As we sit and wait to see if the voters of California will allow their fellow citizens to marry their soul mates, the person that they love, I pondered our situation. Without any of the protections from my own state or federal government, we live our lives in love and commitment to each other. When these amendments are passed, the real net affect is to cost us money but it doesn’t lessen our love.
We traveled to Canada and were married legally there so legality does have meaning in our life. But we also went to our friends’ commitment ceremony last week. They stood up in front of all of us and made a commitment that has no legal standing. They also didn’t spend $25,000 on the ceremony. And yet somehow, it was so real and so beautiful and just as likely to last. What really matters is what you do with your love for one on another. And no legal or financial benefit can make or break a family, only love.
Maybe the right term is Falling in love orientation?
The Tipping Point-make the case for equality to one of the "few" and making it sticky.
How to create a compelling argument that marriage is about civil privilege?
How to accept that life is not fair and that being cast as a second class citizen does not mean you are.
This turned out to NOT be from Bette Midler but whoever wrote this did a good job:
Dear President Bush,
Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why. In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen. This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard? Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace. You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe. Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.
Another letter, this from a colleague's daughter Subject: Letter from my daughter
Another letter, this from a colleague's daughter Subject: Letter from my daughter
Sharon -- I thought you would appreciate reading this personal note. Here is a note from my 16-year-old daughter, Evan, on the topic of gay marriage. The note speaks for itself. I am a bit speechless in what her words say to me as her gay dad, and as a gay man in general. I asked for her permission to share this, with you, so here it is. Peace...Robert
Hey. Today at lunch my friend katie and i got in this huge fight about gay marriages. suprisingly i didnt bring it up and i was TRYING to stay out of it until she brought me into it by saying i was a tree-hugging democrat or something retarted like that, (which by the way is not true because i dont know that much about politics to go either way) so we got into it and i just decided since i can write things better than i can scream them..lol... Id type them out for her to aviod any more conflict with her. I just wanted to see what you think about what i said. I brought up all her stupid points. there were more but i couldnt remember them.. anyway..ok Katie maybe your religion has a problem with it, but as a country founded upon equality for all I find it almost hard to believe that something like this is debated so fiercely because of people's BELIEFS. it has nothing to do with legalities or rights or anything like that...people are uncomfortable with it so they're opposed to it. There is NOTHING in our law or constitution against it right now...so WHY is this debate even going on? the main reasons you're saying that its wrong are these...1. "Marriage is between one man and one woman." Well, that's the most one you always hear, But its definitely the weakest. Who says what marriage is to be defined by? It seems to me that if the we can't show a reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And these stupid reasons cant be enough. They're really more like an expression of prejudice more than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a actual reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights. You cant deny someone a fundamental human-right without giving them an actual reason.2. "Marriage is for reproduction". Well then. We should ban infertile couples from being allowed to marry. I would love to be there when the this argument is used to explain to a post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings. Wouldn't that be fun to watch! Funny republicans. Id be first in line to take George's wedding band. Again, this doesn't make any sense because of the marriages that society does allow...you don't even have to think about it.3. "Same-sex couples aren't a good environment in which to raise children. "Hmm... That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and have children in their marriage. murderers, convicted felons, even child molesters are all allowed to marry and reproduce, with hardly a second thought by you. So if children really are the priority here, why is this allowed? I would be willing to bet the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. What makes the difference is LOVE not freaking gender. And gay people are as capable of loving children as anyone else. I should know. But America says that a Child molester can marry and have kids because its the NORMAL way...he's the NORMAL and TRADITONAL way. A kid in that situation would have a better chance of growing up normally. Right?4. "Gay relationships are immoral." Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought (and was taught) that freedom of religion also gave the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no power in American law, and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules on others simply because it says its wrong or immoral. Someone told me recently that NO religion accepts homosexuality, KATY, which is a LIE. Not all religions have a problem with homosexuality; many parts of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. hmm...so doesn't that mean their religious freedom is being infringed? So basically if you believe in religious freedom then the argument about homosexual immorality is basically pointless and hypocritical. But you wouldnt happen to think about that would you?5. "Same-sex marriage would threaten the sacred institution of marriage."(ok maybe not your exact words but i think they were the presidents) Hmm...This one gets me the most. By allowing people to marry we are threatening...marriage...what? That's so incredibly hypocritical I don't even know where to start. I think by banning homosexual marriage that's infringing upon the 'institution of marriage even more than if you were to allow it.... If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then think about this... no one would requires you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage katie. So you would have freedom of choice of choosing what kind of marriage you wanted to have-- more freedom than what you have now. More freedom...less freedom.. Beat that. And speaking of divorce -- to say that preserving marriage is so important that you have to impose laws which prohibit gays from getting married...how about you strengthen divorce laws then? seems to me you can almost walk in and out of a court room or even make a phone call to your lawyer and be divorced just like that...sacred marriage...oOoh fear it.6. "Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution." This is morally the worst one to me. What about slavery? Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history Greeks and Romans and. the French lol.... But hm...by the 19th century, we had realized it was an evil evil thing and abolished it. It was wrong...it wasn't right. Just because something is traditionally one thing doesn't mean it isn't right or can't be changed.Just a side note..while were at it why dont we prohibit Jews from getting married. Purify the race ya know? sounds good to me Bush.
I read a politician's comment that it is impossible to feel anything but fondness for a member of the same sex and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry. Another form of ignorance floating around out there. And so I coined the term that may be more appropriate than sexual orientation and that is falling in love orientation. That's the point. I read another politician's statement about the supposed threat that is posed by gay marriage. And I thought, realitistically what will gay people bring to the institution of marriage? Very likely, gay people will bring to marriage what we have brought to the former "ghetto neighborhoods" that we have pioneered and that would be beauty, class, quality, and romance.
I have realized recently that a lot of the power as well as the responsibility lies with all of the closeted gay folks out there. Keep in mind that there are lots of degrees of being in the closet. There are those that try to live invisible lives, sort of a "don't ask, don't tell." And then there are the majority who only come out sometimes to some people, maybe to all of their close friends but not a stranger on an airplane. I truly believe that if most gay people could come out in some way to 10 more people they encounter in the next few weeks that we could change the numbers for gay marriage from 40% to 50% in a matter of months. I think putting a face on our lives and loves can make all the difference in the world. There may be such a thing as a gay "Uncle Tom" , those folks that seem to agree that their lives and love are not worthy of the respect that is given straight lives and loves. During the civil rights movement, not every Black person was willing to stand up and fight, there were those who continued to accept second class status. The reasons probably varied, some just weren't political, some were afraid, and some had internalized that status and couldn't see life any other way.
Ruth 1: 16, 17 states: "And Ruth proceeded to say: 'Do not plead with me to abandon you, to turn back from accompanying you; for where you go I shall go, and where you spend the night I shall spend the night. Your people will be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I shall die, and there is where I shall be buried. May Jehovah do so to me and add to it if anything but death should make a separation between me and you'."While no mention is made of actual sexual activity between this same-sex couple, it must be pointed out that these couples had made covenants with each other. To the ancient Israelites, a covenant was viewed as a holy bond, a powerful uniting of two people.More on Marriage So why marriage? Well it really is very simple. First people are born gay, it is part of God's plan. Ask any gay person who has finally met the love of their life if maybe God didn't bring that person into their life. Church sactioned gay ceremonies have been going on for years and there really isn't anything that the state can do about that.But aside from church weddings, there is this institution called marriage that encompasses a variety of manifestatations. Sometimes it is based on love, sometimes on money, sometimes on convenience. Some start in churches, some marriages start in Las Vegas. Hindus have arranged marriages, Muslims have their own variation.But what all marrriages have in common is that is the joining of two people to form a family.Traditionally, same sex couples have not been allowed to join this institution. Traditionally, up until 150 years ago, slavery was a recognized institution as well. That doesn't mean that we can't evolve for the better. Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Gay marriage comes down to this. Either we open this institution to same sex couples which will strengthen the institution or if gay marriage is constitutionally banned from same sex couples, it is likely to become a dying institution, replaced with some sort of civil partnership. Many people think that is for the best.
But the magic of marriage is how it makes a family out of two legal strangers.What is marriage all about? If you are gay, it might be worthwhile to ask yourself some of these questions and examine what you really believe about marriage.
In order to do that, you have to step back from any bitterness. Yes, you are denied entry into marriage by the conventional means.But let’s look at the parts that typically make up the institution of marriage:
Public commitment of two people to share their lives together and be a family.
A religious commitment in the eyes of God.
A rite of passage to adulthood.
An excuse for a party and gift giving.
The formation of an economic unit
The formation of a legal family with rights and privileges that apply to health decisions, etc.
A sexually exclusive partnership.
It is a commitment made when one is in love with the other person, then and only then should one marry.
It can also be out about playing out gender roles or not at all.
And it is also critical that you examine your feelings about this institution:
I respect the idea of marriage and basically want all the pieces of the pie.
I might have respected it but because I am banned from full participation, I have chosen a different response.
Because it is best not to want what you cannot have, I have relegated marriage to a heterosexual thing.
I respect straight marriages only.
I do not respect their marriages because I am banned.
I agree with part of it but not the entire institution as it exists today.
I think it is a bad idea for both and straight and gay people.
I think it is great for others but not for me.
Take some time to consider all of the implications of the marriage institution and try to be really get to the root of your own feelings. It is virtually impossible that one could grow up in American society and not have pretty strong feelings. At this point, just consider your own feelings and not those of your lover or your family. Now that you know how you feel about marriage,what's next? Clearly you cannot have the whole package as it stands in the U.S. today. And trying to change that is clearly going to be the final step in this exercise.
But meanwhile, taking a hard look at what you want out of marriage and then making some of it happen is a choice. While we all want things to be simple and the idea of this one act, getting married, and thus obtaining all of these pieces at once, is very appealing. But for now, take it apart and see what you can and cannot achieve. You might be surprised at how much difference it makes to your life.
Why are we who we are?
From Science Daily “Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy,” Vilain said. “These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender — feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex — is a state of mind. “From previous studies, we know that transgender persons possess normal hormonal levels,” he said. “Their gender identity likely will be explained by some of the genes we discovered.” Vilain’s findings on the brain’s sex genes may also ease the plight of parents of intersex infants, and help their physicians to assign gender with greater accuracy. Mild cases of malformed genitalia occur in 1 percent of all births — about 3 million cases. More severe cases — where doctors can’t inform parents whether they had a boy or girl — occur in one in 3,000 births. “If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment,” Vilain said. Lastly, Vilain proposes that the UCLA findings may help to explain the origin of homosexuality. “It’s quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is ‘hard-wired’ by the brain,” he said. “If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and examine our civil legal system accordingly.” The UCLA study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Science Foundation and with start-up funds from the UCLA Department of Urology. Vilain’s co-authors included Phoebe Dewing, Steve Horvath and Tao Shi, all of UCLA.
Link to a very interesting article for more information
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
A number of things that I wanted to say have come to mind so hopefully I will be able to sit here and organize them into coherent thoughts. First, let me talk about gender. I do happen to believe, though many other gay and straight people do not, that there are gender differences. And the reality of the human condition on that count is complex. Some people are born with no biologically set gender and there is another state where people are a psychological blend of genders. I believe that is the case with me. I am sure that some of our gender preferences come from societal training, etc. but I do think there are inherent differences. I definitely identify as a woman in some ways, certainly biologically that is the case, but there is an essence of masculine tendencies in me. I have worn girls clothes because I wanted to fit in or needed a job but I always feel like I am in drag. It makes me very uncomfortable. I wanted to do boys things as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I used to wear a neck tie and snuck off to buy boys shoes which I hid under my bed. Before, I go on, let me make it clear that I do not want to be a man. I am very at peace with the whole of me. But I did not get married in a dress. I wore a tuxedo jacket and a very feminine blouse, totally symbolizing who I am. If I try to imagine myself as straight, I can only imagine that possible if I were a male, a sensitive male but a guy. I just cannot even imagine myself as a straight woman. I tried to not be gay and during that time, my life was a disaster because I was living a lie, trying to please society and my parents, but not God. God did not approve of my denying the gift that I have been given to see the world through the eyes of both genders. Native Americans, before they were taught homophobia, called people like me third and fourth gendered and I think there is something to that. They were honored as special people because the blending of the two is wonderful gift. And for me, only love with another woman can fit with who I am. Carol is that perfect fit for me. I am not speaking for all gay people, many have an entirely different experience and would vehemently disagree with my perspective but that is how I see things. When I was a young kid in Sunday school, I remember reading the story of Ruth and Naomi and having hope for me. I believe that it is, as well as the story of Jonathan and David, a story of same sex love. Now, on the subject of changing values, let me make this point. Slavery was an accepted condition throughout all of human history until the last 150 years. The Bible allows and encourages it and one of the key reasons that I do not consider the Bible the final word from God is because no where does it condemn what to me is perhaps the greatest evil of all time, the concept of one human being "owning" as property another human being. I do believe there are moral absolutes but I also think there is moral relativity. Thomas Jefferson was a great man but he did own slaves and had he lived his exact life in the last 50 years, he would be considered an evil man. But in the context of his times, he was not and thus cannot be judged as such. Of course, judging anyone is dangerous stuff and is something that I try to avoid. I believe that how society treats people like me will have a similar story. People will realize in time, as many already have, that being gay is a natural, positive life for some people and that it is in everyone's best interest to encourage love, stability, etc. among those for whom being gay is a natural condition. And someday, people will look back on those that tried to block that basic human decency and treat them the way we judge Thomas Jefferson, in the context of his time. God will get to sort the important stuff out.
Below is an interview worth reading: Jimmy Cater interviewed by Sean Kennedy From The Advocate, January 17, 2006
Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Amazon.com)
You’re a Christian, but you don’t have a problem with gay men and lesbians as many other Christians do. Why? I’m a worshipper of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned homosexuals in any way—certainly not in a deleterious fashion. And when it has been mentioned in the New Testament, it’s been combined with things like selfishness or something like that. So I’ve never looked upon it as any sort of reason to condemn a person. I think it’s an inherent characteristic just like other things that we do with our lives. You point out in your book that the Bible more forcefully condemns sins like adultery, but Christian fundamentalists are less obsessed with that than with homosexuality. Why do you think they pick on gay people? This is an aspect of fundamentalism, where they tend to deal with social issues in absolute black-and-white. They see that this resonates with some people as an emotional factor, homosexuality, and they have escalated it into the political arena deliberately as a divisive issue. What I’ve tried to do in this book is to address not only the question of gay and lesbian people but also abortion, gun control, the death penalty, and other things, and [say] we need to get them out of the political altercations that divide Americans and find some common ground. Among your proposals is leaving marriage to the church to sanction but having the government provide equal rights for all couples in civil unions, including gays. I know that people have different opinions about that, but that’s my own proposal for rational coming together. If an individual church or synagogue doesn’t want to have marriage vows expressed by gay people, I think that ought to be a religious decision. But under no circumstances do I think a gay couple ought to be deprived of their rights as citizens. Why is fundamentalism such a threat? You see it in the Congress every day: You’re either absolutely right or you’re absolutely against me. Even President Bush does that in foreign affairs: You’re either with us or against us. The fundamentalists in religious circles believe that they have a unique relationship with God; therefore their beliefs are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their beliefs is wrong and inherently inferior. How do we make them compromise? My book had to go to press in July, but what’s happened since then—with public-opinion polls and the realization among the American people about what’s happening in Washington—is quite indicative that there’s going to be some basic changes made. The 2004 elections were highly distorted by the fact that 9% or 10% of American voters always tend to support the incumbent president no matter whether they disagree with him or not—that sense of patriotism distorted the outcome of the election. And my opinion is, in 2000, Al Gore won both throughout the nation and in Florida. We’d be in a very different place today if that outcome had been legally affirmed. I think so—and if fundamentalism hadn’t penetrated, to such an extent, Washington and its environs
This is funny and sad:
The following is an Open Letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors bitch to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense and threaten to call Human Resources. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?....Why can't I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with them due to the weather? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same as a you-know-what. Can you settle this? g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it'sOK? i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again Dr. Laura, for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Op Ed Piece in Vermont Newspaper:
"Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.
In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity. You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that. At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn. If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?
A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters. "You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.
You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin. The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are? "Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?"
The following presents some very interesting demographics and is a quite effective way of helping all of us realize how fortunate we are.
IF EARTH'S POPULATION WAS SHRUNK INTO A VILLAGE OF JUST 100 PEOPLE WITH ALL THE HUMAN RATIOS EXISTING IN THE WORLD STILL REMAINING, WHAT WOULD THIS TINY, DIVERSE VILLAGE LOOK LIKE?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PHILLIP HARTER, A MEDICAL DOCTOR AT THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE,ATTEMPTED TO FIGURE OUT. THIS IS WHAT HE FOUND.
57 WOULD BE ASIAN
21 WOULD BE EUROPEAN
14 WOULD BE FROM THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
8 WOULD BE AFRICAN
52 WOULD BE FEMALE
48 WOULD BE MALE
70 WOULD BE NONWHITE
30 WOULD BE WHITE
70 WOULD BE NON-CHRISTIAN
30 WOULD BE CHRISTIAN
89 WOULD BE HETEROSEXUAL
11 WOULD BE HOMOSEXUAL
6 PEOPLE WOULD POSSESS
59 PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD'S WEALTH, AND ALL 6 WOULD BE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
80 WOULD LIVE IN SUB-STANDARD HOUSING
70 WOULD BE UNABLE TO READ
50 WOULD SUFFER FROM MALNUTRITION
1 WOULD BE NEAR DEATH
1 WOULD BE PREGNANT
1 WOULD HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION
1 WOULD OWN A COMPUTER
What to do with Osama bin Laden....Killing him will only create a martyr. Holding him prisoner will inspire his comrades to take hostages to demand his release. Therefore, it has been suggested that we do neither. Let the Special Forces, Seals or whatever, covertly capture him, fly him to an undisclosed hospital and have surgeons quickly perform a complete sex change operation. Then we return HER to Afghanistan to live as a woman under the Taliban regime.
I read a politician's comment that it is impossible to feel anything but fondness for a member of the same sex and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry. Another form of ignorance floating around out there. And so I coined the term that may be more appropriate than sexual orientation and that is falling in love orientation. That's the point. I read another politician's statement about the supposed threat that is posed by gay marriage. And I thought, realitistically what will gay people bring to the institution of marriage? Very likely, gay people will bring to marriage what we have brought to the former "ghetto neighborhoods" that we have pioneered and that would be beauty, class, quality, and romance.
I have realized recently that a lot of the power as well as the responsibility lies with all of the closeted gay folks out there. Keep in mind that there are lots of degrees of being in the closet. There are those that try to live invisible lives, sort of a "don't ask, don't tell." And then there are the majority who only come out sometimes to some people, maybe to all of their close friends but not a stranger on an airplane. I truly believe that if most gay people could come out in some way to 10 more people they encounter in the next few weeks that we could change the numbers for gay marriage from 40% to 50% in a matter of months. I think putting a face on our lives and loves can make all the difference in the world. There may be such a thing as a gay "Uncle Tom" , those folks that seem to agree that their lives and love are not worthy of the respect that is given straight lives and loves. During the civil rights movement, not every Black person was willing to stand up and fight, there were those who continued to accept second class status. The reasons probably varied, some just weren't political, some were afraid, and some had internalized that status and couldn't see life any other way.
Ruth 1: 16, 17 states: "And Ruth proceeded to say: 'Do not plead with me to abandon you, to turn back from accompanying you; for where you go I shall go, and where you spend the night I shall spend the night. Your people will be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I shall die, and there is where I shall be buried. May Jehovah do so to me and add to it if anything but death should make a separation between me and you'."While no mention is made of actual sexual activity between this same-sex couple, it must be pointed out that these couples had made covenants with each other. To the ancient Israelites, a covenant was viewed as a holy bond, a powerful uniting of two people.More on Marriage So why marriage? Well it really is very simple. First people are born gay, it is part of God's plan. Ask any gay person who has finally met the love of their life if maybe God didn't bring that person into their life. Church sactioned gay ceremonies have been going on for years and there really isn't anything that the state can do about that.But aside from church weddings, there is this institution called marriage that encompasses a variety of manifestatations. Sometimes it is based on love, sometimes on money, sometimes on convenience. Some start in churches, some marriages start in Las Vegas. Hindus have arranged marriages, Muslims have their own variation.But what all marrriages have in common is that is the joining of two people to form a family.Traditionally, same sex couples have not been allowed to join this institution. Traditionally, up until 150 years ago, slavery was a recognized institution as well. That doesn't mean that we can't evolve for the better. Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Gay marriage comes down to this. Either we open this institution to same sex couples which will strengthen the institution or if gay marriage is constitutionally banned from same sex couples, it is likely to become a dying institution, replaced with some sort of civil partnership. Many people think that is for the best.
But the magic of marriage is how it makes a family out of two legal strangers.What is marriage all about? If you are gay, it might be worthwhile to ask yourself some of these questions and examine what you really believe about marriage.
In order to do that, you have to step back from any bitterness. Yes, you are denied entry into marriage by the conventional means.But let’s look at the parts that typically make up the institution of marriage:
Public commitment of two people to share their lives together and be a family.
A religious commitment in the eyes of God.
A rite of passage to adulthood.
An excuse for a party and gift giving.
The formation of an economic unit
The formation of a legal family with rights and privileges that apply to health decisions, etc.
A sexually exclusive partnership.
It is a commitment made when one is in love with the other person, then and only then should one marry.
It can also be out about playing out gender roles or not at all.
And it is also critical that you examine your feelings about this institution:
I respect the idea of marriage and basically want all the pieces of the pie.
I might have respected it but because I am banned from full participation, I have chosen a different response.
Because it is best not to want what you cannot have, I have relegated marriage to a heterosexual thing.
I respect straight marriages only.
I do not respect their marriages because I am banned.
I agree with part of it but not the entire institution as it exists today.
I think it is a bad idea for both and straight and gay people.
I think it is great for others but not for me.
Take some time to consider all of the implications of the marriage institution and try to be really get to the root of your own feelings. It is virtually impossible that one could grow up in American society and not have pretty strong feelings. At this point, just consider your own feelings and not those of your lover or your family. Now that you know how you feel about marriage,what's next? Clearly you cannot have the whole package as it stands in the U.S. today. And trying to change that is clearly going to be the final step in this exercise.
But meanwhile, taking a hard look at what you want out of marriage and then making some of it happen is a choice. While we all want things to be simple and the idea of this one act, getting married, and thus obtaining all of these pieces at once, is very appealing. But for now, take it apart and see what you can and cannot achieve. You might be surprised at how much difference it makes to your life.
Why are we who we are?
From Science Daily “Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy,” Vilain said. “These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender — feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex — is a state of mind. “From previous studies, we know that transgender persons possess normal hormonal levels,” he said. “Their gender identity likely will be explained by some of the genes we discovered.” Vilain’s findings on the brain’s sex genes may also ease the plight of parents of intersex infants, and help their physicians to assign gender with greater accuracy. Mild cases of malformed genitalia occur in 1 percent of all births — about 3 million cases. More severe cases — where doctors can’t inform parents whether they had a boy or girl — occur in one in 3,000 births. “If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment,” Vilain said. Lastly, Vilain proposes that the UCLA findings may help to explain the origin of homosexuality. “It’s quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is ‘hard-wired’ by the brain,” he said. “If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and examine our civil legal system accordingly.” The UCLA study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Science Foundation and with start-up funds from the UCLA Department of Urology. Vilain’s co-authors included Phoebe Dewing, Steve Horvath and Tao Shi, all of UCLA.
Link to a very interesting article for more information
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
A number of things that I wanted to say have come to mind so hopefully I will be able to sit here and organize them into coherent thoughts. First, let me talk about gender. I do happen to believe, though many other gay and straight people do not, that there are gender differences. And the reality of the human condition on that count is complex. Some people are born with no biologically set gender and there is another state where people are a psychological blend of genders. I believe that is the case with me. I am sure that some of our gender preferences come from societal training, etc. but I do think there are inherent differences. I definitely identify as a woman in some ways, certainly biologically that is the case, but there is an essence of masculine tendencies in me. I have worn girls clothes because I wanted to fit in or needed a job but I always feel like I am in drag. It makes me very uncomfortable. I wanted to do boys things as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I used to wear a neck tie and snuck off to buy boys shoes which I hid under my bed. Before, I go on, let me make it clear that I do not want to be a man. I am very at peace with the whole of me. But I did not get married in a dress. I wore a tuxedo jacket and a very feminine blouse, totally symbolizing who I am. If I try to imagine myself as straight, I can only imagine that possible if I were a male, a sensitive male but a guy. I just cannot even imagine myself as a straight woman. I tried to not be gay and during that time, my life was a disaster because I was living a lie, trying to please society and my parents, but not God. God did not approve of my denying the gift that I have been given to see the world through the eyes of both genders. Native Americans, before they were taught homophobia, called people like me third and fourth gendered and I think there is something to that. They were honored as special people because the blending of the two is wonderful gift. And for me, only love with another woman can fit with who I am. Carol is that perfect fit for me. I am not speaking for all gay people, many have an entirely different experience and would vehemently disagree with my perspective but that is how I see things. When I was a young kid in Sunday school, I remember reading the story of Ruth and Naomi and having hope for me. I believe that it is, as well as the story of Jonathan and David, a story of same sex love. Now, on the subject of changing values, let me make this point. Slavery was an accepted condition throughout all of human history until the last 150 years. The Bible allows and encourages it and one of the key reasons that I do not consider the Bible the final word from God is because no where does it condemn what to me is perhaps the greatest evil of all time, the concept of one human being "owning" as property another human being. I do believe there are moral absolutes but I also think there is moral relativity. Thomas Jefferson was a great man but he did own slaves and had he lived his exact life in the last 50 years, he would be considered an evil man. But in the context of his times, he was not and thus cannot be judged as such. Of course, judging anyone is dangerous stuff and is something that I try to avoid. I believe that how society treats people like me will have a similar story. People will realize in time, as many already have, that being gay is a natural, positive life for some people and that it is in everyone's best interest to encourage love, stability, etc. among those for whom being gay is a natural condition. And someday, people will look back on those that tried to block that basic human decency and treat them the way we judge Thomas Jefferson, in the context of his time. God will get to sort the important stuff out.
Below is an interview worth reading: Jimmy Cater interviewed by Sean Kennedy From The Advocate, January 17, 2006
Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Amazon.com)
You’re a Christian, but you don’t have a problem with gay men and lesbians as many other Christians do. Why? I’m a worshipper of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned homosexuals in any way—certainly not in a deleterious fashion. And when it has been mentioned in the New Testament, it’s been combined with things like selfishness or something like that. So I’ve never looked upon it as any sort of reason to condemn a person. I think it’s an inherent characteristic just like other things that we do with our lives. You point out in your book that the Bible more forcefully condemns sins like adultery, but Christian fundamentalists are less obsessed with that than with homosexuality. Why do you think they pick on gay people? This is an aspect of fundamentalism, where they tend to deal with social issues in absolute black-and-white. They see that this resonates with some people as an emotional factor, homosexuality, and they have escalated it into the political arena deliberately as a divisive issue. What I’ve tried to do in this book is to address not only the question of gay and lesbian people but also abortion, gun control, the death penalty, and other things, and [say] we need to get them out of the political altercations that divide Americans and find some common ground. Among your proposals is leaving marriage to the church to sanction but having the government provide equal rights for all couples in civil unions, including gays. I know that people have different opinions about that, but that’s my own proposal for rational coming together. If an individual church or synagogue doesn’t want to have marriage vows expressed by gay people, I think that ought to be a religious decision. But under no circumstances do I think a gay couple ought to be deprived of their rights as citizens. Why is fundamentalism such a threat? You see it in the Congress every day: You’re either absolutely right or you’re absolutely against me. Even President Bush does that in foreign affairs: You’re either with us or against us. The fundamentalists in religious circles believe that they have a unique relationship with God; therefore their beliefs are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their beliefs is wrong and inherently inferior. How do we make them compromise? My book had to go to press in July, but what’s happened since then—with public-opinion polls and the realization among the American people about what’s happening in Washington—is quite indicative that there’s going to be some basic changes made. The 2004 elections were highly distorted by the fact that 9% or 10% of American voters always tend to support the incumbent president no matter whether they disagree with him or not—that sense of patriotism distorted the outcome of the election. And my opinion is, in 2000, Al Gore won both throughout the nation and in Florida. We’d be in a very different place today if that outcome had been legally affirmed. I think so—and if fundamentalism hadn’t penetrated, to such an extent, Washington and its environs
This is funny and sad:
The following is an Open Letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors bitch to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense and threaten to call Human Resources. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?....Why can't I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with them due to the weather? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same as a you-know-what. Can you settle this? g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it'sOK? i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again Dr. Laura, for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Op Ed Piece in Vermont Newspaper:
"Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.
In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity. You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that. At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn. If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?
A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters. "You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.
You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin. The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are? "Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?"
The following presents some very interesting demographics and is a quite effective way of helping all of us realize how fortunate we are.
IF EARTH'S POPULATION WAS SHRUNK INTO A VILLAGE OF JUST 100 PEOPLE WITH ALL THE HUMAN RATIOS EXISTING IN THE WORLD STILL REMAINING, WHAT WOULD THIS TINY, DIVERSE VILLAGE LOOK LIKE?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PHILLIP HARTER, A MEDICAL DOCTOR AT THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE,ATTEMPTED TO FIGURE OUT. THIS IS WHAT HE FOUND.
57 WOULD BE ASIAN
21 WOULD BE EUROPEAN
14 WOULD BE FROM THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
8 WOULD BE AFRICAN
52 WOULD BE FEMALE
48 WOULD BE MALE
70 WOULD BE NONWHITE
30 WOULD BE WHITE
70 WOULD BE NON-CHRISTIAN
30 WOULD BE CHRISTIAN
89 WOULD BE HETEROSEXUAL
11 WOULD BE HOMOSEXUAL
6 PEOPLE WOULD POSSESS
59 PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD'S WEALTH, AND ALL 6 WOULD BE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
80 WOULD LIVE IN SUB-STANDARD HOUSING
70 WOULD BE UNABLE TO READ
50 WOULD SUFFER FROM MALNUTRITION
1 WOULD BE NEAR DEATH
1 WOULD BE PREGNANT
1 WOULD HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION
1 WOULD OWN A COMPUTER
What to do with Osama bin Laden....Killing him will only create a martyr. Holding him prisoner will inspire his comrades to take hostages to demand his release. Therefore, it has been suggested that we do neither. Let the Special Forces, Seals or whatever, covertly capture him, fly him to an undisclosed hospital and have surgeons quickly perform a complete sex change operation. Then we return HER to Afghanistan to live as a woman under the Taliban regime.
