Tomorrow, November 3, residents of Maine will decide whether to agree with the legislature’s legalization of same-sex marriage, or deny it via a “people’s veto.” If voters affirm the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry by voting against Question 1, Maine will become the first state to support same-sex marriage at the ballot box; thus far, same-sex marriages have been legalized exclusively through court rulings or legislative action.
Although the race has been close, Philip Spooner, a republican and World War II veteran who has a gay son (among four children), openly supports same-sex marriage and gave testimony for marriage equality on April 22 of this year. This testimony is now online, and has about 600,000 views (you can watch it, too, on youtube ).
As with all matters put to a vote, voter turnout is key. We’ll find out soon what the people of Maine decide.
UPDATE (Wednesday, Nov. 4th)- Well, no dice. Maine followed California and Hawaii in overturning gay marriage rights granted by their governments, according to the Wall Street Journal. Washington state, however, is still potentially poised to increase domestic partnership rights to those of married couples, making the difference semantic only, according to a writeup by examiner.com. According to numbers from late last night, the results are harrowingly narrow, with 51% in support so far. The geographic distribution is interesting, as most of the major population centers seem to be in favor, but most of the geographic area against.
Vote distribution, from the Washington State Goverment via the Examiner.com article. Green is approval, Yellow is rejection of Referendum 71.
For comparison, here is a map of population distribution by county in Washington, from the Department of Transportation:
This is interesting to compare to the distribution in Texas of counties who voted in favor of Proposition 2 in 2006, to ban gay marriage:
Again, it becomes evident that population density LOOSELY correlates to opinion, though of course, Austin county ( in green ) was the only one that did not actually support the ban with a 50% majority– the other colors only indicate decreasing degree of support. (A few lightly populated Western counties are notable exceptions, though their <10,000 populations are perhaps too small as sample sizes. Anyone from out that way want to shed light on the political climate?)
Image from maps.com
I can’t claim to know quite what that means in terms of sociology, but it’s interesting to think about.
Despite the fact that throughout history, the nude has been the subject of thousands upon thousands of paintings, in today’s society, the nude, as it is presented in art (both in visual and performance) still makes particular individuals uncomfortable. It is the belief of scholars and artists that the nude in art adds a level of discomfort for the viewer because it allows the viewer to see a semblance of oneself in one’s most vulnerable form.
Why is the nude body seen as vulnerable? This answer to many of you is likely an obvious one. Clothing acts as a form of defense, a defense against other’s judgement, a defense against our own self-judgement, as well as a shield against possible predators. Without clothes, we are exposed to the elements.
This lack of protection as presented through visual depictions of the nude through art accomplishes what I believe to be one of the most important duties of art: it provokes self reflection as well as reflection of the state of society. The nude body in art displays our vulnerability.
At times, the nude is sexually charged. This presentation of sex and/or the body as it would be in intimate moments causes a feeling of retreat for many people. The nude is intimate. One’s body can be said to be the only thing that belongs to a person. It is the ultimate possession and it’s display, to some, might take away from some the only thing that is truly personal.
From the AP: FDA approves Merck’s Gardasil for boys
So the FDA recently approved the administration of Gardasil to men as well as to women, in part because of its prevention of the acquisition of genital warts, , and in part because it would help stop the spread of HPV (to women). HPV may cause cervical cancer in women, but does not seem to have life-threatening effects in men.
According to the LA Times, however, a CDC advisory panel has already recommended that it not be used routinely, saying that men should be allowed to get it if they wish, but that a push should not be made.
Of course, in 2007, Texas Governor Rick Perry bypassed legislature to mandate that all schoolgirls entering the 6th grade as of September 2008 must receive the vaccine. I somehow doubt he’ll be making the reciprocal order any time soon.
Is it ok to put that kind of burden of STD prevention on women alone, if women are the ones most adversely affected by the virus? Should it be mandatory for either group? It’s an interesting question, given that it’s a virus that a man may not be at all aware of having (genital warts are not caused by all strains of the virus, as I understand it) which may be indirectly fatal to a partner. Is $390 worth protection from that?
(Of course, a new competitor for Merck’s Gardasil, GlaxoSmithKlein’s Cervarix, has just been recommended for girls by the CDC panel. It costs $385 and does not protect against GW. Go figure.)
Open is excited to present its first major foray into the Interwebs, in the form of a blog. We’ll be bringing you links and commentary regarding current and interesting stories on the interplay of sexuality and culture. We’ll also share important dates and deadlines and keep you updated on our events around campus. Let us know what you think, about the magazine or about anything else on your mind!
