pants_of_doom: (brown and blue watercolor)
After the rather ugly ruling in Anderson v. King that said DOMA was about protecting procreation, a queer rights group has proposed a law restricting marriage:

Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 957 concerns eligibility for marriage.

Concise Description: This measure would limit marriage to those couples who are biologically capable of having children together, and would invalidate the marriages of couples who fail to procreate children within three years after marrying.

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would restrict marriage to a male and a female who are capable of having children together. Couples would be required to declare their ability to procreate children together in order to obtain marriage licenses. If a couple failed to procreate children within three years of marriage, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized.” Persons in unrecognized marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

The theory is that a law like this would allow DOMA to be overturned because obviously this is completely outrageous. 
pants_of_doom: (Default)
After the rather ugly ruling in Anderson v. King that said DOMA was about protecting procreation, a queer rights group has proposed a law restricting marriage:

Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 957 concerns eligibility for marriage.

Concise Description: This measure would limit marriage to those couples who are biologically capable of having children together, and would invalidate the marriages of couples who fail to procreate children within three years after marrying.

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would restrict marriage to a male and a female who are capable of having children together. Couples would be required to declare their ability to procreate children together in order to obtain marriage licenses. If a couple failed to procreate children within three years of marriage, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized.” Persons in unrecognized marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

The theory is that a law like this would allow DOMA to be overturned because obviously this is completely outrageous. 
pants_of_doom: (naked red hand)
A little analysis on Napoli's description of who would be deserving of a rape exception to the recent South Dakota law, followed by semi-coherent anger:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Broken down:

brutally raped, savaged - No passive rape, no rape where the victim didn't fight out of fear of getting hurt, no getting hit a few times and deciding fighting wasn't worth the extra trauma. Only really brutal rape.

The girl was a virgin
Because rape is only really traumatic to virgins, and only to girls, not to women.

she was religious - Only the religious deserve protection, apparently. Who wants to lay odds that 'religious' also means 'christian'?

she planned on saving her virgininty until she was married - This really reads as fetishistic, but also - no incidental virgins, no one who's not sure about sex before marriage. Also, it means only people who plan to get married, which by extension likely means only people whose marriages are legally recognized.

brutalized and raped, sodomized - Vaginal rape isn't enough.

as bad as you can possibly make it - The use of "you" here shows that he's relating more to the rapist than the girl - relating to the girl would be something like "as bad as could possibly happen to you", "as bad as someone could possibly do to you".

If this were really about how much Napoli cared about fetuses, the line would probably run more to that the value of a fetus isn't dependent on whether it was created by rape. This is about punishing women for having sex for nonprocreational reasons, the cure for which is - surprise - procreation whether we like it or not. I have a really hard time understanding this mindset. I think the decision to have children is so personal and important that people should only make it for themselves.

I am also extremely tired of people not getting that the policy issue is state's interest vs women's interest, not women vs fetuses. The issue is whether the state can have an interest compelling enough to override a woman's interest in such an important decision and her right to bodily integrity (I think this is the same provision of the constitution that lets you keep both kidneys even though people die every day waiting for transplants - your interest outweighs theirs because it's your body). Groups in the US want the Supreme Court to decide that the state does have such an interest and prohibit abortion, while decrying China's one child per family policy, even though these have the same ideological background - in both cases, the state's interest is considered compelling. This is why framing the argument as pro-life vs pro-choice is inaccurate, other than that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce its occurrence but does mean women die. The issue is favoring personal choice or favoring state control. If the state gets to make the call, if it has the compelling interest, it can ban abortion, sterilize women on welfare, limit the number of children people have, require that fetuses be aborted if they'd have certain disabilities, require that women who've been raped take emergency contraception. Women making our own choices can pick whatever we think is best for us, rather than having our reproductive lives dictated to us. I'd love to see a world where every kid is wanted and cherished and all that, but I don't think there's a way to legislate it that will work better than letting women make our own decisions.

This is the same issue, by the way, as marriage equality - whether a pre-ordained structure can be applied to everyone or whether we're free to make our own decisions.
pants_of_doom: (Default)
A little analysis on Napoli's description of who would be deserving of a rape exception to the recent South Dakota law, followed by semi-coherent anger:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Broken down:

brutally raped, savaged - No passive rape, no rape where the victim didn't fight out of fear of getting hurt, no getting hit a few times and deciding fighting wasn't worth the extra trauma. Only really brutal rape.

The girl was a virgin
Because rape is only really traumatic to virgins, and only to girls, not to women.

she was religious - Only the religious deserve protection, apparently. Who wants to lay odds that 'religious' also means 'christian'?

she planned on saving her virgininty until she was married - This really reads as fetishistic, but also - no incidental virgins, no one who's not sure about sex before marriage. Also, it means only people who plan to get married, which by extension likely means only people whose marriages are legally recognized.

brutalized and raped, sodomized - Vaginal rape isn't enough.

as bad as you can possibly make it - The use of "you" here shows that he's relating more to the rapist than the girl - relating to the girl would be something like "as bad as could possibly happen to you", "as bad as someone could possibly do to you".

If this were really about how much Napoli cared about fetuses, the line would probably run more to that the value of a fetus isn't dependent on whether it was created by rape. This is about punishing women for having sex for nonprocreational reasons, the cure for which is - surprise - procreation whether we like it or not. I have a really hard time understanding this mindset. I think the decision to have children is so personal and important that people should only make it for themselves.

I am also extremely tired of people not getting that the policy issue is state's interest vs women's interest, not women vs fetuses. The issue is whether the state can have an interest compelling enough to override a woman's interest in such an important decision and her right to bodily integrity (I think this is the same provision of the constitution that lets you keep both kidneys even though people die every day waiting for transplants - your interest outweighs theirs because it's your body). Groups in the US want the Supreme Court to decide that the state does have such an interest and prohibit abortion, while decrying China's one child per family policy, even though these have the same ideological background - in both cases, the state's interest is considered compelling. This is why framing the argument as pro-life vs pro-choice is inaccurate, other than that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce its occurrence but does mean women die. The issue is favoring personal choice or favoring state control. If the state gets to make the call, if it has the compelling interest, it can ban abortion, sterilize women on welfare, limit the number of children people have, require that fetuses be aborted if they'd have certain disabilities, require that women who've been raped take emergency contraception. Women making our own choices can pick whatever we think is best for us, rather than having our reproductive lives dictated to us. I'd love to see a world where every kid is wanted and cherished and all that, but I don't think there's a way to legislate it that will work better than letting women make our own decisions.

This is the same issue, by the way, as marriage equality - whether a pre-ordained structure can be applied to everyone or whether we're free to make our own decisions.
pants_of_doom: (Default)
Ohio legislator calls for barring Republicans from adopting - it's a response to a republican's proposed bill barring queer people from adopting.
pants_of_doom: (Default)
Ohio legislator calls for barring Republicans from adopting - it's a response to a republican's proposed bill barring queer people from adopting.

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
212223242526 27
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags