Even though the news is a bit old now, I wanted to post in commemoration of 2 more U.S. states gaining same-sex marriage. For those who haven’t heard the news:
- On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a state law limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The ruling means that any 2 consenting adults can get married in the state, provided they meet the other usual criteria that the state sets.
- The following week, the Vermont legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto, enacting a law that made same-sex marriage legal.
In the span of a week, the number of states allowing same-sex couples to marry doubled (Massachusetts and Connecticut already were allowing such marriages, in both cases as a result of legal rulings similar to Iowa’s). Vermont is unique so far in achieving the goal legislatively, and I must admit I am encouraged by seeing a state reach marriage equality through the democratic process. I think public opinion in a lot of places in the country is shifting towards acceptance of LGBT people, including in the arena of marriage, and this is both a reflection of that opinion (in Vermont), and something that can help influence opinion in other states (perhaps showing that “gay marriage,” as it’s often imprecisely termed, won’t cause the apocalypse, and might actually strengthen the fabric of society).
Having said that, it is the Iowa result that I find more surprising, and exciting, and about which I worry more. I lived in Iowa for 4 years, and I experienced the climate for the LGBT community there. At that time, about a decade ago, people were still working on trying to prevent job and other discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such protections were in place in a couple of cities, but not statewide. I helped with an effort to get the city of Cedar Falls to add sexual orientation to its human rights law, and the city council ended up voting the change down 6 to 1 (with some council members who had seemed favorable to the change being swayed the other way by their constituents). The governor at the time, Tom Vilsack, issued an executive order to grant health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of state employees, and the legislature passed a law to rescind the benefits (fortunately not by a veto-proof majority).
Many Iowans may have become more comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage, but opinion polls seems to indicate that the majority of residents still object to it. It’s wonderful that people will now be able to marry whomever they want in the state, but I worry about whether this will last. We saw what happened last year in California – the supreme court there declared that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, and then the constitution ended up getting amended to prevent those marriages. At least one thing is in equal marriage’s favor in Iowa compared with the situation in California: in California it is much easier (almost ridiculously easy) to amend the constitution. A sufficient number of signatures needs to be collected to put the amendment on an election ballot, and then a simple majority of voters must support the ballot measure at the polls. In terms of process, Iowa is better compared with Massachusetts.
In both Iowa and Mass., a constitutional amendment has to be proposed in and passed by the legislature, and then passed again by the next session of the legislature, before it can go on a ballot. In the case of Massachusetts, there was an attempt to amend after the court ruling, and enough signatures were collected that the legislature was forced to consider the amendment proposal. A constitutional convention was held, and the measure did get passed on for consideration by the next legislature, but then in that session it didn’t get enough votes to go on to a referendum. Our good state representatives (and senators) stopped the amendment in its tracks. I do not think this is as likely to happen in Iowa. I would expect that Iowa lawmakers are still conservative enough, or will be swayed enough by pressure from their conservative constituents, that an amendment will end up on the ballot. Then we’ll get to see how Iowa voters really feel about the issue.
The good news is that the process won’t bring anything to Iowa voters for another 3 years. That’s 3 years in which public opinion could possibly be influenced in a more favorable direction. There will certainly be organized efforts to influence that vote long before it happens, and, hopefully, a plethora of newly married couples will be able to demonstrate to their neighbors that the court decision was just and right.
(Note: After being busy with house buying and moving for a few months, I’m finally getting back to the blog. This is the first of a few posts I meant to put up much earlier.)
On the way home from my Michigan trip in early July, I made a stop in upstate New York. Many times before I had passed by the town of Seneca Falls, and this time I finally took the opportunity to stop and visit the Women’s Rights Historical Park located there.
This small park commemorates the convention held there in 1848 to demand legal equality for women in property, education, work and religious life, and, of course, to call for women to have the right to vote.
There’s a 2-story visitors’ center there, which has a display of statues on the first floor.
Some of them represent famous organizers and attendees of the convention, and others are meant to be generic attendees (i.e. they’re not supposed to be anyone in particular).
On the left here is Elizabeth Cady Stanton, with Frederick Douglass in the middle.
Here are Lucretia Mott and her husband James.
The central figure here is Martha Wright (sister of L. Mott).
Mary Ann and Thomas M’Clintock:
and Jane and Richard Hunt (left and center), who hosted the meeting that led to the convention:
Beyond the statues there was a wall showing various images of the fight for equality.
The stairs led up to the main museum, with several exhibits showcasing the history and achievements of feminism. Included here was another statue of an important figure who wasn’t at the 1848 convention: Sojourner Truth.
There were a few signposts that gave a timeline of events, and from which I learned a few things I hadn’t known before. For instance, before women gained suffrage nationally, a handful of states and territories granted the right to vote regardless of gender. The first was the Wyoming territory in 1870. I also learned that the first woman elected to Congress (Jeannette Rankin) was elected before the 19th amendment, in 1916.
Adjacent to the visitors’ center is the skeleton of the chapel in which the convention was held.
Just down a slope from that building is a fountain in the form of a wall with water flowing down it. Carved on the wall is the convention’s Declaration of Sentiments:
and a list of the attendees:
It’s definitely an inspirational site to visit, and I’m glad I took the time to stop by. One of the sad things I reflected on was the fact that practically nobody who participated in that convention actually lived to see national suffrage. The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920 – 72 years after the convention (which forms an interesting symmetry with the fact that the convention itself occurred 72 years after the founding of the country). It’s also surreal to think about the fact that suffrage occurred less than a century ago – women have only enjoyed the right to vote in the U.S. for 88 years. There has been progress since then, in gaining gender parity in several other arenas, but there remains quite a ways to go.
Maybe it will take less than another 160 years to finish the work started in Seneca Falls.
I discovered this quiz via Amyable’s blog. According to the result I should be supporting Dennis for president. Fortunately, I already am! I’ll be voting for him on Super-duper-mega Tuesday here in Massachusetts (known simply as February 5 for the half of the country that doesn’t vote that day).
93% Dennis Kucinich
92% Mike Gravel
80% John Edwards
79% Joe Biden
76% Chris Dodd
76% Barack Obama
70% Hillary Clinton
67% Bill Richardson
28% Rudy Giuliani
26% Ron Paul
23% John McCain
16% Mike Huckabee
16% Mitt Romney
13% Tom Tancredo
7% Fred Thompson
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz
I totally didn’t see or hear this reported in news outlets that I usually monitor, but a judge in Iowa has ruled that same-sex couples cannot be denied marriage licenses. Fortunately, I got the news from my friend Stasa’s blog. The story can be found at the Des Moines Register’s site.
This ruling, if it stands, would strike down the state’s defense of marriage law that defines marriage as being a union of a man with a woman. While the initial effect is in Polk County, same-sex couples would gain the right to marry in the other 98 counties as well. The next step is an appeal to the state Supreme Court. They might be likely to overrule the county judge, so the freedom could be short-lived.
Even if the decision does get reversed, the fact that it happened at all is a sign of Iowa changing. I lived in the state from 1997-2001, and nobody even talked about equal marriage – everyone was working on getting protection from job and housing discrimination in place outside a couple of larger cities in the state (only Des Moines, Iowa City, and Ames at the time). I participated in an effort to get those protections in the City of Cedar Falls, which only garnered the support of 1 of the 7 council members. I went to one lobbying event at the state capitol for a statewide non-discrimination bill, but that got even less far.
Now that I think about it, though, there were signs of progress while I was there. One instance occurred when then-Governor Tom Vilsack, early in his first term, issued an executive order allowing state employees to add same-sex domestic partners to their health insurance. The legislature reacted by proposing legislation rescinding the order. My state senator, Republican Don Redfern, was on the committee that approved the law, and he voted in favor of it in committee. I wrote him a letter expressing my displeasure, as did others, I’m sure, and when it came to a full Senate vote, he was one of 2 members of his party to vote against it. The bill passed, but without enough of a margin to survive the governor’s veto. Even if Redfern’s opinion of same-sex relationships was not changed, he at least came to know how many of his constituents felt differently.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the ideal outcome of this case. Many, many couples in Iowa (some of whom I know) have waited long enough already.
If you’ve seen any beer advertising (and who can escape it?), you’ve probably noticed that it’s often something other than beer they’re selling in the ads. A billboard for Budweiser recently popped up in our neck of the woods – it’s on Route 9 as you head East over the river from Northampton into Hadley, which I do on my way to work – and it’s no exception. This one features only the torso of a woman with a bare midriff – and it’s a fairly inclusive definition of the midriff. The slogan at the bottom: “Expect Everything.”
Those familiar with the Pioneer Valley know that it is a place where anti-corporate sentiment, and feminism, not only thrive, but are loudly proclaimed. This billboard might as well have had a big target painted on it. It wasn’t long before the ad got reinterpreted through spray paint.
At first, it was changed to say, “We Infect Everything.” I saw this as some contractors were starting to remove the graffito, though I didn’t get a picture of it. The sign then had another week in its original form.
Then, it got altered again. Over Easter weekend, the “Everything” was
blacked out, and new letters painted in the same spot. This time, it was like that for a few days, and I got a picture:
“Expect Misogyny” I couldn’t have painted it better myself. Am I against sexuality, you ask? No, of course not. The point is that we’re bombarded with ads all the time that objectify women – reduce them to a sexual commodity rather than people – and someone decided here to call it like it is. The tough issue for me is the whole defacement of a billboard issue. I’m amused by what was done, but I certainly want to be careful about giving blanket approval to making political statements
in this way. I’d certainly feel different if Planned Parenthood put up a billboard about contraception, and it got defaced with an anti-abortion message. Of course, Anheuser-Busch is a much bigger and different kind of organization (and has much deeper pockets), so it’s not exactly a morally equivalent situation, but still.
I’d be very interested in any comments on this topic.
Also, I’m certainly not the first person to blog this.
Courtesy of my friend Kevin’s blog, I discovered the site of a board game about the war on terror. In fact, it’s called War on Terror, the Boardgame, in which you either fight terror, or support it, or both.
No, I’m not making this up.
To some people (who are not me), this may at first seem like it is in poor taste. Reading further on the site will reveal that it’s just as much a political statement as an entertaining product. I heartily agree with the statement they’re making, plus the game actually looks like a lot of fun (the illustrations are great, but the EVIL balaclava is really the clincher).
The game is unfortunately kind of pricey, but perhaps it will go on my birthday list.
I find it amusing that the 2 senators who conceded today are named Burns and Allen.
Actually, I found out today about something that will occur on my birthday. As you might know, Tom DeLay will not be running for reelection to the US House of Representatives. It appears now that he has further decided to resign from his House seat without finishing his term. His last day on the job will be June 9 – the same day that I turn 34.
Gosh, and I didn’t get him anything!
Of course, the gift is not as impressive as it sounds. I don’t think he’s going to stray too far from American Politics, just because he won’t be in elective office himself.
So it seems that DARPA is interested in making cyborgs. Animal cyborgs, at least – both flying and swimming ones – to gather intelligence in otherwise hard to reach places.
I have to confess, I find this almost as cool as I find it scary. Cybernetic organisms have only been in the realm of science fiction until now, after all. The insect kind are the ones that scare me more, as they could easily be used for, dare I say it, domestic use. Of course, the U.S. government wouldn’t spy on its own citizens, would it?
Thanks to smb for the links.
So, a congressional task force has concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency botched the Katrina rescue and cleanup. Of particular concern was failure to deal with leaks, especially those by ‘Scooter’ Libby in the Valerie Plame case. Libby’s lawyers have subpoenaed hundreds of classified documents to be examined in this case – documents which were compiled by the National Security Agency from domestic wiretaps they obtained without warrants. President Bush authorized the warrantless spying, arguing that our phone and e-mail networks are vulnerable to terrorists exploiting open ports. Instead of trying to close the ports, the administration is selling them to Dubai Ports World, a state-run company in the United Arab Emirates. DPW, as its first act of port security, will be examining all packets of cartoons from Europe – particularly those from Denmark. A Danish newspaper caused controversy recently with its cartoons making fun of other countries’ domination of all the winter sports at the Olympic Games. While the Danish expected to excel at several traditionally Scandinavian sports, the biathlon events were the center of their own separate controversy, as Vice President Cheney hit a retired biathlete in the face while firing the ceremonial first shot. While the victim has recovered, the incident caused the event to be cut short. Upset by Cheney’s visit being aborted, the South Dakota legislature has passed a law banning abortion. The law is expected to be tested before the Supreme Court, which has a new justice Samuel Alito. Alito has been involved in judging controversies before, such as in the figure skating at the 2002 Winter Games, where officials of several nations were played against each other by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Abramoff has recently reached a plea agreement with the justice department, and will testify in the trial of Saddam Hussein, who was implicated in the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine. The Shiite government of Iran is expected to retaliate with a possible nuclear strike, but the country’s nuclear capability is as yet unknown, according to Weapons Inspector Jacques Clouseau.
James Frey contributed to this report.
« Previous Entries