Thursday, September 27, 2007

A woman is nothing -

a woman is nothing -
the moments she made
the struggles, the tears
the lessons and fears
the reality of the shoes
she stands in - something.

In the end

happens to us all
be patient
intreptidly so

and for me a stranger
death, a notion
an eventual motion
into a place I do not
But strangely I figure
as you stand tall
and give lecture
on the philosophy of living
and dying
I cannot help but wonder
if for men like you
even death smiles

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Go Iowa Register!!

Quote from

Of course, many Iowans were upset by the decision striking down Iowa's gay-marriage ban. Letters to the editor and phone messages have poured in. Some readers say they were offended by the Register's photos of same-sex couples showing their affection toward each other by kissing. The usual suspects rolled out the usual arguments against legalizing gay unions.

Among them: Gay marriage jeopardizes the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

So, how is your marriage doing today? Have things fallen apart since ceremonies like this one took place? Does the union of couples like Kassis and Lowman negatively impact you or your relationships?

We doubt it. It's hard to believe that two people making a commitment to stay together has anything other than a positive impact on their immediate communities.

Perhaps part of the trouble is that people get hung up on the term "marriage." The state should quit using that term and instead grant a civil union - in essence a legal contract between two people. Religious institutions should set the rules for a marriage.

Whether it's called a marriage or a civil union, and whether it's between same-sex or opposite-sex couples, it fosters commitment and stability and financial security and love.

It doesn't jeopardize heterosexual marriages. If anything, couples should be inspired by the enduring commitment of Kassis and Lowman. After all, 30 years is a lot longer than many heterosexual couples stay together.

Say what Mitt Romney?

"As Republicans we must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage: one man, one woman," Romney says in his radio spot.

Yep - he said people must oppose discrimination but defind marriage (one man and one woman in his mind) which get this


So oppose discrimination when it affects you... but embrace it when it suits your needs.  Do they think people are stupid?  The answer to that question is a resounding YES!

Here is a quote fro his ad: 

“The courtroom should be a place where laws are interpreted, not made...The court ruling in Iowa is just another example of an activist judge trying to find things in the Constitution that aren’t there. As Republicans, we must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage: one man, one woman.” 

“That’s why Mitt Romney is supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.”

BUT HE IS WANTING TO PUT something IN the Constitution that is NOT THERE!  How can he argue against something (see quote about judge) and turn around and then do something in the same vain and call it right!?

Again I ask, what is the big deal?  

What are they so damn afraid of?  

Why can't 'traditional marriage' co-exist with 'traditional gay marriage'?  

Mitt Romney makes me sick!  

Some interesting information: 

Marriage and Divorce (Data are for U.S. for year indicated)

* Number of marriages: 2,230,000 (2005)

* Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population (2005)

* Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)

Source: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2005, table A  (

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Ban This Maryland!

If you have not read the article on Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage - you should do so.  It is interesting that a judge made a medical determination regarding gays in order to perpetuate discrimination!  

"Writing for the majority, Judge Glenn Harrell Jr. ruled that there is no historical foundation for the state to recognize marriages between people of the same gender. Moreover, he wrote, homosexuality is not an "immutable characteristic," such as gender or race, that one is born with; therefore it does not deserve special consideration by the state. In other words, the state may regulate marriage any way it likes — setting the marriagable age at 15, for example, and limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

Does it matter if someone is born with something or not?  Does it then give another group the right to discriminate?  A 'normal' man is born with both legs and both hands, looses them in an accident, is now handicap - so because he was not born handicap he cannot have the same rights as others?  People can discriminate against him because he is different?  

There are so many examples, burn victims, adopted children, people of different faith, interacial unions, etc...  

What is it that scares heterosexuals so much about gays getting married and having the same rights as they do?  Are they afraid thier religion will be imposed upon?  If we truly have separation of church and state, then no matter what the state said, the church would not have to give marriage to gays... but the state would.  A judge would have to do it, but a priest wouldn't.  

Besides the fact that my religion does not find gays to be a bad thing...  So now what?

Of course, the religious Christian right wants to merge church and state - and in the end it is going to bite them in the ass.  

And you know what - I will use thier fear against them.  I will make certain my partner is taken care of and that every legal action is taken to secure our propoerty and our lives against those who would covet it for themselves in one form or fashion.  

Someday - we will have all of our freedoms back, some day.  And what will history say of those who have discriminated... who have decided they will withold basic rights... 

They will call them elitists, tyrannists, terrorists, fanatics, and ....


Monday, September 17, 2007

 Get a man to do it

They have done it again!  They have suggested using a man in order to make a point with a salesman!  

Like men have been so good at solving problems (insert list of wars and atrocities commited in the name of, by, and for men!)  

I don't need a man to help me make a phone call to a sales man to tell them they were pricks and I will not be back.  I don't need a man to rescue me from the uncomfortable reality of my life!  I don't need a man or any one else to be given the power of superiority over me - and perpetuate the social mispersecption of the valuelessness of women.  

I have a voice.  So do you!
I have strength.  So do you!
I have wit, charm, and am clever.  So are you!
I have a voice....   so do you!  so use it!

In the end, what I need, what the world needs, is less women who perpetuate the bullshit of helplessness in order to placate to the ego of a centuries old patriarcal mind. 

It makes me so angry I almost want to turn around and berate the woman for suggesting to another she need to use a man in order to get her point across.  

But I won't.  I will however, bring in my latest copy of Cunt and The Dance of the Dissident Daughter for anyone and everyone to see!!

Suggested reading: 


Dance of:

Friday, September 07, 2007

Perpetuating the Lack of Feminine

They are speaking of buying a car
'Go in looking sexy
get a better deal
No use my husband as your own
get a man to do it
get a man to help'

'because sales men respond better to men'

It makes me sick to my stomach!
as a woman
of strength, wit, and intelligence
women perpetuating the idea
we must play the damsel in distress
in order to succeed
in order to have what we need
simply because we bleed
that makes our humaness 
than a man?

It makes me sick

I am a woman 
I am a human being
I am capable of doing anything and all things
because I can...