Martha Nussbaum talks marriage, revulsion, and wearing leather

Professor Nussbaum (of the Law School, the Philosophy Department... anywhere in the University that can get its hands on her) has an interview with Deborah Solomon of the New York Times this week.

It looks like she has a book coming out in February about sexuality, disgust, and the opposition to same-sex marriage!

Your inquiries have lately revolved around the politics of physical revulsion, which you see as the subtext for opposition to same-sex marriage.

What is it that makes people think that a same-sex couple living next door would defile or taint their own marriage when they don’t think that, let’s say, some flaky heterosexual living next door would taint their marriage? At some level, disgust is still operating.

In your book “From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law,” which will be out in February, you draw a distinction between primary disgust and projective disgust.

What becomes really bad is the projective kind, meaning projecting smelliness, sliminess and stickiness ontoa group of people who are then stigmatized and regarded as inferior.

I don't have a lot to say right now about her theories on the relationship between revulsion and bigotry, but I am really excited to get this book because I think it could help me flesh out my B.A. topic. Currently, I'm planning on writing an extension of that research paper I wrote last Spring on the VA court case Bottoms v. Bottoms—a custody battle between a lesbian and her mother. What fascinated me about this case was how the courts conflated sexuality with one's ability to parent a child—when one would logically seem to me to have nothing to do with the other. Likewise, a certain negative association against any non-normative sexuality can lead people to demonstrate prejudice in the working world, the family/legal arena, and virtually all walks of life.

Sex: Old News and Youthful Problems

What is who supposed to want when? That's the convoluted question the two subjects of this post are trying to answer. This holiday weekend I was [too lazy] too busy, to get much studying done, but I did read an excellent NY Times article by Daniel Bergner, author of The Other Side of Desire, and watch a video posted by Maymay, who is among other things a sex-positive activist doing a lot of good, interesting work.

In "When Desire Fades," Bergner discusses the pathology and treatment of low sex-drive in middle-aged women. As sexologist Lori Brotto demonstrates how increased mindfulness can help women feel more sexual, Bergner's intimate writing-style meanders between the growth of Brotto's own interest in sex research to the unique and often discomfiting cases of her patients. I read Bergner's book on sexuality over the summer, and likewise found the sympathy and candor with which he treated each case-study, which included a pedophile and a foot-fetishist, as much dangerous and off-putting as the stories were enlightening. Likewise in this article, I first wonder, with a little bit of embarrassment and prudishness, why he must mention a patient "who lost her virginity in her 50s" or an artist who becomes aroused from painting, before I am grateful that he takes those risks. Addressing desire is dangerous enough in an academic or journalistic setting (see this eye-opening interview with Benoit Denizet-Lewis for more on the stigma surrounding such endeavors); addressing lack of desire, and "what women want to want" should be all the more difficult, but Bergner does it with finesse.

On a different note, in the video posted below, maymay addresses the fear of youth sexuality at KinkForAll Washington DC. Though the demographic at issue for him is a far cry from the middle-aged women Bergner and Brotto interview, maymay hits upon several common themes surrounding the damaging way society presents sexuality information:

Sexual Adultism - KinkForAll Washington DC from maymay on Vimeo.

I'm interested in the ways both of these news items highlight the precarious position the idea of sex holds in today's popular imagination. Bergner's essay notes that the DSM's description of hypoactive sexual desire disorder fails to "reckon with women as complex sexual beings,"—instead using false and limiting assumptions about how women should be sexual to judge disorder—and maymay's lecture demonstrates how youth are denied access to positive cultural assumptions about sex and sexuality solely because of age and a strong culture of sexual protectionism.

Though the dichotomy between the desired and the taboo is old news, sex has only recently (slowly, over the last 40 years) become something that people young and old are expected to be having, and expected to want to be having— but not talking or thinking too hard about. We all know the script; it's supposed to be charming, breathy, seamless, steamy, and, if you talk to a rapper or the writers of Gossip Girl, there's supposed to be a lot of it. And though maymay's points are prescient, youth are not altogether restrained from information about sex. In fact, information is everywhere; it's just that the only message being consistently conveyed is, to paraphrase one particularly inappropriate grandfather of popular culture, who embodies enough social stigma against desire and age on his own: "Fuck a lot of women."

So why is it that only now (and with a lot of push-back from conservative opponents of everything from comprehensive sex-education to erotica and non-normative sexuality), that we are beginning to talk about the spectrum of issues that can constitute or deny satisfaction? Possibly because we now know that the script breaks down, and as Bergner and maymay both argue, it breaks down in the predictable places where we have a gap in collective knowledge about what we want and why. It's gap stretched even further by the willful denial that variety exists, that people's wants and needs can and should vary, and the tendency to pathologize what we are afraid to accept, and medicate what we are afraid to explain.

Cheers to the journalists and activists who want to change this culture.


UPDATE: The solutions to these problems might just be in the kitchen! ...Probably not, but just in case, here's the cover of the cutest holiday gift I bought yesterday for someone special when he gets back to the States (Shh, don't tell!)

InQue(e)ry: So, we queered Ida Noyes and tied people up; Now what?

I would not have attended Que(e)ry two years ago.

In fact, I probably would not have taken one iota of interest in the "radical, queer, arts convergence"- radical-anarchist-radical-takeover of Ida Noyes Hall that took place in all its glittery, gender binary-shattering (did I mention radical?) glory last Saturday. I just didn't care what anyone had to say about gender and sexuality—These categories just exist, okay? I get it, enough!—And especially not someone with a pink mohawk. Also, I hate wearing make-up and glitter. But that's just me.

But a lot has changed for me since high school, when I was embarrassed to admit I was studying "Gender and Sexuality in Latin American Literature" at UC San Diego; when less than a year ago a certain sociology professor prodded me to justify why I thought "Problems in the Study of Sexuality" would be a useful addition to my Autumn Quarter course schedule, and I lied to my parents that I was actually taking "just an introductory English course" to fill my fourth slot and prevent more awkward conversations.

Now I conspire to get people tied up in the Third Floor Theater and eat vegan food with my hands on occasion. Go figure.

The thing is, I've thought about this a lot, the "where do desires come from?" question, and "why do I expect people to relate to each other in cerain ways?" and "what in me wants to be normal?" I don't have any good answers of course; but since I landed here as a freshman, many personal events, friendships and other experiences outside of academia have led me to appreciate these questions and recognize that the many possible answers are far from obvious—no where near as simple as we might have them be.

I think gender and sexuality are enormous, and enormously important, concepts that we should all pay more attention to. I am dying to hear more people my age talk about the assumptions that we all make about the way men and women should appear, behave, dress, make love to each other—assumptions about sexuality that go beyond what is heterosexual and what is homosexual to include a clusterfuck of kinks, fetishes and preferences.

We don't spend enough time acknowledging that desire exists, power exists, relationship categories are varied and changing, "normal" is a fallacy... If you have to stage an impromptu performance or sit people in a make-up chair and paint their faces to examine gender, to examine behavior, then please do it.

I'm not saying my peers need to drop their Adam Smiths and their Platos and take up reading Gail Rubin and Michael Warner, though these are theorists I have come to love by happy accident. They can just hang out with me and my queer, kinky friends sometime...

But much about Que(e)ry would put off the average UChicago student (let's face it, guys, it takes a lot of dessert food to get us out of our study caves on a given night). First of all, it was an all-day event conceived of, produced, organized and unorganized by a small group of campus activists who emphasized anarchy, art-making, veganism, and using the adjective "radical" every other sentence, as forms of resistance. This broad take on how to resist norms was its strength, but also made the party inaccessible to the people I most want to talk to, who don't already believe these concepts are discussion worthy.

With workshops on "BDSM as Bio-political Resistance" (I didn't attend, but I heard the presenter read a little Foucault out loud, and screamed a lot) and "Radical Cheerleading," the event was like a big inside joke; a ritualistic prank against all sorts of social conventions just a few steps above TP-ing the president's house, that only the iniated could understand. In fact, if you weren't laughing and screaming along, you might develop the uncomfortable feeling that you just don't get the punch-line.

Some workshops were more productive than this (and by productive, I mean accessible to a wide audience not already versed in the ethos of sex positive, queer and kink communities. Other attendees probably had different definitions of productive, or didn't make being "productive" a priority at all): "Practical Non-Monogamy," by Scathe, a presenter I really respect, was one of them. My boyfriend's praise sums it up: "He didn't assume that we all wanted to be polyamorous... he didn't try to convince us that open relationships are great for everybody, if we would only get rid of our hang-ups, which is an argument I've heard. They're not!" it was practical. It didn't make any assumptions.

I wanted people to stop assuming things because I'm a girl; dating a boy; really bossy; don't wear makeup; etc. etc. But this means I, and the sex positive communities around me, need to stop assuming that people share in common the same social leanings and political agenda, or would if only they spent the afternoon with us, some pot and some Judith Butler. If I want everyone to take gender fluidity and alternate sexuality seriously, then I'm going to have to start explaining this stuff to them where their understanding stops, rather than ask them to make the mental leap all the way to an anarchist arts convergence, and what it takes to feel comfortable in such a space.

The workshop I organized with two lovely, lovely people, Vincenza and Wren, possibly had one of the tamer titles descriptions: you can look it up, it was called "Intro to Bondage." What we like about rope, what you might like about rope. Some practical, hands on demonstrations. Hopefully some fun. I didn't ask anyone to hog-tie the patriarchy or wrap their heads around Foucault's biopower or Agamben, and I'd like to think that's why we had close to 30 attendees.

I'd also like to think that this practical ethos will serve future sex positive, kink positive events on campus well, if we can get some started.

Thanks, Que(e)ry, for making me feel more supported than ever before on this campus; now, any suggestions to keep the inquiries going?

Dan Savage puts the media in its place

I know this story is old (pub. June 10), and I know this blog does not exist solely as a Dan Savage lovefest, but I just re-read his open letter to CNN and I have to thank the man for asking the media to own up to their bigotted coverage of actor David Carradine's death.

Thanks for making sense, Dan, even if it takes some vulgarity to get your point across:

I don't expect CNN to drop the story. But running in circles shrieking "OMG!!! HE WAS A FREAK!!! KINKY!!! TIED UP!!! ASKING FOR IT!!!" isn't helpful.

Duh, America.

Why the California Supreme Court Decision Might not Be so Terrible

My high school friends and other acquaintances from California hometowns are maddened by the state supreme court's ruling on Proposition 8 yesterday, and rightly so—but I don't think all is lost for gay residents and allies who want to see the legal regime of heterosexuality reversed in marriage. In fact, after reading sections of the decision, I think the court leaves more loopholes than a wedding ring shop.

First of all, the court's reading of proposition 8 confines the amendment to a much narrower definition of marriage recognition for the state than I would have expected—and thus allows California to uphold the 18,000 that it has already issued to its residents, and possibly recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states as well (though the Court did not explicitly address the later issue in its decision).

Though Proposition 8 reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” but rather than completely strip same-sex relationships of the legal status afforded to straight couples, the court says this constitutional amendment only "carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage.” It is merely the name "marriage,"—albeit significant to advocates of equal protection for same-sex couples who, like me, can't help but compare this ruling to "separate but equal" hypocrisy—not the rights it confers, that this measure alters.

Though I agree that this amendment violates the ethos of the equal protection clause, both in California and in other states with similar constitutions, that's tough to argue, as advocates and dissenter Justice Carlos Moreno are finding. I wasn't expecting the court to bite the revision argument, which suggested that Proposition 8 constituted such a change to the constitution that it would require a 2/3 majority vote in the state legislature, and I'm willing to accept that this was the best outcome the court would offer supporters of marriage equality like me.

More heartening, the court has left room for another ballot initiative to come up and reverse this amendment—something that activist supporters are already working on for 2010. In liberally affirming the amendment process by which Proposition 8 became law, the decision implicitly suggests that, should a pro-gay marriage initiative were to be on the ballot and pass with a majority vote, it would be found constitutional too.

We just have to keep fighting to push this state over 50% next time.

Dude, it's complicated!

In Dude, you've got problems, Judith Warner offers some fascinating, if depressing, insight into the ways teenage boys are using sexual IDs as pejoratives; It turns out, Warner says, "Your so gay" doesn't actually mean anyone thinks your gay.

I’m only partly talking about homophobia, which, though virulent, cruel and occasionally fatal among teenagers, is not the whole story behind the fact that words like “fag” and “gay” are now among the most potent and feared weapons in the school bully’s arsenal.

Being called a “fag,” you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay.

It’s really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity – by being emotional, seeming incompetent, caring too much about clothing, liking to dance or even having an interest in literature. It’s similar to what being viewed as a “nerd” is, Bennington College psychology professor David Anderegg notes in his 2007 book, “Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them”: “‘queer’ in the sense of being ‘odd’ or ‘unusual,’” but also, for middle schoolers in particular, doing “anything that was too much like what a goody-goody would do.”

This article brings up some of the same issues of behavior and identity among boys and men that my class on Masculinity in America, Past and Present looked at yesterday. Why do we so readily peg physical strength, authority, and overt displays of violence as inherently masculine traits? In sociologist Eugene Genovese's landmark book on slavery in America, Roll Jordan, Roll, he describes how this conflation of masculinity and physical force in the 19th Century produced a society in which (1) white [male] slaveholders felt the need to assert their control over male slaves by treating them like children who merited strict rules and worse punishments, and (2) male slaves felt compelled to abuse the women around them to compensate for the emasculation they experienced as slaves. In other words, social stature and brute force were the two most secure ways to demarcate your manliness, in that order.

Today, it this same line of thinking that leads us to associate "gay," "fag" and other terms with impotence and submission—to reiterate, not "manly" traits to have at all. I worry what that does for us as a culture, and for adolescents in particular who want to defend their masculinity, regardless of where their sexual preferences lie?

One commenter on the blog who goes by the name Nancy sums up my concerns well:

"Domestic violence hotlines have experienced increased call volume as economic times have worsened. There’s a trickle-down effect. Parents feel less in control these days and want to have more control on the homefront and in general. Powerlessness leads to anger, anger leads to aggression. Kids absorb this and follow suit."

My name is Rachel, I'm 19, and...

Who am I again? I've spent the past couple of weeks wrestling with various forms of the verb to be, (Wittgenstein would not be happy with me!) and shame on me for failing to even find the time to write a blog post. I may not have written all of it down, but I've been on a series of pretty involved searches for a summer job, an apartment to sublet with the boyfriend (found!), and places on campus and in Chicago that are thinking of sexuality and activism in the same ways as me. UChicago's student feminism group, Feminist Majority, has already pleasantly surprised me with some events on porn and communication that are all about getting people talking outside of their preconceptions.

In lieu of writing ten blog entries, here are four things I did this week that I promise to update readers on in the future:

1) Applied for a University of Chicago Summer Action Grant to spend the warmer months researching and reporting on the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid and its impact on South Siders. Wish me luck—it's $1,500.

2) Interviewed for a summer job at Backstory Cafe. They needed to hire someone right away, so that didn't work out for me (you know, with the whole four classes and one part-time job thing going on) But this place is cool! By far my favorite coffee hang-out on the South Side, Backstory follows a sustainable, community ethos that translate into tasty soups and sandwiches made from scratch, and interesting program ideas like movies and board-game nights.

3) Baked a delicious set of pumpkin empanadas. Yum. Recipes to come.

4) Scheduled the first University Community Service Center Book Club and potluck for Friday, May 1st from 7 to 9 pm. We're reading Gang Leader for Day, and all are welcome.

------------

And with that out of the way, Here is a pair of articles from the week that do everything for me but answer the question I posed above (Come on, neither of us really thought it was that easy):

*This just in! David Carr says Journalism is Dying! Really, we mean it this time. The NYTimes Media Equation columnist evaluates the state of the newsroom, again.


*In, "Tempest in a Compost Pile," Hyde Park Progress blogger "chicago pop" de-mystifies the ridiculousness behind the University's decision to close the 61st St. Community Garden. He tells it better than I could.

And lastly, I hope everyone here in Chicago enjoys the 70 degree weather.

A couple topics of interest...

A big thank you to Dan Savage of Seattle's The Stranger for writing about the horrible death of New York journalist George Weber in last week's column. It's something I was afraid to write about the day I saw it up on nydailynews.com on my parents' computer. The alleged details of the meeting (between Weber and a 16 year-old, self-described "Satan-lover"), which you can read about at the NY Post, the NY Daily News, Fox, etc. but I have no desire to link to because I think they're badly reported, cast a severely negative light on internet dating and alternative sexualities in general, and they shouldn't.

I don't know how to argue this right now, but I know they shouldn't. It only disturbs me to think that there can so much going right in the world at the same time so many things are going horribly wrong. But I'd like to think that working to banish fear and ignorance a la Dan Savage is one way to go about creating a society where sex like that doesn't happen (note, I did not say where internet hook-ups and kinky sex don't happen), and fortunately he's not the only person out there trying to accomplish this.

Saddlebacking all the way to D.C.

My favorite advice columnist and queer Dan Savage recently proposed another sex-act-naming contest, this time to commemorate the word "Saddleback." As both the name of the Reverend Rick Warren's church and a term just too suggestive to pass up, Dan's seven reader-suggested definitions for saddlebacking can be found here. Go vote for your favorite.

I'm not sure how I'm voting yet (though leaning towards 5), but these are my thoughts on the choices:

(1) I agree with Dan; "sex" should by default suggest the use of a condom in today's speech, and doesn't need another term.

(2) This suggestion only half makes sense to me; Obviously in a consenual relationship, having "submissive/masochistic tendencies" is not dark or nefarious, and using the term to apply to any kind of unreciprocal sex act wrongly implies that two people can't at the same time enjoy something like oral sex. I think Dan knows better than to offer this suggestion up to readers. However, I do like the example of the word in action: 'I don't know why Obama is letting Rick Warren saddleback him into presiding over his inauguration.'" Perhaps tweak this definition a little to describe the act of intentionally hijacking a sex act to suit your own fantasies while disregarding your partner?

(3) Aside from the gory description, I like how this suggestion references "barebacking," a term already in use.

(4) "To saddleback is to rail against gay sex in public while secretly indulging in the same in private. Ted Haggard? Total saddlebacker. Larry Craig? Saddlebacker. Rick Warren? Probably a saddlebacker." Ha ha ha. It's funny now, but I'm not picking this one because I think the joke will get old too fast.

(5) Yes! This one looks like the most appropriate choice so far because it directly speaks to the hypocritical, misinformed understanding of sex someone who goes through Rick Warren's idea of "sex-ed" would have.

(6) Like number 3, I think it works, but I think Dan should be looking for something more.

(7) Rick Warren probably loves the idea of "saddlebacking" as it is defined in this choice. That's reason enough not to pick it.

What do you think?

Resolve

The funny thing about New Years resolutions, I’ve always thought, is how little they have to do with making real changes. Change is an obvious consequence of the progression of time, and if you live in the U.S., it’s next year’s political catch-phrase; but I have trouble associating it with the moment when Dec. 31 becomes Jan. 1. I’ve made countless resolutions—most of them between the ages of seven and fourteen, before the holiday had lost much of it’s confetti-speckled luster, and when I still stayed up until midnight… and then didn’t fall asleep until 5 a.m. for no better reason than because it was new—and I can’t remember a single one of them.

I thought about making a few resolutions this year. They would amount to largely physical changes, like using dental floss between meals (some friends will surely ask if I could floss any more often than I already do), not mooching food off of my boyfriend’s plate at the college dining hall, or writing a blog post every day (which has already been difficult during Winter Break, but will become near impossible). I’ve already broken my yell-less resolution. My boyfriend kindly pointed out to me yesterday that a resolution that sounds like “Do less of X” is ambiguous at best.

Exercise more. Check Facebook less. These are the kinds of resolutions you’d expect to hear from college students like me. But there are some less tangible resolutions I’m going to try to make this year too:

1.) Read more articles like this one, by Nick Kristof. And write more articles like it too. I began following Kristof when he first started making trips to Africa with aspiring journalist and humanitarians, like Will Okun, a Chicago-based photojournalist and school teacher who spoke at UChicago last year, and I have always been inspired by his portraits of some of the most egregious human rights violations in the world, such as the sex traffic addressed in today’s column. This is exactly the kind of socially responsibility I want my own writing to embody.

2.) Declare myself … or at least a minor. Technically, I declared two majors last year: Law, Letters and Society (LLSO), and Fundamentals: Issues and Texts. I know, it is sounds like six majors, and it was too much to juggle. Both are intensely interdisciplinary and together appealed to my desire to study law, politics, rhetoric, sexuality, irony, thinkers like Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Plato—the list goes on. I dropped the latter major at the end of Autumn Quarter, and I’m still not sure if it was the right decision. But I know that if I stay with LLSO I will have my work cut out for me, with 13 classes spanning the sociology, public policy and English departments, and a 30-page B.A. paper. So when I get back to campus I’m filling out a “consent to complete a minor” form for Art History. (More on that later-it's not cognitive dissonance, it's just a lot of U of C work.)

3.) Keep fewer secrets. One of my closest high school friends got me a copy of PostSecret the collaborative art project-turned internet sensation-turned book; a collection of anonymous postcards adorned with testy and teary “secrets,” such as “I hate people who reply to all on emails” and “I hated my childhood.” Ironically, the collages have made me more upbeat than melancholic, but it also reminded me of how painful secrets can be. Several of the people closest to me came out last year, showing me how difficult it is to share something about yourself that you don’t even want to know at times. In 2008 I saw and heard people respond to our secrets in sometimes unexpected, sometimes loving and sometimes immensely negative, judgmental ways.

I want to have the courage in 2009 to banish some of the shame that keeps me “righteously indignant,” on behalf of those anonymous secret-writers, yet uncomfortable sharing more than this broken link in a blog with my name on it.

And with that, here’s to 2009.

God Between the Sheets, or “How to move from whining about the economy to whoopee!”

Something about sex and marriage, they just seem to go hand in hand...
Texas Pastor’s Advice for Better Marriage: More Sex, More Often: I just think this is a really amusing article: Rev. Ed Young of the evangelical Fellowship Church entreats his parishioners to strengthen their marital bonds by taking the Seven Day Sex Challenge. You guessed it—he told spouses that having sex once a day for a week would bring them closer to each other and closer to God, and "double up the amount of intimacy we have in marriage. And when I say intimacy, I don’t mean holding hands in the park or a back rub.”

Maureen Dowd actually writes a good opinion piece for the New York Times on the new Gus Van Sant biopic, "Milk," the story of the murder of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in American history. He served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with Sen. Diane Feinstein.

With Same-Sex Marriage, a Court Takes on the People’s Voice: A pretty interesting article published a couple of days ago about more of the legal issues surrounding California's gay marriage ban Prop. 8. The state supreme court will probably rule on Prop. 8's constitutionality early next year. If you don't have time to read it all, atleast read the chunk below:

“The California Supreme Court has never articulated criteria for what makes something an amendment versus a revision,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. “So I don’t think you can predict anything because there is so little law.”

Supporters of the ban say legal history is on their side. “Whenever an amendment or an initiative has been challenged, almost always the court rejects that and upholds the people’s initiative power,” said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for backers of the proposition, citing past state bans on the use of race, sex or ethnicity in college admissions and caps on property taxes. “These are major policy changes that the court has recognized are fine,” he said.

But Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with Lamdba Legal, which represents one of the petitioners, said that Proposition 8 “essentially nullifies the equal protection guarantee” of the Constitution and sets a dangerous precedent, something that has been cited by several minority groups who asked for relief from the court.

Wedding Bell Blues

"Am I ever gonna see my wedding day?" not to trivialize the gay marriage ban, but I'm sure plenty California residents asked themselves that question after last Tuesday.

Like most California voters I know personally (and 48% of the entire state, actually) I am ecstatic over Barack Obama’s win, but deeply troubled by Tuesday’s outcome on Proposition 8. Prop. 8, which narrowly passed with 52% of the vote, will add a provision to the state constitution clarifying that marriage is only valid and recognized in California if it is “between a man and a woman.”

I rejoiced at the court’s decision to allow same-sex weddings last May as gays and lesbians across the state posed in tuxedos and white gowns, but now it looks like I’ll eventually be attending some weddings in Canada if this provision isn’t challenged.

I can think of a few reasons the ban should not have passed but did:

• Church-funded initiatives to get out the vote in favor of Prop. 8 framed the issue in terms of legitimizing homosexuality as an identity and practice, rather than an issue simply of whether same sex couples should have the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples.


• This election saw a huge number of new voters turning out for Obama, and several voter misinformation campaigns tried to take advantage of them and the confusing language of Prop. 8.


• This is a stereotype but this time we did see a much larger black and hispanic turnout than in recent past elections.

Last week I read Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the landmark Supreme Court case that made all state sodomy laws unconstitutional, for my gender studies class. We talked about how there were two possible arguments against laws criminilizing sodomy: the right to privacy and equal protection for heterosexual and same-sex couples. But the court’s opinion only discusses the right to privacy, which means there is no precedent for granting the same rights to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Though it is still unclear what will happen at the level of the state courts in California, I am pessimistic about whether gay marriage—which was also banned in Arizona and Florida, though neither state ever issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the first place—will ever make it to the Supreme Court.

According to an LA Times article published today, opponents of the gay marriage ban may have a case at the state level if they can argue that the constitution’s change"substantially alter the basic governmental framework,” and therefore is a revision that must be passed by two-thirds of the state legislature.

Complicating the issue further are the 18,000 marriage licenses the state has issued to same sex couples since last summer.

Tthe article’s author, Goodwin Liu also addresses a good question I have heard people indifferent to the ban pose: “Why does it matter whether gay couples remain married in a post-Proposition 8 world? One answer has to do with the dignity and stature that marriage confers. Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth.

Another answer has to do with the future of gay marriage writ large. Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences.”

Thirty years ago, homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease in the DSM. If this crucial shift in the psychological community and political arena is indicative of a slowly sweeping cultural change, then maybe the gay marriage ban is just a cultural blip on the path to full legitimization, the dying cries of vociferous but transient majority.

As a registered California voter, I’m keeping my eye on this issue.

UPDATE: My favorite memory from the Prop. 8 Protest in downtown Chicago last Saturday:

Tall Man: I can see some anti-gay marriage protestors over there.
Woman: Oh no! Are there very many?
Man: I don't think so; their sign says there's just one man and one woman.

What Your G-nomes Say About You

It’s true. You’re lawn sculptures can reveal a lot about of your personality:



Entrepreneurial



Worldly



Industrious



Cheeky

I'm kidding. This post is about how advances in human genetics are helping us better understand the way we behave.

Though genetics research is fairly young, scientists have already isolated the genes that would predispose people to a host of diseases, among them Alzheimer’s and leukemia. And since researchers connected the gene BRCA-1 to breast cancer, some young women who are positive for the gene have chosen to remove their perfectly healthy breasts.

These tests are rightly prompting people to take preventative measures to protect their health, but they also beg the question, how much about ourselves should we know, and how far should we go to prevent the inevitable?

The genetic research is not all health related. Look at geneticist Dean Hamer's research on the so-called "God Gene" that predisposes people to faith. Hamer's conclusions aren't so clean cut, of course. He also tried to isolate a gene determining homosexuality, but the scientific community has widely deemed sexuality too complex to be determined by either hereditary or external factors alone.

Regardless of inconclusive research, as Olivia Judson points out today on a NY Times blog, it won’t be long before we ask scientists to stop being oracles and start playing God.

Several weeks ago the National Academy of Sciences published a new study about a gene that has been linked to monogamous behavior. By asking Swedish men how often they kiss or spend time with their significant other, the researchers found that Men with one particular variant of the gene scored lower on the test and were statistically more likely to have marital troubles and commitment issues.

Well, a gene test for this one certainly could have saved Carrie Bradshaw some trouble. She might at least have spent less time screening her phone calls if she could screen her men for the “Commitment Gene.” Maybe Miranda was right when she announced, “I'm sorry, but if a man is over 30 and single, there's something wrong with him, it's Darwinian.”

At the very least, this study lends a whole new meaning to the phrase, “It’s not you, it’s me.”

But besides weeding men with low-commitment genetics out of the dating pool, Judson shares another admittedly mischievous thought on the gene: “Could such restlessness be cured one day?”

In other words, could a man chose to take—or be coerced into taking—a pill that would alter his brain chemistry and make him less likely to cheat or get cold feet? Now there’s a thought both serendipitous and scary, especially for young singles who might not be looking at marriage as the holy relationship grail it once was.

Actually, I wonder why they didn’t include women in the study—we’re just as prone to serial monogamy and sleeping around.

The idea of being able to predict and even manipulate someone’s behavior based on their genome is compelling, but the ethical implications are significant-—an evolutionary conundrum of “to be or not to be” proportions. It's the Roamin' Gnome in the undiscovered country. Mix in some Frankestein references and you have my 12th grade English curriculum. I’m curious how science and ethics will intersect in the future as more people face the whips and scorns of genetic-dependent decisions.