Sexual Intelligence
An Electronic Newsletter

Written and published by Marty Klein, Ph.D.

Issue #61 -- March 2005

Contents

1. Chris Rocks The Oscars--Not
2. Anti-Choice Rep Suddenly Protects Gays
3. Illegal to Self-Soothe At Home?
4. Looking for Trouble--In Secret
5. Introducing REAL
6. Canadian Prime Minister: "We're All Gay"


1. Chris Rocks The Oscars--Not

The advance advertising and eventual telecast of the 77th Academy Awards were a classic bait and switch. The announced host was Chris Rock--an angry, stage-prowling, politically incorrect young black man who can be screamingly funny. For over a month, Rock and ABC kept promising us something edgy, something unpredictable, some sort of malfunction that we'd all be talking about Monday morning. We were promised a hothouse orchid during a political winter of plastic daisies.

But then it was showtime, and of course ABC bowed to the post-Super-tittie, post-invasion, post-FCC-on-steroids era. Rock brought in that crucial 18-35 demographic--but sold them short by keepin' it clean. And keepin' it dumb--using the high-voltage Rock to insult movie stars is like using a cannon to kill a flea. Worst of all, it just wasn't funny. Later, Robin Williams came onstage with tape over his mouth. He'd been told he couldn't mention James Dobson or any other political powerhouse obsessed with the sexuality of cartoon characters. The comic speculated on the sexual orientation of Bugs and Daffy, but instead of laughing at them we should have been invited to laugh at Falwell and Daffy.

So we heard no F words, saw no nipples, and the children were safe. But a billion people did get to gawk at hundreds of gorgeous women in skintight dresses that showed plenty of cleavage. Apparently, America's morality police were able to delude themselves into believing that that wasn't about sex. Of course not. We were appreciating the curve of Hilary Swank's dress, not fantasizing about the way it caressed her lower back.


2. Anti-Choice Rep Suddenly Protects Gays

Maine state representative Brian Duprey has proposed a law making it illegal to end a pregnancy because the fetus is gay. He says that future biologists may identify a "gay gene," and he doesn't want women getting abortions to avoid having gay children.

This law is a terrible idea.

A well-known opponent of legal abortion, Duprey doesn't exactly lament the state's shortage of gay people. So don't think for one minute that his proposal involves any compassion for them. Legislators like Duprey want to give gay fetuses more rights than gay humans. Consistent with the rest of their anti-choice movement, they care more about the unborn than about the born; they seduce pregnant young women into giving birth by lavishing attention on them, then cut funding for post-partum healthcare and social services.

Gays don't need special protection from abortion. They simply need the basic protections promised to all Americans after they're born: educational opportunity, non-discriminatory medical care, fair job access. If we believe that abortion is a choice to which all pregnant women and couples are entitled, it's a mistake to create a hierarchy of reasons, designating some as better than others. Either abortion is a right or it's a privilege. Once it's merely a privilege, it can be restricted depending on geographic location, type of pregnancy, reason for abortion, etc. There are many bad reasons for getting pregnant. There are no reasons for getting an abortion that are so bad that the right to it should be confiscated.


3. Illegal to Self-Soothe At Home?

Canada's Supreme Court has exonerated a man convicted of committing an indecent act in 2000, after he was spotted masturbating in his living room near a window. Actually, "spotted" doesn't quite describe it. A neighboring couple reported Daryl Clark to the police after secretly observing him through binoculars for almost 15 minutes.

The complainants, a couple who live next door, said they were worried for their daughters' welfare when they saw Clark in a position that suggested masturbation. The couple then went to their own bedroom to get a better look, brought out binoculars and a telescope, and tried (unsuccessfully) to videotape their neighbor.

But although the original trial judge believed the defendant was unaware he was being watched, he nevertheless convicted him of committing an indecent act, "in a public place, in the presence of one or more persons." So Clark was sentenced to four months in prison. Ultimately, all Canadians are now better off, because one's home has been clearly defined as not a public space. One hopes that Clark's neighbors--voyeuristic, irresponsible, and dangerous to others--had their gear confiscated and ordered to mind their own damn business.


4. Looking for Trouble--In Secret

Kansas' Attorney General Phill Kline has demanded the medical files (including contraceptive methods and sexual histories) of girls under 16 who have had abortions, and some women who have had late-term (after 22 weeks) abortions. Supported by a gag order from a local judge, he also ordered that patients not be informed of this extraordinary government intrusion into their personal lives. The only reason the secret investigation is now public is because it was revealed in a local newspaper.

It is illegal for doctors in Kansas to perform an abortion after 22 weeks' pregnancy unless it is needed to protect the mother's health. Kline, a well-known opponent of the right to abortion, wants to make sure no laws were broken in these women's procedures. Unless Kansas' high court intervenes, they could next find the police knocking at their door.

It is illegal for a girl under 16 to have sex in Kansas. The AG claims he's busting into abortion clinics to "prosecute child rape and other crimes, in order to protect Kansas children."

Kline is either deliberately lying about the commonly-known sexual behavior of most pregnant teens, or he's ignorant beyond belief. Most pregnant teens have been having sex with other teens. That may be illegal in many states (a perverted use of the law, which is a whole other conversation), but it's far different than these girls having been "molested" or "raped."

The AG actually wants to punish boys and girls who have sex. Where exactly is the "protection" he claims to be offering--except for the anti-sex ideology of his financial backers?

This is the same AG who last year busted an abortion clinic for having dirty conditions, again claiming he was acting on behalf of his state's consumers. And did he go after dirty conditions in other medical facilities? In fact, the AG says he was also investigating the claim that the physician was ingesting aborted fetuses. Well, all in a day's work for Kline--one more fetus-ingesting physician whose clinic needs investigating. Then it's off to investigate satanic cults, vampires, and Rosemary's Baby.

No specific allegations about underage sex or illegal late abortions preceded Kline's crusade. Nevertheless, in a state with its share of violent, property, and white-collar crime, Kline justified his extreme action: "There are two things child predators want," he said: "access to children and secrecy." Kline added that as Attorney General, "I am bound and determined to not give them either." Instead, Kline has grabbed one and created the other.


5. Introducing REAL

Last week, Congressmember Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the REAL Act into the 109th Congress. The Responsible Education About Life Act allocates $206 million per year for medically accurate, age-appropriate comprehensive sexuality education. As documented by Congressmember Henry Waxman (issue #59), 11 of the 13 most popular federally-funded "sex ed" programs in the U.S. are riddled with inaccuracies, bigoted stereotypes, and are forbidden to mention contraception except to label it as unreliable or unsafe.

The $206 million figure matches what President Bush has proposed for abstinence programs in his 2006 budget. It culminates the two-thirds of a billion dollars the U.S. government has spent telling young people to "pet your dog, not your date" since 1997. 

The bill is co-sponsored by 66 members of Congress. To see if yours is one (so you can send a quick email thanking him/her), go to http://thomas.loc.gov, and enter HR768 under "search bill." Unfortunately, all the co-sponsors are Democrats. The Republicans have decided that they don't trust science enough to require that kids be taught what's medically accurate. They also don't trust that kids can handle information. So they tell kids "just say no"--tens of millions of whom are already saying yes. Republicans apparently believe that although kids can't handle accurate information, they can keep virginity pledges at age 20 that they make at age 14. There's a keen understanding of human development.

Linking sexuality with guilt, shame, fear, suspicion of the other sex, and lies about human anatomy isn't only a pathetic excuse for "education." For the majority of kids, it's far more harmful than the results of the too-early sexual involvement that anti-sex legislators try so hard to prevent. While SI is in favor of kids postponing shared genital sex until they graduate from high school, motivating them for the wrong reason--in the wrong way--is terribly unhealthy for them.


6. Canadian Prime Minister: "We're All Gay"

Two weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin spoke to Parliament on the subject of same-sex marriage. It was a gorgeous speech, an exciting example of leadership. Mr. Martin understands that gay marriage isn't about gays; it's about the structure of democracy.

We've edited Martin's speech below. To read all of it, see www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=421. Remember, this speech was given by the elected head of a nation filled with Christians, children, and married heterosexuals.

This is the first time in SI's 5-year history that we have reprinted a piece written by someone else. When our President makes a similar speech, we promise to reprint it, too.
ADDRESS BY PRIME MINISTER PAUL MARTIN to
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON BILL C-38 (THE CIVIL MARRIAGE ACT) (excerpted)

"I rise today in support of the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected, and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.

This is an important day. Our deliberations will not merely be about a piece of legislation. They will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be. This bill protects minority rights. It affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, and that important.

And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say: I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today--as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms.

Some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue: religious officials are free to perform only such ceremonies that accord with their beliefs. In no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. This legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this because it offends the very purpose of the Charter. The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected, regardless of their numbers. We embrace freedom and equality in theory. We must also embrace them in fact.

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to "civil union." This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians. That would be wrong for Canada.

To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you: If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?

My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not. My duty is to protect the Charter, as some in this House will not.

When we as a nation protect minority rights we are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights--not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights--is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian.

Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. But much has changed since that day. There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.

To those who would oppose this bill, I urge you to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be. Justice demands it. Fairness demands it. The Canada we love demands it."

 


You may quote anything herein, with the following attribution:
"Reprinted from Sexual Intelligence, copyright © Marty Klein, Ph.D. (www.SexEd.org)."