Vaginas & civil unions: a backwards step?

Seriously now, how can using the medically correct term mean that a person has no respect for decorum? Especially when the use of the term is in the context of a bill concerning women’s reproductive rights.

In case you haven’t heard what all this fuss is about, in the US, Rep. Lisa Brown has been “barred from speaking on the floor of the Michigan state legislature for saying ‘vagina’ during a heated debate over abortions.” (NY Daily News, June 15). She is quoted to have said “Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no'”.

She’s been told she has failed to uphold the decorum of the House of Representatives. How is the word vagina leading to such an offence? Would using the word testicle carry the same consequence? Somehow I doubt it.

It seems a desperate step backwards for freedom of sexuality and women’s rights that a word used to medically describe female genitalia is too uncomfortable to be used in the legislature.

I must admit I completely agree with the sentiment that I have heard from many of how can we legislate on something we can’t even talk about openly?

Women’s rights are unfortunately not the only thing facing a backwards step. On the other side of the world in Australia the new Premier of Qld (Newman) is promising to repeal the civil unions act. He said he’ll do so in support of the Christian lobby, who find civil unions offensive as them emulate marriage.

How is this even possible in a secular State? How far is this argument going to go? It’s not even about it being called marriage in Qld, as states can’t legislate on such a change (that falls under the banner of federal law), it’s about it being like marriage.

So is de facto, so are homosexuals going to lose that soon also? Should heterosexual couples in a de facto relationship lose their status as it emulates marriage, but isn’t? Are they ‘living in sin’ also?

Why is it that two consenting, loving adults, expressing their love to one another, is so offensive? Christianity does not hold all the rights to marriage and relationships, and they should NOT be in a position to so blatantly affect legislation in a secular country. They’re offended by civil unions? Guess what, I’m offended by their hatred and prejudice.

Well, at least there is good news somewhere in the world. Malawi’s new President plans to decriminalize homosexuality, which is a great step forward in human rights for both Malawi and Africa. Read about this positive development here.

– Please note, I do not believe all Christians feel this way, nor that they all support this bigotry. There is; however, a very loud voiced faction within the Christian community who do. I also do not believe this prejudice view is held only by Christians.

Leave a Reply