A 1980 Sunni fatwa came out shortly after the first test tube baby, Louisa Brown, was born in 1978, forbidding any form of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). However since the 1990s, a rash of fatwas made some ART accessible and permissible for married couple with infertility issues. These fatwas still serve as the foundation of Sunni ruling around ART up to today.

A highlight summary of the rulings include:
- Gamete (third party) ART including surrogacy, egg and sperm donation are not allowed. As no third party are allowed to intrude into the marital functions of sex and procreation, since marriage is a contract between the wife and husband during the span of their marriage, no third party donor is allowed, whether the donor is providing sperm, eggs, embryos, or a uterus. The use of a third party is tantamount to zina, or adultery.
- In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Artificial Insemination (AI) with the wife’s egg and husband’s sperm are permissible.
- Women should not expose themselves to male staff for treatment
- Husbands cannot masturbate to get sperm for infertility treatment
- Children born out of third party donor are considered illegitimate or worse, the rightful children of the donating party e.g. the man who donated the sperm or the woman who donated the uterus, egg or embryos.
- A muslim should be cautious of the fertility clinics motivation and procedures to avoid using the wrong sperm or eggs/embryos.

For more fun-filled details of other fatwa-sanctioned ART rights, read Making muslim babies: IVF and gamete donation in Sunni vs. Shi’a Islam: Marcia C. Inhorn 2006.

The end sum of options for people facing infertility issues as far as I can tell are as follows:

For a married man and wife who has to go through IVF to conceive:
1. As long as the sperm belongs to the husband, the egg and uterus belongs to the wife, the wife does not expose her aurat (See Hijab laws) to non-muhrims, husband does not masturbate to get his sperm out, the process is halal i.e. sanctioned.

For a woman with an infertile husband:
1. divorce the husband and find a fertile spouse
2. foster a child
3. be patient as God knows best

For a man with an infertile wife:
1. Marry (up to 3) other fertile wife
2. foster a child
3. be patient as God knows best

For a single person who has no desire to marry
1. get married to a fertile spouse and get divorced after the child is born, otherwise known as a mut’a wedding i.e. fake wedding to fulfill the religious obligations of finding sexual fulfilment or having children through marriage. Note: Mut’a is typically a Shi’a practice. Malaysian muslims are majority Sunnis.
2. foster a child

For a gay couple
1. forget about fostering a child, you and your spouse are going to hell

Granted, the basis for these rulings is well meaning. The aim is to keep the family line unambiguously defined and to protect one’s lineage. The intent is to protect future complications with relationships e.g. avoiding incestuous siblings/parent-child relationships should lineage be unknown.

Hence, a muslim wife retains her family name to “maintain the link between her and her parents and ascendants” and marriage is the only legitimate way to have children and most interestingly, muslims do not adopt children as much as foster them. I will cover adoption in islam in another article.

In breaking down the lineage argument, when a husband has a wife who is infertile, he is allowed to marry up to 3 other wives assuming they are fertile and have children with these other wives because the lineage of the child undoubtedly belongs to the husband.

When a wife has an infertile husband, using a third party sperm donor is tantamount to zina even when there is no sex involved because technically the child’s lineage belongs to the sperm donor and the wife.

For a single man trying to have a baby through a surrogate mother, this course is also considered zina. Furthermore, the ruling on children born out of wedlock is that the man has no parental rights over the child that is if the uterus donor and man are not married, only the biological mother has the rights to the child. (See Sunni Forum: Out of Wedlock Child) The ruling however runs counter to the protection of lineage and I am assuming is designed to punish the adulterers by denying parental attributions to the biological father.

For a single woman trying to have a baby via a sperm donor, unless the woman marries the sperm donor in a mut’a wedding or otherwise, the baby will be considered illegitimate and the act of impregnation is considered zina. According to law with illegitimate children, the sperm donor has no parental rights and the baby will be attributed to the woman, i.e. the baby is given the mother’s name as oppose to the biological father’s name.

Interestingly, Shi’a has a different view on ART where gamete donation is permissible as long as the infertile parents abide by the religious codes regarding parenting according to a late 1990 fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khamanei of Iran. However, the child of the egg or sperm donor has the right to inherit from the donor themselves, as the infertile woman or man are considered to be like adoptive parents as opposed to actual parents. The child is allowed to have the name of the infertile father. Specifically, in regards to sperm donation, the child born of sperm donation get to have the name of the infertile father instead of the sperm donor. However, the child can only inherit from his biological father, the sperm donor, since the infertile father is considered to be like an adoptive father.

Equally fascinating is IVF views in Judaism. 3rd party gamete donation including sperm is allowed as “Jewishness is conferred through the mother particularly through the act of gestating and birthing the baby.” In other words, lineage or Jewishness passed along through the biological mother instead of the father. In addition, conservative rabbis prefer non-Jewish donor as means of preventing future possible genetic incest. The Jewish state is quite pronatalist in that IVF is not only permissible for single career women and lesbian Jewish mothers but the procedure is often subsidized by the state. Another interesting fact is to ensure correct sperm/eggs implantation, maschigots i.e. “orthodox Jewish women” would preside over IVF procedures.

The fact of the matter is fertility clinics and sperm banks have improved leaps and bounds over the years where careful background and health screening is done through each sperm, egg or uterus donor. Many fertility clinics make potential parents go through therapy counseling and some require the couple to have counseling sessions with the potential donors if known. Most conscientious sperm banks have family limits for each sperm donor irrespective of successful pregnancy. Many banks have identity release programs designed to allow the child to find out the identity of the sperm donor after a certain age. Others even set up sibling catalogs to ensure couples get the same sperm source for consequential children.

I had a friend asked me once why I bothered going through the therapy sessions, paying thousands of dollars out of pocket to find a sperm donor and go through artificial insemination when I can easily just get a guy to sleep with me for less money or even free. After mentally punching this friend in the face, my simple answer was because I respect and love my partner that I will not “divorce” her to marry some guy to bear a child with, that I will not commit adultery with another person when I am committed to my spouse, and that I want her to be a part of the process as much as I will be.

Personally, though some percentage of the child’s biological origin may come from another source, we both believe that the child that we hope to conceive will be 100% our child. This child will be result of both our hard work in going through the process of ART, pregnancy and child rearing. The fact the child has some biological origin not from my partner is of minute emotional consequence. I am alarmed and a little sadden that the religion I was born into, place paternal lineage high above over love and fidelity of a relationship. I hope that the religious authority continue to have discussions on ART and come up with better rulings for couples with infertility issues, single parents and (I dare dream) gay couples.

66 13-17 year old boys are currently engaged in such a camp right now. These kids were picked by their teachers based on their effeminate behavior.

These masculinity training camps are not new to Malaysia. The camps have always existed especially in higher education institutions. Gay activists in Malaysia are now afraid of the impact on the psychology of the children since the authorities are targeting a younger age group.

Whole article along with the mp3 file:

http://www.theworld.org/2011/04/malaysias-anti-gay-camp/

Frankly I am flabbergasted especially by the purported article written by a psychologist blaming effeminate behavior on parents who make boys do household chores meant for girls or dressing boys up in feminine clothing. Are Malaysian especially children not allowed to have any personalities anymore?
Everyone needs to come out of a heteronormal behavioral cast?

Are we seriously going to allow religious authorities or governmental entities to dictate personality and demeanor?

Shame on us.

Disclaimer: Just know that I do not make any money endorsing the books that I review.  If I find a good book or author, I just want to share them with people because you and I both know how many bad ones there are out there.

If you are looking for an intellectually stimulating story or big epic romance, this isn’t the book for you.  Instead, go read Jeanette Winterson’s Gut Symmetries  or Radclyffe Hall’s  1928 Well of Loneliness. If you are looking for good ole American instant gratification,  simple and no-at all-straight sexy lesbian eroticism, revel in the sexiness that id Thirteen Hours.

Unless you are a hopeless dried up well, I guarantee you will be reaching for your partner, your favorite toy or your right hand within the first few chapters of the book.

There is no plot to give away other than its a prude meets stripper-who-is-actually-a-high-libidoed-veterinarian and they had sex happily ever after.

I have bought and read other OBrien fiction since and I must say this is the sexiest book of them all.

Yesterday, I featured a post on the biased and childish reporting from Harian Metro, which includes name-calling trans woman, “pondan”, 9 times, and tried to brush trans people with negative stereotypes. It is universally understood by everyone in the civilized world that morality and character has nothing to do with a person’s gender identity, yet Harian Metro attempted to correlate trans woman-hood, with cognitive sinister motives. Such blatant act of demonization deserves nothing but scorn. However, The Star shows how to do a proper report: just explain the situation without insulting people with derogatory words, and report on the news without attempting to single out and demonize any groups of people:

KUALA LUMPUR: A college student’s indecent act in front of a webcam has come back to haunt him three years later.

The 22-year-old from Sarawak, identified only as Chong, said he befriended a man, in his 30s, in an online chat room during his first year in a college here.

“He wanted me to teach him how to masturbate and show him how to do it,” he said. Chong masturbated in front of a webcam so that the man, known as Melvin, could see how it was done.

“But I did not know he recorded it and on March 14, he sent me a message asking me to have sex with him.

“He threatened to upload the recording on the Internet and asked for RM200 after I rejected his request for sex,” he told a press conference organised by the MCA Public Services and Complaints Bureau here yesterday.

Chong said Melvin came to his house to collect the money. “He showed up again after two weeks and asked for more money,” he said, adding that he banked RM250 into Melvin’s account.

Chong said he did not lodge a police report or tell anyone about the recording and extortion as he was not sure what to do.

He decided to seek the help of bureau head Datuk Michael Chong because he was afraid that Melvin will continue asking for money.

When asked why he did what Melvin asked, Chong said he was naive and trusted people easily.

He said he stopped communicating with Melvin and did not reply to his messages after the masturbating incident because he felt something was not right.

Michael said last year, his bureau received five reports relating to online sex video clips and extortion.

He said five victims lost a total of RM570,000 to extortionists.

Early this year, a man was forced to pay RM4,600 to a woman who had his naked photos, he added.

Both men’s sexual orientation were never objectified and not sensationalized. The words “gay” and “homosexual” were never used. The same situation between a man and a woman was mentioned, showing the reality of the situation, and the truth that immoral behaviour or criminal activities are not exclusive to any sexual orientation or gender identity. This is the journalistic integrity that separates tabloids like Harian Metro with newspapers like The Star. Now, what we hope to see from The Star is consistency, as they resorted to tabloid style reporting before, or allow junk news to creep into its papers.

On Harian Metro, the character assassination on trans people as done by them can be honestly called what they are: hate speech that will explode into societal genocide if not checked. And Harian Metro’s often published discriminatory rants against trans people, places them as the leaders in creating an environment of potential hate crimes against human beings whose only disturbance in society, is to be born in a gender different from their sex. Something needs to be done to counter the utter disrespect Harian Metro shows to the trans community in Malaysia. Violent reported deaths of trans woman every year, worldwide, and the many more that are not reported, gives us a sad reminder of what such hatred can do.

Some are your friends. Some are your families. Wise up, Harian Metro. Is this what you want?

Try not to press here. Tabloid news. Do not give them more hits than they deserve. But I will bring to your attention this article that does nothing but attempt to again demonize an entire transsexual community and brushing them with stereotypes. I shall substitute every mention of “pondan” with penulis Harian Metro and “mak nyah” with penulis tabloid to make a point them.

BATU PAHAT: Dari luar dia nampak lembut dan bersopan-santun. Namun, perwatakan itu langsung tidak menggambarkan kezaliman seorang penulis Harian Metro berusia 29 tahun terhadap seorang gadis lembam yang dikurung dan ‘diperdagangkan’ kepada lelaki hidung belang selama sebulan.

Malah, penulis tabloid terbabit sering mengancam dan memukul remaja berusia 19 tahun itu jika enggan melayan nafsu pelanggan yang bertandang ke rumahnya di Taman Soga di sini dengan bayaran RM100.

Hasil perbuatan tidak berperikemanusiaan terhadap remaja itu, penulis tabloid berkenaan yang juga seorang pak andam menggelarkan dirinya Abang Mustapha meraih pendapatan lebih RM2,000 sebulan.

Bagaimanapun, kegiatan jahat penulis Harian Metro itu dapat dihidu keluarga gadis berkenaan yang mencarinya di sekitar bandar ini sejak sebulan lalu.

Ketua Polis Daerah, Asisten Komisioner Ibrahim Mohd Aris, berkata pengalaman hitam mangsa bermula apabila pak andam terbabit bertemu remaja berkenaan di Dataran Penggaram di sini, pada malam 3 Mac lalu.

Dalam pertemuan itu, penulis tabloid terbabit memancing mangsa dengan perwatakan baiknya sebelum mempelawa remaja itu tinggal bersamanya. Dia turut mengambil hati gadis OKU itu dengan membelikan pakaian baru.

Menurutnya, sebaik mangsa tinggal di rumah itu, dia tidak dibenarkan keluar rumah dan diancam akan dipukul jika cuba melarikan diri.

“Sejak itu, mangsa dipaksa melayan nafsu lelaki yang datang ke rumah berkenaan dan jika enggan dia akan dibelasah,” katanya.

Menurut Ibrahim, kegiatan tidak berperikemanusiaan menjadikan gadis OKU sebagai hamba seks oleh penulis Harian Metro berkenaan akhirnya terbongkar apabila sepupu mangsa yang menyamar sebagai pelanggan menemuinya.

Katanya, sepupu gadis OKU itu memaklumkan perbuatan kejam penulis tabloid terbabit kepada keluarga mangsa sebelum melaporkan kepada polis.

Ibrahim berkata, penulis Harian Metro terbabit yang panik selepas menyedari kegiatannya dihidu pihak berkuasa cuba membuat laporan di Balai Polis Senggarang kononnya dia dipukul abang mangsa namun diberkas memberkas penulis Harian Metro terbabit ketika dia mahu membuat laporan polis.

Katanya, siasatan awal polis mendapati penulis tabloid berkenaan mempunyai beberapa rekod jenayah lampau termasuk mengikut Seksyen 292 Kanun Keseksaan kerana menjual bahan lucah serta Seksyen 325 iaitu menyebabkan kecederaan parah.

“Polis menyerbu rumah suspek dan hasil pemeriksaan menjumpai beberapa kondom sudah diguna di beberapa tempat, selain wang tunai RM2,247 dalam laci milik penulis Harian Metro terbabit yang dipercayai hasil melacurkan OKU berkenaan.

“Selain berdepan tindakan mengikut Seksyen 324 Kanun Keseksaan kerana kesalahan mencederakan seseorang menggunakan senjata, penulis Harian Metro itu juga berdepan dakwaan terbabit dalam aktiviti persundalan mengikut Seksyen 372A kanun sama.

“Malah, dia juga berdepan dakwaan mengikut Seksyen 377b Kanun Keseksaan (seks luar tabii), Seksyen 347 Kanun Keseksaan kerana melakukan pengurungan salah dan Seksyen 292A Kanun Keseksaan kerana memiliki 20 klip video lucah.

“Kejadian itu mendorong polis untuk mengambil tindakan tegas terhadap penulis Harian Metro di bandar ini selepas mendapati ada antara mereka bertindak melampaui batas,” katanya.

(changes made and emphasis added; translation may be needed for foreign readers)

That amounts, to nine mention of pondans, and six mention of mak nyahs. And bear in mind, pondan is a derogatory word, and this story uses it 9 times. Can we see their sexist mentality?

Usually in such reporting, professionalism requires the writer to simply mark the person as just that, the person or the suspect or “orang” to avoid targetting any specific group of people. Just imagine how bad things would be if we replace “pondan” with Kristian, and “mak nyah” with penganut; or worse, both with m*****. But of course, Harian Metro is the tabloid for sperm brains who love sensational news and their target market is people with third world mentality. We of course would not expect any professionalism from them. However, such purposeful demonization of transsexuals should be scrutinized to the bone, especially when dealing with an already misunderstood community. Looking at the size of their hypothalamus, I would not be surprised that their avid readers are filmakers Raja Azmi Raja Sulaiman and “Dr” Rozmey (see previous post). Only ignorant minds would resort to such parroting of all trash ideas and news.

Ugh. I find it extremely funny that such a piece of news qualifies as “berita utama” – and it’s always my policy to reply intelligently (whenever I can muster enough of it) to intelligent articles. However, neither Sarah, nor the report titled “Pesta Lesbian” seem to evince any of it.

I guess being labeled “sesat”, “songsang”, and “maksiat” is what we queers have to get used to in Malaysia. Really, it’s not as bad as arbitrary arrests, unexplained deaths, and authoritarian rule. Besides, it’s only little miss Sarah Zukifli who thinks so – I bet many of us are laughing (and cringing) at her desperate claim to “religion + conservative values + eastern tradition” axis of power used so frequently to otherize those just different from Sarah Zukifli.

Oh no, Sarah. We see through that. Why don’t you stop importing values so typical of the conservative right in America, huh? Isn’t that a bigger sacrilege of whatever religiosity you claim to?

UPDATE: The Star picked up on it in their newspaper, too! Obviously, whoever was doing the translation and writing had all the genders and orientations slightly muddled: “The wild, poolside party where couples kissed, cuddled and performed sexy dances drew not only female gays, but also their male counterparts.” Male counterparts? What, strap-ons? Here we go again!

To the Editor,

I am writing in response to an article featured in The Star Focus on May 2, 2009, titled “City Fathers against Same Sex Union” by Lim Ai Lee. I am quite appalled by the inaccuracy of facts, biased reporting, and normative presumptions contained in hir article.

I take issue with hir very first sentence. Saying that New York State is the “only place in the United States where moral values still reign high as far as same sex marriage is concerned” reveals hir bigotry with regards to a legal – not a moral – issue. Hir many quotations of New York’s new Archbishop Timothy Dolan only underscores the one-sidedness of hir article.

It is certainly obvious that Lim’s moral values are a myopic mono-religious worldview that disregards the plurality of cultures, religions, and political backgrounds in the US. One wonders what other bishops are saying. Indeed, I would question Dolan’s ignorant appropriation of science in his public statements. No scientist would agree with the statement that “DNA” dictates any sort of “right and wrong”. Legal advocates for victims of sex abuse such as the Survivors’ Network for those Abused by Priests (SNAP) have also criticized Dolan for his conduct and handling of priests accused of sexual misconduct [1] .

More importantly, Lim’s facts are themselves inaccurate. In hir article, ze reported that “same sex marriage is already legal in Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa, and on Thursday, New Hampshire…” On the contrary, at the time of publishing, only Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Iowa have legalized same sex marriage. On May 6, Maine followed and legalized same sex marriage. Only civil unions are legal in New Hampshire, at the time Lim’s article was written. The same sex marriage bill is still waiting for the decision of Governor John Lynch.

To add further to Lim’s slew of wrong facts, New York presently recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, while its State Assembly has recently passed a same-sex marriage bill on May 12, and is now pending a vote on the bill by the Senate [2] .

Lim has also unashamedly failed to distinguish between several other facts. Gov. David Paterson’s unpopularity has nothing to do with his support for the same sex marriage bill. His drop in popularity was due to the fact that voters disapproved of his secret budget negotiations, opposed pay raises, and decision to layoff 8900 state workers [3] .

I plead that the Star will review Lim’s articles for accurate reporting. Through this one article alone, it is clear that Lim has manipulated facts, made sweeping assumptions and biased reporting. Although I recognize that it is an Oped column, the article is misleading because it is written in an authoritative voice. I suggest Lim writes hir opinions as opinions and not try to veil hir conservative values as a news story.

Sincerely,
Student
Boston, MA
______________________________________________________________

[1] http://www.stlbeacon.org/nation/dolan_to_shepherd_new_york_catholics
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/new.york.same.sex.marriage/
[3] http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/24/news/economy/ny_state_layoffs/index.htm

The Courage Campaign is going all-out on the “offensive” in an outcry of today’s California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage voted for during last year’s elections.

Before the CA Supreme Court made the decision, the Courage Campaign, a family of organizations devoted to bringing progressive change to California, called for married couples to submit personal pictures of themselves. They then stringed the pictures into a montage to the crooning voice of Rebecca Spektor (“And it breaks my – ah – ah – ah – ah – heart”).

As of today, the Courage Campaign is looking for funding to air a one-minute version of the video above, entitled “Fidelity”. In a statement released by email to subscribers of their listserv, they said that although “the court recognized the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008, we are saddened by the Prop 8 decision. But we don’t have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California.”

In line with that, “the Courage Campaign will hit the California airwaves in the next 72 hours with a 60-second TV ad version of “Fidelity” — the heartbreaking online video viewed by more than 1.2 million people, making it the most-watched video ever in the history of California politics.”

Watch the one-minute video “Fidelity” on the Courage Campaign’s website.

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Today’s decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Heated reaction to the decision began immediately, with protestors blocking traffic in front of San Francisco City Hall, their hands locked.

The same court had ruled in May that same-sex couples enjoyed the same fundamental “right to marry” as heterosexual couples. That sweeping 4-3 decision provoked a backlash from opponents that led to Proposition 8, which garnered 52 percent of the vote last November after a bitter electoral fight.

The opinion marks a new round in the long-running battle in California over the issue, and will almost certainly lead to a counter-initiative intended to overturn Proposition 8, which changed the state constitution, as early as next year.

The opinion focused on whether the use of a voter initiative to narrow constitutional rights under Proposition 8 went too far.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, who filed several suits challenging the proposition, argued that the change to the state’s constitution was so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment to the constitution but a “revision,” a term for measures that rework core constitutional principles.

Revisions, under California law, cannot be decided through a simple signature drive and majority vote, which is what led to Proposition 8; they can only be placed on the ballot with a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

It has historically been rare, however, for the state’s courts to overturn initiatives on the ground that they are actually revisions, and many legal scholars deemed the challenge against Proposition 8 a long shot.

The question of whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or revision was the centerpiece of the oral arguments before the State Supreme Court during its hearing on March 5.

The justices who had issued the ringing support of same-sex marriage in 2008 presented a far less supportive front during the three-hour hearing. A number of justices who had voted in the majority in the 2008 case, particularly Joyce L. Kennard, strongly suggested in their questions from the bench that they were reluctant to overturn the will of the voters or to undercut the initiative process.

The justices had seemed to be seeking a middle ground that would allow the rights they had affirmed the year before to be preserved in the form of civil unions, which would be different from marriage in name only. Justice Kennard suggested that the substantive rights of gays were the same after the proposition, and all that had changed was “the label of marriage.”

That distinction was deeply dissatisfying to an attorney for plaintiffs, Shannon Minter, who argued that without the right to the word “marriage,” same-sex couples would find “our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.”

In the months since the case was argued, three other states have legalized same-sex marriage. On April 3, Iowa’s supreme court struck down a state statute that limited civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman — and cited California’s 2008 decision repeatedly in support of its ruling. Less than a week later, the Vermont Legislature narrowly overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas of a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Then on May 6, Maine’s legislature, too, passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and Gov. John Baldaci signed it.

Initiatives are also moving forward in New York and New Jersey; a similar measure has stalled in the New Hampshire legislature by a slim margin this month, but could come up for a new vote next month.

At the same time, attitudes of Americans toward same-sex marriage favor liberalization of the practice. In an April CBS/New York Times poll, 42 percent of those surveyed favored same-sex marriage, up from 21 percent at election time in 2004, when it was a wedge issue during the presidential campaign. That poll suggests the trend will continue into the future: 57 percent of the respondents favored legal recognition for same-sex marriage, compared with 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40.

The language of Chief Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

Several readers have contested that the word ‘sick’ was at all used and that they did not find the DJ’s remarks to be in any way pejorative. To follow up on the debate spanning 22 comments (when this was written), the editorial team at Tilted World wishes to respond to the issue collectively and to state our position in the ongoing discussion.

To be clear, Tilted World does not guarantee the accuracy of facts or necessarily agree with the sentiments expressed when posting articles, new stories, letters, and opinion pieces written by other individuals not on the editorial team. We try to provide the direct source of our information and knowledge, whenever possible, as well as attributing all information taken from websites, books, blogs, and movies to their original sources.

In short, the views expressed by individual authors do not necessarily represent the collective view of Tilted World. Tilted World has been created to serve as an online community space to allow different individuals to express their views concerning the lives, rights, politics, experiences, and identity of the queer, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and gay community. In line with that goal, Tilted World encourages such discussions that go on in the “comments” section of every post. We do not censor comments, unless they are irrelevant or ad hominem attacks.

In light of the discussion on the DJ’s alleged remarks, Tilted World admits that we have not been able to obtain a clip of the DJ’s remarks. Referring to the discussion, however, there was definitely a call for and an attempt to locate the clip. Just because a clip of the alleged remarks cannot be found, we do not think that this issue should be closed, or that statements made by readers, should be retracted.

Regardless of whether a specific word has been used, the editorial team finds that the fact that several people were offended, and in turn, reacted negatively in response to the remarks made by the DJ reveal a greater issue to be examined and discussed. We view the issue not as one in which a slur or derogatory remark was targeted at the LGBTQ community, but as one in which an anecdote involving a queer woman was used as entertainment and was joked about on radio. The discussion highlights the responsibility public figures have and that they should be held accountable when making public announcements and remarks. The same way the public holds a minister accountable for what he says on the news and in newspapers, we should hold DJs, celebrities, academics, corporations, and journalists responsible for the remarks they make, directly or indirectly, in their work.

When remarks that belie any form of prejudice against another race, religion, sexuality, and gender identity are made in public without any sort of reprisal, such prejudice — no matter how insignificant or unintentional — is given the green light to proliferate. We feel that the published letter, despite its alleged factual inaccuracies, highlight the importance of the responsibility public figures have and address the issue that an individual was made into an “entertaining” and “newsworthy” object.

It is also of note to mention that while we condemn any all forms of discriminatory/disparaging remarks towards the LGBTQ community whose rights we advocate for, we want to be fair towards those people whom we (or our readers) criticize, and provide everyone their own space to speak for themselves. Tilted World has thus sent an email to the DJ letting him know that we are happy to publish any comments or views he has regarding the issue.