A Fabulous Child’s Story

by Lois Gould

Once upon a time, a baby named X was born. This baby was named X so that nobody could tell whether it was a boy or a girl. Its parents could tell, of course, but they couldn’t tell anybody else. They couldn’t even tell Baby X at first.

You see, it was all part of a very important Secret Scientific Xperiment, known officially as Project Baby X. The smartest scientists had set up this Xperiment at a cost of Xactly 23 billion dollars and 72 cents, which might seem like a lot for just one baby, even a very important Xperimental baby. But when you remember the prices of things like strained carrots and stuffed bunnies, and popcorn for the movies and booster shots for camp, let alone 28 shiny quarters from the tooth fairy, you begin to see how it adds up.

Also, long before Baby X was born, all those scientists had to be paid to work out the details of the Xperiment, and to write the Official Instruction Manual for Baby X’s parents and, most important of all, to find the right set of parents to bring up Baby X. These parents had to be selected very carefully. Thousands of volunteers had to take thousands of tests and answer thousands of tricky questions. Almost everybody failed because, it turned out, almost everybody really wanted either a baby boy or a baby girl, and not Baby X at all. Also, almost everybody was afraid that a Baby X would be a lot more trouble than a boy or a girl. (They were probably right, the scientists admitted, but Baby X needed parents who wouldn’t mind the Xtra trouble.)

There were families with grandparents named Milton and Agatha, who didn’t see why the baby couldn’t be named Milton or Agatha instead of X, even if it was an X. There were families with aunts who insisted on knitting tiny dresses and uncles who insisted on sending tiny baseball mitts. Worst of all, these were families that already had other children who couldn’t be trusted to keep the secret. Certainly not if they knew the secret was worth 23 billion dollars and 72 cents – and all you had to do was take one little peek at Baby X in the bathtub to know if it was a boy or girl.

But, finally, the scientists found the Joneses, who really wanted to raise an X more than any other kind of baby – no matter how much trouble it would be. Ms. and Mr. Jones had to promise they would take equal turns caring for X, and feeding it, and singing it lullabies. And they had to promise never to hire any baby-sitters. The government scientists knew perfectly well that a baby-sitter would probably peek at X in the bathtub, too.

The day the Joneses brought their baby home, lots of friends and relatives came over to see it. None of them knew about the secret Xperiment, though. So the first thing they asked was what kind of a baby X was. When the Joneses smiled and said, “It’s an X,” nobody knew what to say. They couldn’t say, “Look at her cute little dimples!” And they couldn’t say, “Look at his husky little biceps!” And they couldn’t even say just plain “kitchycoo”. In fact, they all thought the Joneses were playing some kind of rude joke.

But of course, the Joneses were not joking. “It’s an X” was absolutely all they would say. And that made the friends and relatives very angry. The relatives all felt embarrassed about having an X in the family. “People will think there’s something wrong with it!” some of them whispered. “There is something wrong with it!” others whispered back.

“Nonsense!” the Joneses told them all cheerfully. “What could possibly be wrong with this perfectly adorable X?”

Nobody could answer that, except Baby X, who had just finished its bottle. Baby X’s answer was a loud, satisfied BURP!

Clearly, nothing at all was wrong. Nevertheless, none of the relatives felt comfortable about buying a present for a Baby X. The cousins who sent the baby a tiny football helmet would not come and visit anymore. And the neighbours who sent a pink-flowered romper suit pulled their shades down when the Joneses passed their house. The Official Instruction Manual had warned the new parents that this would happen, so they didn’t fret about it. Besides, they were too busy with Baby X and the hundreds of different Xercises for treating it properly.

Ms. and Mr. Jones had to be Xtra careful about how they played with little X. They knew that if they kept bouncing it up in the air and saying how strong and active it was, they’d be treating it more like a boy than an X. But if all they did was cuddle it and kiss it and tell it how sweet and dainty it was, they’d be treating it more like a girl than an X.

On page 1654 of the Official Instruction Manual, the scientists prescribed: “plenty of bouncing and plenty of cuddling, both, X ought to be strong and sweet and active. Forget about dainty altogether”.

Meanwhile, the Joneses were worrying about other problems. Toys, for instance, and clothes. On his first shopping trip, Mr. Jones told the store clerk, “I need some clothes and toys for my new baby”. The clerk smiled and said, “Well now, is it a. boy or a girl”

“It’s an X”, Mr Jones said, smiling back. But the clerk got all red in the face and said huffily, “In that case, I’m afraid I can’t help you, sir”.

So Mr Jones wandered helplessly up and down the aisles trying to find out what X needed. But everything in the store was piled up in sections marked “Boys” or “Girls”.

There were “Boy’s’ Pyjamas” and “Girls’ Underwear” and “Boys’ Fire Engines” and “Girl’s Housekeeping Sets”. Mr. Jones went home without buying anything for X. That night he and Ms. Jones consulted page 2326 of the Official Instruction Manual. “Buy plenty of everything”, it said firmly.

So they bought plenty of sturdy blue pyjamas in the Boys’ Department and cheerful flowered underwear in the Girls’ Department. And they bought all kinds of toys. A boy doll that made pee-pee and cried, “Pa-pa”. And a girl doll that talked in three languages and said “I am the Pres-i-dent of Gen-er-al Mo-tors”. They also bought a story-book about a brave princess who rescued a handsome prince from his ivory tower, and another one about a sister and brother who grew up to be a baseball star and a ballet star, and you had to guess which was which.

The head scientists of Project Baby X checked all their purchases and told them to keep up the good work. They also reminded the Joneses to see page 4629 of the Manual, where it said: “Never make Baby X feel embarrassed or ashamed about what it wants to play with. And if X gets dirty climbing rocks, never say “Nice little Xes don’t get dirty climbing rocks.”

Likewise, it said: “If X falls down and cries, never say, “Brave little Xes don’t cry”. Because of course, nice little Xes do get dirty, and brave little Xes do cry. No matter how dirty X gets, or how hard it cries, don’t worry. It’s all part of the Xperiment.”

Whenever the Joneses pushed Baby X’s stroller in the park, smiling strangers would come over and coo: “Is that a boy or a girl?” The Joneses would smile back and say, “It’s an X”. The strangers would stop smiling then, and often snarl something nasty – as if the Joneses had snarled at them.

By the time X grew big enough to play with other children, the Jones’ troubles had grown bigger too. Once a little girl grabbed X’s shovel in the sandbox and zonked X on the head with it.

“Now, now, Tracy”, the little girl’s mother began to scold, “little girls mustn’t hit little -” and she turned to ask X, “Are you a little boy or a little girl, dear?”

Mr. Jones, who was sitting near the sandbox, held his breath and crossed his fingers.

X smiled politely at the lady, even though X’s head had never been zonked so hard in all its life. “I’m a little X”, X replied.

“You’re a what ?” the lady exclaimed angrily. “You’re a little B.R.A.T., you mean”.

“But little girls mustn’t hit little Xes, either!” said X, retrieving the shovel with another polite smile. “What good does hitting do, anyway?”

X’s father, who was still holding his breath, finally let it out, uncrossed his fingers and grinned back at X.

And at their next secret Project Baby X meeting, the scientists grinned too. Baby X was doing fine.

But then it was time for X to start school. The Joneses were really worried about this, because school was even more full of rules for boys and girls and there were no rules for Xes. The teachers would tell boys to form one line, and girls to form another line. There would be boys’ games and girls’ games and boys’ secrets and girls’ secrets. The school library would have a list of recommended books for girls and a different list of recommended books for boys. There would even be a bathroom marked BOYS and another marked GIRLS. Pretty soon boys and girls would hardly talk to each other. What would happen to poor little X!

The Joneses spent weeks consulting their Instruction Manual (there were 246 and 1/2 pages of advice under “First Day at School”), and attending urgent special conferences with the smart scientists of Project Baby X.

The scientists had to make sure that X’s mother had taught X how to throw and catch a ball properly and that X’s father had been sure to teach X what to serve at a doll’s tea party. X had to know how to shoot marbles and how to jump rope, and most of all, what to say when the other children asked whether X was a boy or a girl.

Finally, X was ready.

The Joneses helped X button on a nice new pair of red-and-white checked overalls, and sharpened six pencils for X’s nice new pencil box and marked X’s name clearly on all the books in its nice new book bag. X brushed its teeth and combed its hair, which just about covered its ears and remembered to put a napkin in its lunchbox.

The Joneses had asked X’s teacher if the class could line up alphabetically, instead of forming separate lines for boys and girls. And they had asked if X could use the principal’s bathroom, because it wasn’t marked anything except “BATHROOM”. X’s teacher promised to take care of all those problems. But nobody could help X with the biggest problem of all – other children.

Nobody in X’s class had ever known an X before. What would they think? How would X make friends?

You couldn’t tell what X was by studying its clothes – overalls don’t even button right-to-l eft, like girls’ clothes or left-to-right, like boys’ clothes. And you couldn’t guess whether X lad a girls’ short haircut or a boy’s long haircut. And it was very hard to tell by the games X liked to play. Either X played ball very well for a girl, or else X played house very well for a boy.

Some of the children tried to find out by asking (tricky questions, like “Who’s your favourite sports star?” That was easy. X had two favourite sport stars: a girl jockey named Robyn Smith and a boy archery champion lamed Robin Hood. Then they asked, what’s your favourite television programme?” And hat was even easier. X’s favourite television programme was “lassie” which stars a girl dog played by a boy dog.

Then X said that its favourite toy was a doll, everyone decided that X must be a girl. But hen X said that the doll was really a robot, and that X had computerised it, and that it was programmed to bake fudge brownies and then clean up the kitchen. After X told them that, the Other Children gave up guessing what X was. All they knew was they’d sure like to see X’s doll.

After school, X wanted to play with the other children.

“How about shooting some baskets in the gym?” X asked all the girls. But all they did was make faces and giggle behind X’s back. “How about weaving some baskets in the arts and crafts room?” X asked the boys. But they all made faces and giggled behind X’s back, too.

That night, Ms. and Mr. Jones asked X how things had gone at school. X told them sadly that the lessons were okay, but otherwise school was a terrible place for an X. It seemed as if Other Children would never want an X for a friend.

Once more, the Joneses reached for their Instruction Manual. Under “Other Children”, they found the following message: “What did you Xpect? Other Children have to obey all the silly boy-girl rules, because their parents taught them to. Lucky X – you don’t have to stick to the rules at all! All you have to do is be yourself. We’re not saying if it be easy.”

X liked being itself. But X cried a lot that night, partly because it felt afraid. So X’s father held X tight and cuddled it and couldn’t help crying a little too. And X’s mother cheered them both up by reading an Xciting story about an enchanted prince called Sleeping Handsome, who woke up when Princess Charming kissed him.

The next morning, they all felt much better and little X went back to school with a brave smile and a clean pair of red-and-white checked overalls.

There was a seven-letter-word spelling bee in class that day. And a seven-lap boys’ relay race in the gym. And a seven-layer-cake baking contest in the girls’ kitchen corner. X won the spelling bee. X also won the relay race. And X almost won the baking contest, except it forgot to light the oven. Which only proves that nobody’s perfect.

One of the Other Children noticed something else, too. He said: “Winning or losing doesn’t seem to count to X. X seems to have fun being good at boys’ skills and girls’ skills”.

“Come to think of if, said another of the Other Children, “maybe X is having twice as much fun as we are.”

So after school that day, the girl who beat X at the baking contests gave X a big slice of her prizewinning cake. And the boy X beat in the relay race asked X to race him home.

From then on, some really funny things began to happen. Susie, who sat next to X in class, suddenly refused to wear pink dresses to school any more. She insisted on wearing red-and-white checked overalls – just like X’s overalls, she told her parents, were much better for climbing monkey bars.

Then Jim, the class football nut, started wheeling his little sister’s doll carriage around the football field. He’d put on his entire football uniform, except for the helmet. Then he put the helmet in the carriage, lovingly tucked under an old set of shoulder pads. Then he started jogging around the field, pushing the carriage and singing “Rock a bye Baby” to his football helmet. He told his family that X did the same thing, so it must be okay. After all, X was now the team’s star quarter-back.

Susie’s parents were horrified by her behaviour, and Jim’s parents were worried sick about his. But the worst came when the twins, Joe and Peggy, decided to share everything with each other. Peggy used Joe’s hockey skates, and his microscope, and took half his newspaper route. Joe used Peggy’s needlepoint kit, Peggy started running the lawn mower and Joe started running the vacuum cleaner.

Their parents weren’t one bit pleased with Peggy’s wonderful biology experiments, or with Joe’s terrific needlepoint pillows. They didn’t care that Peggy mowed the lawn better, and that Joe vacuumed the carpet better. In fact they were furious.

It’s all that little X’s fault, they agreed. Just because X doesn’t know what it is, or what it’s supposed to be, it wants to get everybody else mixed up, too! Peggy and Joe were forbidden to play with X anymore. So was Susie, and then Jim, and then all the Other Children. But it was too late; the Other Children stayed mixed up and happy and free, and refused to go back to the way they’d been before X.

Finally, Joe and Peggy’s parents decided to call an emergency meeting of the school’s Parents’ Association, to discuss “The X Problem”. They sent a report to the principal stating that X was a “disruptive influence”.

They demanded immediate action. The Joneses, they said, should be forced to tell whether X was a boy or a girl. And then X should be forced to behave like whichever it was. If the Joneses refused to tell, the Parents’ Association said, then X must take an Xaminiation. The school Psychiatrist must Xamine it physically and mentally and issue a full report. If X’s test showed it was a boy, it would have to obey all the boys’ rules. If it proved to be a girl, X would have to obey all the girls’ rules, and if X turned out to be some kind of mixed up misfit, then X should be Xpelled from the school. Immediately!

The Principal was very upset. Disruptive influence? Mixed-up misfit? But X was an Xcellent student. All the teachers said it was a delight to have X in their classes. X was President of the student council. X had won First prize in the talent show and second prize in the art show and honourable mention in the science fair and six athletic events on field day, including the potato race.

Nevertheless, insisted the Parents’ Association, X is a Problem Child. X is the Biggest Problem Child we have ever seen!

So the Principal reluctantly notified X’s parents that numerous complaints about X’s behaviour had come to the school’s attention. And that after the Psychiatrist’s Xaminiation, the school would decide what to do about X.

The Joneses reported this at once to the scientists, who referred them to page 85759 of the I nstruction Manual. “Sooner or later,” it said, “X will have to be Xamined by a Psychiatrist. This may be the only way any of us will know for sure whether X is mixed up or whether everyone else is”.

The night before X was to be Xamined, the Joneses tried not to let X see how worried they were.

“What if” Mr. Jones would say. And Ms. Jones would reply, “No use worrying”.

Then a few minutes later, Ms. Jones would say, “What if” and Mr. Jones would reply, “No use worrying”.

X just smiled at them both, and hugged them hard and didn’t say much of anything. X was thinking, What if? And then X thought: No use worrying.

At Xactly 9 o’clock the next day, X reported to the school Psychiatrist’s office. The Principal, along with a committee from the Parents’ Association, X’s teacher, X’s classmates and Ms. and Mr. Jones waited in the hall outside. Nobody knew the details of the tests X was to be given, but everybody knew they’d be very hard, and that they’d reveal Xactly what everyone wanted to know about X, but was afraid to ask.

It was terribly quiet in the hall. Almost spooky! Once in a while, they would hear a strange noise inside the room. There were buzzes. And a beep or two, and several bells. An occasional light would flash under the door. The Joneses thought it was a white light, but the Principal thought it was blue. Two or three children swore it was either yellow or green. And the Parents’ Committee missed it completely.

Through it all, you could hear the Psychiatrist’s low voice, asking hundreds of questions, and X’s higher voice, answering hundreds of answers. The whole thing took so long that everyone knew it must be the most complete Xaminiation anyone had ever had to take. Poor X, the Joneses thought Serves X right, the Parents’ Committee thought! Wouldn’t like to be in X’s overalls right now, the children thought.

At last, the door opened. Everyone crowded around to hear the results. X didn’t look any different; in fact, X was smiling. But the Psychiatrist looked terrible. He looked as if he was crying!

“What happened?” everyone began shouting. Had X done something disgraceful? “I wouldn’t be a bit surprised!” muttered Peggy and Joe’s parents.

“Did X flunk the whole test?” cried Susie’s parents. “Or just the most important part?” yelled Jim’s parents. “Oh, dear”, sighed Mr Jones. “Oh, dear”, sighed Ms. Jones. “Sssh”, sssshed the Principal. “The Psychiatrist is trying to speak”.

Wiping his eyes and clearing his throat, the psychiatrist began in a hoarse whisper.

“In my opinion”, he whispered – you could tell he must be very upset – “in my opinion, young X here -”

“Yes? Yes” shouted a parent impatiently. “Sssssh!” sssshed the Principal.

“Young Ssssshhh here, I mean, young X” said the doctor, frowning, “is just about … “. “Just about WHAT? Let’s have it!” shouted another parent. “Just about the least mixed-up child I’ve ever Xamined” said the Psychiatrist. “Yah for X,” yelled one of the children. And then the others began yelling, too. Clapping and cheering and jumping up and down. “SSSSSHH!” Ssshed the Principal, but nobody did.

The Parents’ Committee was angry and bewildered. How COULD X have passed the whole Xamination? Didn’t X have an identity problem? Wasn’t X mixed up at ALL? Wasn’t X any kind of misfit? How could it NOT be, when it didn’t even KNOW what it was? And why was the Psychiatrist crying?

Actually, he had stopped crying and was smiling politely through his tears. “Don’t you see?” he said, “I’m crying because it’s wonderful! X has absolutely no identity problem! X isn’t one bit mixed up! As for being a misfit – ridiculous! X knows perfectly well what it is! Don’t you, X? the doctor winked. X winked back.

“But what IS X?” Shrieked Peggy and Joe’s parents. “We still want to know what it is!” “Ah, yes”, said the doctor winking again. “Well, don’t worry. You’ll all know one of these days. And you won’t need me to tell you.” “What? What does he mean?” some of the parents grumbled suspiciously.

Susie and Peggy and Joe all answered all at once. “He means that by the time X’s sex matters, it won’t be a secret anymore!”

With that, the doctor began to push through the crowd towards X’s parents. “How do you do?” he said, somewhat stiffly. And then he reached out to hug them both. “If I ever have an X of my own,” he whispered, “I sure hope you’ll lend me your instruction manual”.

Needless to say, the Joneses were very happy. The Project Baby X scientists were rather pleased too. So were Susie, Jim, Peggy, Joe, and all the Other Children. The Parents’ Association wasn’t, but they had promised to accept the Psychiatrist’s report and not make any more trouble. They even invited Ms. and Mr. Jones to become honorary members, which they did.

Later that day, X’s friends put on their red-and-white-checked overalls and went over to see X. They found X in the back yard, playing with a very tiny baby that none of them had even seen before. The baby was wearing very tiny red-and-white-checked overalls.

“How do you like our new baby?” X asked the Other Children proudly. “It’s got cute dimples,” said Jim. “It’s got husky biceps, too”, said Susie. “What kind of baby is it?” asked Joe and Peggy.

X frowned at them. “Can’t you tell?” Then X broke into a big, mischievous grin, “It’s a Y!”

James Dean & Paul Newman had such explosive chemistry. Damn. Video repeats the first 18 seconds, but I seriously do not mind.Am not sure which moment made me sweat the most:

• Off-screen: What do you think of each other?
  Paul Newman: Wow —- Well, we can’t print that. *intense burning looks*
• James Dean: (bites lip) Kiss me.
  Paul Newman: Can’t here.
• OR come to think of it, the looks exchanged behind the clapper in the very beginning.

And the cherry on the icing;
“Well, I’m certainly not going through life with one hand tied behind my back”
— James Dean

(From that east of eden screentest, via DZZYFRFLY.)

Delivered to you by your lazy copy-pasting scribe, Lainie.

About this talk
“Bonk” author Mary Roach delves into obscure scientific research, some of it centuries old, to make 10 surprising claims about sexual climax, ranging from the bizarre to the hilarious. (This talk is aimed at adults. Viewer discretion advised.)

About Mary Roach
Death, the afterlife, and now sex — Mary Roach tackles the most pondered and least understood conundrums that have baffled humans for centuries. (She’s funny, too.) Full bio and more links

As disheartening as California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Prop 8, the silver lining in this debacle is that more and more states are legalize same-sex marriage and/or recognizing domestic partnership.

It’s no surprise to note that anti-gay marriage supporters are focusing their resources in California (RE: Mormon Church spending a purported $41 million dollars on “Yes on the Prop 8″ campaign in the last election). California just happen to be the largest economy of the 50 US states as well as the 5th largest economy in the world. California laws can be loosely construed as the bellwether for other state laws as well (RE: the latest federal ruling on emissions emulating California emission laws). So as long as Californians are fighting for equality, so will I.

HRC article on New Hampshire’s decision:

http://www.hrc.org/12847.htm

Gov. Lynch signs legislation passed by state Senate and House of Representatives; Law will take effect Jan. 1, 2010

6/3/2009

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today applauded the state legislature and Gov. John Lynch for passing legislation to recognize marriage equality for same-sex couples under state law. The senate voted 14-10 earlier in the day in favor of the bill. The house followed later in the afternoon, voting 198-176. The law will take effect January 1, 2010. For a comprehensive summary of HRC’s work in New Hampshire, including a video and photo slideshow, visit: www.HRC.org/NHMarriage.

“With Gov. Lynch signing legislation passed by the state Senate and House, New Hampshire has become the latest state to recognize that loving, committed couples, and their families, should receive equal dignity and respect under the law,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “No religious institution will have to recognize any marriage under this law, as the language proposed by Gov. Lynch and agreed to by the legislature made abundantly clear.”

The Human Rights Campaign salutes the work of key state groups and leaders, including: Gov. John Lynch, Senate President Sylvia Larsen, Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Deb Reynolds, House Speaker Terie Norelli and Representatives Jim Splaine, Ed Butler, Paul McEachern, Barbara Richardson, New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, MassEquality, GLAD, and the many activists, including HRC members, who have been working to build support for this legislation, and the majority of New Hampshire voters who support marriage equality.

“When the National Organization for Marriage [a group opposed to marriage equality] started making $50,000 ad buys in New Hampshire, I put out a call for help and HRC answered. We could not have done this without them,” said Mo Baxley, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition.

HRC made a significant commitment of resources to the successful efforts to achieve marriage equality in New Hampshire. Working with the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, HRC provided substantial field and communications expertise in the weeks leading up to Gov. Lynch signing the bill. HRC deployed 10 field staff to New Hampshire, hired three New Hampshire-based consultants to assist with field organizing efforts, and mobilized HRC members and supporters through online action alerts and telephone calls.

In 2006, HRC worked closely with legislators, community groups and local leaders to help elect fair-minded majorities to both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and Senate, which subsequently voted to pass civil unions legislation in 2007, followed by the marriage bill this year.

In addition to New Hampshire, five states have recognized marriage for same-sex couples under state law: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (effective September 1, 2009), and Maine (effective September, 2009, pending a possible referendum). California recognized marriage by same-sex couples between June and November of 2008, before voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to prohibit marriage equality. The Proposition 8 vote was challenged, but the state supreme court upheld the amendment last month. The 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples performed before the passage of Proposition 8 remain valid.

Five states—California, New Jersey, Oregon, Nevada (effective October 1, 2009), and Washington (as of July 26, 2009, pending possible repeal effort)—plus Washington, D.C. provide same-sex couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Hawaii provides same-sex couples with limited rights and benefits. New York recognizes marriages by same-sex couples validly entered into outside of New York. The New York legislature is considering marriage legislation that would permit same-sex couples to marry in those states, and the D.C. Council has passed legislation that would recognize marriages by same-sex couples legally entered into in other jurisdictions (that legislation is going through a Congressional review period).

Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state. For an electronic map showing where marriage equality stands in the states, please visit: www.HRC.org/State_Laws.

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

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.”

From the official websiteof IDAHO 2009:

Update (May 27):

Why an International Day against homophobia and transphobia ?

In 2008, sexual relations between persons of the same sex were punishable by death in 7 countries and considered to be some form of crime in more than 80 others. In most countries in the world, people from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transexual, intersex, queer, … community are being denied their fundamental human rights as defined, inter alia, by the Universal Declaration of Human Right, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Day has been launched with the idea of creating a worldwide community of activists and committed people, sharing the ideal of a world without homophobia nor transphobia in which everyone can freely choose their own sex life and gender identity.

The origin

In 2005, Louis-Georges Tin, university professor, intellectual, and homosexual rights activist, took the initiative of launching a International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia, and founded the IDAHO Committee, an international association aiming at developing this initiative.

Since then, hundreds of associations in more than 50 countries have used the Day to bring about public and political mobilization for LGBT rights.

In addition to being adopted by associations and movements, the Day is now officially recognized by a growing number of countries, provinces, regions, cities, including :
Mexico
Costa Rica
The UK
France
Belgium
the Netherlands
Luxembourg

the European Parliament

And maybe soon Bolivia and surely many others to come

Why May 17 ?

May 17 was chosen because the date is the anniversary of the World Health Organization’s May 1990 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

This victory of the lesbian-gay-bisexual and transgender (LGBT) cause was a historic step towards considering freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity as a fundamental basic human right.

Actions…

Countless activities are organized by associations all over the world. The IDAHO Committee itself also organizes seminars, events, and conferences every year.

In 2006, the IDAHO Committee launched a petition in favor of universal decriminalization. This petition was supported by many international associations, including ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and also by many famous people throughout the world : 5 Nobel Prize winners (including Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu), 10 Pulitzer Prize winners (including Edward Albee and Tony Kushner), political leaders (such as Jacques Delors, former President of the European Commission, and Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner), prominent intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler, and celebrities including Victoria Abril, Merryl Streep, Cyndi Lauper, David Bowie, Elton John, etc.

…And results

On the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia 2005, the first public gay and lesbian demonstrations were held in China, Congo, and Bulgaria. These were historic events in each country concerned. In 2006, the IDAHO Committee co-organized the first Moscow Gay Pride.

Results of these activities are not, of course, always solely attributable to the IDAHO Committee or the World Day against Homophobia.
Nonetheless, our work makes a significant contribution to advances in LGBT rights by creating a unique moment when mobilization takes place all over the world, generating in its turn other forms of mobilization and showing policy makers the collective strength of the worldwide LGBT movement.

Organisation

The World Day against homophobia is facilitated by the IDAHO Committee, an international organization created to support, disseminate, and coordinate the Day at international level.

The IDAHO Committee is a confederal network. At national and regional levels, ad hoc coordination mechanisms have been set up to coordinate activities, disseminate information and spur people to action.

Something I think you guys should watch (and it happens to be animated very prettily). For background and transcript, read more from Causecast’s Youtube page.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, a prominent theorist who is often cited as one of the founders of queer theory, died on April 12. She was 58.

Sedgwick was reportedly diagnosed with breast cancer in 1991, prompting her book A Dialogue on Love. Sedgwick taught English at several institutions including Boston University; the University of California, Berkeley; and Duke University, where she was a Newman Ivey White Professor of English.

According to friend Cathy Davidson, who wrote about Sedgwick’s death on Monday, she died by her partner Hal’s side.

“Eve was a practicing Buddhist and blessings were said in Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies all over the world to help with her passage to the next life, a passage that, I know, brings the loving connections she made to the next life,” Davidson wrote. “She leaves those connections behind, to those of us fortunate to have known her or been touched by her writings. We love you, Eve.”

Sedgwick has written many books on gender and sexual orientation, including Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire; Epistemology of the Closet; and Tendencies.

There are countless ironies in life. The fact that our religious institutions are more concerned with persecuting lovers than haters, for example. Or the fact that as a society, we are more comfortable with the idea of men holding guns than holding hands.

To the list, I want to add: the fact that our society’s patriarchal, misogynist notions of female sexuality can be illuminated by, of all things, a piece of legislation that has long been slammed as discriminatory against male homosexuals.

The article on Penal Code 377 reprinted at the bottom was written for Malaysiakini some time back in March against the backdrop of the re-emergence of Chua Soi Lek’s (oral) sex tapes.

For the uninitiated, Penal Code 377, also known as Malaysia’s ‘Unnatural Sex’ Law, contains a total of seven sections (see appendix at the bottom). Of these, four of them – covering bestiality, non-consensual oral and anal sex, non-consensual vaginal sex by foreign object, and inciting a child to gross indecency, I believe, rightly criminalise what are universally agreed to be violent and ethically wrong acts.

The other three, which cover consensual oral and anal sex, as well as ill-defined ‘gross indecency’ are more dubious, The former has been slammed by the international human rights community for violating sexuality rights in the context of consent and privacy, while the latter has been criticized for creating a lacuna for selective persecution of what is deemed as non-heterogeneous behaviour.

While the homophobic nature of the code has been long discussed, I will focus on another curious aspect of the legislation: sections 377A and 377B, which cover consensual oral and anal sex, criminalise only the (obviously male) penetrator but not the penetratee, whether male or female. In other words, the legislation criminalises men and only men.

Thus, there is not a single section in the entire code which criminalises any form of consensual lesbian intercourse: female-to-female oral sex, anilingus, fingering/fisting, tribadism, vaginal and anal penetration by foreign object etc.

At first sight, this may seem to be a cause for celebration for horny lesbians nationwide. Upon closer inspection, this seemingly heaven-bestowed oversight in our legislation sheds light on our patriarchal notions of human sexuality.

Penal Code 377 was drafted by the British colonialists with the aim of cracking down on male-to-male sodomy. The draftsmen, however, never considered including sections prohibiting lesbian sex because lesbian sex, the only form of sex not involving males, was not even considered to be ‘proper intercourse’ then.

One and half century since then, the notion that sex is an inherently penis-driven activity, propagated by a society that is dominated by heterosexual males, continues to permeate our social consciousness. Today, the term ‘oral sex’ is still associated with fellatio (insertion of penis into mouth) by default according to popular belief when by definition, it covers both fellatio and cunnilingus (stimulation of vagina with mouth or tongue). Coitus (penetration of vagina by penis) is still considered to be the ideal form of sexual intercourse over all other forms of sexual intercourse. Orgasm is still defined in the context of the male experience.

I would like to think that it is time to break such long-held notions, for two good reasons. Firstly, so that female sexuality is no longer regarded as inferior or less significant to male sexuality; a prerequisite to gender equality and upholding sexuality rights. It is time to recognise that females too, are equal participants in sexual experience and that yes, penises are not indispensable in the gratifying achievement of female orgasm.

Secondly, when we are finally able to recognise consensual lesbian sex as a legitimate form of intercourse, we shall then also be able to criminalise female-to-female rape and sexual violence, which I believe has been long gravely dismissed as unlikely events in our society.

Oral, anal sex: Controversial acts, but should they be illegal?

Gabrielle Chong

News that the police are contemplating charging Chua Soi Lek for oral sex one whole year after the emergence of his sex tape may have surprised many people.

However, the realisation that both consensual oral and anal sex are illegal in Malaysia will surprise even more people, as these acts are not widely assumed to be criminal.

Under sections 377(A) and 377(B) of the Penal Code, anyone who commits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” by inserting the penis into the mouth or anus of another person is liable to whipping and imprisonment of up to 20 years.

Penetration must also be sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section.

However, the code only affects the male person who is penetrating another person, while the male or female person whose mouth or anus is penetrated will not be subject to any form of penalty.

Under section 377(C) of the Penal Code, anyone who commits the same act without the consent of the other person is liable to the same penalty, with the exception that he or she will be subjected to a minimum of five years in jail.

Writer and activist Tan Beng Hui, feels that section 377 is obsolete and should be repealed. “The operative word in the code is not consent, but the act of oral and anal sex itself. It is its perceived unnaturalness that is the basis for the harsh maximum sentence regardless of consent.

“Or course, non-consensual anal and oral sex are rightly criminalised, but these provisions should fall under provisions for rape instead.

“How lawmakers deemed it appropriate to include them under an ‘unnatural sex law’ is telling of how the emphasis is on viewing these as acts ‘against the order of nature’ rather than acts that involve violence and coercion,” she said.

Archaic law?

The code, drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860 with the intention of prohibiting sodomy, was later incorporated into the laws of many former British colonies, including Malaysia.
But while the original code was abolished in the UK in the late seventies and later in several other former colonies, the Malaysian version has never been amended.

On this, Tan commented, “It is a legislation that was introduced into the country under British rule, so it is curious that we not only continue to abide by it but defend its provisions as being in line with Asian values.”

Across the Causeway, section 377, which criminalises oral and anal sex, was repealed in October 2007.

However, section 377(A) of the Penal Code, which prohibited acts of gross indecency between men, was retained in the backdrop of public commotion and heated debate between both proponents and opponents of the code.

The retention meant that oral and anal sex was finally legalised for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

“They (homosexuals) live their lives. That’s their personal space. But the tone of the overall society, I think, remains conventional, it remains straight and we want it to remain so,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said during the Parliament debate before a petition to repeal section 377(A) was rejected.

Nevertheless, the Home Affairs Ministry in Singapore has promised not to actively persecute anyone under section 377(A) of the Penal Code and prosecutions under that section have been rare.

However, in Malaysia, there has been little or almost no awareness on, much less opposition to, section 377 despite the fact that most human rights groups and activists strongly believe that the code violates the right of adults to sexual relationships within a private environment and the presence of consent.

Social taboos

Feminist activist and researcher Jac Kee admits, “Section 377 of the Penal Code has rarely been tackled by local human rights organisations.

“Although the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) has considered taking steps to push for reform, it has been occupied with other pressing matters, especially laws pertaining to rape, divorce and issues involving women’s rights.

“However, much of the lack of activity on reforming section 377 of the Penal Code is also due to paucity of space and willingness for proper discourse on sexuality rights in Malaysia.”

Agreeing that the taboo around sex was an obstacle to abolishing section 377, Tan added that a culture of fear has also hindered Malaysians from raising difficult questions.

“So long as these two obstacles remain, any effort to repeal the section will be difficult because we cannot speak honestly about our views, and hence cannot consider the full range of implications related to sexual matters.

“A third obstacle is related to our inability to separate matters of personal morality versus public morality. What happens within the confines of private life, so long as no rights are being violated, should not be regulated by the state,” she said.

“We should also ask ourselves what it means when the two times Section 377 has received any publicity has been in relation to politicised cases; the first involving Anwar Ibrahim, and now relating to Chua Soi Lek.

“It is not a coincidence that this law has been used to discredit both these men given how it is premised on the demonisation of sexual practices outside intercourse between a man and a woman within the institution of marriage.”

She also noted that a shift in Malaysian mentality towards respecting the privacy and lifestyle choices of individuals was needed before any substantial reforms in laws pertaining to sexuality rights could be attempted.

In 2007, a parliamentary select committee reviewed Section 377 of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. However, no amendments were made to the former.

Respecting the tenets of religion

According to Honey Tan, social activist with Empower, two recommendations to amend Section 377 were also shot down during the United Nations universal periodic review held in Geneva last month.

The review is held every three years to draft recommendations to improve human rights protection in member states.

The Malaysian delegation, led by Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, Rastam Mohd Isa, noted that it was right to say that the Malaysian Penal Code criminalised oral and anal sex, adding that such sexual conduct was against the tenets of not only Islam, but other major religions in Malaysia.

Chile recommended that Malaysia eliminate standards in the penal code which allow for discrimination against persons on grounds of sexual orientation, while France recommended that Malaysia respect the rights of all individuals, including homosexuals, by de-penalising homosexuality.

However, the Malaysian delegation reported that both suggestions did not enjoy the support of all Malaysians. Hence, it is safe to say that the ban on oral sex and anal sex will probably stay for a long time yet.

Appendix:

Penal Code 377

s(1) 377 – Bestiality
Voluntary carnal intercourse with an animal. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to fine and whipping)

s(2) 377A – Carnal intercourse against the order of nature
Sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Penetration is to be sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section.

s(3) 377B – Committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature
Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be subjected to punishment. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to fine and whipping)

s(4) 377C – Committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature without consentCarnal intercourse against the order of nature on another person without the consent, or against the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to the person or any other person. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to whipping, minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment)

s(5) 377CA – Sexual connection by object
Sexual connection with another person by the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of the other person without the other person’s consent. However, this section does not extend to where the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of any person if carried out for medical or law enforcement purposes. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to whipping and fine)

s(6) 377D – Gross indecency
Any person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. (Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment)

s(7) 377E – Inciting a child to an act of gross indecencyAny person who incites a child under the age of 14 years to any act of gross indecency with him or another person. (Maximum penalty: 5 years imprisonment, liable to whipping)