Monday, July 23, 2012
Being A Lesbian In Today’s Society
Being a lesbian today should be easier that it was 22 years ago when I had my first lesbian relationship. I know from books I had read and from older lesbians that I had talked to, that at that time it was easier than it was twenty years before that. So shouldn’t it be even easier now? In some ways, I guess it is easier.
At 16, I lost my first job because I was a lesbian. I was young and did not realize it was something I should keep to myself. Today, everyone at my job knows I am a lesbian. No, I did not start and shout it at the top of my lungs, however, when I talk about about my partner, I never say my “roommate” or any other term that would suggest she is less to me that what she is. I work at a call center for a company that owns several top hotels, and one of our benefits is being able to get rooms at these hotels at a much reduced rate. This is a benefit that is also extended to our families. We have to fill out a paper with the names of our families, and one of the categories of people who are eligible is “spouse/domestic partner”. Well, this is something that would not have been an option twenty years ago. She can also be on my insurance, another option that was not available twenty years ago. So, yes I guess it has become a little easier. We still have a long way to go though.
I live in Massachusetts where it is now legal for gays and lesbians to marry. But there is still a fight ahead. It is waiting to go before the state legislature again. Last time it did so, they voted to leave it the way it is, the next vote will be the last one. If by some chance the vote were to change next time, it would go to the general public of Massachusetts on the ballot. I like to think that this state is very open-minded, and the new law will stand. While it is with great joy that my fiancĂ©e and I plan our wedding, the fear is still in the back of my mind that this may be overturned. A lot of the opponents of this law do not realize that most of us want this for far greater reasons than a little piece of paper. Let’s face it, as far as the love that Shanna and I have for each other, that little paper is not going to make it greater. There are much more important reasons for gays and lesbians to want to have a legal marriage. While I am not going to state all those reasons here, I will mention one. If Shanna or I were to get very ill and be in the hospital, the hospital could say to the other, “I’m sorry but only immediate family can go in there”, do you know how just typing that makes me feel? The fact that one of us could be ill and the person who means more to us than anything in the world can not even be by our side? Not to mention the fact that none of Shanna’s family is here, since she moved here from New York so we could be together. She would be in that hospital room all by herself.
One thing I do not understand is the reasoning behind “them” not wanting us to be able to marry. They say if we are allowed to marry, we will ruin the institution of marriage. I say how can we possibly ruin it any more than heterosexual people already have? Take a good look at the divorce rate, they are doing a great job of ruining the sanctity of marriage. I know gay and lesbian couples who have been together at least 15 years, and some more than 25 years. Yet I know straight couples who could not make it past 1 year. Granted, there are a lot of gay or lesbian couples who also do not stay together. But, in my community, monogamy among gay and lesbian couples is not a rarity like people think it is. In fact with the people that I know, whether it be from school, work, or other activities where I get to know people, monogamy seems to be more prevalent among the homosexual community than it is in the heterosexual community.
Our president wants to change the Constitution to make gay marriages illegal. He says he wants to preserve the meaning of marriage. What about preserving the things that our forefathers wanted for the people of this country? They wanted all American’s to be treated equally. Every president should want all American’s to be treated fairly under the laws of the United States. Not President Bush. By changing the Constitution, he would be discriminating against gays and lesbians. He would in effect be saying that we do not deserve the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. When did this type of thinking become ok? When did the President of the United States become God? No, I do not think this will pass. Not because I am in denial, but because I think the majority of American’s, no matter what their opinion is of homosexuality, do not believe in changing the constitution to discriminate against anyone. Even though I do not think it will pass, I find the fact that it is even an issue quite appalling.
Another issue facing lesbians and gays is whether or not we should raise children. Most of the reasons giving for us not having children are so off base. Let’s take a look at one of them. My favorite is a child should have a mommy and a daddy. First of all, children should have a parent or parents that love them and can care for them. How many children are being raised by either mother’s who do not know who their children’s father are and have a different “father” figure for these children every couple of months, if that long, or by mother’s who knew who their father was, but the father ran off even before the child was born? Let’s face it, in today’s society, just because a child is being raised by a man and a woman does not mean they are being raised in a good or healthy atmosphere. There are a lot of children out there who are being raised by mother’s and father’s who either beat them, spend all their time doing drugs, are in and out of jail, or any number of other situations where the child is being neglected. Is it really better for children to be raised in that type of home? Or in a home where the parent’s happen to be two females or males, but they are loved and cared for? I have a few friends who are raising children in lesbian households, and the kids are well adjusted normal kids. The fact is anyone can make a baby, not anyone can take care of that baby. What should matter is that the children are being cared for properly and are receiving lots of love. Not the gender or sexual orientation of their parents.
Being a lesbian is actually being part of a larger community. The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered community. One thing I don’t understand is the fact that some people in each section of this community still discriminate against other sectors of this community. What I do not understand is how we as lesbians who have to deal with being discriminated against ourselves, can discriminate against others in our community. We need to stand together as a community. Lesbians, gay men, bi-sexual’s and transgendered individuals. Because even though we have come a long way, we still have along way to go, and we are fighting the same fight. The fight for people to look at us as individuals, as the same as them, not just as people who sleep with the same sex. Because let’s face it, we are much more than who we sleep with. We are mother, sisters, aunts, students,writers, lawyers, fast food workers, postal workers, stay at home moms, and a whole lot more. We are a very diverse community, and we come from all walks of life. The only difference between us and heterosexual women is the fact that we love other women. No one has been able to come up with a concrete reason why some women love other women and some men love other men, but that reason is not simply sex. For myself, I feel more of a connection with women than with men. Women are also more gentle and caring than men, and can meet the emotional needs of a women more than a man can, in my opinion. And for me, meeting my emotional needs is a lot more important than meeting my sexual needs. These opinions of course are mine and not everyone feels the same way.
So, is it easier being a lesbian in today’s society than it was in the past? Yes. It is still not easy, but we do have it better. We just have different problems to deal with. In a way I thank God for those problems. Because it shows just how far we have come. In the fifties and sixties, gay bars got raided and people got arrested for dancing or being close to people of the same sex. Having to fight for marriage means that we do not have to hide our sexuality anymore and pretend to be something we are not. Stonewall is something that I feel more than likely could not happen today, and for that I am grateful. If we keep on fighting for our rights, people in a generation or two may not have to go through what we have, just like we do not have to go through what generations before us went through.
Janet Lee Smith
2006
Legalizing Prostitution & Marijuana
Let's start with legalizing prostitution shall we? It is after all the oldest profession in the world. There are numerous reasons in my opinion to legalize prostitution. A major one is disease. Prostitutes have no reason to get tested for diseases and if they do get tested they are not going around telling their "clients" "I'm HIV+" or "I have herpes". It just isn't happening, kids. Now I live in a city where the rate of prostitutes who are either HIV+ or have full blown AIDS is very high. And they are not only giving diseases to their john's their john's are bringing the disease home to wives or girlfriends and in some cases both. How many women have been married 10, 20, 30 or more years, thinking their spouse is not sleeping with anyone else, never mind a prostitute, and one day their husband comes home and says we need to talk? If prostitution were legal, there would be rules set. Such as regular testing for STD's. Men (pr women) would no longer have to go to a corner to pick up a person with questionable health, they would be able to get what they wanted from a reputable business, with certain business standards that had to be followed.
Another reason to legalize prostitution is to get rid of pimps and other violence against prostitute. Some prostitutes (and I mean male and female, I'm not being gender specific) feel they need a pimp to help them. What they don't realize is their pimp takes most of their money and what they do realize (of course) but don't care about is the pimp physically and sexually abuses them whenever they choose. A pimp could easily kill a prostitute and figure "who'll know, who'll miss them?" Another way that prostitutes face violence is by some john's. John's for the most part probably get what they want and go on their merry way. But there are reasons men go to prostitutes. Yes most of the reason is to get laid. But some men are seriously mentally ill and blaming women for their problems they are out looking for hookers to beat, burn, cut, shoot, etc. If prostitution were legalized the act would be done in a specified area with other employees around, most likely even security. If a john got out of hand he would be dealt with, just like if a customer at McDonald's gets out of hand. There would be bosses (someone has to run any business) but no need for pimps.
OK, We discussed prostitution, lets discuss marijuana. Can anyone tell me why this is still illegal? It has been proven that it impairs ones judgement no more than alcohol does. Also, have you ever seen a person who is high on marijuana beat the crap out of someone? Or do people generally I don't know, mellow out after smoking marijuana? The main danger after people smoke pot is the food supply in a house, not a person. Marijuana also does not cause the crime sprees that other harder drugs, such as heroin, can cause. One reason for that is when you come down off of marijuana you are not going to withdraw from it so bad that you will do anything (see prostitution above) to get high again. I'm not for these half and half laws, because they still set it up so you can get in trouble. Let me give an example. In my state, possessing small amounts of marijuana has been decriminalized. Which means you can have up to one ounce of marijuana in your possession (it is still a civil charge which carries a $100.00 fine but not a criminal charge) and not face criminal charges. However, you cannot buy it nor can you grow it. Selling and growing are both still illegal. So are you just supposed to conjure it up? Laws like this are not the way, because people can still be charged criminally if they sell it, buy it, grow it, or possess more than an ounce. Also, you know the police catching you with that less than one ounce knows you either bought it or grew it and maybe even are going to sell it.
Now for one very good reason for legalizing both marijuana and prostitution that I think most of us could agree on. Taxes!!! This is the United States, we tax everything. Here we have a very popular product and an equally popular service that could bring millions in tax money into the towns, cities, states of this country and of course the federal government itself. We are trillions in debt in this country and we have these two things which could help chip away at that debt, but no way, Jose'! There are reasons to legalize both, but no good reasons not to. Let me change that, there are no good reasons that I can think of not to legalize both. Now I could see how someone, perhaps someone from the religious right for instance, may be able to come up with what they may construe as good reasons, but would they really be good reasons? Hint: the bible is not a good reason (as a general rule of thumb the bible is not a good reason it is an excuse to rationalize ones bias')
Janet Lee Smith
07/23/2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Federal Government Recognizing Gay Marriages When It Suits Them
As of now marriage equality is not legal at the federal level. Which should mean that nothing to do with my marriage should have anything to do with the federal government. It should mean that. However, what I learned today is when it will benefit the federal government, they will recognize all marriages.
Let me give a little bit of background then I will explain how I realized that our federal government is very hypocritical when it comes to marriage equality. My wife and I were married in Massachusetts five years ago in August. A few days after the wedding we went to the Social Security office so that I could get a change my name with them and get a new social security card. At the same time we let them know that we were married because my wife is on SSI and SSDI. We have always been honest with them from the day we moved in together, we don't play games like lying to government agencies. On that day, we were told it didn't matter because the marriage was not recognized on the federal level. As long as they knew Shanna was living with someone and knew what she paid in expenses that was all they needed to know. OK, we did our job and gave them the information and were told it wasn't something they needed to know. Situation dealt with.
Or so we thought. Today, almost five years later, my wife went to the social security office to change her address and was told that she should have been reporting my income to them. I was immediately outraged when Shanna told me this. Then I calmed down a bit and thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they now want to know a roommate's income too. So I called the Social Security 1-800 number and I said to them "If I collect SSI and SSDI and have a roommate, I know that you know I have a roommate and what my expenses are, but do you also have to know what their income is?" She replied "Oh no, of course not." I said to her "Then why when my wife went there this am was she told that she needed to give my income (just a side note, she refused on the basis that they do not recognize gay marriages) when according to the federal government we are not married, we are just roommates?" She responded with some gibberish about if we are in a state where it is a common law marriage (they truly need to higher smarter people, it is not a common law marriage in my state, it is a real marriage) then they have to know the income. I replied by saying "You cannot have it both ways. You cannot recognize my marriage when it is to your benefit but the rest of the time not recognize me marriage." I was very calm and tried to have a civil conversation with this representative when instead of being polite and saying she has no answers to my problem or something like that, she simply hung up on me. Yes, a woman who is being paid by my taxes hung up on me. I really wish I had asked her name.
My problem here is the hypocrisy of the federal government in this matter. How can they recognize gay marriage when it is a benefit to them but the rest of the time they will not recognize it? It's bad enough that they will not legalize marriage equality, but now they want to pick and choose when they will recognize it? They should not have this choice. It's all or nothing. Either the federal government recognizes my marriage or they don't, but they don't get to choose whether they want to recognize it or not depending on the circumstances and how it affects them. This is unacceptable. My message to the federal government is make up your mind, make a decision and stick to it across the board. You won't recognize our marriages but you will when it comes to money. I am more than willing to accept the responsibilities of marriage, all of them. And as soon as the federal government decides that they will recognize my marriage I will do so. Until then, I simply want the federal government to know that if I'm not married for most things, I'm not married at all. When we're allowed to file a married tax federal tax return and get the tax benefits we deserve as a married couple, then we will tell you what my income is for your purposes.
In conclusion I would like to say that this is not about money, it is about discrimination and the federal government deciding when discrimination is OK and when they want to capitalize on the fact that my state does not discriminate when it comes to marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. Like I said above, it's all or nothing. Either accept my marriage or don't try to accept it when it suits your purposes. The ironic thing here is if I died tomorrow Shanna could not collect my social security even though mine would be more than what she gets because the federal government does not consider us married.
Note: I fully expect to have consequences from Shanna saying that she would not give my income. If that happens, I will be calling the ACLU about filing a law suit against the federal government regarding this issue.
Janet Lee Smith ©
6/6/2012
Let me give a little bit of background then I will explain how I realized that our federal government is very hypocritical when it comes to marriage equality. My wife and I were married in Massachusetts five years ago in August. A few days after the wedding we went to the Social Security office so that I could get a change my name with them and get a new social security card. At the same time we let them know that we were married because my wife is on SSI and SSDI. We have always been honest with them from the day we moved in together, we don't play games like lying to government agencies. On that day, we were told it didn't matter because the marriage was not recognized on the federal level. As long as they knew Shanna was living with someone and knew what she paid in expenses that was all they needed to know. OK, we did our job and gave them the information and were told it wasn't something they needed to know. Situation dealt with.
Or so we thought. Today, almost five years later, my wife went to the social security office to change her address and was told that she should have been reporting my income to them. I was immediately outraged when Shanna told me this. Then I calmed down a bit and thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they now want to know a roommate's income too. So I called the Social Security 1-800 number and I said to them "If I collect SSI and SSDI and have a roommate, I know that you know I have a roommate and what my expenses are, but do you also have to know what their income is?" She replied "Oh no, of course not." I said to her "Then why when my wife went there this am was she told that she needed to give my income (just a side note, she refused on the basis that they do not recognize gay marriages) when according to the federal government we are not married, we are just roommates?" She responded with some gibberish about if we are in a state where it is a common law marriage (they truly need to higher smarter people, it is not a common law marriage in my state, it is a real marriage) then they have to know the income. I replied by saying "You cannot have it both ways. You cannot recognize my marriage when it is to your benefit but the rest of the time not recognize me marriage." I was very calm and tried to have a civil conversation with this representative when instead of being polite and saying she has no answers to my problem or something like that, she simply hung up on me. Yes, a woman who is being paid by my taxes hung up on me. I really wish I had asked her name.
My problem here is the hypocrisy of the federal government in this matter. How can they recognize gay marriage when it is a benefit to them but the rest of the time they will not recognize it? It's bad enough that they will not legalize marriage equality, but now they want to pick and choose when they will recognize it? They should not have this choice. It's all or nothing. Either the federal government recognizes my marriage or they don't, but they don't get to choose whether they want to recognize it or not depending on the circumstances and how it affects them. This is unacceptable. My message to the federal government is make up your mind, make a decision and stick to it across the board. You won't recognize our marriages but you will when it comes to money. I am more than willing to accept the responsibilities of marriage, all of them. And as soon as the federal government decides that they will recognize my marriage I will do so. Until then, I simply want the federal government to know that if I'm not married for most things, I'm not married at all. When we're allowed to file a married tax federal tax return and get the tax benefits we deserve as a married couple, then we will tell you what my income is for your purposes.
In conclusion I would like to say that this is not about money, it is about discrimination and the federal government deciding when discrimination is OK and when they want to capitalize on the fact that my state does not discriminate when it comes to marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. Like I said above, it's all or nothing. Either accept my marriage or don't try to accept it when it suits your purposes. The ironic thing here is if I died tomorrow Shanna could not collect my social security even though mine would be more than what she gets because the federal government does not consider us married.
Note: I fully expect to have consequences from Shanna saying that she would not give my income. If that happens, I will be calling the ACLU about filing a law suit against the federal government regarding this issue.
Janet Lee Smith ©
6/6/2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Enabling
A little poem I just wrote. I started thinking it up in my head as I tried to sleep and then got up to finish it. It took me less than a half hour total time to write it so don't laugh at me. :)
Serious subject though:
Enabling
I won't be one of the people to give you what your body craves anymore...
As much as telling you no makes my heart sore...
I will keep the lock in that door.
Because if I ever get a call saying something like you fell asleep at the wheel...
I won't be the one who knows the guilt that an enabler must feel...
Once they are partially at fault for someone they love never being able to heal.
I also won't be the one to live with the self-hatred, hun...
Of someone who helped you take the life of someone who's life has just begun.
Janet Lee Smith© 5/16/2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Romney-Care & It's Impact On Me
Let me begin this post by saying that this blog post is only speaking for me and my experience with mandated health insurance in Massachusetts. I also want to say that admittedly I know very little about the whole law. I have not done a lot of research into the whole law. So I know the very basics. I know that health insurance is mandated in Massachusetts and I know that if you don't have it you will pay a (stiff) penalty when it comes time to file your state taxes. I also know that the state did put into place an insurance for people who did not have access to Mass Health, the state's insurance for those who are disabled or who are on welfare but who also were not eligible for insurance through any other means. That state health insurance is called Commonwealth Care. Now before you go thinking that the taxpayers are paying for everyone with no access to health insurance, that is not the case. If you work or have some kind of income, depending on the amount of that income, you have to pay a monthly premium for that insurance. Your income also determines the amount of any co-payments that you may have. For instance co-payments for medications could vary from $1.00/$3.65 for the lowest co-payments to at least $15.00/$25.00 for people who make more money.
Now that I discussed the little I know about mandated health care in Massachusetts, I wanted to talk about my experience. I am a 45 year old women who went to college late in life, I graduated when I was 40. So for many years I did not have jobs where health insurance was offered. When I was 34 I was diagnosed with diabetes and for many of the ensuing I was without health insurance to take the required medications. I was diagnosed in 2001 and mandated health insurance in Massachusetts was signed into law in 2006. It was sometime (I don't remember actually when) that I had insurance for the first time in a long time. I have had times in the intervening years of being on unemployment and not being able to afford the high co-payments that the state's unemployment health insurance offers and for awhile my A1C was a 12 or when my priorities were not well and I put my meds last, so I was not taking care of myself as well as I should have been. Which meant that my blood sugar levels were continually over 300 (and oftentimes over 400). My diabetes is doing under control now, because of oral medications, insulin, diet and exercise. But without the fact that policies have been put into place to help ensure that everyone has health insurance in Massachusetts, there is a chance that this would not be the case. There are many people in Massachusetts with stories such as mine and some with much worse stories. Is it a perfect law? What law is perfect? But it is a very successful law. My question is why Romney wants to now distance himself from such a successful law. Actually, let me take that back. I don't question it at all. The reason I don't question it is because the answer is simple. To admit that he did a good thing with health care in Massachusetts would mean people might actually think that he would be for a similar national health care. He wouldn't want that, now would he?
Janet Lee Smith
03/15/2012
Now that I discussed the little I know about mandated health care in Massachusetts, I wanted to talk about my experience. I am a 45 year old women who went to college late in life, I graduated when I was 40. So for many years I did not have jobs where health insurance was offered. When I was 34 I was diagnosed with diabetes and for many of the ensuing I was without health insurance to take the required medications. I was diagnosed in 2001 and mandated health insurance in Massachusetts was signed into law in 2006. It was sometime (I don't remember actually when) that I had insurance for the first time in a long time. I have had times in the intervening years of being on unemployment and not being able to afford the high co-payments that the state's unemployment health insurance offers and for awhile my A1C was a 12 or when my priorities were not well and I put my meds last, so I was not taking care of myself as well as I should have been. Which meant that my blood sugar levels were continually over 300 (and oftentimes over 400). My diabetes is doing under control now, because of oral medications, insulin, diet and exercise. But without the fact that policies have been put into place to help ensure that everyone has health insurance in Massachusetts, there is a chance that this would not be the case. There are many people in Massachusetts with stories such as mine and some with much worse stories. Is it a perfect law? What law is perfect? But it is a very successful law. My question is why Romney wants to now distance himself from such a successful law. Actually, let me take that back. I don't question it at all. The reason I don't question it is because the answer is simple. To admit that he did a good thing with health care in Massachusetts would mean people might actually think that he would be for a similar national health care. He wouldn't want that, now would he?
Janet Lee Smith
03/15/2012
Stay Out Of My Uterus & I'll Stay Off Of Your Penis!!
There have been many times over the history of this country when there has been what has been called a war on women. Today, the Republican presidential candidates and various conservatives are fighting a voracious war on women. One of the most recent issues was Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke an activist law student at Georgetown University a slut pretty much because she uses birth control, which of course means she has sex. My question is if a woman is a slut because she publicly admits to needing birth control, what is a middle aged conservative radio "personality" who uses his insurance to buy Viagra? Admittedly I don't know if the radio host in question uses Viagra, but since the Viagra industry is booming we can be pretty sure that an awful lot of middle aged men are using Viagra, since most 20 and 30 something's don't need Viagra. There is also the fact that at least a portion of these middle aged men are using said Viagra to have sex with younger women, women who gasp!! have to use birth control so they don't get pregnant by these middle aged men who can't get a stiffy on their own, so they use medication to do so.
Why aren't these conservative men (aka the religious right) outraged at the fact that insurance pays for a medication to help men get it up? It can't be so that these men can procreate, since although physically they are able to father children, that does not mean they want to have children at their age. It really is a simple answer: those little blue pills are for men. Men run this country and always have. Yes, we have come a long way since the days when women could not vote, own property and were pretty much the property of the men in their lives whether it be father, husband or sons once their husbands died. But Mr. Limbaugh shows exactly how far we have yet to go in this war against women. We cannot afford to stop this fight. On the contrary, we need to fight harder than ever. To Mr Mouth (aka Rushie-boy) if Ms. Fluke is a slut what does that make the men that she is having sex with? Because I can guarantee if she is in need of birth control she is not having sex with other women. Wait I forgot, it is ok for men to have sex without the benefit of marriage, acceptable, even. It's just not ok for women to do the same. How archaic a thought. I feel like I just stepped back in time at least 50 years. Back to the times of good girls vs. bad girls. Sandy vs. Rizzo. Just a simple request. You stay out of my uterus (and medicine cabinet) and I'll stay off of your penis (and out of your medicine cabinet).
Janet Lee Smith
03/15/2012
Why aren't these conservative men (aka the religious right) outraged at the fact that insurance pays for a medication to help men get it up? It can't be so that these men can procreate, since although physically they are able to father children, that does not mean they want to have children at their age. It really is a simple answer: those little blue pills are for men. Men run this country and always have. Yes, we have come a long way since the days when women could not vote, own property and were pretty much the property of the men in their lives whether it be father, husband or sons once their husbands died. But Mr. Limbaugh shows exactly how far we have yet to go in this war against women. We cannot afford to stop this fight. On the contrary, we need to fight harder than ever. To Mr Mouth (aka Rushie-boy) if Ms. Fluke is a slut what does that make the men that she is having sex with? Because I can guarantee if she is in need of birth control she is not having sex with other women. Wait I forgot, it is ok for men to have sex without the benefit of marriage, acceptable, even. It's just not ok for women to do the same. How archaic a thought. I feel like I just stepped back in time at least 50 years. Back to the times of good girls vs. bad girls. Sandy vs. Rizzo. Just a simple request. You stay out of my uterus (and medicine cabinet) and I'll stay off of your penis (and out of your medicine cabinet).
Janet Lee Smith
03/15/2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)