Amendment One

When I opened my eyes Wednesday morning of last week, I was relived to be waking up a resident of New York State. Why, you ask? Tuesday night, North Carolina passed Amendment One, an amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Although North Carolina was a state which already held a law banning gay marriage, Amendment One securely slams the door on the issue, going one step further in including a ban on same-sex civil unions.

However, members of the LGBT community are not the only ones who should be saddened by this decision; the “marriage-plus” amendment could potentially affect straight couples in civil union. Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families, a campaign against Amendment One, is concerned about the future of health benefits for domestic partners, gay or straight. There is also the fear that Amendment One could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples, making it difficult to file for domestic abuse cases if a person is living with their significant other.

Amendment One is clearly a discriminatory act, which not only threatens the relationship status of the LGBT community, but also the security of quality health care and human rights for all. I encourage all people in favor of equal marriage laws, as well as those in favor of basic human rights, to stand up for what you believe in. There are many who hold reservations as to how long the amendment will survive, and for good reason. We are the future of the United States, and only our generation, young and informed, can stand against inexcusable amendments like Amendment One if we let our voices be heard.

Today, I am not only proud to live in a state which allows marriage equality, but am proud to be involved with an organization like Planned Parenthood. I know that if Amendment One does affect access to health care benefits for those in the LGBT community, Planned Parenthood will be there to offer quality health care for those who need it. With the help of others, especially those of my own generation, I hope to someday be proud to wake up in a place where love is not restricted or defined.

Elise
Marketing Intern, PPRSR

Image via www.hrc.org.

Failure in New York State Senate

"There's never a good time for civil rights... but the paradox is that it's always the right time to be on the right side of history."
The preceding quote was spoken by Senator Tom Duane referring to New York’s proposed Gay Marriage bill. As we all know now, the bill failed but that doesn’t mean the issue is over or that the bills proposal was a complete failure. Senators supporting the bill made impassionate and empowering speeches hopefully opening up the eyes of all New Yorkers and shaming those Senators who voted the bill down.

It is not the role or right of government to decide who people can or cannot marry. Separation of church and state is a fundamental value of the American constitution. If a church refuses to marry a couple then that is their right, for our government to deny a couple their legal right to obtain a marriage license though is a blatant disregard of our constitution as well as the American value equality.

Those opposed to gay marriage defend themselves by saying they are protecting the “sanctity of marriage”. I have a friend who, at age 20, married a 19 year old boy she met three weeks earlier. Did I approve of that marriage? Of course not. But they were able to do it because they were two legal, willing adults who decided to make the commitment to each other. How can we say that the two of them, being so young, barely knowing each other and having no real life plan can get married but two adults of the same sex who have been in a long term committed relationship cannot? Who are the ones that are really threatening the sanctity of marriage; those in same sex relationships or those who are too immature, selfish or ignorant to even know what a marriage is?

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson summed it up best when she said her constituents did not elect her to be the moral arbiter of their decisions, everyone has the right to choose the way they want to live. Other senators pointed out how it was not too long ago that the color of a person’s skin determined who they could and could not marry and the same arguments were used then that are being used now.

According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, marriage is: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage . Look at that Senators, it appears we wouldn’t have been changing the definition of marriage after all, huh?

Asexuality is hot

In my "Queer Fictions" class at Syracuse University last week, we talked about what the "binary" means for sexual orientation - "straight vs. gay" transforming into "straight vs. LGBT." And we talked about how even by using the word "binary," we're somewhat negating the differences between L, G, B, and T. And Q and Q and A and everything else in between.

The idea was that by enforcing the binary, in saying that "there's straight people, and then there's everyone else," we leave out a lot of nuances and diversity within all those categories. And when I read this article about the asexual movement, I realized how asexuality didn't even come into the picture. Even by talking about a sexual orientation binary, and proposing to broaden how we view that spectrum, we were still leaving people out.

And yeah, I guess I'm not sure what that means. But this article is one step in trying to figure it out...

The dreaded FIRST TIME

When we hear stories about "my first time," what to they tend to focus on? I feel like they usually hone in on negative experiences - hearts were broken, someone felt used...We focus on the messiness, the awkward moments, pain, potential regrets - leaving out that sometimes, people have a great time - with no looking back.

Promoters of abstinence-only education use negative experiences to convince students that the only "right" way to have sex is within marriage, and only then if the goal is procreation. In reality, 95% of people have sex before marriage - and not all those experiences are regrettable!

This article over at Sex Etc. tries to turn all that around. It provides stories of a few people's first sexual experiences, and does so in a really positive way, in an effort to change the way we view the "first time." It's refreshing to hear about people who are happy with their sexual choices - happy enough to talk about them openly.

I, for one, had a great experience my first time. It wasn't unplanned or unexpected - i knew exactly what was going on. We were both ready, and had discussed (in serious detail) what would be happening. It was very clear that if either of us wanted to stop, it would be completely ok. Of course, it wasn't perfect - it had those awkward moments and confusion that doing something new is bound to have - but I can definitely look back and smile.

When I began reading this article, I was worried that they wouldn't include a homosexual or queer experience - a group that often gets left out when talking about "virginity." But at the end, they surprised me with a story about two teenage boys deciding to take their relationship a step further. I was really excited to see the even hand they gave to that relationship, in comparison to the others. There was no hint of anything different treatment, which I liked to see.

I did have a few minor qualms with the site, though. First of all, it was generally assumed that sex meant penetration. Admittedly, this might be some of my own close-mindedness, but it didn't seem to me that any of the couples were talking about oral sex. But maybe I'm wrong. Either way, the various definitions of "sex" weren't really explored (no lesbian couple? Should I read too far into this?), and neither were the complex definitions of "virginity." Maybe it was left open on purpose, and I created my own ending, though. Hm. My other thought was that it seemed that all these couples stayed together. I know it was meant to be a positive view of that "first time," but it all seemed extremely rosy. In my case, my partner who I lost my virginity with have since broken up - and we haven't spoken in months. Regardless, I haven't let that tarnish my memory of the first time we had sex. It's ok if you don't stay together afterwards, as long as you feel good about your decisions.

Either way, it's a good read, and gave me a lot to think about. Go check it out!

June Declared National LGBTQ Pride Month

Sexuality and Gender are fundamental parts of who we are, because of the issue's immense importance to our society it seems obvious why President Barack Obama declared the month of June as LGBTQ Pride Month.

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists."

The words of Barack Obama resonate with people all around the world who find hope and inspiration from LGBTQ progression throughout history.

"Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans," recalls the President.

Each of us has a gender and gender identity. Our gender identity is our deepest feelings about our gender. We express our gender identity in the way that we act masculine, feminine, neither, or both. Some of us are transgender — which means that our biological sex and our gender identity do not match up. Each of us also has a sexual orientation. You may be bisexual, gay, lesbian or straight. Or you may be “questioning” — unsure about your sexual orientation.

It is important to note that no matter what you identify with President Obama plans to ensure your safety and comfort, "The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect" proclaims Obama.

The more you understand biological sex, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, the more you may understand yourself and how you relate to other people. Because sex and gender are so complex, you may have many questions. You may wonder about your own sexual orientation or gender identity, or you may wonder about someone you know. You may have questions about how society views sex and gender — including homophobia, sexism, and transphobia. Remember that staff at your local Planned Parenthood Health Center can talk with you and help you find the information and resources that you need.

LGBT Pride Month

June is LGBT Pride Month!

LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender individuals, and Pride Month is a time to reflect on the history of the LGBT rights movement. It's also an opportunity for those in the community to come together to reflect on progress, discuss challenges and celebrate in a safe and accepting atmosphere.

Why should those who believe in reproductive rights care about LGBT equality? Causes in Common, a group that allies LGBT rights advocates and reproductive rights advocates, notes that there are several connections between the two causes. The movements absolutely benefit from each others successes. For example, the availability of birth control helped to normalize sexual activity for purposes of pleasure rather than procreation – and therefore helped to normalize sexual activity between women and between men. The desire of some right-wing forces to control sexuality also affects LGBT individuals as much as it affects heterosexual women who need access to birth control and abortion.

Additionally, it's important to note that LGBT sexual rights and the right to an abortion are based off of the same legal principle: that of privacy. In 2003, astonishingly late, the Supreme Court decided in the landmark Lawrence vs. Texas case that same-sex sexual relations could not be criminalized. The ruling relied heavily on the principle of reproductive and sexual privacy found in the decision in Roe vs. Wade.

When looked at in that light, it's hard to see how the two movements could not be connected. Forming alliances is in each other's and our own best interests!

For more education on LGBT social issues and sexual health, check out our MySpace page, where we'll be discussing the theme all month!

LGBT Equality and Justice Day 2008

Last Tuesday April 29 was LGBT Equality and Justice Day in Albany. Equality and Justice Day is a chance for LGBT people and allies to lobby their legislators on issues that matter to them. And a couple of us from PPRSR were lucky enough to be able to attend on our own time.


A record 1300 people turned out to rally and talk to their legislators about three main issues. The Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) would prohibit harassment of students in school (on all kinds of basises, including sexual orientation and gender identity), change school policies regarding harassment and provide the support that these schools need to live up to the requirements. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) would expand anti-discrimination legislation to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression in areas such as housing, employment and education. And last but not least, Marriage Equality is vital to ensuring that same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex couples with regards to taxes, property, medical decisions and more.

NARAL Pro-Choice NY's Kelli Conlin was among the amazing speakers at the rally in front of the legislative building. I was thrilled to see her there because LGBT issues are absolutely a reproductive justice issue. Inequality causes many gay and lesbian couples across the nation to have legal trouble getting access to fertility treatments or adoption, as well as an increased legal risk that should the relationship end, one parent may not have the right to see and/or care for his/her child(ren).

The prejudice and discrimination that many LGBT face is also largely a part of our culture's unhealthy views about sex and gender. Many want to base the law on their belief that same-sex sexual activity or having a transgender identity is morally wrong -- these are unfortunately the same voices who try to prevent women from accessing reproductive health care because of their belief that pre-marital sex is wrong. In short, we are both fighting for the freedom to live our sexual lives authentically and to make safe choices. We're also both looking to create a world where the government does not discriminate on the basis of consensual sexual activity or the choices we make with regards to having or not having families, and where we all have the right to control our bodies and act in our own best interest.

The LGBT movement and the reproductive justice movement are closely intertwined, and it's good to see that being acknowledged more and more! A reproductive justice advocate can of course be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. And those of us who aren't need to start supporting and allying with a movement that also supports human rights.

The good news is that in NY, the tides are turning. The Pride Agenda’s recent poll showed 78% of New Yorkers support GENDA. In 2006, their poll showed that 53% supported full marriage rights, and support has likely increased since then. And it's exciting to note that the day after Equality and Justice Day, GENDA was passed through the assembly’s Government Operations Committee!

For more, check out The Empire State Pride Agenda's website. They have tons of information on LGBT rights in NY -- and give you the information you need to urge your own Senators and Assembly persons to support these three important pieces of legislation.

[Photo via The Agenda blog.]

Iowa Rejects Abstinence-Only Funding

Iowa Governor Chet Culver has rejected federal funding for abstinence-only sex education. The move is the result of a law passed last year, which requires all sex education to be medically accurate.

"There's been discussion on whether or not we should be accepting these federal monies at all because the criteria for abstinence-only programs at the federal level is not medically accurate," said [Rep.] Mascher, who is sponsoring Thursday's policy briefing. "The standards that [organizations] have to abide by for the federal money do not call for scientifically-based information. In essence, [the guideline conflicts] would prevent schools from getting those monies. They could still teach abstinence-only sexual education, but they can't use the federal dollars in order to do it."

Representatives from FutureNet, the Iowa Network for adolescent pregnancy prevention, parenting and sexual health, are scheduled to speak at the briefing and to call for the complete refusal of Title V abstinence-only education funding. Iowa currently receives roughly $319,000 from the program, which is administered by the Iowa Department of Public Health. Prior to Bethany Christian Services of Northwest Iowa being awarded a $600,000 non-matching grant last September from the Administration of Children, Youth and Families (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), the Title V monies were the only such federal abstinence education funding in the state. Nationally, Title V provides more than $40 million a year in matching funds to states.

What exactly are the guidelines that Mascher refers to? In order to qualify for federal abstinence-only funding, a sex ed program must meet eight criteria:

A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;

C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and

H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Several of these required lessons are entirely inaccurate, and none of them are scientifically-based.

Saying that out-of-wedlock sex is not the "expected standard" is just plain false -- 95% of people have sex before marriage. The claim also completely ignores the existence of gay and lesbian students, who cannot legally marry a member of the same sex. Telling these students to remain celibate for their entire lives simply isn't going to work, but it will result in a lost moment to teach about reducing the risk of STDs.

The requirements impose a value judgment on sexual activity and leave no room for flexibility. Claiming that out-of-wedlock births are harmful to children and society is demeaning, incorrect, and embarrassing to students who were not born into or raised in a family with two married parents. Similarly, it's simply untrue that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to cause harmful psychological effects. The argument is a scare-tactic, without regard for the effect it will have on students. Telling teenagers that having sex at their age is not normal and will result in harmful psychological effects isn't exactly the way to win them over. This is particularly true for students who have already had sex and have not experienced these effects -- if they know that what they are being taught is untrue, how can we expect them to trust their teachers on the genuinely good reasons for abstaining from sexual activity (like pregnancy and STD prevention)?

In practice, abstinence-only programs go beyond the required rhetoric. Students are often taught that condoms don't work -- which is entirely false. Programs also tend to include language that promotes dangerous stereotypes about gender-- including the ideas that men cannot control their sexuality, a couple abstaining from sex must rely on the woman to do so, and women don't feel sexual desire based on physical attraction. A common lesson is that people who are not virgins are "used" and ruined for their future partners. They can be compared to "spoiled food," a once-beautiful rose that has lost all of its petals, and chewed candy.

On top of it all, abstinence-only curriculum doesn't even work! Students who receive abstinence-only education are just as likely to engage in sexual activity but less likely to use condoms. And most parents want their kids to be taught comprehensive sex education, including how to prevent pregnancy and STDs using contraception.

Late last year, our own Governor Spitzer made the wise decision to no longer accept abstinence-only funds from the federal government. This doesn't mean that NY teens will no longer be taught abstinence -- comprehensive sex education programs include information about abstinence, and abstinence-only programs can still exist but do not have to meet the federal criteria that includes false information. Rejecting abstinence-only education is an important move for states to make; it protects their teenagers and also encourages the federal government to reconsider setting aside so much money for programs that produce negative or no results. Iowa is the 17th state to reject abstinence-only funding. It seems like people are starting to realize the importance of quality sex education -- let's hope that federal lawmakers start to listen!