This weekend, activists and allies from all over the Midwest will meet at Columbia College for the Equality Across America: Unite + Fight Midwest Conference. Equality Across America is the organization formed after the passage of Prop 8 in California  that organized the National Equality March last October in D.C.

I am on the host committee for the conference and will be leading a workshop discussion called “Beyond the Ballot Box: How to Win Votes Before You Have To.” My idea for it was inspired by the Question One campaign in Maine last fall. After learning about Question 1 at the Netroots Nation conference in August, I covered the campaign extensively here on Amplify, and while at the time I wasn’t in the position to donate to the campaign financially, I gave a few hours of my time to calling Maine voters urging them to vote No on One and to vote early. Unfortunately, we didn’t win. It was a hard loss to take, but situations like that, instead of getting us down, must inspire us to fight even harder next time. So that’s why I wanted to do a workshop for Unite + Fight.

It has been a great experience being on the host committee for this conference. Even though I haven’t been the most active member, I love knowing that when change happens, it will be in part because of the incredible dedication of these people I’m working with and those that their efforts bring together.

I will update everyone next week with how the conference went. I know we have a few Chicago-area readers/writers here, so I hope to be able to meet you. I am very excited about this and the opportunity that we have to build a strong Midwest network for full federal LGBTQ equality.

~ Samantha

Patrick Murphy, a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania and a veteran of the war in Iraq, is leading the effort in the House to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Last month on Huffington Post, Jason Linkins commented on an article from the New York Times on Murphy’s efforts. He shows us this quote:

"I served with great soldiers who were thrown out just because they were gay," said Mr. Murphy, who is married. "I was disheartened that the Constitution that I took an oath to support and defend was really being abused by that policy."

He then goes on to make this point:

 I'm having a hard time believing that any journalist anywhere would write  something like:
 Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors broad reform of our nation's health  care system.
 Or:
 Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors tax breaks for first responders.
 Or:
 Patrick Murphy, who is married, broke with his fellow Democrats in opposing  their proposed budget.

There's no other mention of any party's marital status in the article, save for the subject of the article -- Murphy -- who is spearheading the repeal effort. It's strange and it's creepy and it's frankly condescending in the way it suggests that Murphy's efforts are legit because it's a straight man sticking up for gay and lesbian soldiers, whose own judgments on the issue are biased, I guess? As if we can't completely trust the opinion of a Lieutenant Dan Choi or a Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach without a heterosexual co-signing it?

I want to thank Jason Linkins for pointing this out. What do you guys think it means or implies that Murphy’s marital status was thought to be relevant enough to mention in an article on DADT? Do you agree with Linkins’s assessment?

~ Samantha

In 2008, the Central-American country of Nicaragua passed a law that made abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, and even when the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. Doctors could face prison sentences even for providing information related to abortion.

Now, Change.org is sponsoring a petition to reverse this incredibly dangerous law. The petition highlights the story of a woman they call Amelia.

A pregnant 27-year old Nicaraguan woman, "Amelia," with metastatic cancer has  been denied medical treatment on the grounds that it might harm her baby.

 Amelia has effectively been handed a death sentence by her government. Each day  she is denied treatment, she edges closer to death; in a tragic irony, she will most  likely die before the baby is even born. Her 10-year old daughter will be left  without a mother, since the Nicaraguan government values the life of an unborn  fetus over that of a mother.

More...

Jessica Arons recently wrote an article for The Nation that very clearly explains the Stupak anti-abortion amendment in the House health care reform bill. It explains this somewhat confusing amendment very well, and explains what it would mean if the amendment was included in the final bill.

I highly recommend reading the full article (The World According to Stupak), but, to summarize…

 It forbids insurers from selling plans that include abortion coverage to any people  who receive help from the government in paying their premiums--a restriction that  would apply to approximately 85 percent of customers in the new health insurance  exchange and thus virtually eliminate abortion coverage from the exchange.

Federal funding is already banned from going toward abortions, but that fact wasn’t enough for Congressman Stupak.

Money in Stupak's world is "fungible," or interchangeable, meaning whatever  money the government gives you frees up private money for you to use on  something else. So every dollar the government pays toward your health insurance  premium allows you and the insurer to spend private funds in that plan that you  might not otherwise have had on abortion. To Stupak, that subsidization is the  equivalent of a direct payment. 

This is where his “logic” falters.

More...

Abortion: A medical procedure that is legally available to help all women; or a conspiracy set up by White America in order to “kill” as many black babies as possible in order to maintain a legacy of white supremacy?

Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation would like you to believe the latter. Their recent billboards, which Sarah wrote about last month, have been set up through Atlanta. Their message: “Black children are an endangered species.”

According to them, abortions are “womb lynchings.” From the LA Times reporting on this:

 Catherine Davis, minority outreach director for Georgia Right to Life, visits black  college campuses, bringing the message that abortion is a destructive force for  blacks. She often screens a movie called "Maafa 21," made by Texas antiabortion  group Life Dynamics, alleging that blacks have been targeted for abortions  since the end of slavery by white elites fearful of uncontrolled population  growth.
 (emphasis is mine)
 ------
 "I know for sure that the black community is being targeted by abortionists for  the purpose of ethnic cleansing," said King, a Georgia Right to Life board  member
 (emphasis is mine)

Paranoid, much?

More...

A lot of people say “If you’re responsible enough to have sex, then you’re responsible enough to deal with the consequences (i.e., a baby). But here’s the glaring thing- you don’t have to be responsible at all to have sex. Anyone can have sex at any time. Wearing a condom is not required to be able to have sex. You should use a condom, and your decision to have sex should be considered responsibly, but irresponsible people have sex all the time. But the real problem is that too many people still think that the only, or main, reason to have sex is to make a baby.

You do have to have sex to get pregnant, but that is not why people have sex. There are a lot of reasons why people have sex, but I bet that “to make a baby” isn’t even in the top five. So, really, if someone has sex and unintentionally gets pregnant, why should they have to stay pregnant when that’s not what they intended or wanted to be? Why should they be stuck with a HUGE unexpected side effect?

Now, many will say, “If you have unprotected sex, you should expect to get pregnant.” And that’s true. But even if someone had been thoroughly educated on how to have safe sex and how women get pregnant and how to talk with their partner about protecting themselves, even then, is it really rational to force that couple to, at least, carry to term a baby they don’t want? Anyone who thinks that’s a rational, reasonable idea has never been pregnant.

Even if you decided to give the baby up for adoption, you still have to endure nine months of pregnancy. A lot of anti-choice people seem to forget that. They breeze right over the pregnancy part, as if they’re thinking, “Why wouldn’t a woman want to be pregnant?”

That’s so ridiculous. Being pregnant takes an enormous toll on your body, and that’s assuming that nothing goes wrong and that both mother and baby are healthy. It effects your personal and social life, your relationship with your partner and possibly your family (especially for teen moms), and your education and/or career. And what?- none of that matters because in the end the baby will be adopted?

More...

Recently, MTV launched their new season of “16 and Pregnant.” Usually, I avoid MTV, but I like this show. I wrote about their first season last July. I have seen two episodes so far, featuring Nikkole from Michigan and Jenelle from North Carolina. The thing that stood out to me the most was the same for both episodes- the boyfriends, Josh and Andy. Aside from being on track to be exceptionally poor fathers, they were both emotionally abusive boyfriends. They were selfish, demanding, disrespectful, rude, irresponsible boys who called their girlfriends names. They broke promises, cheated with another girl, and threatened physical violence. They wanted the girls to spend time with them instead of their friends. (Note: Some examples apply to both boys, some to just one, but I believe both were capable of all examples.)

The mothers of both girls wanted their daughters to have nothing to do with these guys. Both daughters, however, felt differently, and that was so sad to me, even more so than their poor decisions to not use condoms. They kept forgiving these guys for being complete jackasses, or kept ignoring or overlooking or “rationalizing” their reprehensible behavior. I can understand that they wanted to make an effort to work things out because these men (boys, really) are the fathers of their (super adorable) children. But, as their friends said again and again, “Do you really want to raise your baby with someone who treats you like that?”

I agree that children benefit when they’re raised by two parents, but at a certain point, having one parent is better than having an abusive second parent. Judging only from what I saw in each of the hour-long episodes, Nikkole and Janelle (and their sons) are better off without these guys. I understand that letting go of a bad guy is easier said than done, but if these young moms want to teach their sons how to respect themselves and how to treat the person you’re in a relationship with, they’re going to have to find the strength to get rid of these guys. If they want to show their children what a healthy relationship looks like and feels like, they’re going to have to end these unhealthy ones.

More...

Last year, New Hampshire passed a marriage equality law that went into effect January 1st of this year. In the few weeks since then, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have legally married in the state.

But, on Wednesday, two bills were voted on in the House that would have 1) amended the state constitution to say that they would “only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage,” and 2) repealed the marriage equality law.

CACR 28, the bill that basically said “I don’t want to amend the constitution to ban equal marriage,” passed with a vote of 201 to 135. (Which means that 67% of the New Hampshire House voted in favor of equality.)

HB 1590, the bill that basically said “I don’t want to repeal the marriage equality law,” passed with a vote of 210 to 109. (Which means that 52% of the New Hampshire House voted in favor of equality.)

Way to go, New Hampshire! I am very glad to see these legislators doing the right thing.

To read more about the bills, and to read related articles, check out the post on Pam’s House Blend.

~ Samantha

Gary Mucciaroni has written a brilliant book called Same Sex, Different Politics: Successes and Failures in the Struggle Over Gay Rights. It was published in 2008. I’m not even done reading it yet, but I feel like I have learned so much, which is saying something, considering how often I write about LGBTQ issues. The book, as the title suggests, covers the successes and setbacks  (and the reasons behind them) in the areas of homosexual conduct, adoption, military service, marriage, civil rights, and hate crimes.

Right now, I’m reading the section on the military ban/ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and it’s coinciding with what I’ve been reading in Robert Jensen’s book, Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen’s book (I’m about halfway through it) is about how pornography devalues female sexual desire and promotes violence toward women, and how such portrayals are challenging males to “live up to” a debauched and dangerous vision of masculinity.

The place where Jensen’s book and the section on the military in Mucciaroni’s book connect is the theory and standard of masculinity. In pornography and in the military, men are expected to be aggressive, in control, dominate, forceful, and, above all, never to be submissive or in any way considered feminine. Such expectations led to the homophobic Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military (which attempts to cover the fact that gay  men- whom they consider to be un-masculine- are serving right beside them as part of an institution they consider to be “for real men only” and look to as their own proof that they are themselves “man enough,” based on their inclusion and participation) and the violence against women in pornography (as men prove their dominance by using women as objects- objects with no desires of their own, making them worth only what men chose to make of them).

More...

It is not okay with me when a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person kills themselves because the pressures, actions, or discriminations from friends, family members, and/or social/political/religious institutions reach the point of becoming unbearable. It’s not okay with me because it doesn’t have to happen. LGBT people should never be intentionally or unintentionally made to feel that their sexual orientation and/or gender expression is something which makes the value of their lives questionable. No one has control over who they are attracted to, so no one should be judged by it.

From nearly 24 years of experience, I do not believe that any amount of “therapy,” familial guilt, or social shame or stigma could ever make me feel sexually attracted to and have romantic feelings for a woman. I’m straight. I’m attracted to men. That’s just the way it is. I can’t change that. I don’t want to change that. I enjoy being attracted to men. I don’t feel that this attraction indicates that there is anything wrong with me. I’ve just always been this way. I didn’t decide to be straight.

I can’t imagine the horror of feeling that my sexual orientation was something to kill myself over. I have always been straight. It’s a big part of me that has influenced so many events in my life. How would it be possible to suppress that? How could I ignore my sexual orientation?

But what if I tried to? What if society told me I had to? What if they said the only way I could be happy was to be sexually attracted to a woman? What if they said my value as a person depended on it? What if they said I would go to hell if I couldn’t change? What if I was socially expected to marry and spend my life with a woman when what I want to do is marry and spend my life with a man?

More...

Where do you draw the thin line between prostitution and pornography? Does the presence of a camera really make that much of a difference? At the end of the day, aren’t you still getting paid to have sex with someone? If a female prostitute films herself having sex and then gets arrested for prostitution, could she really get the charges dropped if she said she was an independent film maker? Seriously, what’s the difference? Why is one illegal and the other isn’t? Why is getting paid for sex okay when it’s on a film set, but not okay when it’s in the back of a car.

Why are “adult film actors” seen as stars while prostitutes are seen as dirty? Why has pornography become so mainstream and destigmatized while prostitution remains relatively taboo? Why is being a porn star viewed as glamorous (even a fashion trend) while prostitution isn’t more than skanky? Could it just be that porn “actors” make more money?

Also, are porn “actors” considered sex workers, and if not, why not? Why is Hugh Hefner a hero, but a pimp is a villian? Why do so many people know Jenna Jameson’s name? Why do porn stars get their own awards show while prostitutes get their own jail cell? What is the difference? Where do we draw the line?

I’m really confused and curious about this. Am I missing something? If someone can come up with an explanation, please tell me.

~ Samantha

I was thinking about marriage the other day, and I realized something- I am pro-divorce. Being pro-divorce does not mean I am anti-marriage. I am in fact pro-marriage. But, if the marriage becomes abusive or otherwise intolerable, I would want a divorce. A safe and legal divorce. (Get where I’m going with this?)

I of course wouldn’t want my life circumstances to lead to me deciding to get a divorce, but if they do, I want to be able to get one. If I feel I need to divorce my husband, I don’t want anyone else to make that decision for me, or to assume that I am incapable of making the decision or that I don’t really realize what a divorce will mean for me. And so, I am pro-divorce because I believe that it can be the right choice. And, even if I was morally or religiously opposed to divorce, I wouldn’t assume that 1) all women felt that way, or 2) that I had any right to make that decision for another woman, or 3) that even though I personally was opposed to it, that there was no possible reason that the decision would be justifiable or beneficial for another woman.

In our current society, making divorce illegal is unthinkable. It must be an option. People (not just women) must be able to decide to leave a relationship, and they must be allowed to do so safely and legally. Think about what it would mean if divorce was illegal. Really, take a minute or two to image what that would be like. There was a time, not too long ago, that divorce was illegal. Do we really even want to consider going back to that time?

Now, replace the word “divorce” with the word “abortion.” See what I mean? I wish that more people understood the significance and necessity of legal abortion. I wish that more people understood that legalizing abortion is as important as legalizing divorce. It’s about freedom and choice, and trusting women to be able to make those choices for themselves.

More...

I recently finished reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman (our very own “Yes Means Yes” columnist here at Amplify) and Jessica Valenti (author of another Amplify favorite, The Purity Myth). The book is amazing. You’ve really got to read it. So many of the essays in the book stood out to me, but right now I’d like to focus on an idea talked about in an essay written by Julia Serano called “Why Nice Guys Finish Last.”

I found this quote to be very thought-provoking:

 …I would argue that “nice guys” are generally read as emasculated or effeminized  men in our culture. In a world where calling a man “sensitive” is viewed as a  pejorative, the very act of showing respect for women often disqualifies a male  from being seen as a “real man.” I believe that this is a major reason why many  heterosexual women are not sexually interested in “nice guys.” -p. 238

Isn’t that interesting? And sad?

Heterosexual women always say they want to meet a nice guy who treats them with respect, but then somehow they end up dating some loser jackass who only cares about his own needs. We’ve seen this play out in movies and in real life. Our friends have done it. We’ve done it. Our single moms have done it. One may ask, “Why do guys act that way?” but it may in fact be better to ask, “Why do women allow men to act that way?”

If relationship after relationship finds you with a series of men who act like assholes, you need to ask yourself why you acquaint yourself with these men long enough to call what you have a relationship. You should ask yourself why that great guy that you’ve known forever but only see as a friend hasn’t made it on your “sexually attracted to” list. Why are the rude, moody, aggressive guys so appealing? Why are the nice, respectful, understanding guys so unappealing? Why is your idea of a “real man” not so nice of a guy?

More...

Yes, that Cindy McCain; the wife of former Presidential hopeful Republican Senator John McCain. The NOH8 campaign is “photo project and silent protest…in direct response to the passage of Proposition 8 [in California].”

In a statement on their website, NOH8 made the following statement:

More...

As much as it pains my feminist heart to say this, I do not believe that women rule the world. Let me say that, as a feminist, I do not want women to rule the world- that’s not what feminism is about. Feminism, most basically, is about equality between the sexes. So really, I don’t want either sex to “rule the world.” Yet, again, I am disappointed. As much as I don’t want it to be true, as I see it now, men rule the world. And I hate that. Not because I’m an “angry feminist”…or wait…maybe that’s exactly what I am. And maybe that’s exactly what I should be.

As much as I want to believe that equality between the sexes really does exist, I have come to realize that, in the most important ways, it does not. And until it does, I will continue to be an angry feminist because I cannot and will not accept being seen as less than just because I am a woman. Inequality will never be okay with me. So, until people realize that one sex does not rule the world (or, in other words, until people realize that one sex does not rule over the other) I will continue to be angry.

I think that we have two big problems in the United States when it comes to combating this issue. The first, simply, is that because of our successes in certain areas of this struggle, we forget that there are huge, though possibly less visible, issues that still need significant attention. Our second problem is our difficulty in seeing and comprehending the world outside our borders. We think that the whole world is like us, and if they’re not, they don’t matter anyway. I believe it is this kind of thinking that has allowed the worst inequalities against women to continue.

More...

The New Jersey Senate is scheduled to vote on a marriage equality bill today (Thursday). It was originally scheduled for last month, but was delayed for fear of not having enough votes to pass. The push to vote now, largely, has to do with the Governor. If the bill passes both the Senate and the Assembly (who would vote Monday), the bill would then go to Governor Jon Corzine, who has already said that the supports marriage equality. The problem is that after January 20, Chris Christie will be Governor of New Jersey, and he has said that he will veto the bill.

If the bill manages to make it to Governor Corzine’s desk, New Jersey will become the 6th state where gay and lesbian couples can legally marry. Massachusetts granted equality in 2003, with Connecticut in 2008, and Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa in 2009.

According to Press of Atlantic City:

 The Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act essentially would  convert the state’s civil unions into marriages, unless dissolved, while exempting  churches and religious institutions from performing them.

More...

A lot of people base their opposition to homosexuality on the idea that it is immoral. They feel that people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry because the act of them marrying would be immoral and would promote other activities they deem immoral, such as homosexual sex. They are adamant on upholding those points for gays and lesbians, yet seem more than willing to let themselves off the hook when they themselves act immorally.

Think about this: Most heterosexual people believe that cheating on your spouse is an immoral act. Yet, they do not believe that this sexual act of immorality should ban them from marrying (or remarrying). So why does “immoral” sex between gay or lesbian couples mean that they can’t get married, but “immoral” sex between two heterosexual people has no impact over their own legal ability to marry? If one “immoral” sexuality bans you from marriage, why doesn’t another? Isn’t their whole point that people who are sexually immoral should be kept from marrying? Further, if they can move on from what they perceive as their own immorality, why can’t they afford the same forgiveness toward the perceived immorality of gay and lesbian couples?

In reality, gay and lesbian sex is not immoral. But my point is that if your opposition to marriage for same-sex couples is based on the fact that you think that their sexuality is immoral, then you can’t restrict this moral distinction exclusively to gay and lesbian couples without admitting your own hypocritical immorality. If you are setting a moral standard, it must apply to everyone. Tell me if I missed it, but I don’t recall hearing about a ballot initiative to ban Tiger Woods from every remarrying because he was “sexually immoral” and cheated on his wife a lot.

More...

President Obama just appointed Amanda Simpson to the Department of Commerce as a senior technical adviser in the Bureau of Industry and Security.

Why is this news-worthy for Amplify? Because Amanda Simpson is the first presidential appointee to be a transgender woman!
 

Simpson brings considerable professional credentials to her new job. For 30 years,  she has worked in the aerospace and defense industry, most recently serving as  Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile  Systems in Tucson, Ariz. She holds degrees in physics, engineering and business  administration, along with an extensive flight background. She is a certified flight  instructor and test pilot with 20 years of experience.
 

More...

I have decided that my New Year’s Resolution for 2010 is that when I hear “That’s so gay” being used in a negative way, I’ll speak up and call it out. It’s not okay to use the word “gay” as something negative. I know that a lot of the time when people use it, they don’t mean to be offensive- they don’t know that it could hurt someone, but that’s exactly why we need to bring attention to the phrase. People who say it need to know that it’s offensive and that the association to something negative is inappropriate.

Some would say that News Year’s resolutions are supposed to be big and important, and some may not see this as such. But I do. I see it as something small that will add up to something big. If no one has told you that they don’t like it when you say “That’s so gay,” how will you know to stop? That’s where I want to come in.

It’s not always easy to speak up on issues like this, but that’s why we have to. Or, at least why I feel I have to- why I’m making it my new year’s resolution. I’ve been in situations where someone has said it and I’ve wanted to say something back but nothing came out of my mouth. I want that to change.

I hope that 2010 will bring many successes to the LGBTQ equal rights movement, and I hope, in whatever ways that I can, that I will be a part of the progress.

Happy New Year, everyone!

~ Samantha

On Monday, Mexico City became the first Latin American city to legalize marriage for same-sex couples!!

The bill passed with a vote of 39-20, and, according to BBC News, is “widely expected “ to be signed by Mayor Marcelo Ebrard.

From the Huffington Post:

 Only seven countries allow gay marriages: Canada, Spain, South Africa, Sweden,  Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. U.S. states that permit same-sex marriage  are Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

 Argentina's capital became the first Latin American city to legalize same-sex civil  unions in 2002 for gay and lesbian couples. Four other Argentine cities later did  the same, and as did Mexico City in 2007 and some Mexican and Brazilian states.  Uruguay alone has legalized civil unions nationwide.

More...

Over the past few weeks, I have become a fan of the online news show “The Young Turks.” I usually agree with host Cenk Uygur on most things, and I highly appreciate his thoughtful yet unapologetic approach to sharing the news of the day, whether it be politics or pop culture.

However, I did disagree with their “verdict”/take on a story they reported on recently. It was about a teacher at Horace Mann Elementary School in Washington D.C.  who may be disciplined for announcing to her first-grade class that she was getting married.

Wait, where’s the problem there? That’s a pretty usual, common thing. Oh, did I forget to mention that she was marrying a woman? Apparently one of the kids in the class went home and told her parents, who freaked. The complained to the principle over their child’s “loss of innocence,” then went on to share their story with PFOX. Remember them? PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) is an organization that I’ve written about before which claims to be a support system to the ex-gay community. (As if such a thing truly existed.)

The parents’ complaints didn’t end with the wedding announcement, though. The teacher also apparently had the gall to ask the children if they had any questions about what she said, and then she read the students a book called “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” about two gay hamsters. And this is what stole a child’s innocence?

More...

On December 12, Annise Parker, 53, became the first openly gay mayor of Houston, the fourth largest city in the United States. This means that Houston is the largest U.S. city to ever have a openly gay mayor. And, according to LGBTQnation: “When she takes office as mayor in January, Parker will be the highest-ranking municipal official in the LGBTQ community in the United States.”

This is awesome!!
 

Parker won the vote 53.6% to 46.4% against fellow Democrat Gene Locke. Before being voted mayor, Parker has been an at-large member of the Houston City Council since 1997 and City Controller since 2003. She is also only the second woman to ever be voted mayor of Houston.

More...

Buju Banton is a reggae singer from Jamaica. He’s become quite popular recently, not due to his talent, but for his violent, homophobic lyrics, which, according to Change.org, have “called for LGBT people to be shot in the face, have acid thrown on their bodies, and be burned alive like rubber tires.”

Over the summer, a lot of effort was made to get as many of the venues as possible on his tour to cancel his performance. It was quite successful, too. According to the effort’s WetPaint site, 23 of the 55 scheduled venues cancelled. Cities that cancelled included: Charleston, Detroit, Richland, and Salt Lake City. Cities that refused to cancel included: Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Philadelphia, and, surprisingly, San Francisco.

But now, Buju Banton has been nominated for a Grammy. This takes it to another level. This is more than Buju being rewarded by a fan buying a ticket to a concert. This is Buju being rewarded by the Recording Academy.

Think about it this way- If Buju was a white performer calling for black people to be “shot in the face, have acid thrown on their bodies, and be burned alive like rubber tires,” do you think he would still have received the honor of the nomination?

If you don’t think that the Recording Academy should be rewarding Buju Banton for his homophobia, you can sign this petition, started by GLAAD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and Change.org at this link.

~ Samantha

 

I’m 23 years old, and I’ve learned some things: A guy will not like you just because you want him to. He won’t be Mr. Right just because that’s how you picture him in your head. The qualities a man has in a dream/day dream/fantasy are not necessarily the qualities he has in real life. Only one guy can be “the one,” so while it may be optimistic to think that each new guy you like could be  “the one,” it’s also a little presumptive.

Which brings me to my point: There are all different kinds of relationships- not every one has to be a fairy tale romance to be worth anything. I’m not saying that you should lower your standards or allow yourself to be treated poorly, but keep an open mind. Have fun. Feel good, emotionally and physically. Have a “non-relationship.” Explore the idea of “friends with benefits.” Do what you’re comfortable with, with the person you’re comfortable doing those things with. Go on a “non-date.” Spend time with someone whose company you enjoy and don’t make it more than it is- a good time. Make out with a friend.  Be safe. Enjoy yourself.

It’s so easy to get wrapped up in someone who’s just not interested in you in that way. We build up our expectations only to be let down and disappointed. Why?

More...

There’s a lot to be confused about in this world, but there’s one thing needs to be cleared up right now, and that’s the notion that anyone who is pro-choice or pro-abortion doesn’t “have a heart.”

That is a ridiculous and patently false idea which is perpetuated for the purpose of guilting women into disregarding their own intelligence.

Everyone wants to show that they “have a heart” and are considered nice, loving people. It is cruel, then, to assert that any woman who makes the choice to not have a baby is “heartless.” Choosing to not have a baby doesn’t make you heartless. Being capable of assessing your situation, your wants, needs, desires, goals, abilities, circumstances, readiness, and willingness to have a baby doesn’t make you heartless- it makes you an intelligent, capable, responsible woman. And when, as an intelligent, capable, responsible woman you decide to have a baby, then that’s what you’ll do. But why would you have a baby when you don’t want to have one? Why be pregnant when you don’t want to be pregnant? Why allow strangers to decide what happens to your body and when?

It’s 2009 people, and guess what- it’s not a crime if a woman doesn’t want to be or isn’t ready to be a mother. A woman is allowed to make her own choices. A woman is allowed to have a career. She can do things for no other reason but that she wants to. She doesn’t have to get every action approved by a man before she does it. Any woman who is denied these rights is being treated as a second-class citizen. She is being stripped of her freedom and independence and is being told that she is incapable of making decisions on her own.

Denying women rights, and thereby insulting their intelligence, is what is heartless. And extremely sexist.

More...