aQuaTIP

Same-sex marriage protects kids

In 2002 Richard Lo was understandably scared—his partner Patrick Callaghan was suffering from hereditary polycystic kidney disease and had been waiting for over a year for a kidney donation that provided a match suitable for transplant. Patrick’s mother and two of his brothers had died from the disease, and it was not clear if the donation would come in time.

In most states and in most countries, the partner of a dying gay, lesbian or bisexual person has no legal right to be with their loved one as a spouse would. Even so, a significant segment of people that oppose equal rights for lesbian and gay people that I’ve spoken with while lobbying at the Iowa General Assembly in the past few years and also at the U.S. Congress seem to sincerely deplore the thought of any two people who care deeply for one another being kept apart during times of great personal catastrophe. While I find it reassuring to know that the people who strive to deprive gay and lesbian people of equal protection and rights under the law carry with them some modicum of respect for these long-term relationships, one wouldn’t need to imagine a world where they could be separated by an unenlightened hospital or hospice staff if it weren’t for the lack of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples.

So often the arguments heard in and around the debates over same-sex marriage focus solely on two individuals, but a family is, often, so much more. Lesbian and gay couples have been raising children for decades—the State of Iowa actually began the active recruitment of same-sex couples to become foster parents in the late 1970s. Studies endorsed by the American Psychological Association and developmental specialists have indicated that children raised by same-sex couples grow to be as healthy as their counterparts reared by heterosexuals—some of those same studies have also shown some indications that those children raised by same-sex couples may even be less likely to engage in violent behaviors.

During Cornell’s Student Symposium in 2002 I presented a paper in which I argued that the lack of this legal recognition put children in great jeopardy. While many employers do offer health benefits to the domestic partners of employees—many do not. Say, for instance, that a child is legally adopted by only one father and the other father has the sole gainful employment perhaps due to a series of lay-offs. Now also assume that the father with gainful employment works for Snapple and does not receive domestic partnership benefits. It is possible that as a result of this exclusionary corporate behavior that the child of the two men is left without some or all of the elements of healthcare that she might need.
Some clever social conservatives might say that I’ve just made part of the case for denying lesbian and gay citizens the right to raise children. Really though, what I think I’ve done is mention just two situations in a tremendously long list that illustrates why the equality of same-sex and heterosexual couples is a necessary component of contemporary American society.

I haven’t forgotten about Richard and Patrick, the couple concern about Patrick’s failing kidney. It is often compared to winning a very chance lottery, but in this instance Richard was able to donate one of his healthy kidneys in order to save his loved one Patrick.

It really does astound me that social conservatives, in a country with a 50% divorce rate, are willing to make any argument that protecting marriage from interlopers such as Richard and Patrick will do anything at all aside from deny two people the protections that they deserve.

by Addy Free, Opinions Editor
The Cornellian vol. 125, issue 2

The Privilege of a College Education

In this, my first column of the academic year, I’ll discuss the often times unearned and under valued college education we are here at Cornell to obtain.

The notion that we have some or most of what we have because of privilege is oft denied because many of us feel as though we have worked hard for the positions we inhabit in society. That some of us have worked hard may not be at all untrue, but even the desire to work hard is often a privilege itself. To feel as though the work one does will yield fair results is denied to many people because society has repeatedly told them that their family structure and composition, their culture or heritage, or even their physical or mental abilities predicate their existence. These people are being told that normal levels of “hard work” aren’t enough and that they must go above and beyond what others must do in order to succeed is unjust, I think, but also an inherent component in our Capitalist economic mode.

One of the greatest privileges that we have here, as students of Cornell College, is that we are here at all. Cornell is a noted, private liberal arts college with a history and a reputation. Some of us are here because of generous gifts to Cornell that have come to us in the form of art, performance and academic merit scholarships (athletic scholarships cannot be awarded at Cornell). Many people, scholarship recipients not excluded, have chosen to take on great financial debt so as to attend the kind of college they desired for their continued education, while others are able to be at Cornell because their parents or family are wealthy or they have been graced with the good luck of unearned wealth and that affluence has accommodated their desire to attend our institution.

Regardless, I wouldn’t ask a person that is supported by personally unearned wealth to give it all up, “earn it” and then return to Cornell. I would ask any of you out there that feel like I’m calling your position out to take even a quick look at how easy it is for you to get the material possessions you want or the text books you need (but didn’t really want in the first place) and consider that for most of the children of affluence in our nation, a good post-secondary education is something that just happens to them by following the possible paths set up for them, but that for people that have come from a lower income background, college can be a constant struggle. Many of our students at Cornell are the first in their families to graduate from college, where parents didn’t know what the SAT or ACT were or that a good college education could easily come at a cost greater than that of their family home.

Most people who have great privilege are also very innocent in their positions—people are born into systems and circumstances and taking advantage of those is perfectly natural. I don’t fault the children of wealth for being wealthy. I fault those who don’t recognize it as a chance circumstance.

Unearned privilege is one of our most insidious, yet subtle, remnants of overt racism and sexism. I would have included homophobia in that, but several states have made efforts to amend their constituting documents to prevent the legal recognition of the loving, committed relationships of people, which seems to indicate that overtly heterosexist behavior is still approved of by a significant (although not a majority) segment of our nation’s populace.

Merely acknowledging the privileges we have is a tremendously important step in eroding systemic racism and sexism.

by Addy Free, Opinions Editor
The Cornellian Early Edition, 2004
[my posting of columns will typically not occur until the issue has hit the stands at Cornell, but this is an exception]

Meditation on Casual Sex

Last week I picked up David Kitt’s album Square 1. He’s an Irish singer/songwriter, and the album is all about his love for a girl. Now, I’m not a particularly big fan of over-wrought celebrations of heterosexuality, but I think that this album is one of the best I’ve bought in a long time and highly recommend it solely because it makes me happy. This brings me to the point of my column this issue: we should do what makes us happy; people should have more casual, safer sex.

Now, call me a Socialist, call me a Communist or use them interchangeably if you don’t know the difference, but I really do think that people need to be doing more of what makes them happy within the context of how it affects others. Folks should have loud, drunken parties. They should have frequent, casual and safer sex and revel in it. At the same time, though, they should think about how it affects others and act in a way that allows for the most fun with the fewest negative consequences. It really isn’t incredibly difficult to have a lot of fun without it having detrimental effects on others and one’s self.

I don’t think that anyone needs my encouragement to drink more, but I do want to encourage people to not only talk more about casual sex, but also to have more of it. Why is it that sex is so incredibly sacred to folks? We do lots of things in groups and pairs that are fun—like party, play cards, watch movies, dance, etc. Why shouldn’t folks be having sex? It’s fun; it’s not hard to learn how to do, and if practice makes perfect, then why aren’t more folks applying their drab commitments for perfection elsewhere in their lives to their sexual practices?

Also, most of those who will read this column are young and sexually charged. It seems almost a waste to deny our capacities for physical pleasure because of a socially imposed value, which says we need to be in a committed, monogamous relationship before getting it on with any given person. Well, if Person A and Person B are both attracted to one another and are friends, who is anyone to say that the relationship that they have as friends isn’t a perfectly substantial way of knowing someone before having sex with them?
I think that people should strongly consider casual safer-sex with friends as a way to better experience their youth. Besides, casual safer-sex is a great way to separate sex from emotional relationships so that you can figure out exactly what it is that you want in both. That way, if or when you decide to combine the two, you’ll be more conscious of what that end relationship is. But, that’s just a recommendation.

by Addy Free, Columnist
The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 15

Why should men be feminists?

When the Women’s Action Group (WAG) sent letters to student mailboxes, inviting each of us to submit papers to the Feminist Symposium, I noticed an inordinate number of them in the recycling, but other than that, something sure did catch my eye: written on one of the letters in pretty violent lettering was “I’m a BOY!”

So? I truly do fail to see how one’s penis would prevent him from having written a feminist paper or presenting that paper at such a venue. Is it that a male couldn’t possibly be a feminist? Perhaps a male would have no motivation for being a feminist even if he could be? Or is it, rather, that a male wouldn’t be welcome to present a feminist paper at an event sponsored by WAG?

Well, according to some radical feminists, no, a man could not be a feminist, but I’m willing to assert that such feminists are an incredibly small minority as far as that thought goes. Feminism is different for each individual, feminist or otherwise. That’s true for a great many things, like capitalism or socialism, Christianity or Buddhism. So, it’s not that a man can’t be a feminist.

To address the question of a man’s motivation for being a feminist, I’ll talk about my own. Feminism, for me, is about how gender (the shirts we wear, the games we play and the way we walk) shapes and restricts our lives. Do I propose that we just do away with gender entirely? I’m a pragmatic person who’d like to see the real lives of real people change in my time, so yes, but that’s not what I’m after. I believe that each person has a right to equality, and I don’t think that the way gender works for us makes allowances for that sort of equality. There are very specific limitations placed on us based on our sex; those are the rules of gender, and to step outside of them can sometimes have very serious ramifications imposed by society. So, for me, feminism is about breaking down the things that keep us from being closer to a more real egalitarianism, and equality serves everyone, including men; therefore, it makes good sense for a man to be a feminist if he’s interested in equal rights for people in general.

I know that WAG was interested in male presenters and had at least one, but beyond that welcome, men should be interested in participating in WAG programs for the reasons I discussed above. Promoting women in much the same way that men are promoted is not about making women better than men, it’s about making women and men equal in culture, in society and in their relationships.

We live in separate buildings when we do virtually the same things in them. We have separate bathrooms even though everything we need to accomplish in them can be done in the privacy of a stall, and it really shakes people up when you suggest that a male and a female could live in the same room together without it becoming a hedonistic sex-fest or a perfect set-up for sexual assault. These things aren’t about making women better than men, but they are, to me, feminist issues because they are simple—yet incredibly fundamental—expressions of how our genitals predicate our lives.

by Addy Free, Columnist
The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 14

Censorship in America: Terrorist Educators

It seems like a rather silly thing to liken the teachers in the United States to terrorists, or to require that mentally retarded children score high enough on standard tests so that their schools can stay open, but then again, what else should I have expected?

“Fascist” is a very strong descriptor for something, but when I recently read an elementary school teacher’s blog where she had written that she felt as though we were living under pseudo-fascist rule, it was hard for me to justify arguing with her choice of words. She was speaking after Bush’s Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, had the audacity to call the nation’s largest union of educators a “terrorist organization.”

The National Education Association’s President, Reg Weaver, in his written response stated, “NEA is 2.7 million teachers and educators who are fighting for children and public education. Yet this is the kind of rhetoric we have come to expect from this administration whenever one challenges its world view.”
Paige was referring specifically to the union’s dedication to lobbying against the Bush Administration’s “No Child Left Behind” initiative. Apparently it hasn’t been patriotic to criticize government since the 19th century, but even still, the union has every right to lobby against policies that it does not agree with. Besides, if these teachers are such terrorists—and remember now, we don’t give in to terrorist demands—then why is it that the government is backing off of some of the more short-sighted and poorly planned portions of the program?

My favorite highlight from the program, for those of you who aren’t particularly familiar with it, was where the government would require a certain average of scores in standardized tests throughout a given school in question for it to retain government funding. No exceptions were to be made for students who were developmentally disabled or for those who were learning English as a second language, thus putting schools that tend to suffer from low-funding at a significant disadvantage to those schools.

Now, not that behaviors that are censoring in nature are new, but in light of recent events, where some folks didn’t agree with the content of this newspaper and removed large quantities of them from newsstands, I thought I’d mention the idiocy of destroying, stealing or banning any publication with the intention of keeping it out of the hands of readers. When someone disagrees with the content of a book or publication, the civil course of action would be to express that disagreement by writing or expressing a response.

There is also, of course, the option of destroying property and obstructing the freedoms of speech and press, but who’d want to go and break the law?

by Addy Free, Columnist
The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 13

Weapon of Mass Distraction

A month ago in my column, “Protecting the Free States,” I talked about Bush’s State of the Union Address, in which he warned against permitting same-sex marriages. Recently, he has stated that he supports an amendment of the US Constitution that would define, for the entire nation, marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

In the past three weeks Republican sponsored legislation has come before the Iowa General Assembly that would begin the process of amending Iowa’s Constitution to further define marriage as Bush is proposing, as well as an accompanying resolution that would call on Congress to begin the process of amending the US Constitution. Since that column was published, marriage licenses have been issued in cities across the nation—San Francisco, CA, Bernalillo, NM, and New Paltz, NY.

In “Protecting the Free States” I mentioned inter-racial marriage and the societal angst that revolved around it. Speaking with interracial couples who were around back when the US Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, they described a nation almost as clearly divided as ours is now and, interestingly enough, along the same sort of fundamentalist religious lines.

I said it before, but it is worth repeating, we live in a nation that carries with it a freedom of religion—that has often been interpreted by Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the people as also being a freedom from religion. Frankly, I don’t care what anyone’s G-d or faith-tradition has to say about same-sex relationships. In America, it shouldn’t matter.

The same-sex marriage argument is controversial and can carry media attention for months if played properly and that is exactly what Bush hopes to do. Bush wants to further distract the population from the fact that his tax cuts for the rich had the effect of canceling the national surplus, sending the nation spiraling into it’s largest-ever deficit while also managing to force all 50 states into deficit spending. Just before Bush’s war 15 million people around the world were protesting him, mostly citing a lack of evidence that Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction or the capacity to manufacture them—turns out that they were right and that’s one very good reason that Bush needs to raise the waves on a domestic policy issue that will divide our nation.

The love of two people, the love they give their children and the love they receive from their families and their friends should not be an election year issue. To do so serves to trivialize these families and in the same breath also trivializes the deaths of innocent Iraqis and Americans who died and continue to die because Bush made the terrible decision to go to war. He must be held accountable—good thing we didn’t sign on to the International Criminal Court.

[prior to edit]
by Addy Free, Columnist
The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 12

"Abstinence-Only" Excludes Kids

In response to Liz Ditlevson’s column, published in the most recent issue of the Cornellian, I’d like to add one very important thing that I find to be wrong with abstinence-only sex education and most “abstinence plus” programs—Liz didn’t have space enough to cover the huge list of problems. Abstinence-only sex education, in many cases, pretends that our nation’s lesbian, gay and bisexual youth will not engage in sexual activity, but in one particularly wide-spread program, it makes a dangerous and close-minded turn for the worse by making loading statements that stand to worsen school climates that are already quite dangerous for many of our youth.

Student handbooks for “Sex Respect,” our nation’s most popular such program, includes the following statement: “Homosexual activity involves an especially high risk for AIDS infection [because] body openings are used in ways for which they are not designed. During such unnatural behaviors, additional damage is done to blood vessels and other body parts.”
Well, not to be a downer for those of you that were cheering on that odd piece of misinformation, but the vagina is just as welcoming a receptor for HIV+ semen as the lower intestine. Also, one does not become infected with AIDS—one becomes infected with HIV, the virus which causes AIDS (a syndrome, not a virus, as the name would imply).

Also, even if it were true that homosexual activity is a higher risk activity than heterosexual activity, it is worth noting that the passage refers to anal sex, but never specifically calls it out. Now, last time I checked, nothing is stopping heterosexuals from engaging in penile-anal sex in the very same way that homosexual males do—the point here is that because this handbook is so scared of words that give information to our young ones, there’s an incredibly silly lack of information being transmitted through these programs and words. Not only is it blatantly heterocentric, it is also a major disservice to the heterosexual majority.

My question to everyone out there is one that asks if you would like your child to be taught about the Civil War in the same way they are being taught about sex—sure, some kids are made uncomfortable finding out that their ancestors used to own the ancestors of some of the other kids in the room. And yes, the incredible amount of human loss can impact some kids, but they’ve gone to the movies lately--I assure you that they’ll be just fine. Denying them information is not a way to protect them, but it is a way to keep them ignorant of things that can help keep them safe.

by Addy Free, Columnist
The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 11
(text differs slightly from the print copy)

Protecting the Free States

this differs slightly from the print version.

Interracial marriage offended the sensibilities of many in 1967 when the Supreme Court, with Loving v. Virginia, overturned laws in the US that prohibited “miscegenation.” At the time, conservatives argued (because of their faith and/or their personal convictions) that they could not stand for such marriages because they were immoral. They also claimed that allowing interracial marriages made a mockery of the institution of marriage and that it was against the will of God. This sure sounds like something that’s going on right now…

In Bush’s State of the Union Address, he told us that if “activist judges” continued to make same-sex marriage an issue, that the only course of action would be the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would serve to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Bush is suggesting that we amend the constituting document of these United States to respond to the religious beliefs of some Americans.

Well, we could do that to appease his friends at Bob Jones University, but it seems like the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) already gives states the right to refuse to acknowledge the same-sex marriages of any state that allows them. Even Bill Barr, author of the Federal DoMA, argues against such an amendment because it would be unnecessarily punitive and have no real impact beyond what DoMA already does. Also, if Republicans support such an amendment it would be incredibly hypocritical on their part as it would serve to nullify the laws of states like Vermont, who have decided to permit civil unions in the same way they permit marriages. I thought that the GOP argued for “States Rights” and for keeping “Big Government” out of the internal affairs of each state—that’s what they argued for when DoMA was being considered in Congress and also during the past several elections.

While I firmly believe in the right of all people to practice their religion and faith, I do not believe that such a right to practice includes the power to limit the practices of others. Some faiths sanction gay marriages, while others do not. For the United States to make any law that values the marriage of one religion over any other is an obvious violation of my rights and yours. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Iowa version and any efforts to amend our Constitution should be opposed by all citizens interested in a free society.

by Addy Free, Columnist
The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 10

Religious Insecurity

There are many people who are so insecure in their religious affiliation and spirituality that they are scared to talk about it with someone who has done a lot of thinking, personal introspection and self-education on the issue of faith and the philosophy of religion. I wonder then: how rich, or even believable, is that person’s commitment to that faith?

Perhaps they are too young or too new to a situation to deal with direct challenges to their faith, but when is one old enough? There are 30-somethings that can’t answer some pretty simple questions about their affiliation and beliefs. My purpose isn't one of religious imperialism. Mine is to encourage people to sincerely take some time and put a critical lens to the text and traditions that they subscribe to.

I am a socialist and an agnostic. As such, I have a hard time seeing a real disconnect between religion and economic mode and so that informs a lot of my opinions. The way that I think about religion is somewhat difficult to get used to for some so I understand that some people could be intimidated by the claims that I have to make, but if a person is going to subscribe to religious beliefs that have led to so much pain in the world, then I think they need to be willing to make some sacrifices--being uncomfortable for a short time seems a reasonable price to pay for understanding.

When I was sixteen I first started coming to terms with the issues of white privilege, and yes, as a white male from a small town who really hadn't been confronted with these thoughts before, it was an incredibly uncomfortable situation. I am so glad that I challenged myself by repeatedly going into situations where I could learn from the experiences of others and I know that I’ve learned a lot from that.

My challenge to anyone who claims a faith is to, if you’ve not already done so, take some time and try to take a mildly objective look of your faith and the impact it has on the world around you--locally, nationally and globally.

by Addy Free, Columnist
printed in The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 9

Cornell Students and Marijuana

On our campus there has been an increase in the number of disciplinary actions taken against students who have been in possession of marijuana, paraphernalia related to the smoking of the illegal substance and also against those students who were merely in the room where the activity took place. The College must handle marijuana related incidents in a particular way due to threats on our federal funding that are imposed by the Higher Education Act. Many have noted, though, a personal bias against marijuana use amongst those who handle these cases that goes well beyond the enforcement of rules and procedures that are mandated by the government.

The student body, however, is under no obligation to report anything at all, so let’s stop reporting it. A lot of residents across campus look on as nineteen year old students parade through dorm halls with 40 ounce beers taped to their hands (the thought is, that if you don’t put it down, you’ll drink it faster). Now the very same residents get in a tizzy when they think they might smell pot smoke. The fact of the matter is you cannot overdose (OD) on marijuana, while you can OD on alcohol. Why are we as students permitting underage binge drinking and yet reporting, much more regularly, the innocuous behavior of smoking up? Turning someone in puts their federal financial aid at risk, as a conviction leads to denial of that aid, but can also include jail time and large fines.

The personal possession of marijuana has been illegal in the United States since a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, based largely on tabloid newspaper accounts of violent crimes committed by immigrants under the influence of the drug, prompted the passage by Congress of the “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.” Professionals today would be hard pressed to produce scientific literature that suggests or proves that one-time, infrequent, of even regular users, because of their usage of the drug, are more violent than a person who does not use.

Jimmy Carter, then President, had it right in his 1977 message to Congress in which he said, “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

I suggest thinking twice before reporting the smell of pot smoke to your RA’s, PerMar or the Mount Vernon Police Department. Since our marijuana laws are, in large part, out of whack and do damage people’s lives more than the drug itself does, let’s make people’s lives a little bit easier and strongly consider the ramifications before doing something that can really disrupt a person’s life.

by Addy Free, Columnist
printed in The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 8