An Electronic Newsletter
Written and published by Marty Klein, Ph.D.
Issue #61 -- March 2005
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"
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.
1. Chris Rocks The Oscars--Not
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.
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
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
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
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
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
"Reprinted from Sexual Intelligence, copyright
© Marty Klein, Ph.D. (www.SexEd.org)."