many excellent feminist blogs. It pleases me (and gives me more to read!) – but at the same time, it makes me feel “Alas” is less necessary than it used to be. Like Feministe’s MsLauren, I’m wondering if it isn’t time to jettison the blog and work on other writing. (My fear is that without the blog I’ll do no writing at all – as MsLauren wrote, Blogging is the one kind of writing I seem to get done without deadline pressure.
From Feministe (and via Sappho’s Breathing):

The world is a strangely oppressive classroom in which memes we dislike and with which we disagree are taught to us every day. We often feel that we have no voice, no outlet, no space to call one’s own. Blogging has given us a space that is under our control, in which we can say what we like, popular or not, and form more concise ideas about who we are and what we really think about a given issue. We can accept or reject the memes as we so choose.

I sometimes think I’ll spend my entire life doing nothing but unlearning poisonous memes the world has shoved down my throat. (Should I post this? It sounds negative, and my readers tend to like upbeat stuff more. And who can blame them?)
Cyndi Lauper still rocks. Via MsMusings.
Over at F-Word (a really good website I should read more often), the author linked in comments to this essay, “Feminists are sexist.”
From F-Word:

The thing is, I’m getting really, really tired of having to justify feminism by explaining how it also benefits men. And that, believe it or not, is the point of this article. What I’m angry about is not the genuine male enquirers who honestly wonder why “nobody complains about the stereotyping of men” (and they do exist, I replied to several of them), it’s the anti-feminist men who attack us for daring to get involved in a movement which aims to improve the lives of women.

What this is really about is men accusing feminists of sexism and hypocrisy unless they can prove that they spend exactly half of their time, energy, and resources on campaigning on behalf of men. What this is really about is that if feminism only improves the lives of women, it has no value or importance. What this is really about is that feminism only has value if it works on behalf of men and improves the lives of men. What this is really about is anti-feminist men being threatened by women working for women. What they’re really saying is that to talk about women, to focus on women, to point out that something affects women badly; all of this is of no importance or value. It’s classic, really – because men are not always the focus of attention of feminism, these anti-feminists can’t stand it.

I very much agree, and even drew a cartoon carrying much the same message a few years ago.
Heidi Bond at Crescat Sententia has written a post well-worth reading, “On Giving Up.”
At A Fistful of Euros, Scott Martins discusses the headscarf ban in France. He also points out something I hadn’t realized (but should have guessed); one consequence of the ban is parents choosing to keep their daughters home from school.
Gabriel Rosenberg responds to responses to his posts on incest and polygamy, and also argues, persuasively, that it’s unlikely that any state will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
A descriptive Village Voice article on gay and lesbian same-household co-parenting arrangements… at some point I should discuss my own somewhat odd home life on the blog.
In her late twenties, Beth decided she was ready to have kids. She met Phillip Hernandez and discovered that he and his partner, James Slayton, longed to have children, too. They joked about doing it together, and one day the conversation turned serious. The three drew up a formal agreement that was not legally binding but would serve as a framework for this family for the next 18-plus years. They now have two sons, 3 1/2-year-old Zander and 17-month-old Nicholas, and another son on the way. The boys are each biologically related to one of their dads, but Beth thinks the distinction isn’t important and balks when people ask her to clarify.

I always get a thrill from seeing people make alternative arrangements work.
I’m sure most of my readers would hate Dust in the Light (it’s unapologetically anti-gay). But I have to admit, I like the design. Most special-effects heavy designs leave me cold (and with a headache), but for some reason this works for me. Except that the stained-glass-window thingy looks bad when text scrolls over it.
Via Dust in the Light, I came across this Letter to the Editor by Karen Hayes:
Conservatives would have us believe that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage. But marriage and the “traditional family” have been in trouble for decades — for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with homosexual partnerships. No law against same-sex marriage will change the divorce rate; no constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman could have saved my parents’ marriage, or my own; and no legalized bigotry will heal America’s broken families.

Yup, yup, yup.

Posted in Link farms | 73 Comments

On this day in history…

Posted on February 15, 2004 by Ampersand

Februrary 15

1820: (Birth) Susan B. Anthony, women’s rights leader, who with Elizabeth Cady Stanton led the fight for votes for women for many years.

1859: (A First) Federal Law, promoted by Belva Lockwood, gives women who practice law access to the Supreme Court bar.

edited by bean to add even not previously included.

Posted in On this day... | Comments Off

On this day in history…

Posted on February 14, 2004 by Ampersand

February 14

1847 : (Birth) Reverend Anna Howard Shaw, suffragette leader, one of the first woman ordained as a Methodist minister, and president of the American Woman Suffrage Association for many years. “Nothing bigger can come to a human being than to love a great Cause more than life itself, and to have the privilege throughout life of working for that Cause.”

1920: The League of Women Voters is formed.

1985: The U.S. Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Jews votes to accept women as rabbis.

edited by bean for correction.

Posted in On this day... | Comments Off

I wish I had been in Massachusetts yesterday

Posted on February 14, 2004 by Ampersand

Via MarriageDebate, the Boston Globe’s report on the legislature’s debate over gay marriage:

…discord was touched off when the hour grew late and the gay marriage supporters defeated the Travis amendment. That emboldened the gay groups, who wanted to use the remaining hours until midnight to prevent another vote.

Back Bay Democrat Paul C. Demakis launched into a passionate and lengthy defense of the rights of gay and lesbian couples. Next up was a Milton Democrat, Senator Brian A. Joyce. Leaving no room for words to fail him, he proceeded to read, in full, a lengthy op-ed column in defense of same-sex marriage by Peter J. Gomes, a minister and a Harvard University professor of Christian morals.

As Joyce went on, opponents of gay marriage realized what was happening — a filibuster.

They tried to regain the floor by appealing to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. But Travaglini rebuffed them, and Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty threw the parliamentary equivalent of a tantrum. The Chelsea Democrat led about 20 fellow House members, mostly loyalists of Speaker Thomas M. Finneran’s, out of the chamber.

They chanted, “We want a vote! We want a vote!” echoing the cries from opponents of same-sex marriage that had rung through the State House hallways on Tuesday.

After a brief respite, Travaglini regained control of the chamber. As the night went on, legislators who support gay marriage went to the podium one by one.

Outside the chamber, a group of about 200 gay-rights activists, holding rainbow flags and a huge American flag, had been singing for hours, their voices as strong and loud at 11 p.m. as they had been at 3 p.m. When it became clear that the amendment would not pass, Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, addressed the crowd in a brief civics lesson. Camera lights illuminated her face, and chants followed virtually every sentence.

“It’s sure a lot better to be alive at the end of the day, and have dodged all those bullets. So understand this. If midnight comes, and they have not voted to take our rights away, they’re still going to come back and they’re still very inclined to put discrimination in the constitution, to make us second-class citizens. But if they get past midnight, we’ve made it through one more day, and that will be a good thing.”

Legislators who had spoken in favor of gay marriage rights streamed out of the chamber and into the crowd, and the singers chanted “Thank you! Thank you!” and slapped their backs.

Damn, that sounds sweet.

It’s so strange for me to feel thrilled reading the news. But I love what’s going on in Massachusetts, and the torrent of gay weddings in San Francisco. I imagine it felt this way to open a newspaper and read that a woman named Rosa Parks had refused to go to the back of the bus..

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 16 Comments

On this day in history…

Posted on February 13, 2004 by Ampersand

1870: (A First) Wyoming’s Esther Morris is appointed a Justice of the Peace – the first woman to serve in that capacity in the USA. Morris was also an active women’s rights campaigner.

1906: (Birth) Pauline Frederick Robbins, pioneering female TV and radio journalist. Among other firsts, she was the first woman to moderate a presidential debate.

1943: (Birth): Feminist scholar and theologian Elaine Pagels.

1945: (Death) Henrietta Szold, founder of Hadassah Women, the largest Jewish organization in American history. As the founder and director of the Youth Aliyah Agency, Szold was responsible for the rescue of over 22,000 Jewish children from the Nazis.

1962: (A First) Eleanor Roosevelt becomes first chair of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women.

edited by bean for corrections.

Posted in On this day... | Comments Off