Ah, Catholicism and lesbianism… chalk and cheese eh?
Well, what do you suppose happened when a lezzy couple entered a
Valentine's Day competition run by their Catholic University? A
benediction? Not quite. Check this out, from the Daily Mail:
"Megan Edwards and Katie MacTurk, who met at Saint Joseph's
University, had attempted to enter its alumni association's contest
looking for the best love story between former students."
The Uni, however, were having none of it, and tried to refuse
the couple's application on grounds that the Catholic church does
not recognise same sex marriage. You have to feel sorry for the CC
because, like many old things, it does have trouble recognising
stuff including, sometimes, the fact that it's the 21st
"Our alma mater told us that we are not really, fully part of
the SJU community" wrote the couple on Facebook, adding: 'Words
cannot express the disappointment and sadness we felt after hearing
this'. Poor dears.
Following an outpouring of outrage from angry online
commentators, Saint Josephs Univeristy was forced to back down and
allow the couple to compete. The university also placed a curious
statement on its Facebook page, writing:
"Saint Joseph's University fully supports and is in agreement
with the Catholic Church's teachings regarding homosexuality and
same sex marriage. As a Catholic, Jesuit University, Saint Joseph's
is a welcoming, inclusive community. Our focus is on respect and
caring for all individuals as individuals". It's a bizarre message,
which boils down to: "We don't really like your sinful lifestyle,
or what you do, but, of course, we're really nice and friendly. And
not at all bigoted". The funny part? As the competition is based on
public votes, the lady-lovers look set to win following the
publicity they've received. God bless 'em!
Read the original story here
A VERY OLD FASHIONED NEWSPAPER
No one puts a sneer into a headline quite like the Daily Mail, as
this headline shows:
"Very modern custody battle: Gay father in court battle with
lesbians over access to boy of two". (Modern is such a great code
word isn't it? Modern means "bad" in the DM's vocabulary, because
modern is not the 1950s, when people were allowed to be racist and
homophobic with impunity.)
Nevertheless, the story is indeed a sign of the times, and a
reminder that improved queer equaility isn't always sweetness and
light. As the Daily Mail reports, "a gay man who donated sperm to
his lesbian ex-wife is demanding overnight and holiday contact with
her two-year-old son".
The couple insist that the father had agreed to stay out of the
child's life, but daddy argues otherwise. The most interesting part
of this story though was revealed in comments made by couple's
barrister: 'Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they
acknowledge to that extent that they are an alternative family, the
mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life
and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than
an intact, two-parent, family." He added: "The ideal upbringing for
a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and
had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the
upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create
for this little boy."
Just goes to show that we lavender ladies can be just as
conservative as our straight sisters… won't the Daily Mail readers
Read the Mail's story here
As someone who's been hounded by the Gender Police all my life, I
was sad to read Lorraine Candy's article about why she stopped her
5 year old son from crossdressing. After years of permitting him to
wear what he liked - mostly anything girly-whirly - Lorraine
decided enough was enough, and that she had to protect her son from
a cruel and unforgiving world.
"When Henry was four, I noticed that the older children of some
of my friends would laugh at his feminine attire. I couldn't bear
to watch him run off red-faced to change," she explained, adding:
"Of course, he didn't fully understand why people laughed at him.
But I did. And I began realise how, as he grew older, his
cross-dressing would become a habit which enabled others to hurt
him. I had to stop that happening."
Who can blame her? Lorraine clearly loves her son and I can
understand why she'd want to keep him safe from ridicule. So I find
it rather odd that she has released photos of him wearing "girl's"
clothes into the public domain. It sends a mixed message. Why ban
the crossdressing and then tell everyone about it - providing
images which will probably be available online forever?
When I was 9, my father "put his foot down" and threw away my
"girly" toys (Polly Pocket, Disney Dolls, pink stuff). I was
completely traumatised. Luckily, Lorraine's little boy seems less
bothered: "He was mildly upset but not unduly worried. He didn't
fully understand why he could no longer dress in the clothes he
loved, but since starting school in September, he had become more
aware of the difference between boys and girls anyway." How
I applaud Lorraine for her honesty and desire to do what's best
for her son, yet sink at the thought of another child starting his
education in gender. The Gender Police win, again.
Original story here
Follow Paris on twitter: @ParisLees