Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Australian Leadership Can Make a Bold Move for Equality

The people of Australia have made it clear they support the rights of more people to marry. Those of us on the right side of history are happy to see more people around the world being free to have the relationships to which they mutually agree and to live out their gender identity. The leadership of the country can make a bold move for equality and take a leadership position in civil rights by bringing about full marriage equality.

This blog, and the related Facebook page, calls for relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality. When we say that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults, we actually mean it. We have not hidden that.

As we see, there is no good argument against full marriage equality. So let's stand up for the rights of ALL adults to have the relationships to which they mutually agree.


Yes, we support the right of a white woman to marry a man of indigenous or African ancestry, or 30-year-old man to marry a 60-year-old woman, or a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry two men, or a woman to marry the half-brother she first met when they were both adults. None of these marriages hurt anyone else. None of these marriages hurt anyone, at least not in and of themselves. There are people who aren't right for each other, there are abusers, but that has to do with the individuals involved, and not the general freedom to marry.

Everyone has their own interests, priorities, likes and dislikes, prejudices, and biases. Some people care only about their needs, not those of anyone else. But we (including many LGBTQ people, and many people who are in or seeking plural marriage, a polygamous marriage, a polyamorous relationship, or a consanguineous relationship) are people who support the rights of all adults. We support full marriage equality, not just a freedom to marry for this group or that group. A decent person does not have to like the idea of every one of these relationships to support the rights of adults to have the relationships they want. A person doesn't have to want something for themselves or a loved one to have compassion for others who do need it.

We've been told that we are asking for too much in asking for full marriage equality, that by insisting that consanguineous or polyamorous lovers have their rights, too, that I was going to hurt the cause and there could be a swing of the proverbial pendulum, essentially back to the hetero-monogamous married only climate of condemning and denying rights to poly people, LGBTQ people, unmarried lovers, etc. But momentum is strong and increasing. We're not going to see a reduction in LGBTQ rights; we're going to see a continuing advance. Including rights for the polyamorous or consanguinamorous will not jeopardize this; rather, standing up for relationship rights for all will strengthen the rights for LGBTQ people. That is true because the people are evolving, for the most part, not because they no longer have their own aversions to relationships different than their own (many of them still do), but because they can think and they have thought through it and realized that consenting adults should be themselves and have their relationships and not be treated as second class citizens for doing so. When someone says we should support rights for consenting adults ...except for polyamorous and consanguinamorous relationships they are actually undermining LGBTQ rights and the related freedoms to marry, because the people to whom they are making their appeal find the appeal insincere.

Almost all who do oppose or have opposed interracial, same-gender, polyamorous, and consanguineous sexuality/relationships/marriage have done so for two primary reasons:

1. personal disgust
2. their religion

Sometimes those two reasons are indistinguishable.

But when people are calmly but firmly asked to think it through, and their concerns are addressed, they realize that there is no good reason to oppose consensual relationships between consenting adults. When someone insists that it is still OK or right to oppose polyamorous or consanguineous relationships, they are almost invariably bringing back an argument that they just dismissed when it comes to other freedoms to marry. To say that it is permissible to deny polyamorous or consanguineous lovers their rights, someone actually undermines the case for their own rights.

Now is the time to push for the rights of ALL adults. The bigots are in retreat. There's no going back. There may be some isolated backlash, but this kind of prejudice is dying out... literally. When we respond to the stubborn bigots by saying yes, discrimination against some adults is OK, the remaining observers, who are the ones who can be persuaded to support rights for LGBTQ people, are going to lose respect for the argument for equality. So the best response to "What's next?" is "Rights for all consenting adults. Why is that a problem?" The bigots won't have a good reason. Put them on the defensive, and they'll lose.

These disputes are nothing new to the civil rights movement. Going all the way back to when African-Americans were still enslaved here in the US, there were disputes about what rights to seek and how to seek them. "Do we fight for desegregation? For interracial marriage?" Those fighting for women's rights have had similar disputes. "Do we fight for lesbians or not?" To this day, there are people who say civil rights are for African-Americans. Not for gays, not for Mexican Americans. Don't play that game. Don't let that happen in Australia. Stand up for the rights of all adults. You don't have to like the idea of interracial relationships, or same-gender relationships, or polyamorous relationships, or consanguineous relationships to realize that people should have their rights.

Standing up for full marriage equality is not only the principled thing to do, it is the practical thing as well. There are people who are suffering right now because their loving, lasing, happy, healthy relationship is denied equality or even criminalized. This is not right, and it needs to end.

What’s the problem with letting consenting adults be together the way they want? Challenge the prejudiced. They won’t have a good answer. They’ll scoff, or jump up and down, or point and say “See!!!” But those aren’t arguments. They don’t explain why we should discriminate against any consensual relationships between adults.

Over and over and over again, this blog has called for solidarity between marginalized communities and their allies so that we stand up for the rights and dignity of all adults to be themselves and have their relationships. Will you do please likewise???

Equality "just for some" is not equality! Full marriage equality will happen sooner or later. We're helping to make it sooner. There's no good reason to deny it. The leadership of Australia can make history and lead the way for the whole world. Change the laws so an adult is free to marry ANY and ALL consenting adults.

Read More »

BREAKING: Australians Vote For More Freedom to Marry

Hooray for Australians for voting to increase the freedom to marry!

Keep evolving towards full marriage equality!

Read More »

Monday, November 13, 2017

When Bad Reactions Cause Harm


I answer a submission on this blog's sister Tumblr. It is from a man who was in a consanguinamorous relationship with his sister.

Read More »

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Sometimes the Ice Just Needs Breaking

Anonymous submitted this at this blog's sister Tumblr.
Hi, Keith. If a mother and son love each other and feel attraction between them, I see no reason they could not date or make love. Even if they just want to have casual sex. Many sons and mothers living together and dreaming about each other. They only need to break the ice to finally get closer as they intend!
Read how I responded.

Read More »

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Veterans Day


Today is the Veterans Day holiday in the US.

I can’t help but think of the men and women who risked their lives (and those who gave them) and endured so many things in service to their country, who weren’t and haven’t been free to be who they really are and share their lives openly with the person or persons they love.

Recent years have brought progress, and we have to fight to keep what we've gained while still looking for more progres. Problematic laws and policies remain, and, of course, LGBTQ people, the polyamorous and consanguinamorous still endure the the threat of prosecution, persecution, or discrimination.

Shouldn’t someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves more than one woman, or his long lost sister? Shouldn’t a woman who served be free to marry both of the women she loves?

Let’s thank our veterans, especially those who are still being treated as second class citizens.

Read More »

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #3


“Not a lot of people want to do it” or “I don’t want to do it.” This is not a justification for keeping something illegal. If anything, it is a reason laws against consensual adult relationships are wasteful and unnecessary. But we don’t deny minorities rights based on majority vote. Also, people would be surprised to know just how many people around them are in, or want to be in, or have been in, a relationship that is currently illegal or otherwise discriminated against.

There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://ift.tt/1K0B6Zj


Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #4

Read More »

Friday, November 10, 2017

'Old-fashioned parenting': What does that really mean and why is the term now increasingly being used as an insult?

This week a dear friend of mine attended one of my parent sessions. Jo has heard me speak many times over the past 18 years but her reaction to this talk was very different than it had been in the past. She and her husband are currently raising their 15-year-old grandson (having had him since he was a baby) and although they've been through the adolescent years before with their children (many years ago), they're now going through it all again – this time feeling far more pressure than before. When I finished my presentation she turned to others in the audience, took a great big sigh and said "I'm so pleased I came tonight, I am constantly being told that I am being 'old-fashioned' when it comes to my parenting – I now feel like I actually may be doing the right thing!"

We had a bit of a chat about what she thought 'old-fashioned parenting' actually meant and in what context the term was being used. Jo's response reflected what I am hearing across the country from parents who attend my talks. Not surprisingly, teens are likely to use the phrase, particularly when their parents are restricting them in some way (I'm sure we can all remember a time that we threw a line at our parents like "You don't know what it’s like nowadays … "). But when the term is used by adults to criticise or judge someone else's parenting choices, often around alcohol and partying, that's when I find it quite offensive. As some Mums and Dads have said to me recently, try to enforce some boundaries or rules around parties and alcohol and, heaven forbid, roll out some consequences if those rules aren't actually followed and you can find yourself being criticised by all and sundry. "Loosen up a little", "Don’t be an old fuddy-duddy", "We live in a different time now" or even "Do you really want to be the same as your parents?" are just some of the statements people have shared with me that have been thrown at them when they have tried to put their preferred parenting strategies into place …

It is important to make it clear at this point that there is a big difference between the 'family' and 'parenting'. Our understanding of what makes up a family today is very different to what it was even 20 years ago. Where once the 'average family' was portrayed as Mum, Dad, two kids (usually white and middle class) and a dog, all wrapped up nicely in a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, it is now accepted (by most but certainly not all) that families can come in many forms. But regardless of whether a child is brought up in what was regarded as the 'traditional family', or a blended family with step-parents and siblings, a single Mum, a single Dad, two Mums or two Dads, or a mixture of all of the above, what we know about parenting and what is most likely to work remains the same ...

Earlier this year I received an email from Rochelle, a mother who had attended one of my Parent Information Evenings that touches on a similar issue (she even used the term ‘old-fashioned’ at one point), this time regarding how she saw her own parenting style. Here is an edited version of her message:

"My parents (and most particularly my father) were very old-fashioned when it came to parenting and there was little love in our home. The rules we lived under were extremely restrictive and my sisters and I weren't allowed to do anything. I would never have been able to go to parties when I was in my teens and I dread to think what would have happened if they had ever caught me drinking. From a positive perspective, I didn't start drinking alcohol until my 19th birthday, unfortunately when I started, I didn't stop and ended up having a significant alcohol problem all the way through my 20s, culminating in a stint in rehab in my early 30s. I always promised myself that I would be different than my parents – I wouldn't wish that 'type of parenting on anyone.  But after coming to your talk and hearing that rules and boundaries being so important I am totally confused ... If I do have rules, how do I make sure that my children don't grow up with the same terrible attitude towards drinking that I developed …"

I think Rochelle's story highlights the conflict that many people face around parenting, particularly if they have strong and painful memories of their own adolescence. In a recent blog I talked about how we have recently seen a move away from more 'adult-centred' parenting, that was more the norm in previous generations, to a style that is more 'child-centred'. So does old-fashioned parenting have to mean that it was 'adult-centred'? I don't think it does and after talking to many parents right across the country, it would appear that so many of our parents actually 'got it right'!

Four types of parenting styles have been identified, each defined along two axes – strictness ('parental control') and warmth ('parental support'):
  • authoritarian (strictness but not warmth)
  • authoritative (strictness and warmth)
  • indulgent (warmth but not strictness)
  • neglectful (neither warmth nor strictness)
Parental control reflects how children's behaviours are managed, e.g., how family rules are developed and enforced, parental knowledge and monitoring of their child's activities, etc. Parental support refers to parental affectionate qualities and is associated with characteristics like warmth, acceptance, and involvement. I've talked a lot recently about indulgent parents and those that come under the neglectful banner are in essence almost abusive, so let's put those to one side for the purposes of this piece. What I'd like to do is take a bit of time to tease out the first two and try to establish the key difference between them because that's where I think some parents of today are getting confused.

Authoritarian parenting is often referred to as 'top-down' parenting. These parents make rules and expect that their children will follow them without exception. Children are not usually given the reasons for the rules and there is little room for any negotiation. Authoritarian parents are far more likely to use punishments instead of consequences. To clarify, consequences are the result or direct effect of an action. The goal for giving consequences is to teach a lesson that leads to positive choices. On the other hand, punishments are about causing pain and suffering and usually aren't logical or natural (i.e., they don't 'fit the crime').
Authoritative parents also have rules that children are expected to follow, and the consequences of breaking those rules are made clear, however, all rules and consequences are bound in unconditional love. Rules and boundaries are set because you love them and want to protect them. This is sometimes referred to as 'tough love' parenting. These parents are more likely to tell children the reasons for the rules and involve them in the rule-making process to some extent. Changes to the rules are made over time, usually as a reward for good behaviour and an acknowledgement that they are growing up and becoming more self-sufficient.  Authoritative parents tend to use consequences instead of punishments and use positive consequences to reinforce good behaviours.

What I say in my talks (and what Rochelle would have heard) is that research has shown that the most protective parenting style, particularly in terms of future drinking behaviour, is authoritative parenting, i.e., rules and consequences bound in unconditional love. Unfortunately, as soon as I mention rules and boundaries I think many people (including Rochelle) confuse this style with the more 'top-down' approach, i.e., authoritarian parenting. The most important part of her email is when she says "there was little love in our home". One of the most important keys to good parenting is unconditional love. Put the rules in place, make sure there are fair and age-appropriate consequences but make sure this is all wrapped up in a great big package of love ... Yes, there were lots of 'restrictive' rules in Rochelle's home as she was growing up and she rebelled as soon as she was able to and developed a range of problems as a result. But was it the rules that caused the issues or was it how they were implemented? When there is no warmth or love in a home and no understanding of why rules exist (i.e., because you love them and you want them to be safe), it is no real surprise that problems arise in the future.

No matter how you handle the issue of alcohol and partying, your teen will continue to do things to test and push you to your very limits (that's their job!) and you will need to hold fast and try to maintain your boundaries and adjust them when needed (that's your job!). But remember when they do something terrible and let you down (and almost everyone of them will at some time or another) and you're tempted to explode and say something you may later regret, always remember that it's their behaviour at that time that you don't like but you will always love them - no matter what they do!

Certainly, the adult-centred parenting of the past is not effective, particularly in regards to promoting healthy attitudes around alcohol and partying, with many young people rebelling against it at the time or developing problems in the future as a result of their experience as a teen, as Rochelle's story clearly illustrates. As much as some people would love to categorise anyone who has rules and boundaries in this area and enforces them as 'old-fashioned', often using the term in a derogatory way, I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with this style of parenting if it is (or was) based on love. For many of us who were very clearly told in our teens that alcohol was a 'no-go', that we would be dropped off and picked up from the parties we went to on a Saturday night and that if we broke the rules there would be consequences, we were also told (or shown) that this was all being done because our parents loved us ... If that's old-fashioned parenting, bring it on! We didn't necessarily like the rules and many of us regularly broke them but deep down we knew they were there to keep us safe and if we didn't know it then, we certainly gained a appreciation of it later in life.

When I told Jo that I was going to use her comment as a subject for a blog entry, she told me about a recent discussion she had had with her daughter where she had voiced her concerns about once again taking on the parenting role of a teen so much later in life. In response her daughter had told her mother that she wanted her "to raise him (her son, Jo's grandson) just like you raised us" ... as Jo said, "I couldn't have got it all so terribly wrong, I must have done something right!" I told Jo to wear the term 'old-fashioned parent' as a badge of honour - she and her husband obviously love their grandson very much. They may not get a lot of appreciation for their efforts now but the future will see them hopefully reap the rewards!

Read More »

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Update on Unjust Prosecution in Oklahoma

Here's an update on an a reunion GSA case we last covered in this entry. As reported by Nolan Clay at newsok.com...
A woman who married her mother has pleaded guilty to incest and been put on probation.
Misty Velvet Dawn Spann, 26, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Stephens County District Court to the felony charge.
Better probation than prison, but this shouldn't be a crime in the first place.
She was sentenced to 10 years of probation and ordered to get counseling. She also must pay a $1,000 assessment, a $991 fee and court costs.
Outrageous. Adults have a fundamental right to marry.
Misty Spann and her mother, Patricia Ann Spann, 44, married in Lawton in March 2016 and lived together in Duncan, records show.
The two were charged in September 2016 after a DHS child welfare worker learned of the relationship and reported it to Duncan police.
Who was being harmed???
The incest charge against the mother is still pending.
The marriage was annulled last month after a judge concluded the mother had induced her daughter "by fraud to enter the marriage."
In her request for the annulment, Misty Spann complained her mother claimed to have "consulted with three separate attorneys who advised there would be no problem with the marriage."
Notice that's not "I don't want to be married," but rather that she thought it was legally OK.
The mother told the DHS worker she "had looked into it" and felt no laws had been violated "because her name was no longer listed on Misty's birth certificate," police reported.

If you're in a consanguinamrous relationship, you need to protect yourself and your lover(s).

Read More »

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Now May Be the Time for New Jersey and Rhode Island to Make History

Yesterday was an “off year” Election Day in the US, meaning there were a few state and local elections.

Soon, members of the Democratic Party will have the Governorships of both New Jersey and Rhode Island and majorities in both houses of each state’s legislatures. Democratic Party legislative goals can be reached by the passing of laws that will be signed, rather than vetoed, by the Democrat Governors. Out of the two major political parties in the US. the Democratic Party was more supportive of progressing towards marriage equality.

Neither of these states have criminal laws against consanguinamory.

This legislative session coming up may be the best time for the states to modernize their marriage laws to bring them in line with full marriage equality. They should repeal any law that prevents consenting adults from marrying and positively affirm the rights of adults, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to marry any and all consenting adults.

This could lead to a case that could go to the Supreme Court, and the Court could rule in a way that removes laws discriminating against ethical nonmonogamy and consanguinamory. The Court currently has the same philosophical composition that moved marriage laws closer to full marriage equality in 2015. How much longer this will be the case is uncertain, but it is possible the Court could become less friendly to civil rights if the current President has the opportunity to replace any more members of the Court.

A window will soon be open that could allow for a great advancement of civil rights. Will the leaders of New Jersey and Rhode Island have the courage to make history and bring about full marriage equality in their states and, possibility, nationwide?

If they need  inspiration, try this:

The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied in this state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, ancestry, consanguinity, affinity, or number of participants.

Read More »