Don't Save Second Base, Save Women

The search for a breast cancer cure has become the popular cause that people and businesses like to support. I'm not saying that this isn't a good cause, not at all, just pointing out a fact. So with the support of businesses and organizations everywhere, breast cancer is constantly visible. Pink ribbons. Pink tops on Yoplait yogurt containers. Pink anything that says "find a cure!" (And no, I'm not going to get into the gendered color-coding going on here.) 

I saw the breast cancer cause recently on someone's T-shirt. I was on campus at my college (former college, I should say, take that undergraduate school!) for a talk and the girl walking in front of me was wearing a T-shirt that looked suspiciously like one for a sorority event. The event clearly donated some or all proceeds to breast cancer research, and as I got closer I read the slogan:

Save second base. 

It took me a second to figure out what this (yes, pink) T-shirt was saying. And when I did, I was a little grossed out. Not grossed out by the sexual implications of the slogan, but grossed out by the social implications of it. This is how we must gather support for breast cancer research? By sexualizing the cancer's victim?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Women everywhere are sexualized. Women who enjoy sex are seen as sluts to enjoy and discard. Women who have not had sex are seen as a landscape to conquer. Young women are seen as hot bundles of energy; older women are seen as cougars on the prowl. Why not sexualize women suffering from breast cancer?

Once again, we are looking at a woman by way of her parts. No one is talking about the whole woman suffering from cancer. No one is talking about the family of the woman suffering along with her. No one is talking about the effects of chemotherapy and/or radiation devastating her in order to save her. No one is talking about the fear and doubt that she lives with, day in and day out, as her body betrays her. No... everyone is talking about boobs. Because, let's not forget, boobs are what make a woman, and what make a woman attractive. Boobs are what men see. Boobs are what women want, or, if they have "good" ones, what make women proud of themselves. Right?

Wrong. Well, wrong and right. Because, yes, men do look at women's boobs. And yes, women with smaller boobs often want them, and many women with larger breasts are proud of them. But this is because our society, obsessed with the female body and the "ideal" beauty, has told us that breasts are a huge part of what makes a woman attractive. And society has told us that women, above all else, need to be attractive. It's their job. If you aren't attractive enough, work on it. Make-up. The right clothes. High heels. Hair products. The list is endless. And if you are attractive, you should be proud of it. If you got it, flaunt it, amiriteladies? (It should be noted that this philosophy does not apply to other qualities women might have, like compassion, humor, or intelligence; I've corrected the grammar of enough people to know that this particular skill of mine is not appreciated when flaunted.) So, with this line of thinking, the T-shirt makes sense: Breast cancer is bad because it takes away breasts, which are totally awesome and totally necessary to make a person a woman, and totally necessary for sexual interaction.

Now, I'm not saying that women who have lost their breasts to cancer don't deserve to grieve for that loss. Of course they do. They have lost a body part. They have lost a part of themselves that they've never been without (in some form or other). A disease has changed their bodies forever, and they had no control over it. They have every right to grieve. 

But these women are still women. And many of these women are women who will live longer because they had to get rid of "second base." And these women can (and do) still have sex lives. And work lives. And family lives. Because they are full, rich, human beings. Because they are still women, with or without natural boobs. 

Many women lose their lives to breast cancer. They lose their attractiveness and their breasts, of course, but they also lose an entire life. Work life. Family life. Plans and goals. An entire life can be lost to breast cancer.

So let's stop campaigning to "save the ta-tas" and "save second base" and start campaigning to save women. 

Is There Such a Thing as a "Pro-Life" Feminist?

I just read an article, by Anne Summers, with the title "There is no such thing as a pro-life feminist". (For purposes of this post, "pro-life" will be used as the popular media uses it: to mean a person who is anti-abortion. I'm not a fan of this term [with the connotation of "pro-death" being its opposite], but this is how it is used in the article to which I am referring. Also, I should note that pro-life defines people who want all abortion to be illegal. Women who would never, ever have an abortion themselves, but don't want to take that option away from other women, would be defined as pro-choice.) I found this article through a link on Twitter, and I went to it out of anger. How dare the writer claim to determine who can or cannot be a feminist?! Even as someone who is very pro-choice, I was insulted for women everywhere who are pro-life and still encourage and rally for women's independence and economic freedom.

But, as I read the article, I found her argument compelling. Summers writes,

As far as I am concerned, feminism boils down to one fundamental principle and that is women's ability to be independent.

There are two fundamental preconditions to such independence: ability to support oneself financially and the right to control one's fertility. To achieve the first, women need the education and training to be able to undertake work that pays well. To guarantee the second, women need safe and effective contraception and the back-up of safe and affordable abortion. 

She compares two women: Tankard Reist, an anti-pornography self-proclaimed feminist, and Margaret Thatcher, who never identified as a feminist but Meryl Streep has stated that she was one "whether she likes it or not." She goes on to write,

Tankard Reist, on the other hand, rails against the abuse of women and girls' bodies through pornography but then sanctions the ultimate assault on a woman's body: requiring her to carry a child she has decided she cannot have.

I think this is definitely a compelling point. For people who are truly pro-life, they are also pro-forced -parenthood. Now, I'm not saying that "pro-life" supporters want to force everyone to have babies; of course not. But when abstinence-only education has failed (as it does), and birth control has failed, and condoms have failed, pro-life supporters want the baby to be born, no matter the circumstances. No matter the woman. 

So, I think I might agree with her, though I'm very reluctant to do so. I'm not railing against pro-life supporters; I believe in everyone's right to beliefs and opinions. And I don't like the idea of saying "You believe in women's independence, equal pay, equal treatment, but because you also believe in no abortions, you can't a feminist." That seems unfair. I don't think that feminism should be all or nothing. But I do think that a woman's ability to control her life and all aspects of it, to decide when she can or cannot have children, is essential to her independence. I'm very conflicted here.

So what do you think? Can you be a pro-life feminist? Is the ability to control one's fertility so essential to independence that you can't truly be a feminist without advocating for safe and legal abortion? 

Open Relationships and Political Disappointments

Since I don't have cable, I am not always up-to-date on what's going on in the world. But even I have heard about the newest Newt Gingrich controversy: that he supposedly asked his wife to join in an open marriage. I think this story being mauled over by the media is ridiculous, for several reasons.

First, I've always thought that political campaigns go too far in discussing private aspects of a candidate's life. I personally don't care if a candidate is "God-fearing" or has "American values" (especially since these so-called "values" probably differ from person to person). No, I don't want a president (or senator, or representative, etc.) to be a crook who has spent his life embezzling money. But the way he has conducted himself in the business world, as a professional, should absolutely be something the voting public knows about. Who the candidate chooses to have sex with, or how, is not the public's business. If the candidate once smoked a joint as a teenager, who cares? (These days, you'd be hard pressed to find a candidate for office who hasn't.) So, whether or not Newt Gingrich actually asked his wife for an open marriage, it's none of my business, and it's none of yours. That's between him, his wife, and whomever he was wanting to open up the marriage for.

Second, the media treatment of this issue makes one thing very clear: an open marriage is sinful and terrible. Now, I know it might be too much of me to ask this country to be a little more open-minded when it comes to sex and relationships, but I'm raising the bar, and asking it anyway. I'm sure most people don't really know what an open marriage means; they probably think of it as a "free pass" for a man to cheat. But that's not what an open marriage, or an open relationship, is. It is a relationship in which two people are in love and compatible, but are having trouble meeting each other's sexual needs (maybe because one partner is on the road a lot, or one partner wants more sex than the other, or one partner is kinky and the other is not). The couple doesn't want to break up; everything else about the relationship works well. So they choose an open relationship. This means that one or both partners have expressed permission to sleep with others. The couple can set any kinds of rules they need to in order to preserve their relationship (only x number of partners, only when one partner is out of town, all extra-marital sex should involve condoms and other safety precautions, no ex-boyfriends/ex-girlfriends allowed, etc.). The possibilities for how an open relationship is conducted are literally endless, and every couple does it differently. (For more on open relationships, you should check out Dan Savage's advice column Savage Love, in which he often discusses the highs and lows of open relationships. And always, look here for Dan's thoughts on Newt Gingrich.)

What I think bothers most people about open relationships is that they are built, they are founded, on the idea that monogamy doesn't work for everyone. This is not what we're taught growing up. We are taught that we will find that one special person to spend the rest of our lives with. We are taught to ignore the rising divorce rate and plan to be married forever. We are taught that loving someone is enough to make a relationship (or sex) work. No one prepares us to fall totally in love with someone, and then discover that the sex with them isn't that great. No one prepares us to fall totally in love with someone whose sex drive is much higher or lower than our own. And no one tells us the answer to keeping our relationship or marriage happy and functioning just might involve looking outside the relationship.

Now, as I said earlier, I don't stay completely up-to-date on the news. There's a lot about Newt Gingrich that I don't know, and there's a lot that I've heard but don't know if it's true. I know he has had more than one wife, and I think he has been accused of cheating and having affairs. I think I've heard about him leaving a wife while she was receiving treatment for cancer. I know very, very little about his policies or his platform promises for becoming president. I am not supporting him in the current election. And it's important to point out that there are plenty of ways to do an open relationship badly (like cheating first and asking for permission later, which might be what Gingrich is accused of). But I do think that it is sad and embarrassing that our media is demonizing him simply for supposedly having asked for an open marriage, instead of attacking him on political and professional grounds. And I think his response in a recent debate, in which he pointed out how unprofessional it was to begin a political debate with a question about his marital past, was absolutely appropriate.

But most of all, I'm very sad that through Newt Gingrich, open relationships are gaining nothing but more bad press.

Liz Lemon: Feminist or Not?

I've recently started watching the show 30 Rock. I know, I know, I'm about five years behind. Whatever. I'm watching it now, and so I am writing about it now.

I enjoy the show. I find it funny, and I think Kenneth is one of the greatest characters ever. (By the way, I'm only in season one right now.) However, I find the character of Liz Lemon, as well as her relationship with Jack, to be confusing.

I don't know much about Tina Fey as a person. I assume she's a feminist; I assume this because she's a smart, successful female writer and comedian (so you know she's dealt with sexism in her career) and because she's friends and colleagues with Amy Poehler, who is an outspoken feminist. I assume this because she wrote the film Mean Girls, in which she addresses a bunch of teenage girls to let them know that they should be enjoying each other's company and supporting each other, instead of falling into the "girl" stereotypes of being back-stabbing, gossipy bitches (my words, not hers, but the message is the same).

So, with these assumptions about Tina Fey in mind, it is hard for me to watch Liz sometimes. Her boss, Jack (Alec Baldwin), constantly says sexist things to and about her. When this happens, Liz tends to roll her eyes, scoff, and make it clear to the audience that she's sick of putting up with this ridiculously sexist boss. Yet by the end of the episode, she tends to have proven the sexist remarks right. When she ends up with the power to fire 14 people, she goes a little crazy and starts with the girlfriend of the guy she has a crush on. When Jack tells her that as a single woman, her biggest fear should be choking to death alone in her apartment, she starts to have scary choking experiences while alone (which leads her to agree that Jack should be her mentor, a job that will include him trying to fix her up with men). When an employee calls her a cunt, she tries to be extra nice to her staff and bakes them goods, until Jack reminds her that a boss can't always be friends with her employees (you know, because as a woman who has worked her way up through comedy and television writing, I'm sure that Liz's biggest concern is whether or not her employees like her all the time; all women care about being liked by everyone, right?).

However, the show doesn't always miss when it comes to feminism. The relationship between Jenna and Liz is a great example. They are women, they are friends, yet they do not gossip behind each other's backs, or fight over men, or claw each other's eyes out with their fingernails. This flies in the face of decades of Hollywood stereotyping. Their relationship can be flawed, as they both as people are flawed, but ultimately they have a strong friendship that withstands just about everything.

I think it's great that the show features a female head writer on a TV show. And I think it's great that the show points out that women in positions like that often deal with sexism from bosses, colleagues and employees. The problem comes in when the main character doesn't do anything about it. Liz never (so far, remember, season one) points out to Jack that he's being sexist, and she never proves him wrong. Instead, she proves all of his antiquated ideas about women to be right! And that's where the show with great feminist potential seems to go wrong. I'm hoping, because I do enjoy the show and I plan to keep watching, that this gets better over time.

Once Upon A (Feminist) Time

I've gotten sucked into the new ABC show Once Upon a Time. For one thing, I'm a sucker for fairy-tale stories with a twist. (OUAT is about fairy tale characters who have been cursed, sent into the future, and forgotten who they are. Yes it sounds ridiculous; watch it and you'll love it!) For another, from the very first episode I was struck by the show's feminist undertones. I have no idea if they are intentional, or if maybe TV's representations of women are getting just a little bit better. Either way, it's making this show very enjoyable for me.

The main character is Emma Swan. She is an orphan, raised in the foster care system, who now (at 28) works as a badass bail bondsman (ahem..."bondsperson," as Emma often says). She is also the daughter of Snow White who was magically sent out of the kingdom (and into Boston? Whatever I don't question the fairy tale/modern world continuum too deeply), as a baby, before the curse took hold of all the characters. She has been brought into Storybrook, Maine, (clever, right? no? oh well...) where the characters are, because Henry, a young boy, has discovered the curse and needs her to help him save the characters.

Whew! Enough exposition. Things I like about Emma Swan.
    First, she's a badass bail bondsperson. In her first scene, we see her enter a restaurant dressed in a small, sexy dress, for a date with an attractive man. Then, when she reveals that she is the bondsperson who got him out of jail and who needs her money back, we get to see her chase him down and kick his ass. Awesome.
    Second, we discover that she became pregnant at age 18 and gave her baby up for adoption (spoiler alert but only for the first episode), the baby who turns out to be Henry from Storybrook. Anyway, Emma often talks about making the right decision in wanting her child to have the best shot at life, and about recognizing that his best shot would not be with her. But she also talks about the right to be a mother. When a teen in Storybrook has been convinced by everyone that she's too young, that she can't handle a child, Emma stays confident that "anyone who wants to be a mother should be allowed to be." She doesn't push the girl to keep the child, but she does encourage her to do what she wants. She's very adamant that women be able to make their own decisions about their lives and their children.
   Third, she's clearly a well-rounded character that doesn't fit into any categories. She's feminine, but not "girly". She is sweet and caring, but not very sentimental or emotional (she tends to be more of a closed-off, my-life-was-so-messed-up-I-stopped-expressing-emotion-long-ago character). She's smart. She's good at her job(s). She's lonely. I just can't help but continue to get excited about female characters on TV who are also real people.

And she's not the only good character on the show. Gretel is a smart young girl who leads and directs her brother (who seems to be slightly spineless, for some reason). Jiminy Cricket/Archie Hopper is wonderfully written, filled with regret from his past and uncertainty of his moral character. Rumpelstiltskin has an incredible backstory that provides this evil character with much more humanity than I ever expected. And the evil queen/mayor of Storybrook is soooo fun to watch! She's evil, but she's not only evil; we can see that she has her own emotions and backstory which have determined the person she has become.

I don't think that the show's creators necessarily intended to create a feminist show, nor would I say that the entire show is, in and of itself, feminist. But I do think that this show has wonderful characters with feminist tendencies, and it portrays strong women as smart and capable, without being catty or backstabbing (except, of course, for the evil queen). Basically, I'm enjoying this show, both for the mixing of and playing with fairy tales, and for the well-written characters that bring those tales to life.

Joining a New Blog! Starting a Paper! Ahhhh!

Very quickly, a couple of news bulletins from my life.

As of today, I will be joining a group of writers over at the blog Represent: Taking Local Politics National. Don't worry, faithful readers (all 10 of you), I will still be posting here. Some of my posts for Represent will be cross-posts from here (the first post I did just now is a cross-post), but I plan to find some extra writing time and do a few original posts once I find my footing over there. So anyway, it looks like a great blog so far (it's pretty new), and I'm very excited to be joining as a writer. I've added Represent to my blog list here, so you can always see if any new posts have been published there. I hope you'll check out Represent when you get a chance, and keep coming back here for feminism updates.

Also, I've started an online paper at Paper.li. We'll see how this goes, I'm very new to the whole thing. But it's called the Feminism: Not a Naughty Word Daily, and is meant to provide other sources of feminist news, politics and culture on the days that I'm not posting anything new. Paper.li is a very cool site, bringing information to people based on their shared interests. Check it out, I hope you'll find it interesting. 

Hidden Story: Possibility of an AIDS Cure

I saw this as I was flipping through a recent issue of Time Magazine and I couldn't believe it. How could a story this important not have been widespread?

From Time Magazine, Dec. 26/Jan. 2 issue of this year

True, I don't have cable, so I don't keep up with the news on a regular basis, but I am on the Internet all the time, and this certainly seems like a story that, if it had been well covered (or covered at all) would have ended up on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and just about everywhere else on the Internet. So why didn't it?

I don't know. Maybe because people still associate AIDS with homosexuality? Maybe because conservatives still want to see AIDS as "God's punishment for the gays"? Maybe because anti-abortion activists don't want stem-cell research to prove extremely useful?

Sadly, I think the lack of coverage was less the result of a conservative, homophobic conspiracy than just the result of a media with distorted priorities. In this section of Time, they pointed out the stories that were widely covered, and compared them to the ones (like this one) that weren't. What was covered instead of this possible AIDS cure? A Congressional discussion on whether tomato paste counts as a vegetable or not. (In the same section, I discovered that we didn't hear about a deadly drought in Africa because of the mass coverage of the royal wedding.)

Now, I can be interested in the nutritional value of tomato paste, but I can also search for that on the Internet without any politicians having to spend time on it. And I too can get caught up in celebrity gossip and information, though I'm usually a few days/weeks behind. But come on, media, let's get it together. AIDS has been a deadly disease in our country, as well as all over the world, for a few decades now. The possibility of a cure should be front-page, lead story news. For several days. Or weeks. There should be continued updates. There should be pictures and interviews with the doctors/researchers involved.

There should be more than a paragraph in Time Magazine.

The Right to Life: Why I'm Against Personhood in All Forms

Since Mississippi voters voted down the personhood amendment in November, politicians have decided on a second way to get this anti-woman legislation passed: the MS Legislature. Completely ignoring the opinion of the voters, two bills will most likely be introduced: one dealing with "humane treatment of human embryos" and one proposing to define "life at conception." From what I've been reading and hearing, these bills will be revamped versions of personhood, supposedly with adjustments made for the issues voters brought up (ectopic pregnancy treatment, contraception, IVF, etc.). And it's possible that these adjustments could sway some of those "I'm anti-abortion but this bill goes too far" people. And it was very easy, because the proposed personhood amendment was so vague, to keep the arguments in the "It just goes too far" realm (because, of course, it did). But I would like to point out why I'm against these measures no matter what.

I am pro choice.

I believe that legal abortions should stay legal. I believe that a teen rape survivor should be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I believe that an incest survivor should be allowed to make her own decision when finding herself pregnant in horrifying circumstances.

I also believe that a young woman in a sexual relationship should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I believe that a woman who doesn't want to have kids shouldn't be forced into parenthood, a lifetime commitment, because the condom broke, or she missed a pill, or the very determined sperm just got through anyway.  I believe that a woman who is not ready for children (financially, emotionally, physically) should be able to plan her life accordingly (and 66% of women who have abortions plan to have children later in life, when they are prepared). I believe that a woman who has children already, and cannot afford another, can make her own decision about what kind of family she can or cannot handle.

Now, the first step to all of the above circumstances (except for the rape and incest circumstances) is contraception. And, as I've written before, comprehensive sexual education and access to contraception and healthcare is a big part of this. But we all know that contraception can fail. In fact, according to the statistics of this site, half of all women getting abortions were using contraception at the time they got pregnant (and this site confirms this, putting the number at 54%). So even if these new bills don't affect birth control, they will still affect women's abilities to make their own decisions about their lives.

But let's look at some other statistics. The anti-abortion argument that bugs me the most is "women shouldn't be using abortion as just another form of birth control." This bothers me because it paints all women having abortions (and pro-choice supporters) as people indifferent to the lives of children. It paints them as uncaring, unfeeling killers.

The truth is, women are not using abortion as another form of birth control. As already mentioned, it is often a last resort when other contraception has failed. Also,
"If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%). Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high." (from Abortion Facts: Women Who Have Abortions)


No matter what else the bills do or do not address, I am still against them, because I believe that a woman's right to choose is essential to a woman's independence. If she can plan when to have children and when not to, if she can decide when to use contraception and when not to, then she can fully live her life. Women often make choices because they have unexpectedly become pregnant, or even because they fear they might become pregnant. And I'm not saying that fear will ever go away; it's something all women have to deal with at some point. But with the right to make decisions about her own body and her own life, women are freer to live, and plan, and enjoy their lives as they choose and desire.

That's the right I'm fighting for. The right to life.

Xtreme Politics: Republicans and the War on Women

The campaigns to find the Republican presidential candidate (or, as I like to refer to them, the Big Freak Show) have me a bit baffled. I realize that many Republicans have been waging a war on women, attacking reproductive health rights, health care, and more, but I'm suddenly very aware of how extreme all of these candidates' ideas really are. Look at the first paragraph of this article from Salon:

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Also according to Salon, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain all signed the Personhood Pledge, which would ban all abortions as well as potentially restricting or banning many forms of birth control and IVF. (Mitt Romney said he would support this, even though he clearly didn't understand how birth control could be affected by it.) Yet, according to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, "Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15-44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method," and "Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using a method." 

So even though a majority of women are using birth control, the majority of Republican candidates are in favor of restricting access to it, or banning it all together. Bachmann, Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all also supported stripping all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, most of which goes to family planning and providing contraception, not abortion. And I realize that for many people abortion is the argument, but come on! We know, and the candidates know, that their actions and the bills they support are much more far-reaching than that. 

It breaks my heart that people get so caught up on something like abortion that they refuse to see the bigger picture. Think about my home state, Mississippi. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate; banning abortions will only increase this. Banning contraception will absolutely increase this. And, I have to go back to the slogan from the Personhood fight: "Republicans only care about you if you're a fetus." This may not apply to all Republicans, but it certainly seems to apply to all of the major candidates this year. Increasing health care for women and children? Of course not! They don't plan to take care of these children once they are living in independent bodies! They just want to keep women from having complete control over when, how, and if they have children. 

The personhood fight is not over. The war on women is not over. We have to stand up against these extreme candidates. It's interesting (read: sad) to me that Phil Bryant, a man who can compare over half of his state's voters to Nazis and Satan, a man who was in fact the co-chair of the Yes on 26 Campaign, can be elected governor in the same moments that personhood is soundly defeated. Now, I don't think that elections should be determined by one issue, or candidate's should be supported or opposed based on one issue. However, I do think that the war on women is an exception of sorts. For one thing, the war on women encompasses more than just a stance on personhood; it's a stance on healthcare, reproductive rights, insurance plans, life-saving treatments for pregnant women, and much more. 

But also, even if we lump all of this into one category, one "issue," it could (and will) decide my votes. These issues are too important and too far-reaching to ignore. We can not elect officials who refuse to stand up for women and allow them equal rights and equal control over their lives. We should not be voting down personhood while electing its most vocal supporter. 

Republicans like Phil Bryant and those running around in the Big Freak Show have taken a strong stance against women. 

Now, we need to take a strong stance against their extreme views that serve no one's best interests but their own. 

The M-Word

Recently, I was talking to a friend about legalizing gay marriage and she said something that absolutely blew my mind. "Marriage should only be something that churches grant. All couples should legally get civil unions."

Now that may sound revolutionary, because in a way it is. It changes the entire way we think about what marriage is. But, going back to the basics, marriage is a sacrament granted by the (Christian) church. It existed as a holy sacrament before it existed as a legal contract. If the word marriage had never entered into the legal realm, the gay marriage argument would be totally different (or wouldn't exist) today. After all, about eleven states recognize civil unions between same-sex couples already. If marriage as a religious institution had been historically kept separate from the legal institution, I think the problem with same-sex unions would be much smaller today. Most people who actively oppose same-sex marriage do so on the basis of religion, with the argument that "Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman." But if we acknowledged marriage as purely a religious choice and nothing more, then this argument wouldn't stand, because you could choose marriage or not, and you could find a church that would perform your marriage. Same-sex couples wanting marriage could find an accepting church and priest that would perform their marriage (there are plenty out there); on the other hand, for any couples for whom religion is not important, the civil union side would provide all the legal rights and would simply exist outside of the church's recognition.

Would this solve all discrimination against homo-, bi- and transsexuals? Of course not. But it would go a long way toward true equality, in which all couples looking to start lives together would have the same life-joining choices before them.

Plus, this is very idealistic. There's no way to change the language that has existed in our country and in our constitutions for years upon years. And there's no easy way to change the cultural perception of what marriage is or is not, because it's based upon our cultural history that can't be erased.

I do think, however, that discussing our marriage equality issues in these terms can provide a new way of thinking about them. If we want true marriage equality in this country, it won't be just a matter of allowing marriage for same-sex couples. It will have to be by changing our perception of marriage and reevaluating how it works or doesn't work for all couples.