Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

We’ll soon see what kind of “freedom of speech” she practices with her comment moderation.  This is the comment I left on her blog:

“I’ll be the first to defend your right to espouse a bigoted opinion ... and I’ll be the last to agree with it.”

“Tangentially: Why is it that as soon as somebody disagrees with a certain type of extremist, they start squawking about their free speech rights being trampled on?”

Because they’re not interested in what you have to say. If they want you to say something, they’ll tell you what to say. I also think that they see things differently (read: delusional) - they’re the unsung hero championing rights, you’re the rabble rouser bent on screwing with the candy-land version of life. Don’t you wonder what’s in the water some days? It sure as hell isn’t flouride.

I fully support her right to send bigoted, poorly-reasoned letters to RWR. I don’t recall seeing any discussion of censoring her.

It’s funny sometimes how people assume that freedom of speech means that others must AGREE WITH you. Nope, it just means you aren’t prevented by the government from expressing it. That’s all.

Nice job, Candy. I expressed my opinion on Kate’s blog, so no need to repeat it here.

But I just have to say—because I’ve always wanted to: I don’t have a scintilla of decency.

Cool.

On a sidenote, I loved Nora Roberts’ comment about the many spokes in the wheel of romance.  Bless her, I’m not fond of her romances, but she just went up quite a few notches in my esteem.

And uh… I clearly should read the latest comment prior to mine before cheerily posting.

Sorry, sorry, sorry…  and um, I do like the JD Robb romances!

the candy-land version of life

I thought the Candy-land version of life was right here, on this blog.

a scintilla of decency

I wonder if it’s a not-very-distant relative of the chinchilla.

Sorry, my brain got addled reading Jan Butler’s response, because I couldn’t see why she was defending her right to free speech when no-one had argued that she shouldn’t have it.

JEEEEzuz. FIRST first amendment my big white butt. I was actually admiring the woman. Thinking wow, she’s strong for coming to my blog and asserting her point of view.

So I even went to her blog to say we’d disagree and never convince each other and I hoped she’d use her obvious talent and bravery in other areas blah blah blah

She didn’t let my comment go through. Fine. That’s okay. It’s her blog.

But THEN to pull up the First Amendment crap?

My Admire-o-meter died with that one.

and you know what? That hypocrisy really did end my interest and admiration. I mean honestly. It’s a one way street:
HER morals
HER first amendment rights
HER RWA.

except she did get me a thousand comments in my blog ::nora roberts!!::

Okay, hell, I take it back. I love Jan Butler. I just don’t want to listen or read any more of her opinions—or go out drinking with her at any nationals.

You know, I’m usually among the first to arrive at any First Amendment fiesta, but I’m a little confused as to how this has even become a First Amendment issue.  To me, the Achilles Heel of Butler’s argument begins and ends here:

I advise RWA to stand for something, for a change, and this being a prime example of something they could stand for which would actually please most of the membership.

To imply that anyone who disagres with Butler’s definition of Romance is not “standing for something” of ethical and moral value is a fatal error of logic and ideology.  This is not a clash of the moral and the godless; this is a disagreement among individuals who stand for different moral and ethical principles.  Different, not absent, and not without integrity all the way around.  That my own morals and ethics—which do not need to be wrapped in the vestments of religious dogma to find witness to their integrity—urge me to stand against the tyranny of ONE VERSION of Christianity reigning ignobly over the spirit of Democracy may make me heretical in some circles, but it does not make me blasphemous.  To imply, however, that my divergent opinion condemns me to the profane realm of the fallen woman is, in my self-respecting opinion, decidedly unChristian and undemocratic.

The unfortunate fact—one borne out by these attacks—is that we no longer have a concept of “rights” that protect anyone but those who stand on the left side of the creek.

This steals my breath.  Is she actually attempting to say that she’s a victim in our current political climate?  A political climate created by those on “the right side of the creek” who have consciously and purposefully been sponsoring an effort to focus negative, judgmental and vindictive attention on things such as gay marriage and abortion in an effort to rip people apart who don’t fall into some assinine mold conforming to their personal standards of acceptability? 

No…she can’t really be that disingenuous, can she?

Honey, if you’d like to post this brilliant gem on her blog, just write me. I’ll hook you right up with my blogger ID, and you post away, and sign your name with a “Candy, guest of Annie.” It would be my pleasure. And I know a bunch of other authors who would probably offer the same.

And hot boys making out with each other while dressed up as pirates.

Candy, where is your decency?!? Also, where is your movie collection? Cuz I’d like to take a peek at it.

I wonder if the reason those poll results haven’t been released is that the results don’t say what the pollsters want them to say.

I strongly doubt that the average American romance reader is as violently, urgently offended by male homosexuality as right-wing rabblerousers like Jan

Butler would like to believe.

Fiveandfour said: she can’t really be that disingenuous, can she?

I’m sure she genuinely believes that she and others like her and being persecuted. That’s the mentality we’re dealing with here. It’s almost impossible to have a civil conversation based on reason and logic with people who’ve drunk so much of the Kool Aid.

One of the Founding Fathers (I’m pretty sure it was Thomas Jefferson; this sure sounds like Jefferson) once made the comment about why he INSISTED freedom of speech be in the Bill of Rights (to paraphrase):

It wasn’t so that any schmuck on the street could say anything they wanted. It was so every stupid idea and statement in the world could be criticized freely.

I wish he were still alive so I could send him a batch of macaroni and cheese. And a couple books. And some Brussels Sprouts.

I have a Blogger profile.  It says I’m both a single mother AND an author of erotic and paranormal romances.  Whaddya think my chances of getting a comment through are running about now?

Well, I’ll try it.  Let’s see what happens.

Btw, my bra and panties don’t match right now.  Is that indecent?  Or does the fact that I am, alas, wearing both, give me that much-admired chinchilla of decency?  Cuz I’ve already got enough pets.

(just googled Chinchilla to make sure it really WAS an animal and not some type of cactus or something, and damn, people.  Those suckers are hella cute!  I think I DO want a chinchilla now!  And if I get one, I’ll name it Decency.)

One of the Founding Fathers (I’m pretty sure it was Thomas Jefferson; this sure sounds like Jefferson) once made the comment about why he INSISTED freedom of speech be in the Bill of Rights (to paraphrase):

It wasn’t so that any schmuck on the street could say anything they wanted. It was so every stupid idea and statement in the world could be criticized freely.

I don’t know if Jefferson said that or not, but that sounds a lot like Justice Brandeis, who made a lot of the Supreme Court’s memorable statements on free speech.  One of my favorites, from his concurrence in the very important case, Whitney v. California:

“that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”

Here’s an article from the First Amendment Center that’s really, really good, too: http://tinyurl.com/q2ekv

(Just in case my comment gets “accidentally lost” I thought I’d post it here, too.  Also interesting to see ZERO comments on her blog.  Somehow I can’t imagine that no one has commented on such a hot-button issue.)

You know, free speech? First Amendment? The one that enables them to make a book or a website or a movie or a joke as smutty as they like, and I don’t dare tell them they can’t?

Actually, the problem is that the First Amendment doesn’t say that people cannot disagree.  It says that anyone can say anything unless it’s deemed obscene, or unless it constitutes a nuisance, such as yelling on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m., or unless it’s speech that’s a form of conduct, such as fraud or incitations to violence. 

So nobody’s free speech rights have been impacted so far.  Many, many people have affirmed your right to say what you like, and their own right to disagree.  THAT is Free Speech.  Of all the comments I’ve read about your letter, I have read only ONE that expressed outrage that it was printed at all.  And I’ve read comments on a lot of blogs.

I’ll refrain from voicing my other opinions, since I see the moderation is on and no comments yet appear.  I’d like to see if this one goes through.  Controlling what shows up on your website is your right, although it is amusing to see selective censoring of comments on a post about free speech.

And I would like to see you address the actual facts brought up by those who have critisized your letter.  It would be much more effective a defense of your stance, IMO, than this erroneous post about First Amendments rights.

*throws up double devil horns in your honor*  Spot on. Sadly, I think the point is missed.

The RWA does stand for something, just not for what Jan wants. And I get that. I understand it’s frustrating, hell, I was frustrated right out of belonging for years as I watched them take money from erotic romance authors and use their sales figures but treat us all like garbage. This is changing slowly and I’m a member now. I can understand how disorienting that might be to people who liked the old regime of narrowness.

Seriously, as I said at Kate’s and my own blog, Jan has a right to say all the hateful crap she wants. But the first amendment works both ways so I get to call it hateful crap. God/goddess/or other sentient entity bless us all every one.

Is she actually attempting to say that she’s a victim in our current political climate?

I hear this a lot from the conservatives in my life (I’m related to quite a few).  When I point out that, hello, they control ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, they mumble something about liberal media and the Decline of Values in Society.

I won’t paint with a broad brush and say all conservatives think this way, but I think there’s a vocal subset who’s so invested in a persecution complex that they honestly can’t acknowledge that not only is no one persecuting them, but that they hold the reins of power.  They’d lose too much of their identity if they did.

I read Ms. Butler’s latest letter.  Then I read it again. I’m still trying to figure out who she thinks has trampled on her First Amendment rights.  Talk about a straw man argument! 

Disagreeing loudly with you is not trampling on your rights.  Barring you from having access to a forum like this one may be an infringement of your rights, although perfectly within the rights of the website holder, but I don’t see that happening either.  Both Kate and the SBs gave Ms. Butler a forum to speak her views. 

And the point-by-point demolition of those views was priceless.

I think the rightwing persecution complex is their main tool.  Somebody has to be infringing on their basic rights and they need to be enraged.  Fear and hate is what pulls them together and gives them a feeling of solidarity. 

Hitler used a similar tactic.

Darlene said: Talk about a straw man argument!

Political “debate” these days is RIDDLED with straw man arguments. These people don’t want to argue with a real point of view—just a made-up one that can be easily defeated. Very cowardly, IMO.

She compares dipping a crucifix in urine and calling it art to the subject of our discussion—gay romance? Do I have that right? Good Lord,I hope not. Oops,I blasphemed.

The same First Amendment rights that give her the right to speak give me the right to disagree. Frankly, I’m sick to death of people who express an opinion publically and then howl to the heavens (More blasphemy) when we all don’t subscribe to it.

As for being a screaming child, the only whining I hear is coming from her:

“Do as I say or I and all my friends will take our toys and go home.”

Take your toys and do so. Our toys are more fun anyway, and we let anyone play with them.

Long live independant small press!

(More posting on her blog.  I have to repost here because, really, what chance does anyone have of seeing it over there?  STILL no comments showing on her post, and that doesn’t say much for how many she’s going to allow through…)

I have another question I didn’t get to in my prior comment, and that is regarding the persecution argument.  Now, please understand that I am perfectly serious and not being the slightest bit sarcastic with this question—since text is devoid of facial expression or inflection, you’ll need to take my word on that.  But who exactly is persecuting conservatives?

Our president is conservative.  Most of the Supreme Court Justices are conservative.  Conservatives control both the House and the Senate, and currently control most of the same at the state level.  This current administration has made banning gay marriage and gay rights (such as inheritance, adoption, and medical decision-making authority) a priority, which I certainly can’t see as anything but affirming conservative values.  Yes, some media outlets are liberal, but in all honesty, some have a self-avowed conservative bent, too.  (FOX News is one very prominent example, and if I’m not mistaken, has the highest viewership of any news channel.)  The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians and place “family values” as one of their most important considerations when going to the polls.  So on the large national scale, I honestly do not understand who is persecuting conservative heterosexuals.

On the topic of romance, the vast, vast majority of romances are one man, one woman tales.  Even in the epublishing world, the majority of ebooks are one man, one woman romances, although it is less of a majority than in print fiction.  So I’m not understanding the censorship and persecution of conservative hetersexuals there, either.

Harlequin, one of the largest publishers of the so-called “sweet” romances, has cut back on their Presents and Romance lines (two of their most conservative) not because of liberal pressure, but because of poor sales.  That’s the only reason they have cited, and the only one that makes sense.  No business would hurt their own profits to make a minority of their customers happy.  I do understand your frustration in finding romances that fit your tastes.  Many readers have experienced the same thing from time to time as markets change.  But unfortunately, market pressure is the one and only thing that publishers respond to, and voting with your pocketbook, as they say, is the only way to truly get their attention.

Again, not being snarky here in the least.  I am attempting to make a logical argument and give you the chance, on your own blog, to respond to specific points.  I do hope you will respond in the same way because I truly am curious.

I always thought romance was about love not politics. And book publishing was impacted by dollar signs. If her type of romance isn’t being published I would guess it’s because it doesn’t sell. When gay romance and erotica stops selling they’ll disappear. Isn’t that how it’s always worked? Her point of view hasn’t being suppressed. It’s unpopular in the venue she’s chosen to express it. Maybe I’m oversimplifiying things but that’s how it’s always been for me when I don’t like certain trends or can’t find the type of books, music, movies, clothes, you name it that I want.

What’s the big deal, Jan?

So, she doesn’t address the points that dissenting readers made about her letter.  Instead, she launches into a speech on how her first amendment rights are being trampled.  Misdirect much?  It’s a familiar tactic.  Population disapprove of your policies at home and abroad?  Beat the drum of family values and the horror of the prospect of legalization of gay marriage…Don’t look there, look over here!

Politically, I’m basically a Libertarian (I dislike Republicans & Democrates equally ;-P). I believe you have the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you’re not hurting anyone else (human as well as animal). 
                    Personally, I have a kind of Tori Amos philosophy about life.  First off you have to be true to yourself because, as Tori put’s it, “you’re just an empty cage girl if you kill the bird.”  Secondly, we better do some good with our lives or we will “pay for who we’ve been” in the end. 

I’m probably coming from this discussion from a different viewpoint than most of you. 

I was a Christian for several years.  I don’t mean I went to church on Sunday.  I mean I was a Bible reading, volunteering at a nursing home, hospital, & rescue mission, member of the local aids task force, going to be a missionary christian.  Now, I’m just hoping Albert Brooks got it right in “Defending Your Life.”  :-)

I support gay marriage.  I don’t think it’s anyone’s buisness who someone loves and I don’t find anything wrong with homosexuality.  However, I understand why Ms. Butler does.  I understand where she’s coming from.  She believes in the Bible and, like it or not, the New Testament does condemn homosexuality as a sin. 

Having said that, she does not have the right to force her beliefs on anyone else, but neither does anyone have the moral justification to vilify her for taking the Bible seriously (and, while I’m on the subject, no one has the right to rewrite the Bible to fit their political/social beliefs either). I’m not saying she’s being this perfect christian (I really think she would benefit from thinking about “what would Jesus do” before acting), but I do agree with her that the people who profess to be the most tolerant are the ones who are the most intolerant of religon. 

You have the right to argue with her position all you want.  I think she’s wrong, but what do I know.  I think we are doing the equivalent to animals what the nazis did to the gypsies, the mentally handicapped, and the Jews during WWII.

However, I really have to challenge this whole bullshit about how the left is picked on in this country.  The media, I’m talking hollywood here not Fox News, is dominated by the left.  Start keeping track, villian = Christian, ignorant boob = Republican, pervert = conservative, pro-life = terrorist.  Please, prove me wrong.  I dare you, find an example of the Republican being the hero and not the bad guy (yeah, I know, now you’ll find one :lol:)

Overwhelmingly, anoyone with conservative viewpoints in this country is protrayed as an intolerant, racist, homophobic, asshole.  That is why Jessica Lange can go on a talk show and say that Republicans don’t know what the word compassion means and Julia Roberts can point out that the word Republican comes between reptile and repulsive in the dictionary and no one notices.

How many of you supported the Dixie Chicks being slammed & boycotted for their dumbass comments?  If Mel Gibson had said “Fuck the Christians, they are responsible for all the wars” would anyone have batted an eye?

As I often say, I’m the conservative Republican Bitch.  And Jan Butler is an asshat.

I blogged on this and now I’m spent, utterly spent. :)

  If Mel Gibson had said “Fuck the Christians, they are responsible for all the wars” would anyone have batted an eye?

I’d have to say, I think many eyes would’ve batted strenuously if any Hollywood star said that.  I’d expect hurricane-force batting for the director of The Passion of the Christ.  One should not crap in one’s bed, metaphorically or otherwise.

As for the movie challenge *grin* what about Air Force One?  President Harrison Ford being all heroic and kicking much terrorist ass?  I can’t remember, however, if his party affiliation was mentioned.  On the other hand, what about John Travolta as a very poorly disguised Clinton in… oh, hell, what was that movie called?  Don’t make me go to IMDB.  I’m too lazy, and besides, looking shit up defeats the purpose of the whole off-the-top-of-my-head thing.

From my memory of the releases of these movies, the asskicking Prez movie came out at a time when people were pretty happy with the real Prez, and naturally the Clinton-bashing one came out after some real-life Clinton bashing.  Art imitating life and all that. 

Could it be that the current trend of bad evil Republicans in TV and movies reflects current public opinion?  I can’t remember what Bush’s current approval rating is, but last I heard, dismal was too nice a word for it.  Americans, as a whole, are not overwhelmingly happy with Dubya.

Now I could be totally wrong and feel free to hand my ass to me (tho you might want to use one of those back-brace things because damn, y’all, that ass hasn’t seen petite in years) since I turned off my television 3 years ago and never missed it.  The last movie I watched was CARS, so needless to say I’m not exactly a pop-culture diva.  Just thought I’d toss that out for debate.

And I thought that the current trend was Muslim bad guys?  The whole Christian = evil thing is so pre-9/11.

Okay, this is liable to come off confrontational, and I don’t mean it to be. I apologize ahead of time for any squished toes.

However, I really have to challenge this whole bullshit about how the left is picked on in this country.  The media, I’m talking hollywood here not Fox News, is dominated by the left. 

You’re absolutely correct. Hollywood is just as biased as the current right-wing administration and the section of the populace to whom it caters.

Hollywood produces images. Images are powerful, but not as powerful as the Pentagon, or the Supreme Court, or a piece of paper with the signature of the Commander in Chief.

Hollywood, for example, didn’t ram the Patriot Act or the Iraq War down our throats after 9/11.

Hollywood didn’t fiddle while New Orleans drowned.

Hollywood didn’t turn its attention away from a simmering catastrophe in the Middle East to debate marriage between consenting adults of the same gender.

Hollywood isn’t ignoring a global climate crisis because it’s more convenient for its corporate and Big Oil buddies.

And Hollywood won’t be instituting the draft when it finally runs out of warm bodies to send overseas to “spread Democracy and the American way.”

In addition, Hollywood hasn’t broken any federal privacy laws, outed any CIA agents, or cut any federal lunch programs and health care for the poorest children in the nation while passing a tax cut for the wealthiest. 

They make MOVIES and TV SHOWS. You can choose to watch them or not. But if you live in America, you’re pretty much stuck with the current regime until something changes.

Hollywood’s left-wing bias may suck ass, but it doesn’t threaten folks’ Civil Rights. Or leave them hungry or sick. Or kill them. For me, this makes a difference, and is why I tend to sport a left-wing bias of my very own. (I’ve named it Fala, after FDR’s Scottish Terrier. It’s almost housetrained.)

As for why “Overwhelmingly, anoyone with conservative viewpoints in this country is protrayed as an intolerant, racist, homophobic, asshole”...

Rush Limbaugh. Bill O’Reilly. Sean Hannity. Tucker Carlson. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. Ann Coulter. Michelle Malkin.

Those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. Every one of them has made an intolerant, racist, and/or homophobic remark that I could probably google inside of ten minutes. They are the voices of the current right-wing movement. The front lines. You want to know why people think conservatives are assholes? Because you let assholes speak for you.

And now that I’ve alienated everyone to the right of Abby Hoffman, I believe I’ll retire for the evening. :p

What gets me about the Butler Letter is, as I put in my blog when Butlergate broke,

The idea that gay people falling in love is somehow unromantic is fine. (No, it isn’t, of course, but stay with me.) But according to the same types of people who would say something like the above statement, sex doesn’t really belong in romance anyway. They prefer their romance squeaky-clean and sex free. These are generally the same people who remind us over and over that romance novels aren’t about sex, and the physical aspects of the relationship aren’t so important, it’s the people and their sweet kindness and the way they manage to find each other and blah blah blah anything that doesn’t involve cocks. Sex in romance is shameful! What sort of person wants to read about such things? They have loftier interests, they do. They’re interested in people’s souls, much like Satan waving those contracts around.

So that being the case, what difference does it make if the people falling in love are a men/woman combo, or man/man or woman/woman, or man/woman/man, or whatever?

I hope it’s okay for me to quote myself, I just still think the point is relevant.

Certainly Ms. Butler has the right to say whatever she wants. But if she wants to dictate who is allowed to read and/or write what kinds of books, she should either open her own publishing company or give her books for free to church groups. And even that’s no guarantee that only the “right” readers will get it.

We can’t control anything or aynone but ourselves, Ms. Butler. Just in case you see this. It’s a pretty good thing to keep in mind.

Selah, you rock.  Really.  Nicely put, and way too coherent for this time of night.

December, there you go with that pesky logic again.  Stoppit, won’t you?  You’re making my brain hurt.

The American Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech, but does not guarantee that everyone will agree with your opinion.  Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

Selah…alot of anger there.  I believe the subject of this blog is the rebuttal of asinine comments posted in public places, not your personal political opinions.

Controversial and dumb comments are not limited to Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, politicians, gays, actors, athletes, or the otherwise famous. “Speaking assholes” can be googled for any and all of the above groups.  You may want to consider counseling for all that pent up anger.

dl is so very right. 

Attacking the person by saying they’re angry or some other accusation that has nothing to do with what the person actually posted is a favored ruse of those right folk. 

Addressing the statements made (usually known as facts) is verboten to right folks who, as a rule, are absolutely terrifed of those horrid fact thingies. 

Just sayin’.

Selah, you were brilliant in your assessment of what Hollywood does and doesn’t do and can and can’t do.  Very factual, and that’s just like holy water to ‘em or the light of the sun.  ;-)

Money talks.  More than all these arguments, what will affect the future market is what we’re buying now.  End of story.

dl, if you read down a little ways, Katie brought up the Hollywood angle in her comment, which was in response to my question posted on Janny’s blog wondering who is picking on the conservative right, as Jan claims in her blog post.  So actually, Selah was perfectly on-topic, if you follow the convoluted path of blog comments.  And if this whole debate is about anything, it seems like personal political views are the topic du jour.

Just sayin’s all.

And actually, I didn’t think Katie OR Selah came across as mouth-frothing angry bitches.  Could be because I’m basically a pretty chilled-out person at heart.  Could be because I’ve had a lovely hard cider drink tonight.  (Woodchuck hard cider is my new favoritest thing ever.)  Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because they both presented their viewpoints in a reasoned way that is topical and mostly angst-free?  (As much as anyone can be angst-free when hot-button issues are being discussed.) 

I enjoy the debate, even though this honestly is more of a clusterfuck on Janny.  Still, when someone is able to articulate their opinion, it’s awesome.  It’s much easier to say, “Ur stoopid HEETHEN & goin to he!! for ur sinz” than it is to explain why you believe what you believe.  (Although I’ll admit the misspelled posts are sometimes much more entertaining.)

And for anyone who might be interested, still no comments showing up on Jan’s blog.  Maybe she’s not home to approve them or something?

She writes inspirational romance?

Heck why didn’t somebody say so before? Now her whole diatribe makes perfect sense.

the New Testament does condemn homosexuality as a sin

The New Testament is open to interpretation because words have to be understood in their context, e.g. whether they’re being used metaphorically, which definition of a particular word is being used etc. There are plenty of Christians who have read the New Testament and who do not believe that the New Testament condemns homosexuality as a sin. The main arguments are that:

among Bible translators there is a widespread view that in the New Testament, the two Greek words that have been translated as homosexual may mean ‘loose living’ or ‘prostitute’. The Revised English Bible is a mainstream published Bible, ratified by representatives of all the Christian denominations in the United Kingdom, written under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in this the word homosexual has been omitted from St Paul’s letters altogether. The story of Sodom is not about sexuality; this leaves only the references to sexuality in the codes of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The meaning of these codes may have been clear at the time they were written. But to us they are a confused mix of values relating to morality, religious practices, nationalist characteristics of Israel, and primitive ideas about purity and health. One such concept was of the pure forms of a man and a woman. This led to the prohibition of shaving in men, to avoid looking like a woman; also of cross-dressing, and of same-sex relationships. Other requirements of purity included the types of animals and fish that could be eaten, which excluded shellfish; and purity of dress, which excluded any garments made with more than one type of yarn. Under the moral code there are strong and repeated injunctions against usury; so much so that Christian moneylenders were unusual for many centuries.
(From the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement

They’ve also got an extremely detailed analysis of all the Bible verses which are generally held to prohibit homosexuality, if anyone wants to read about this at greater length.

My point isn’t that they’re right, because I’m not an expert in all the subjects necessary for understanding the nuances of the languages in which the Bible was originally written, I’m just pointing out that not all Christians agree on this issue, and those who believe that homosexuality is not sinful are not just wilfully ignoring the Bible. They’re interpreting it differently, and those interpretations have been reached on the basis of rigorous analysis.

Selah March wrote:

You want to know why people think conservatives are assholes? Because you let assholes speak for you.

Can’t argue with that.

I read Ms. Butler’s blog entry again, so it’s my own fault my eye is twitching. She warns that ‘disease spreads, too.’ That was a wowzer for me. I guess those who don’t agree with her stand are infected, iho, and will be rapidly spreading our tolerance, acceptance or enjoyment of slippery slopes.

Whee.

This is NOT about First Amendment Rights. It’s about Ms. Butler implying she speaks for RWA, its members, and thereby the genre itself and its readers. And further stating, pretty damn clearly, that those who don’t agree with her are shrill, whiny children who want to block her constitutional rights. And turn the Romance genre into a gay and lesbian love fest.

So far no one’s slapped duct tape over her mouth and locked her in a closet.

So far the big wheel of Romance is rolling right along on ALL its spokes.

I’ve been keeping up on the comments, and you know what I think is cool?

I don’t think that ALL those genres listed as immoral by Jan Butler would appeal to all of us… Most of them would not be my cup of tea, on a personal level.

And yet here we are, defending people’s right to publish and read them.

The first amendment is working. Just not on Jan Butler’s web site. (And incidentally, to rant about the first amendment and then ban comments on your blog/site makes you look really, really two-faced and whiny and juvenile. Just sayin’.)

Go, us. It’s a pleasure to read comments from people with a clue. Especially comments from people with a clue AND a sense of humor.

“You may want to consider counseling for all that pent up anger.”

Oh, my anger isn’t in the least pent up. I’m mad as hell right out in the open. So is a goodly percentage of the mass populace from what I can gather as I watch the polls. I guess the proof will be in November’s pudding, won’t it?

But I take your point regarding assholes on both sides of the equation, I forgive you for missing the point of the conversation, and I thank you kindly for what I’m sure was your well-intentioned concern.

Brava.

I posted a long response to Jan on her blog (the one where she was railing about her First Amendment rights being infringed). I thought it was well-thought out and well-reasoned. I began by pointing out that the First Amendment actually only applied to infringement of free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT and that private entities are free to infringe upon free speech, as long as there is no state action involved. I then went on to point out that I could see no instance where anyone was calling for censorship, but rather where people were simply engaging in the same behavior as her—finding a comment in a debate objectionable and responding. Yes, some of the responses were snappish and downright attacking, but she went there first with her inflammatory language in the original letter to the editor, again in her comments on people’s blogs, and again in her blog on msmentor. But I digress.

My point is this. She has every right to believe/write/feel/post what she did. And I have every right to 100% disagree with it. I will defend her right to spew hatred (her letter and subsequent posts seem as though she cribbed from any number of right-wing extremists), but I 100% disagree with it and now know at least one author I will NEVER buy.

Sad to say, it’s been about 18 hours since I left that post and it’s still not on there. And if you look at her history of posts on that blog, she has very few comments. I just find it incredibly ironic that this great defender of Free Speech is engaging in the very practice about which she rails—censroship. But hey, it’s her prerogative. The First Amendment doesn’t protect my right to post freely on her blog. It simply protects my right from infringement of speech by the state or a state actor.

At least Kate Rothwell allows all comments to be posted, including the ones she disagrees with.

Okay, she steamed me with her latest comment on Kate’s post. Don’t talk about my standing, my experience or my friendships when you don’t know me.

This woman’s full of perceptions, and it’s my constitutional right to hold the opinion that her perceptions are crap.

I’ve got to go away and get to work. Best to write this one quick before the market drops out as according to Butler the only area of Romance that’s growing is Inspirationals.

C’mon, Nora.  You know the hotel gave you the gold-plated toilet paper and RWA does everything you tell them to.  Isn’t that why last year’s GH/Rita Awards Ceremony went so smoothly last year?  ... oh… wait.  Never mind.

This was only my 3rd RWA Conference, and I think it’ll be my last for a while.  Mostly due to financial constraints, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say the atmosphere had a lot to do with my decision as well.  I write erotic romances for epublishers and it’s taken 9 books for me to have a more mainstream (yet still plenty spicy) paranormal romance come out in print.  But does RWA consider me published?  Nope.  And yeah, I’m woman enough to come out and say that irks me.  Don’t like my books?  Don’t buy ‘em.  But don’t tell me I’m not a ‘real author’ because of that.

And by the way, all three years combined?  I’ve only experienced snobbery from exactly ONE so-called Big Name Author.  And that was snobbery reported secondhand, and like all rumor, must be taken with a grain of salt.  One thing RWA does have going for it—they do seem to treat everyone equally at their conventions.  I’ve volunteered at the registration desk, and never saw any Big Names cut in line or try to pull rank.  I’ve never seen and Big Names throwing hissy fits at the hotel desk because their room wasn’t plush enough.  (This year, however, a bunch of people probably saw ME throwing a hissy fit at the front desk because my key never did work properly and they wouldn’t bring us toilet paper, gold-plated or otherwise.  Yep, I’m a diva, what can I say?)  And at the AGM, everyone has one vote.  Or they would, if enough people would show up to make a consensus, but I digress.

There’s a very simple reason why Nora’s and Janny’s experiences and conversations differ so much.  Human nature.  We tend to hang around with people who share our interests.  Doesn’t mean we consciously exclude people—“Oh, she’s a Republican, for God’s sake don’t let her sit here!”—but would you really spend loads of time with someone who drove you batshit crazy and disagreed with you on almost everything? 

Please note I’m not saying you have to be friends with only those who parrot your own views.  My best friend since we were 5 and I disagree on several very big issues.  Abortion.  Politics.  Whether it’s immoral to have a gas-guzzling vehicle.  But we agree on many other things, she’s got a killer sense of humor, I love her like a sister and she’s the godmother of my sons.  I can give no higher compliment than that.  We can rationally discuss the other stuff and admit that we both have valid points, and agree to disagree without frothing at the mouth.  And then we move on.

Maybe it’s a concept that Janny should try?

At nationals I sat next to a woman in a workshop who spent the whole time telling me essentially what Jan Butler has on her blog - hell - maybe it was her…

The thing that I don’t get is why people would start soap-boxing on something face-to-face without knowing the other person. Maybe I look Christian (I’m not), maybe I looked conservative (I’m not) - I don’t know. I heard about it for 10 minutes straight, unable to get a word in edgewise until the very end when I calmly said…

“I think that there is room in RWA for all different types of romance, inspriational to erotic. Just don’t read the books that offend you. I’ll continue reading and writing what I want and you should do the same. I don’t want to be part of an organization that favours one sub-genre over another.”

She suddenly realized she was in the wrong workshop and left - funny that.

Cheers, Deb

Oh, you silly lib’ruls! Of course conservative Christians are a persecuted minority in this country. After all, the courts keep insisting they can’t erect crosses or Ten Commandment monuments on public property, which means their freedom of religion is being restricted. Then there are the rulings against teaching Intelligent Design in Dover, PA. And look at the uproar over poor Mel Gibson’s Anti-Semitic remarks. (C’mon, the poor guy was drunk and we all know the evil drink makes you say things you otherwise wouldn’t—er, I mean, say things you don’t actually believe.) I mean, nobody would call Gibson on that stuff if he weren’t a Christian, right?

Yep, the poor sods are awash in persecution.

Also, do you think I can have my scintilla of decency made into a coat without upsetting PETA? Wouldn’t want to antagonize the left-wing nutjobs. They do, after all, control everything.

Jacqueline, sorry but it’ll take you a lot of scintillas to make a coat. I mean, they’re kinda small. Bigger ‘n mice but definitely smaller than rabbits.

I suggest you have your scintilla of decency done up as a vest for your chihuahua and have it dyed to match your outfit. I hear that’s what Paris does with all of her scintillas. Mmm so deliciously soft to carry on your arm.

You’re right, Kate: I’ll need a lot of scintillas to make a coat. Perhaps I can have Nora’s, since she doesn’t want it? And I’m sure a few other kind souls will toss me theirs if ask nicely.

Barring that, since I don’t have a chihuahua, I’ll have it done up for my black cat.

Anyone remember, back in March, when evangelical conservatives held that conference to discuss, “The War on Christians?”

Of course, many dismissed it because it’s hard to fathom how a group that makes up 85 percent of America can be oppressed.

Nonetheless, (some) conservative Christians somehow delude themselves into believing that free speech means having no opposition to your agenda and no dissent against your ideas.

It’s a puzzling position, no?

I began by pointing out that the First Amendment actually only applied to infringement of free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT and that private entities are free to infringe upon free speech, as long as there is no state action involved.

I’m pretty certain that not *all* private entities can infringe on the exercise of free speech, as some of them have been found to essentially be state actors, which include but are not limited to governments.  Public universities are state actors, as are some businesses.  Private and public individuals and entities that *function* like state actors can be found to *be* state actors for the purposes of the First Amendment (as well as the 5th and 14th), if I’m not mistaken.

Actually, the problem is that the First Amendment doesn’t say that people cannot disagree.  It says that anyone can say anything unless it’s deemed obscene, or unless it constitutes a nuisance, such as yelling on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m., or unless it’s speech that’s a form of conduct, such as fraud or incitations to violence.

Even in the case of so-called obscenity, which does not count as speech under the First Amendment, there is some protection, in so far as content neutral standards still apply (i.e. you cannot be discriminated against simply because someone deems your conduct offensive). The designation of obscenity is one that must be legally determined on a case by case basis (by a jury under the Miller Test), not arbitrarily made and imposed. 

It might be worth noting that the First Amendment is the most unqualified constitutional amendment, and it was not judicially qualified until 1918, after several individuals were jailed for protesting the First World War.  Over the years, various tests have been used to determine what qualifies as protected speech (i.e. to define the limits of the First Amendment), but the parameters are still quite broad among public entities (i.e. state actors).  And as conservative as the Supreme Court has become, I have it on good authority that Scalia, for example, is extremely protective of First Amendment rights. 

However, not all speech is protected and some conduct is deemed to be speech under the First Amendment (if it is symbolic conduct and meets certain requirements).  Core protected speech is political speech—it always gets the highest level of protection.  However, in one case involving the burning of a draft card (O’Brien), the conduct was not considered free speech, because the law against burning the draft card was not ruled to be one infringing on free speech rights (it was viewed as purely administrative).  Laws that *incidentally* curtail free speech rights are not necessarily unconstitutional.  Similarly, not all speech is given the same level of protection under the First Amendment, although contrary to popular opinion, there is really no legal category of “hate speech,” and even the so-called “incitement to violence” test has an imminence requirement that makes it relatively limited.  On the other hand, when free speech rights clash with other constitutionally protected rights, those must be weighed to determine what gets greater protection under the law.  For example, commercial speech (i.e. advertising), while still protected, does not receive the level of protection that pure political speech does.

I would happily donate my scintilla, but apparently I don’t have one. I was duped, it seems, and my scintilla is, alas, faux.

How mortifying!

As to the gold-plated tp? Let me tell you, it’s not what it’s—hahah—cracked up to be.

JulieT said: Incidentally, to rant about the first amendment and then ban comments on your blog/site makes you look really, really two-faced and whiny and juvenile.

Seriously. The Irony Meter’s pegged so far to the right that springs are popping out.

No matter what Janny says, I have a scintilla and I aim to use it ‘til it can’t scintillate no mo’. So there.

‘Elp!  ‘Elp!  I’m Bein’ Repressed!

Certain elements of my family have embraced country music.  I, myself, am not a big fan of the genre, although there are a few records here and there that I enjoy and some that I just find hilarious (and I mean that in the intentionally funny sense – “Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off,” for example, or “Celebrity.”) 

At any rate, their interest in the country scene means that occasionally I come into contact with songs that not only make the R&B guy inside me die a slow, lingering, and agonizing death, but outright tick me off.  One of these is a song by Gretchen Wilson called “Politically Uncorrect.” 

First of all, the title itself pisses me off way more than it should.  The grammatical mistake is completely intentional, designed to emphasize the singer’s pride in her backwoods standing and her disdain for all ‘at book larnin’ goin’ on in ‘em uppity Yankee schools.  Anyway, the song is all about how the narrator is in the unpopular and downtrodden minority because she believes in the Bible and family values and supports the troops in action and so on.

Now, I’m going to put aside for the moment the frightening implications that it’s somehow more “American” to be functionally illiterate trailer trash than to be educated enough to know that “uncorrect” isn’t a bloody word in the first place.  And I won’t add my voice to the throngs, Selah notable among them, wondering just who is oppressing the right wing folks when all three branches of government are Republican controlled at the moment. 

But I will address the underlying theme of the song – victimization.  The left wing side of the aisle demands to know how the right wing can possibly claim that they are being victimized by a leftist controlled media establishment while they have the White House and the Congress and obviously hold a majority, given the recent polling numbers on issues like gay marriage. 

Liberals aren’t going to like this very much, and I can’t say as I blame them for the hate mail I am sure to accumulate by saying so, but the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect” song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.

Why shouldn’t the white, middle-class, Christian, family values types claim that they are a victimized minority?  Everyone else does! 

Criminals are victims of capitalist society that kept them in poverty and forced them into lives of crime.  Women are victimized by book covers that show cleavage and dehumanize them.  Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Mormons, and worshippers of Ra the Sun God are victimized by religious bigotry.  Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and other racial groups are victimized by centuries of WASP control of American institutions.  Gays are victimized, bigamists are victimized, everyone is victimized by someone, and the fact of the oppression is holding each and every group back.

Now, I am not claiming that any or all of these groups are exaggerating or making fraudulent claims of any kind.  Bigotry, whether based on religion, ethnicity, color, sexual preference, shoe size, or even intellect, is an ugly reality that cannot be denied. 

However, the culture of the victim, in which no one is accountable for their own lives and their own successes or failures, no one can be blamed for unacceptable behavior because it can all be traced back to some grievance suffered, has created a climate in which every American can look for a scapegoat somewhere.

“Liberals aren’t going to like this very much, and I can’t say as I blame them for the hate mail I am sure to accumulate by saying so, but the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect” song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.”

I don’t disagree with your fundamental point. But the “culture of the victim” has been around much longer than the rise of liberalism. I’ve read tracts from the early twentieth century that bemoan the fates of poor, disenfranchised white men trampled by the increasing demands for civil liberties by uppity women and black folks. And didn’t some Southern planters swear it was the evil Northern industrialists who forced them to use slavery as the only means to make an honest living?

The backlash we’re seeing may well be caused by a disgust with the culture of victimization, but only in part. A great deal, in my view, stems from pure mean-spirited hatred for that which is different.

I’ve seen that Gretchen Wilson video you mention, btw. You know what stood out most to me? The hordes of extras she used to populate it—people who were supposed to represent normal, everyday, working-class folks.

And not a person of color among them.

To me? That says everything I need to know about what she and her audience consider “politically uncorrect.”

Oh, fine.  Just be RIGHT over there with all your correct rightness, why don’tcha?

Seriously, though, you bring up a valid point.  After all, nobody thinks they’re a villain, do they?

Just be careful with those scintilas, ladies. You have to make sure they’re free-range scintilas, and not raised on scintila factory-farms in overcrowded conditions.

I understand you can get free-range scintilas at the Zappa Ranch in Montana: fed on organic dental floss, and without those nasty parental advisory labels.

This has been one of the most informative and simultaneously entertaining discussions I’ve run across this week. It’s a testament to the concept of lively civil discourse.

the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect” song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.

I don’t think it’s a *backlash* against the culture of victimization; I think it’s an indulgence in the culture of victimization and a backlash against the civil rights and women’s movements.  And unfortunately, certain elements of those movements also indulged in the victimization paradigm, even though the wisdom and truth of such a dynamic was—and is—still hotly debated, because some of the analyses of historical marginalization of certain groups have inadvertantly essentialized the victim identity as synonymous with social marginaization or disadvantage. 

IMO, certain elements of the political and social Right have co-opted this discourse and have done so in a way that disguises (at least to a whole lot of people) its ideological underpinnings.  That’s one of the reasons I find the term “politically incorrect” so offensive (even when it’s used innocuously in reference to Romance); that little soundbyte, IMO, has somehow normalized the belittling of important social campaigns for greater inclusion and equality across racial, class, gender, sexual identity, and every other line of circumstantial difference.  And still people, even those on the Left, use it with increasing frequency such that it is beginning to seem divorced from the social goals of the civil rights movements and historically entrenched patterns of discrimination. 

And frankly, I think it’s this process of densensitization (whitewashing, if you will) that helps create the illusion of an ideology-free “no spin zone,” to use one popular example.  It’s not simply that political and cultural dissent are becoming more readily associated with a lack of patriotism, or the dismissal of educated moderates as brainwashed by “lefty” academics (because it couldn’t possibly be that more education simply makes one more analytically adept), or even the dismantling of the so-called “welfare state” that really disturbs me.  It’s the fact that people of all political persuasions are, IMO, mistaking *fundamentally ideological* positions for universal moral and ethical principles (i.e. “a new class of working poor is being created by, among other things, skyrocketing gas prices, raisisng taxes on the middle class, and hacking away at numerous social benefits programs” is translated into “we need to stop our co-dependent support of the culture of victimization”).  THAT’s what scares me.

I can’t ever be Robin when I (if I ever) grow up… but I wonder if I could have her babies.

(because I found it apropos: spam foiler, language92)

Robin,

I concur with most of your points, and perhaps your description of an “indulgence” in the victimization culture is much more apt.  Well said.

some of the analyses of historical marginalization of certain groups have inadvertantly essentialized the victim identity as synonymous with social marginaization or disadvantage.

I swear the above made me slightly horny.  Too bad the right folks probably won’t understand it. 

Robin is so smart. 

Do y’all notice how the few black folks on the far right are essentially . . . insane?  (well, one could argue that Anne Coulter is too, but that’s another point).

If I want to channel self-hatred, sometimes I go and visit poor, sad LaShawn Barber’s blog for kicks (I wonder if she cuts and self-multilates herself in the anguish she wasn’t born white?)

Seriously most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy with a long pole, no matter how conservative minded, because generally, they’re frickin’ racist. 

Bottom-line.

I wonder, Monica, what you think of the GOP’s latest attempts to suck up to black voters through the leaders of black churches who are getting infusions of cash through the Faith Based Initiative? Seems like there’s a very real move afoot on the part of conservatives to break through the traditional barriers and court the black vote via religious avenues.

Thanks Amy! :-)  I didn’t think I was frothing when I posted that. ;-)  I think it’s funny I’m debating this issue when I’m neither a christian nor a Republican.

Okay, I’ll try to address some of this without being too verbose. :)

I realized the Mel Gibson reference was flawed.  Yes, of course, because of Passion there would have been an uproar about him saying “fuck the christians”  LOL!  What I was trying to get at was would liberals really have been seeking blood if an actor said christians were responsible for all the wars??  And I’m sorry, but conservatives are used to being bashed in this society by hollywood.  I doubt there would be much of a flap at all if, say, Susan Sarandon made that comment.  Hell, she probably has already. ;-P

I think what Gibson said was offensive as hell, but, good god, can’t someone be forgiven if they sincerly regret doing something.  Being drunk is not an excuse, but neither is it irrelevant.  Cast the first stone if you haven’t made an offensive comment at some point in your life.  Please, if you are so perfect that you have never been wrong please crucify the man.  I have said & did stupid things when I was drunk :red: so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. 

I’m sorry, but the list of political grievances has nothing to do with the point I’m making.  Do I really need to research how many times Democrat politicians have screwed over the country?  I’m too damn lazy right now to do it. :gulp: What I have a problem with is the sweeping portrayals of conservatives as assholes.  Most Republicans are not rich.  The vast majority are not the Sean Hannity or Pat Robertsons of the world, but average decent people and that’s who is being vilified by hollywood.  You don’t think it has an effect (okay, is it effect or affect, I always get that wrong) when overwhelmingly repubs/conservatives are portrayed as the Frank Burns of the world never the Hawkeyes. 

By the way, Ann Coulter makes me laugh. While I don’t agree with her on some things, I do on others & I like someone who can piss so many people off. Go Ann! :lol:

I watched “Air Force One” once and once was enough.  I really hate dick flicks.  Was he really a Republican???? :bug:  I’m more use to the evil Republicans politicians in “The American President,” “Dave,” “The Contender,” and “The Candidate.”  Of course, you can find exceptions, but can you really type with a straight face that conservatives are not vilified by hollywood.  When I’m less lazy I’ll post some of the more obvious examples.

Jacqueline, I’m pretty sure PETA is basically a left leaning organization.  I don’t support either party so I really am coming at this as an impartial observer.  Anybody else love John Knowles’ “Separate Peace?”  One of my favorite lines in that is (paraphrasing here) “sarcasm is the defense of the weak.”

IMO, it’s not generally working the way they expect it too. 

We recently had a visiting pastor at my church.  He was excited about some faith-based initiative grants his church had applied for that would benefit his community.

But it was interesting how his sermon emphasized the gulf between the white Christion right and the black Christian church. 

He said Sunday morning was the most segregated time in America. He was very clear about how some social issues (such as gay marriage) are manipulated by the Christian right to forward their political agendas. 

There were four other black pastors there and everybody got up and applauded his statements. 

I live in Kansas, one of the reddest states in the union.  I’ve never known any black church that has had anything but distain toward the far right. 

But if a fool throws money at you, why not spend it?

The way our present administration wastes money amuses me.  They seem far worse than the previous admin as far as flagrant spending—except they prefer to spend it on corporations and the wealthy than on the needy. 

If the churches can use some of those funds—which are essentially campaign funds for them to whore the Republican vote—while not being manipulated or bought and help the poor and needy . . . more power to them!

Okay, I admit, when I first read Robin’s post I pretty much thought:

Fire bad; tree pretty.

But then I went down, poured a glass a wine and came back and read it again. And I think I mostly agree.

Still, under it all, my sense is that Ms. Butler’s statements and her stand are primarily based on her own idealogy and her absolute belief that she is right, and those who don’t agree are wrong, misguided or lefty wackos.

The fact that her response to strong disagreement is to cry constitutional foul is just silly, really. Just as making further statements that either aren’t true (Where are my unwritten perks, damn it) or that she can’t possibly back up with facts—inspirationals are the only area of Romance not stagnant in sales (huh?)—are, imo, a kind of odd misdirection off the point.

She also contridicts herself by intimating that her stand is held by a (somewhat silent and fearful of being stamped with the B label) majority of RWA, and yet goes on to complain that the type of books she enjoys reading and writing are all but impossible to sell to publishers (who are in the business of selling books) because they’re more interested in weird love (my shorthand for her definition). Which, logically to me, would put her in the minority.

So I guess I’ve read her comments today and thought:

Fire bad; tree pretty.

But even after a glass of wine, I can’t agree with a single word she says.

This is just so fascinatin’, y’all.  I love all the lofty talk of ideals and generalizations, the shouldas and couldas and wouldas.

I’m a CPA, however, so things need to slap me in the face before I really, truly ‘get it’.  Someone very, VERY close to me came out the night I got home from RWA.  Yes, as I sat here, holding my little RITA, thinking I was the shit, this person told me they are gay.  I set RITA aside and we talked for several hours.  It’s something I never saw coming, but now that it’s here, I have to face the ugly spectre of what this person’s life will be like from now on.  Discrimination, hate, perhaps violence.

Isn’t it interesting how putting a face - a face we love - on something so abstract suddenly brings everything into focus?  I’d ordinarily jump into the fray here and bellow my two cents.  Instead, I just feel this yawning sadness.  Because this isn’t about Jan Butler’s right to free speech, or the rights of everyone who disagrees with her to argue in a public forum.

No - to me, this is about intolerance, on a gut level, and the certain knowledge that this person I love to distraction will have to suffer the injustices of people who are convinced they know The Way and The Light.

On a lighter note, my daughter sent me an open letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger that was posted on the Internet by a professor.  I thought it was so damned funny - and spot on - I blogged it.  Here’s a link:

http://www.stephaniefeagan.com/blog/?p=71

~No - to me, this is about intolerance, on a gut level, and the certain knowledge that this person I love to distraction will have to suffer the injustices of people who are convinced they know The Way and The Light.~

That’s cutting to the core with precision. Not only with the gut, but with the heart.

<< Seriously most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy with a long pole, no matter how conservative minded, because generally, they’re frickin’ racist.  Bottom-line. <<

Okay, let me understand this, if a black voter is a Republican they are mentally ill?  They are supporting a racist government?  Did I get that right?  Is anyone going to take this one?  Anybody want to address what an ignorant & offensive statement this is?  I think we can all agree to disagree without all the hate.  I think any reasonable person can see that both ideologies have their good and bad points and that neither side is evil incarnate.  Republicans are not racist and Democrats don’t hate America and there are some damn good people on both sides of the issue.

<< Seriously most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy with a long pole, no matter how conservative minded, because generally, they’re frickin’ racist. Bottom-line. <<

Okay, let me understand this, if a black voter is a Republican they are mentally ill?

Okay, ease back. Right wing and Republican are not synonomous. Monica said `right-wing'. I have several friends who are Republican (I know, what can I do? ) and who are moderate, middle of the road in idealogy and philosophy.

When I hear or read `right wing’ in this context, particularly given the subject of this discussion, I think far right, more extremist, not your average Joe who happens to be registered as a Republican.

I think what Gibson said was offensive as hell, but, good god, can’t someone be forgiven if they sincerly regret doing something.

The problem with Gibson’s apology wasn’t that it wasn’t sincere, it’s that it wasn’t truthful. He claimed he said things he didn’t believe. I don’t for one single, solitary moment buy that.

What people say when they are drunk is not implanted into them by alcohol; it is what is already in their heads that they are smart enough not to say when they are sober.

I’d have a lot more respect for Gibson if he came out and said, “Yes, I have harbored anti-Semitic views and I regret them.”

But the lightbulb doesn’t want to change.

yeah, what Steph said.

That’s why it’s worth ranting and making a fuss in the tiny world of RWA.

On a lighter note, my daughter sent me an open letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger that was posted on the Internet by a professor.

Now that I no longer live in So. California, “Dr.” Laura (I think her degree is in like nutrition or kineseology or something) isn’t so much in my peripheral vision anymore, but I *do* remember this hysterical letter, and I thank you for reminding me of it.  What has always amazed me about Schlesinger is how she has managed to survive all the revelations about her personal life and its, uhm, disharmony, shall we say, with her advertised moral imperatives.

Robin said: I think her degree is in like nutrition or kineseology

It’s in physiology. I’ve been told that in Canada you can’t call yourself an engineer unless you are licensed. I wish they’d do that with doctors here. As much as I respect those who have earned doctorates in non-medical fields (my much-beloved father-in-law among them), there ought be some way to distinguish those who are licensed to practice medicine from those who are not.

Stef, thank you for posting that link. Neat stuff!

Of course I don’t think all Republicans are racists or any group of people are racist.  That blanket statement can apply to no group.  I stated:

“most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy”

In the following sentence the wording should have been “it” instead of “they” because you can see I was referring to the rightwing philosophy. 

I do think the extremist rightwing philosophy is quite racist, as do many blacks.  Extremist rightwing pundits espouse racism (I could find an offensive statement from any of them in a few minutes).  Otherwise there would be more blacks supporting rightwing neocon thought. 

And the blacks who do support rightist extremeism, nope, I don’t think they’re quite balanced.  This is, of course, my opinion. 

I can’t think of anything to equate it accurately to—it’s not as extreme as a Jewish person supporting Nazism, but that’s the direction.  An Israeli supporting a state who officially says Israel has no right to exist is closer to the mark. 

You’ve just gotta wonder why.

Now, last time I checked, no Christians were trying to fix it so that people who adultered, had pre-marital sex or otherwise fucked in Non-Bible-Approved Ways were systematically denied their civil rights.

In their wildest dreams, they would.

See, these people don’t hate gays because of moral conviction.  They hate—and fear—sex, and because they think being gay is all about sex, they hate and fear gays most of all. 

These are the same people who want to let pharmacists refuse to sell birth control pills, who want to keep the morning-after pill prescription-only (or better yet, ban it), who want to outlaw the sale of sex toys. 

IOW, even if you’re a happily married, missionary-position-Friday-night-only kind of person, you still shouldn’t have sex unless it’s to make babies.  That’s their bottom line and their ultimate agenda.

I’m at the point where I just pity these people.  They’re missing out on one of the greatest God-given joys of life.  I just wish they wouldn’t try to foist their misery on the rest of us.

Hey, it’s Friday night!  Gotta go lie down.

I think fear is an exceptionally powerful motivator in these sorts of arguments.  That, in my opinion, is why you so often see the misdirect in their responses instead of a logical reply in support of their beliefs.  After all, they’ve been taught from the cradle that this is true.  If this belief isn’t true, then what else might be untrue?  Blacks as inferiors?  Jews as coldhearted moneygrubbers?  Muslims as jihad-obsessed fanatics?  The list goes on and on.

No, it’s easier to fall back into a defensive stance.  When someone is secure in their beliefs, they are able to back them up with the reasons WHY they believe, and they’re usually better than, “Because *whatever* says so.”  Whether it’s Mom and Dad, the Church, the Bible, or the Magic 8 ball, that’s not a good argument, IMO.  Then again, I’m a fact-lovin’ kind of girl, and I was raised in a family where nothing, and I mean NOTHING, was considered closed to debate, and we could discuss absolutely anything without becoming shrill and angry.

It’s that thinking-for-yourself thing.  So scary for some, so precious to others.

You know…as I was reading Jan’s blog….one thought came to my mind that I think sums up everything you said, Candy.

That thought was this: “What the fuck is this bitch babbling about?”

She’s talking about censorship and freedom of speech, and I’m just like “What the hell? When did anyone try to censor you?”

I read the SmartBitches rant, I read Kate’s blog, and I read several other blogs disecting “Janny’s” letter. I also read a hell of a lot of comments, and not once did I see anyone say “She shouldn’t be allowed to say that”.

Frankly, I think she has about as much of a clue talking about the connections between Censorship & Disagreement as she does speaking about the connection between Homosexuality & Pedophilia.

In other words: She has none.

*sigh*

I swore to myself I would NOT go read Kate’s blog, but hell if I didn’t do it anyway.  Am I pissed off because ‘Janny’ and the respondents are poking a stick at one another?  Nah.  Go get ‘em, and have fun while you’re at it.

What consistently befuddles me are the statements made about RWA, an organization in existence for the sole purpose of supporting career romance writers through networking and advocacy.  There are over 9,000 members, and I’d venture a guess they’re not all of one mind.  The organization is governed by bylaws and policies and procedures, which are available for review by any of those 9,000 members.  If there’s a question about RWA, why doesn’t a member review the governing documents?  Or how about contacting a board member with a question?  If a member is concerned that RWA is excluding anyone, whether because of race, creed, sexual orientation, or political bent - or excluding books for like reasons - I would urge that member to do a bit of investigating.  Is it in the bylaws or policies and procedures?

Perhaps the member feels it’s not the organization, but the other members who exclude some based on their race, creed, sexual orientation or political bent.  If so, I’m terribly sorry, but there’s an old expression - we can’t legislate morality.  If members choose to be asswipes, we can’t kick them out, or keep others from joining.  We don’t discriminate against anyone - even asswipes.

I’ve been a member of RWA since 1995.  I’ve made a lot of friends over the years, met some stellar human beings, made a lot of fond memories, learned an enormous lot about the publishing industry, craft, and the business of selling books.  I’ve also been excluded, ignored, and had my feelings hurt (I remember one group in particular, years ago, who mocked my Texas twang when I said hello as I passed their table in the bar - my accent is something I’m particularly sensitive about, so it was like pouring salt in a wound) - but I don’t blame RWA for the inelegant bad manners of a few tacky women.  I read letters like Jan Butler’s and strongly disagree with her, but I don’t take her opinion as the Voice of RWA - I take it as one voice in 9,000.

As for the exclusion of books - I really don’t get this accusation, at all.  There are requirements for publisher recognition - all based on numbers, without subjectivity.  As to what constitutes a romance, it’s up to the market to determine - not RWA.

Yes, there was a survey, which died a quick death.  Why is this brought up in any discussion about RWA?  Graphical Standards are history, dead and buried, yet, I continue to see references made to them, as if they’re still around, or may be reinstated.  Suppose people were still throwing fits about Prohibition?  What would be the point, other than to bitch and moan about how wrong-headed the government was, almost one hundred years ago?

I sometimes read a writer’s declaration that she dropped her membership, or one who vows never to join, enumerating all the reasons why - and they’ve got all their facts wrong.  If a writer is fully aware of the facts, and still feels RWA isn’t for him/her, I respect that.  But to stand on a soapbox and accuse an organization of over 9,000 writers of things like exclusivity, racism and intolerance - I seriously don’t get it.  By espousing a viewpoint and making a decision based on false information, a writer might lose a great many opportunities.  Bummer that.

Glad you spoke up, Stef.  I just joined RWA a year ago, went to my first conference last week, and found it to be full of warm, open, fun-loving people.  They seemed very accepting of different kinds of writing and writers. 

Dunno, maybe I was just hanging out with the wrong crowd.  Maybe my intolerance of intolerance provided a natural repellant. 

Having an entirely new board of directors seems to have taken the organization in a new, healthier direction.  It’s been a quiet year, from what I’ve heard, with no controversies until Butler’s letter, if you can call that a controversy.

I don’t think their printing her letter makes them a conservative organization, any more than the New York Times can turn into Fox News by printing a Letter to the Editor from a conservative.

My feeling is that RWA is struggling to be neither conservative nor liberal, to just be about the writing.  In today’s political climate, it seems like everyone has to take one side or the other, when it’s never that simple.

Just my five cents (I’m preparing for the phaseout of the penny).

I’m not a member of RWA and haven’t been for various reasons, but I will say the huge defense of personal rights that I’ve seen on this issue, right here, has been the best thing I’ve ever seen in favor of it.

Okay, a word on RWA since I gripe about it once in a while (unwad panties, I will explain). 

Nowhere in the bylaws does it state that it’s a white-oriented organization.  I’m a founding Prez for a chapter, so I know about their gotdarn bylaws. 

The RWA is an extremely useful organization.  I consider it invaluable for anybody wanting support and networking for writing romance or getting published.  It helped me. 

All I’m sayin’ is that RWA has never dealt with the segregation and marginalization of a fairly significant number of romance writers, based on nothing but their race, while regularly addressing other issues in the romance industry.

Does RWA have the right to ignore the issues facing this segment of of romance writers?  Sure do.

But personally, as a published romance writer, the organization is not suitable for my needs at this time.  I’m set apart from my peers as far as marketing, who my readers are, and my potential as a romance writer.  The RWA claims to speak for ALL romance writers and they don’t.   

But many black writers and published authors find the organization useful for what it does do—networking, writing support, etc. and choose to join and participate in what’s offered. 

Maybe at some point in time, I will do so again.  The leadership seems to have regained its equilibrium from last year’s fiasco and is steadier on its feet.

I’m still laughing over the fact that Ms Butler’s blog entry is entitled “Freedom of speech and ideas…for whom” and she still hasn’t allowed one comment to be posted.

I guess she answered her own question.

You’re absolutely right, Stef. Pretty much any time I’ve complained about RWA, it had nothing to do with the bylaws, the P&P, the Board (well, not THIS year, anyway), or the vast majority of the members. Maybe I should always qualify it as “a few members of the RWA” or “a clique within RWA” or something like that.

The review kerfuffle of a few weeks ago is a case in point. I said at the time that the sixth-grade-girl behavior was one of the things I liked least about RWA, and I think you took some exception to my generalization. In all fairness, I should’ve said that I disliked how certain members used their RWA connections as a weapon against others. I loathe bullies. Always have. I honestly believe that if most members had read the threads here and elsewhere and were aware of everything that went on behind the scenes in that ugly incident, they’d be just as appalled as so many here were.

That the Jan Butler letter appeared in RWR proves to me that the RWA is big enough to accommodate a wide range of opinions. Her views on things are held by a minority of members, IMO, but nobody refused to print her letter. I fully expect the next RWR to have so many rebuttals that it’ll be as thick as an issue of InStyle. To me, this is further proof of the diversity of views within the organization.

As always, thanks for being a voice of reason and fairness. :-)

Nora Roberts quoted Buffy—fire bad; tree pretty. Wow. How did I not know she was a sister? I already thought she was cool, but this?

Stef gets to the heart of the matter. The people who talk about being gay as this big incomprehensible evil thing are mostly ignorant. They haven’t loved and held someone who was gay, or been best friends with someone who was gay, and spent enough time around them to know that their lives are comprised of the same mixture of goals, joys, disappointments, and mundane tasks as so-called normal people.

Jan is undoubtedly further scared and driven into her darkness by the fact that people of her ilk are becoming more and more of a minority. Popular culture is no longer on her side—as proof, a film about two gay men almost won Best Picture. She tries to work within her own little sphere of influence, but the support is just not there. What’s a good
Christian Girl to do?

You’d think learning tolerance would be an option.

She’s allowing comments again. I posted, asking her to cite where it was suggested that she didn’t have a 1st Amend right to her opinions,

Jusst fyi:

Letters in response to Ms. Butler’s, or anything in the Aug issue won’t be in Sept’s RWR, but in Oct’s—and possibly in Nov for any who missed sending in a letter to the ed by Aug 5—the deadline for Oct’s RWR.

BTW, not only a HUGE Buffy fan, I have all 7 seasons on DVD—and consider it one of the best written shows EVER on TV.

I blogged her, too, since she is not allowing anyone to respond on her wonderous tribute to free speech.

My response is on my blog: http://christineolinger.blogspot.com .

Anyone wanting a copy of her most recent (2002) book can pick it up for 33 cents on amazon.

Huge following that Janet has!

99 comments… egad.

One man/one woman.  How many wives was it that Solomon had, again…?  Not to mention the concubines. 

And re: New Testament condemnation of gays… I’m sorry.  Jesus said nothing about it.  He said “love one another,” he said “judge not, lest ye be judged,” “Do unto othes as you would have done to you,” etc.  If I remember correctly, the Scribes and Pharisees who know the letter of the law but didn’t understand the spirit usually wound up looking as stupid as .. well, as Mrs. Butler (surely she is a Mrs?)

As for Paul of Tarsus.  Well.  He started out persecuting Christians, had a heatstroke, and switched to persecuting everyone who didn’t like Christians.  He may have been one hell of an organization-builder, but of all the “apostles,” he was one who never even met Jesus.  If one interprets Christianity as I do, ie, the teachings provided by Jesus Christ, not Pau’s subsequent reframing, there is nothing in there for or against gays and lesbians except insofar as He advised us to be kind to one another.  Scary thought.

“Because my god said so,” is not a good reason for anything, since your god is may well not be wearing a mask the other party accepts as divine.

95% of the media is owned by the corporate folk who own George Bush.  When CNN is wondering, on-air, if a war based on a deliberate lie is “armageddon,” we have gone beyond the twilight zone.  The media are as liberal as the corporations that own them.

Oh, and one can have a scintilla coat without animal cruelty.  Just build a little mesh vest and train your scintillas to hang on tight.  Peanuts are a good training aid.

If one interprets Christianity as I do, ie, the teachings provided by Jesus Christ, not Pau’s subsequent reframing, there is nothing in there for or against gays and lesbians except insofar as He advised us to be kind to one another.  Scary thought.

This is an interesting comment, because I was thinking yesterday about anger and its various forms.  I, for example, was much more *personally* angry over what was done to a particular Amazon reviewer several weeks ago, because despite all the protestations of principle, the whole thing seemed to me to be spiteful and mean at its core.  Butler’s comments, on the other hand, offend my own sensibilities, but they don’t make me angry in the same way, in part because I really believe that she *is* standing on some sort of principle, even if it’s one I disagree with, find inconsistent, and contains implications with which I took issue (i.e. that to support a broad and inclusive defintion of Romance *isn’t* a principled position, too). 

To be completely honest, I understand why Butler hasn’t been allowing comments on her blog, even if it seems illogical given her claims about free speech rights.  She isn’t required to defend her case, especially when her comments suggest that she believes that she is “right” and those of us who disagree are “left” unenlightened (although I know there are right leaning folks who disagree with her).  Although I think her position is illogical, inconsistent, and intolerant, I don’t think she’s silly or ridiculous or an imp of satan for espousing it, in part because the few members of my family who are politically and/or religiously conservative have allowed me to understand that perfectly nice people can have really incoherent and IMO hypocritically judgmental beliefs.  For one thing, I really don’t think that most people examine their belief systems with all that much care.  Then when they try to explain them, the contradictions become overwhelming and they have to rest their case on “principle”—and IMO this applies to both sides of the political dividing line.

HelenKay Dimon had an interesting comment on her blog, which was that stripping away all the excess rhetoric and emotion from Butler’s statement, it’s worth talking about the basic issue that Butler puts forward about the one man/one woman Romance definition.  At first I thought, yeah, that’s a good point.  But one of the problems, I think, is that before you can even articulate a position the issue is already bound up in political and social philosophy.  The RWA national web page even refers to its own “core ideology”—which sounds more like something you’d encounter in a political party than a Romance writer’s organization. 

Because the definitional issue is so fraught with ideological concerns at its core, I can’t imagine how the RWA could EVER even attempt a new definition of Romance without converting itself into an overtly political organization.  And given the broad spectrum of views on the part of its large membership, *any* attempt from *any* faction to further define Romance would, IMO, essentially dismantle the RWA and turn it into something else.  Now, at least, the RWA is an organization that is not exempt from politics, but is not, itself, a declared political entity, and I think that’s the only way it can maintain its role as a *writer’s* organization.  Now Author A can believe that gay and poly Romance should be included in the genre, and Butler can say they shouldn’t, and both of them can belong to the RWA, an organization whose express “ideology” is to support writers not police the genre.  Now, I personally think that’s a position that can also be defended as principled, but at the very least, it’s practical.

The problem for me, even when you delete all the cha-cha-cha from Butler’s letter is that there IS no single definition of Romance any more than there is a specific one for the Mystery genre or any other. How could you sum up in a few sentences all the areas of fiction that fall under the Mystery genre—suspense, romantic-suspense, police procedurals, thrillers, cozies, soft-boiled, hard-boiled detective novels and on and on?

And what’s the point?

Same holds true here for me. And such matters should never be, as this one has become, bound up—as Robin said—with religion or politics.

It’s not RWA’s job to define Romance, certainly not in words. Its function is to provide a platform for those who write it, publish it, edit it, promote it and sell it to network, communicate, educate. It promotes and celebrates the genre. That’s a really big job already.

I don’t need an organization to define Romance for me. I don’t see why anyone does.

I feel the same way, Robin. One thing I’ve noticed is that nobody has made an articulate defense of Jan Butler’s position. We’ve seen a few anonymous posts here and there, but even those have been of little substance. We may live in a country with an appallingly high number of people who think that way (some of whom, unfortunately, are in a position to make policy decisions for the rest of us), but in her case, I really do feel like she brought a knife to a gunfight when she took this stance in the romance community.

I’m glad to see so many people coming out against the bigoted worldview expressed in Jan Butler’s letter and subsequent blog posts, but at this point, isn’t it like shooting fish in a barrel? The tougher job would be taking this fight to the larger world outside romancelandia.

I’m with you, Robin, in that this hasn’t made me nearly as angry on a personal level as the outing of the Amazon reviewer and the publishing biz “advice” she was given. That still sickens me.

*Having an entirely new board of directors seems to have taken the organization in a new, healthier direction.*

Actually, out of 18 people on the board, only 5 were new this year, myself included.

Like anything else in our world, there are a lot of things that can, and should, be explained, and a lot of things that are best left behind us - kinda like roadkill.  I’d like to say, the women on this board, including those who returned from last year, all volunteered because they love RWA, because they want it to be the best it can be, and because they all have a real desire to support career romance authors.  It’s been a long row to hoe, gaining any measure of respect within the industry, despite how much money romances earn for publishers.  We get closer, every day.  Maybe we can’t change public perceptions to any large degree, (although we’re sure trying) but I think we’ve made great strides within the industry.

I can’t speak for the board, because it’s not something I CAN do, but for myself, I’m on the We Can’t Define Romance bandwagon.  I see Jan Butler’s point - I really do - but I also see that there are over 9,000 other points of view.  Who’s right and who’s wrong?  From RWA’s perspective, no one is right, or wrong.  It’s actually a moot point.  We recognize publishers who publish romance - if a book is inspirational, or erotic, or somewhere in between, and the recognized publisher calls it a romance, that book is eligible to be entered in RWA’s contests, and we, as an organization, will support the author through advocacy - go to bat for her, and the other authors who write for that publisher.

It’s been a great year, and it’s seriously been a privilege to serve on the board.  I’m doing it again, running for treasurer this time - not a lot of financial minded people in RWA, or at least, ones who’re willing to serve.  ‘sokay - being a CPA, I always get nailed to be treasurer of every organization I join.  I’m looking forward to continuing on the board, as are all the returning members.  Y’all can call me Count de Money.

Celeste, Monica and Jeri - thanks for responding to my post.  I know RWA isn’t perfect, but its objective is to try and fulfill the needs of the entire membership, not just a select few.  We’re an unusual writing organization, in that we don’t have a tiered membership based upon published status - hell, the fact that we have unpublished members is somewhat unusual.  Most writing organizations don’t.  So it’s a balancing act, trying to meet the needs of the newbie, the almost there, the newly published, the midlists, and the NYT bestsellers.  Our board includes some of all of those, which gives us a good representation of each.

Monica, if you rejoin, and if you have any solid ideas about how we can better serve members, I’m all ears.  That goes for anyone else who’s a member - email me, or any other board member.  That’s what we’re here for.

And here’s to another good year for RWA.

The problem for me, even when you delete all the cha-cha-cha from Butler’s letter is that there IS no single definition of Romance any more than there is a specific one for the Mystery genre or any other. How could you sum up in a few sentences all the areas of fiction that fall under the Mystery genre—suspense, romantic-suspense, police procedurals, thrillers, cozies, soft-boiled, hard-boiled detective novels and on and on?

And what’s the point?

IMO the point depends on your perspective.  Genres are called such because they have certain recognizable properties that *technically* categorize them for writers and readers alike (and I mean technical in the sense of techne, not in a diminishing capacity).  We know, for example, that sonnets are poems, and even though there are Petrarchan sonnets and Shakespearean sonnets, etc., and each type has certain requirements it must meet to be called a sonnet.  Each genre has certain thematic and technical elements at its core.  The RWA defines Romance fiction as containing a “central love story”, with an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending” (which most people think of as the HEA), and while other genres may have romantic *elements*, straight Romance is generally distinguishable from, say, straight science fiction.  Even for all the hybridizing that’s taking place, the generic definitions are helpful in distinguishing the elements.  This is where sub-genreric categorization has come in handy (and applies to the distinctions you point out for mysteries, because there are broad similarities and specific differences under the umbrella of a large genre).

For readers, I think these definitions can be helpful because some readers have strong preferences for what “type” of fiction they enjoy.  For example, I don’t think Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse books are Romance novels, and I don’t recommend them to readers who only like straight Romance because of a) Sookie’s relationship patterns, and b) the love story is not the central focus of her books.  If a reader goes into those books thinking they are straight Romance, disappointment may result, and, IMO, an unfair judgment of the books based on elements particular to Romance fiction.  Readers who don’t like paranormal Romance or fantasy or science fiction may also not like these novels (although I think they’re brilliant PERIOD, so I’m biased). 

So I think generic definitions are useful and even necessary to some degree.  HOWEVER, the kind of definitional framing Butler is arguing for is, IMO, different, because it imports a specific moral judgment into what I think should be a straight technical issue.  She is, IMO, going beyond technical distinctions.  I can absolutely recognize a gay Romance as a Romance if the love story is central and the ending optimistic and emotionally satisfying.  Same with polyamory (Emma Holly’s Strange Attractions is a perfect example of this, IMO, even though the book was marketed more as erotica).  In a way I think it’s unfortunate that what should, IMO, be technical considerations have become so politicized, but at the same time, I realize that’s not a new phenomenon and probably unavoidable when you’re talking about something like love, which has itself become politicized.  I still think that as long as you have so-called genre fiction you need to have broad guidelines for both readers and writers, but IMO they need to be as neutral and general as possible.

The RWA defines Romance fiction as containing a “central love story”, with an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending” (which most people think of as the HEA), and while other genres may have romantic *elements*, straight Romance is generally distinguishable from, say, straight science fiction.

I guess I should have used “mainstream” instead of “straight” here.  Pun not intended, in other words.

I’m on the We Can’t Define Romance bandwagon.

Although the RWA HAS provided a generic definition of Romance on its “What Is It?” page.  And I also noticed today that the definintion specifies “two people,” although I guess you could argue that polyamorous Romance might still fit, in that you have *at least* two people or some combination of couples.  Although polyamory is probably less mainstream these days than gay Romance, isn’t it?  I see Butler’s position as one of further defining Romance past its “required” (according to the RWA, at least, which uses the phrase “every Romance novel” on its genre info page) technical and thematic elements.

At least two people - hmm.  Guess that means self love between someone and Rosy Palm doesn’t qualify.

Har.

Sorry - couldn’t resist.

Although I do know a few guys whose love for themselves knows no bounds - there isn’t room in there for anyone else.

I think Jan was a little surprised that more of us outspoken-goin’-to-hell “liberals” are the ones talking.

What I think would surprise her most is that many of her peers don’t believe her rhetoric…and that’s why they are quiet. I know she finds it hard to believe that any good Christian (especially a good Catholic) would have the audacity to go against God and believe that it’s not right to judge someone based on who the fall in love with. Even if those someones both have penises. But, it’s true. It happens. I’m married to one of them and he was raised by two of them. Liberal Catholics…they’re out there. Be very afraid.

And they are keeping quiet, not because they are afraid of the backlash of the awful loudmouthed-shrill-minority, but because they are afraid of how their own peer group will treat them.

I’m glad Jan is passionate about her beliefs. I just wish she respected that there are many of us out there who passionately believe otherwise.

I’m with you, Robin, in that this hasn’t made me nearly as angry on a personal level as the outing of the Amazon reviewer and the publishing biz “advice” she was given. That still sickens me.

Not to change the subject, but what was that all about?  I never heard anything about it and am dying of curiosity now…

aries75, the main part of the discussion started here on SBTB but spread across maybe half a dozen other blogs.

I’ve read the initial letter and the follow up comments on Kate’s blog. Must admit I’ve rarely seen that much rhetoric outside a Baptist church. She uses language well enough, but her argument lacks a spine to substantiate it.

No matter how hard I try, I can’t make my understand how diversity hurts anyone else, either in life or in fiction. Does anyone really want a homogenized, Orwellian future?

Being gay doesn’t rub off. I read books that are interesting and well-written. The worst thing a book can do is bore me. The antithesis of love isn’t hate; it’s indifference. That said, I really can’t get worked up by someone else being an asshat, but I am puzzled by it.

The RWA defines Romance fiction as containing a “central love story”, with an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending”

One thing y’all need to realize is that I’m coming at this from the librarian perspective, and that I’m quite obviously not a writer.

The American Library world is essentially governed by the American Library Association, but the ALA is more of a “public library” organization than some special libraries need.  Their basic rules are great, but they don’t have any specific guidelines for legal or medical libraries, and only basic guidelines for academic libraries.  This gave reason for the formation of the Special Libraries Association, (SLA) which led to the Medical Library Association (MLA) and the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL).

The point of this diatribe was to say “what about any offshoot organizations?”  Have the RWA be the big, general purpose organization, and have other groups for more specific areas of “romance?” 

Or are those specific groups already formed and I’m just showing my laziness by not researching before I post?  Bad librarian!  Bad!

Am I just looking at this problem through rose colored glasses?  Because sometimes when the organization that you belong to just isn’t cutting it, you start your own.  This can be taken as the “I’ll take my ball and leave” mentality, but I think of it more as “Well, you’re playing baseball, and I’m holding a soccer ball, so I’m going to go play over here with the other soccer players.  Y’all have fun!”

Research Proposal - Extract
Submission by the Society for the Evaluation of Cognitive Reactions to External Theories of Gender Actualisation in conjunction with the Yorvik Association for Gender Development Assessment.

Several theorists have recently postulated the existence of a direct causal connection between certain behaviours and sexual orientation. It is the purpose of this study (conducted jointly by S.E.C.R.E.T.G.A. and Y.A.GEN.D.A.) to evaluate the correlation of a defined series of “popular” activities with changes in such an orientation and thereby provide an empirically-determined scale to facilitate the classification of the cumulative degree of orientation-alteration risk of various activities (gradient of the “slippery slope”).

The subject’s own responses will be assessed through a questionnaire (see sub-section C, below) but the research team is aware of the possibility that they may be “in denial”. Therefore, the principal determinant of degree of variation in orientation of the subjects will be the non-conceptual, unmediated form of knowledge of a panel of specialists (“gaydar”).

Due to the strong correlation between reading predeliction and personal development (the well-known “Oliver” effect which compels readers to wear striped linen aprons and subsist entirely on gourmet organic gruel cooked in le creuset casserole dishes), the primary study will focus on the impact of reading same-sex romance novels on an officially-determined heterosexual subject (zero “blips” on the “gaydar”).

Upon completion of each novel, the test subject will be re-assessed by the panel and a new score assigned. A control subject, reading books that have been determined to be sexual-orientation neutral (by a certain “Betty Neels”) will also be assessed at each stage.

Following the successful completion of the primary study, the “slippery slope” scale will be further refined by similar assessments conducted of the following activities:
1. Attendance at Madonna World Tour concerts. (control: gender-appropriate concert)
2. Attendance of same in front row (wearing “Front Row Bitch” t-shirt). (control as above, t-shirt with gender-appropriate joke)
3. Eating vegetarian quiche (males). (control: consumption of similar weight steak tartare)
4. Wearing dungarees (females). (control: wearing of floral-print frock and Manolos)
5. Use of Aveda grooming products (males). (control: use of rubbing alcohol or “Brut” as aftershave)
6. Cultivation of hirsute lower limbs and lack of feminine support garments in warm tropical climates (females). (control: full leg, bikini wax and facial in same environment)

Grants in excess of £10,000 or donations of front row seats for Madonna “Confessions” tour, gay romance novels, Aveda products, OshKosh dungarees (size 10), Doc Marten boots (12-hole, cherry red, size 6), lengthy stays at 5-star tropical island resorts and effeminate quiche recipes are therefore appreciated to further our valuable research. Bra-burning nights on the association’s own bonfire first Thursday of each month.

This is an interesting comment, because I was thinking yesterday about anger and its various forms.  I, for example, was much more *personally* angry over what was done to a particular Amazon reviewer several weeks ago, because despite all the protestations of principle, the whole thing seemed to me to be spiteful and mean at its core.  Butler’s comments, on the other hand, offend my own sensibilities, but they don’t make me angry in the same way, in part because I really believe that she *is* standing on some sort of principle, even if it’s one I disagree with, find inconsistent, and contains implications with which I took issue (i.e. that to support a broad and inclusive defintion of Romance *isn’t* a principled position, too).

That’s interesting, Robin, because that’s a reversal of how I feel. The review kerfuffle inspired mostly annoyance in me, especially in the way many of the people involved didn’t want to cop to their behavior (“No! No! We just wanted to teach her a lesson—a NICE, FRIENDLY, NOT AT ALL THREATENING OR BULLYING lesson!”), but it was at least in reaction to what J. Wallace did. The reaction was all out of proportion, but the reviewer wasn’t attacked for what she is. Yes, the whole thing smacked unpleasantly of spite and petty malice, and it was all quite thoroughly unpleasant, but it didn’t quite rile me up in the same way.

Moral rhetoric against The Ebil Gays, on the other hand, drives me right up the wall. It’s cherry-picking one characteristic of a person and saying “This one trait of yours here? Means you’re going to be systematically denied the rights everybody else has. A heterosexual axe murderer has a right to marry and, if he wants to, have children. You, on the other hand, could be healthy and loving, but you’re not allowed to marry the one you love.” And there’s no working around that. Gay people are being defined and discriminated against based solely of one aspect of their personhood.

On the other hand, the personal ramifications for the J. Wallace are potentially much larger due to the nasty bit of business with the reviews, whereas I doubt Jan Butler’s letter has impacted an individual gay person one way or another, much less the LGBT community. However, I’m not just reacting to Butler’s letter. I’m reacting to all the people out there who believe as she does—and there are enough of them to pass amendments banning gay marriage in a several dozen states already. Quibbling about genre definitions aside, if Butler gets her way, I see it as yet another way of de-legitimizing and alienating homosexuals. (You’re absolutely right, Robin: defining romances so that they explicitly exclude the non-straight and the polyamorous goes beyond the technical requirements of the genre and leaps straight into making political and moral distinctions that a genre doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need.)

And to briefly go back to something somebody said way, way up above, about how those who proclaim their tolerance are often those who are most intolerant of religion: Lookit, skepticism of and disagreement with religion, even poking fun at it, doesn’t necessarily constitute intolerance. Yeah, it gets a bit rude sometimes, but disagreement and debate are, by and large, healthy.

To my mind, intolerance involves wanting the opposition wiped out entirely or to have legislation enacted against the opposition. I disagree vehemently with Jan Butler’s position, but I would disagree just as vehemently with anyone who would argue that she doesn’t have a right to that opinion. I want to change her mind, and the minds of everyone else who thinks like her, and to be honest, when I’m feeling really exasperated, I want to shout them down. (Except for Ann Coulter. Her, I’d punch in the crotch. Vox Day, too.) The big difference is, I don’t want to legislate or control aspects of their private lives. Who they fuck¹, when they fucks ‘em and what types of fuckin’ they want to read about are pretty much their business. On the other hand, Butler and other people like her seem to have no compunctions about attempting to dictate the shape of other people’s moral landscapes should they differ from theirs. Once us godless bleeding heart liberals start lobbying for, say, churches to be banned, or constitutional amendments that disallow monotheists from marrying, or the banishment of religious schools from the land—or hell, if an agnostic disowns her kid for converting to Christianity, then yeah, you can certainly argue we’re being intolerant.

¹ Assuming the “who” are entities capable of providing informed consent, of course, though these definitions seem to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

EAP: That’s another bit of comic genius.

...the well-known “Oliver” effect which compels readers to wear striped linen aprons and subsist entirely on gourmet organic gruel cooked in le creuset casserole dishes…

Oh God. It hurts so much because it’s true. *weeps silently in corner while clutching to small sturdy bowl that she’d used to smash up some olives for her olive chicken with herbed aioli*

First of all…“MENTOR PLACE”?  I think not.  How fucking presumptuous is that?

Second, I’m not a member of RWA (being the fat but still-starving artiste that I am) but I sure as fuck know the difference between “infer” and “imply.”  (Sorry, but I don’t know how to insert italics on this website.)

Third…well, I just stopped reading.

This kind of shit makes me crazy.  Are readers’ IQ’s in remission or what?

I’ve posted twice on Butler’s blog. Both polite.

Guess how many of my comments have been deleted?

First of all…“MENTOR PLACE”?  I think not.  How fucking presumptuous is that?

What are you talking about? Can you give me a link, or did I totally miss something because it’s late and my eyes hurt?

:-)

>>And to briefly go back to something somebody said way, way up above, about how those who proclaim their tolerance are often those who are most intolerant of religion<<

Hi Candy! :-) That was me, I think I’m pretty much the only one not following the party line here. 

<< I don’t want to legislate or control aspects of their private lives. Who they fuck1, when they fucks ‘em and what types of fuckin’ they want to read about are pretty much their business. On the other hand, Butler and other people like her seem to have no compunctions about attempting to dictate the shape of other people’s moral landscapes should they differ from theirs.<<

I think this is where we don’t see eye to eye.  I think the Ms. Butler’s of the world have every to be intolerant of homosexuality.  If they have the numbers to make the RWA a christian, no sex in romances at all organization I say go for it. ;-P

I don’t think the government has the right to deny anyone their rights.  Gay marriage is just as legitimate as hetrosexual marriage.  Everyone should have the right to the same legal protections under the law.  If the RWA was a government organization I would certainly argue that gay romance not only should, but has to be included along with erotica and, I don’t know, satanic romances. :bug:  LOL! 

However, in private life people have the right to believe whatever the hell they want.  Now, I realize you’ve said you would defend Ms. Butler’s right to her beliefs, but would you really?  Do you support hers and others like her right to be intolerant of things they find sinful and to exclude them from their organizations?  Should they be forced to see the light and accept homosexual romance even if a vote was taken and the majority rejected gay romance (this is a hypothetical, I’m not saying the majority feels this way, I have no clue)?  Let’s say she’s in the minority, shouldn’t the group then be able to decide they want to include homosexual romance and not be dictated to by an individual’s belief no matter how much that individual thinks she is right. 

I guess I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from.  What about a church refusing to hire a female minister?  Would you suport their right to reject her on the basis of gender or would you say that’s sexism and the court has the right to force them to hire women regardless of their religous convictions?  Should the KKK be forced to start accepting black members (I don’t know, has there been a case like that yet?) or do they have the right to be prejudiced? Do you think a company has the right to dictate to it’s workers whether they can smoke in their own holmes for their own good and on the basis of health care costs?

What gets to me about this conversation is the lack of respect people have for other people’s right to be wrong.  Hell, I think Ms. Butler is wrong and the way she’s handling this debate annoys me as not very christian like.  However,  I don’t believe what she does.  And who the hell cares what I think (besides me, that is, lol).  She could be right.  Homosexuality could be a sin.  I don’t believe that, but I can’t make her accept my philosophy.  And why would I want to? 

I mean, if our laws were what they should be, everyone would have the same legal rights, but at the same time no one would be forced to conform to anyone else’s belief system.  If the majority wants a damn nativity scene in their commnity then, by god, the minority should suck it up.  If the KKK wants to march then they should be able to get the proper permits and do it.  Likewise, all the people who think they are evil dumbasses should be free to get out there and protest.  What people shouldn’t have the right to do is legislate morality on either side.  For example, hate crimes are bullshit.  Either someone is guilty or not.  It shouldn’t matter what they believe, only whether they violated someone else’s rights.

If, God forbid, the RWA did become that christian group by majority vote couldn’t all the people who disagree with that decision start their own organization? 

Conservatives piss me off with their intolerance and liberals piss me off for the same damn reason.  I resent like hell that liberals can shut their opposition up by labeling them racists or bigots or religous fanatics.  And conservatives need to worry about their own morality and leave everyone else the hell alone.  Both liberals and conservatives need to stop trying to force their morals/beliefs on everyone else. 

Bottom line freedom means being able to do whatever stupid, wrong thing you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.  People have the right to smoke, to not wear a seatbelt, and to believe whatever god awful thing they want to!  And, while I’m on a diatribe :) prostitution, assisted suicide, and drugs should be legal.  Animals aren’t our fucking property, but are a means to their own end with the right to live just as much as any human does.  Rant over. :lol:

I disagree vehemently with Jan Butler’s position, but I would disagree just as vehemently with anyone who would argue that she doesn’t have a right to that opinion. I want to change her mind, and the minds of everyone else who thinks like her, and to be honest, when I’m feeling really exasperated, I want to shout them down. (Except for Ann Coulter. Her, I’d punch in the crotch. Vox Day, too.)

I agree, Candy, and will happily hold your purse and coat while you sock Ann Coulter (aim low, will you?).  Who or what is Vox Day?  But the comment you make about wanting to change minds is, I think, at the heart of why I don’t have the same reaction to Butler’s comments as I did to the Wallace fiasco. 

When I experience anger, it’s a pretty base and un-nuanced emotion, brought on by stuff like bullying, personal disloyalty, unprovoked or spontaneously mean behavior, abuse of or picking on those weaker than you (i.e. children or animals).  I really have a hard time being around people who indulge in unprovoked mean behavior and have a difficult time liking or trusting them at any level.  And there are, of course, those folks who are intolerant and mean, which is pretty much the double whammy of doom in my book.

What I feel toward Butler’s comments, though, is much more layered.  While there is an element of exasperation, I’m not angry at *her* as I was at various individuals involved in the Wallace incident.  Partly, I think it’s because despite my jadedness, I am really basically an idealist who believes that extremism is untenable in a functioning democracy.  And I really do, despite everything, have faith that the marketplace of ideas and the democratic principles we still cling to will ultimately prevail.  Our society may falter, but I do think we have mostly been staggering forward, despite the slips and falls of the past few years. 

Also, I have had people in my life in various capacities over the years who have had some intolerant beliefs (both liberal and conservative), and despite that, these people have been caring, kind, and good people who were really trying to live a “good” life.  Often, their bigotry was abstract, while their one-on-one relationships with people actually contradicted the ideological intolerance.  Often their intolerances weren’t even coherent, and were born of some weird fear.  Some of them have mellowed in their bigotry, and some haven’t.  Those who have often found their epiphany in a personal experiences that finally made their abstract bigotry untenable.  Those who haven’t mellowed are mostly the ones who have a certain generational legacy that, IMO, explains some of the bigotry. 

But they all forced me to accept that not all people who share a general political or social philosophy think alike.  The differences matter to me, because I think there’s a certain power in being able to parse various arguments and combat them with reason.  And I feel that I have some tools to respond to arguments like Butler’s, and if I can’t prompt reconsideration on her part, at least I can offer a different perspective for consideration, whether or not others agree with it.  Sure there are people who remain on the extreme edge of intolerance, but I think the harder these folks pull in that direction, the more counter-pressure is exerted to pull things back toward the center.  And because these are *ideas* we’re talking about, I see them as more easily challenged. although I also accept your point about their dangers and about the exasperating idea that someone could think it’s okay to legislate against another’s identity.  I’m not saying I’m fine with that, only that it engenders a different set of feelings within me.

Maybe it just comes down to how we each experience and define anger.  I feel very disempowered when I get angry.  When I feel I can respond to something effectively—whether or not I can make a difference by myself or whether or not other people think what I have to say is valuable—I don’t feel so disempowered and don’t get so *personally* angry.  I might feel sort of indignantly outraged, but even that usually gets eclipsed by a need to analyze and respond in some productive way.

Moral rhetoric against The Ebil Gays, on the other hand, drives me right up the wall. It’s cherry-picking one characteristic of a person and saying “This one trait of yours here? Means you’re going to be systematically denied the rights everybody else has. A heterosexual axe murderer has a right to marry and, if he wants to, have children. You, on the other hand, could be healthy and loving, but you’re not allowed to marry the one you love.” And there’s no working around that. Gay people are being defined and discriminated against based solely of one aspect of their personhood.

I was thinking about this paragraph tonight, Candy, and it dawned on me that what I really think you’re talking about is outrage, which I see as different from anger.  Anger to me feels really self-defeating and exhausting, but outrage can be a great catalyst, IMO.  Anger is personal but outrage is more social and political, IMO.  So I’m not sure that our responses are so much in opposition or that we’re just defining our terms differently.  Because what you do in the face of this kind of injustice is basically the same thing I do:  respond in a way that attempts to logically dismantle your opposition.  When I’m truly angry, I’m usually screaming and grunting inarticulately, stepping back many centuries through some earlier evolutionary doorway (I have the patience of a gnat under the best of circumstances, too).  It’s so not pretty.  With the Wallace thing, I finally got to the point where all I could mutter was “this is wrong, so wrong.”

~If they have the numbers to make the RWA a christian, no sex in romances at all organization I say go for it.~

And I say I don’t believe it’s any faction’s right to go into an established organization and remake it to reflect their dogma. If indeed you want an organization that represents your particular needs, views, and specific requirements, you are free to form your own.

I personally could care less what Ms. Butler’s beliefs are—until she tries to force them on an organization to which I’ve belonged for 26 years, and therefore, on me.

By stating, quite clearly, that anyone who didn’t share her beliefs was wrong—even dangerous—she herself opened those beliefs to criticism and debate.

Ms. Roberts is dead on the nail when she says no group has a right to take over another with an agenda as its goal.

Know what, kids?  That’s how we made the party system in our country a big, freaking, steaming pile of nonsense.  Christian extremists hijacked the right, and flakey liberal knee-jerkers hijacked the left.

And here I am, stuck in the middle with a bewildered voting public.

Why does Ms. Butler thinks RWA needs some kind of romantic standard? When a woman falls in love with an aardvark, the question becomes—can the aardvark fall in love back? Admittedly, this is certainly addressed in many shifter romances, although not aardvarks. I’m not sure why. I guess they’re not sexy animals but I think a were-aardvark would kick all kinds of ass. I digree. Anyhow, it’s simply a matter of reader taste.

Unless they’re posting on a secret blog, it appears to me that Butler hasn’t garnered many supporters.

As Dieter used to say: “Your story has become tiresome.”

I do have one small question. Is the person posting as Nora Roberts really Nora?

I do have one small question. Is the person posting as Nora Roberts really Nora?

If she wasn’t, I’d bet a limb that the “real” Roberts would have been on her like the proverbial white on rice (except in this case, the rice grain would have been beaten to a bloody pulp) after the first post.

What Robin said.

It’d take some steel ballocks to try that at home.

In response to Katie’s comments about whether organizations can exclude members:

Under the First Amendment, individuals and organizations have a right of association (which includes non-association) but, in general, exclusion has to be related to the fundamental purpose of the organization. 

The KKK’s fundamental purpose, for example, is to be white supremacists, and excluding minorities goes right to the heart of that purpose.

THe RWA’s mission, on the other hand, is to “foster an environment of creative and professional growth. RWA thrives through the free exchange of ideas, knowledge, and diverse experience.” It’s a pretty hard case to make that exluding romance writers based only on the sex of their characters somehow fosters an environment of growth and a free exchange of ideas about diverse experiences. 

This, of course, is rather an oversimplification of the issues - there are other factors that come into play. But generally, if the RWA wanted to exclude gays and people who write gay romance, I think they would have to completely rewrite the bylaws and change the core mission of the organization.  I, for one, would not sit idly by while anyone tried to do that.

Meandering off topic here:

This one’s a bit easier: I think the company shouldn’t have a say in what the workers do in their off-time. They’re certainly free to offer incentives to stop unhealthy behaviors, and dictating the sorts of behaviors that would be acceptable on their property would also be within their rights, but I would disagree strongly with firing smokers or forcing them to quit by making it a condition of their employment. However, I don’t know how this would work out legally. Smokers, as far as I know, aren’t a protected category.

Candy, there was a piece on lifestyle discrimination on 60 Minutes a while back, and it re-aired recently.  Check it out here.  The story was about a company which required smoking employees to stop smoking.  They were given assistance in stopping and a timeline; those who did not or could not quit were fired.  And since they were at-will employees and were not discriminated against in any way that was illegal in that state, they had no recourse against their former employer.  The CEO was quite open about his reasons for the program—reducing health costs—and unapologetic about being “intolerant”.

Yeah, I’m Nora, and yeah, Robin’s right. I would do whatever necessary to bloody anyone who claimed to be me.

Just recently at a signing, I had some poor woman who was THRILLED to tell me she worked with my sister.

I have no sister. Just brothers.

She was quite insistent at first. NO, my sister Theresa who lives in NJ now. I have no sister, Theresa or otherwise who lives anywhere at all. (Or no brother named George who lives next door to some gullible woman in Arkansas). I have no idea what these people do when they get home and confront the fake relatives, but I do know I’d make it really clear if anyone (and it has happened) pretended to be me on the internet.

The real Nora

Nora:

I swear I’ll never tell anyone what good friends we are.

[Having adjoining posts on “smartbitchestrashybooks” makes us pals, right?]

yr amiga Joy

JMC: Whoa, thanks for the link to the report. As somebody who thinks it’s a bad idea to legislate what have traditionally been known as vices (or, as I like to think of ‘em, the hookers-n-blow crimes), this sort of policy is pretty damn infuriating.

Liv: Thanks for the clarification.

Robin: Outrage and anger are somewhat intimately related with me, I think—perhaps more so than you? The kind of anger that you describe sounds like me when I’m well and truly enraged. (There have been a [very] few times when I’ve been so angry that my thoughts sputtered to a standstill, when my rage made me feel like it could crack bars of iron from its sheer force, and all those times have been related to personal matters.)

Your words about how a person’s ideological intolerance are sometimes at odds with a person’s personal interactions are good ones, too. My in-laws are Super-Catholics who voted for the “one woman/one man” amendment to the Oregon constitution, but they treat the gay people they meet with courtesy and kindness. This doesn’t make their inconsistensy any less infuriating (or their act any less, well, assholish), but they are, by and large, good people. And I agree that Butler is acting with integrity and principle, but hot damn, do I ever disagree with that principle.

Hi Candy! :-)  Thanks for the thoughtful reply to my post and I understand about the tone thing.  It’s hard to have a debate on the internet without people having misunderstandings.  I hope I’m not coming off as too harsh.  I can be mean, but if I’m being a bitch I would like to be intentional. ;-P

You wrote:
“I support Butler’s right to say what she wants, but I support MY right to disagree. And when what she’s saying suggests a course of action (thereby taking it out of the realm of “just speech” an I really disagree with that course of action, then hell yeah I’m going to make even more noise.”

I totally agree with this!  All the people who think Ms. Butler and those who think like her are completely wrong should speak up.  They have every right to protest her position and, since I think you’re right, I hope that if there is ever a vote RWA members overwhelmingly side in favor of gay romance. :-)

You wrote:
“Butler being forced to accept anything works only if you want to argue that the RWA is an extension of Butler’s values, and the RWA, as far as I know, is a professional organization, not a church.”

Okay, this is where we don’t agree.  The RWA isn’t a church, but neither is it a government organization.  I can see why a christian would object to belonging to a group that supports gay romances.  When was the RWA formed?  Was this an issue when Ms. Butler and other christians became members of the organization or was there no question that RWA dealt only with man/woman relationships?  Is Ms. Butler coming into the organization after the fact and trying to force the RWA to correspond with her beliefs or is she arguing against the organization changing? 

You wrote:
“Because we’re pushing back doesn’t mean we’re intolerant, unless you want to argue that we’re “intolerant of intolerance,” and even then I think there’s a substantive difference between what we want vs. what Butler wants. If she had her way, a group of people would be actively disenfranchised. If we had our way, nobody would be.”

I’ve always believed that if you’re on the right side of an issue you don’t try to keep the opposition silent (and that’s not what I’m saying you are doing, just making a point).  I’ve always felt that by trying to force people to accept something you make their position stronger.  What is wrong with Ms. Butler trying to stop gay romance being included in the RWA if people such as yourself are there to argue against her viewpoint?  And, if there are enough people who don’t see your side of things, why do they have to conform to yours or anyone else’s viewpoint by including something into their organization they think is immoral?  Would you be part of an organization that wouldn’t allow gay roamance?  Wouldn’t that be an immoral organization you couldn’t support?  So, why try to make Ms. Butler support one she would object to if she in the majority (which I’m not saying she is)?Call me a Polyanna, but I do believe that by treating everyone, including all the people we think are wrong, respectfully things can change.  It’s when we try to stifle their right to be “wrong” that the real damage is done.  Hey, it’s only my opinion.

You wrote:
“The libertarian philosophy is all well and good, but it consistently fails to address real-world conditions because it assumes one very important thing: that there’s a level playing field.”
AND
“The real world just doesn’t work that way. Power and money aren’t equally distributed, and even when people are accorded the same rights, people aren’t going to get the same treatment or the same access to services, and these two can greatly impact those rights”
AND
“A straight-up “majority wins!” situation without some sort of check and balance isn’t a good idea, because you’d have problems with the tyranny of the majority.”

First off, let me say I basically have a Libertarian philosophy on politics, but then again I see some really good arguments for socialism in it’s pure state too.  And, of course, I can’t really support any party that tolerates any kind of animal abuse, so nope, not a true Libertarian.  Anyway, I would say my main matra is that “you have the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you’re not hurting anyone else and that includes animals.”  Okay, getting back to your points.  Do you really think the system we have in place works?  I know, I know it’s not perfect, but it’s the best in the world and all that bullshit (not bullshit to you, just to that way of thinking).  If I have to hear it’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best we’ve got line again I’m going to hurl.  Our government needs a hell of a lot of work if not a complete overhaul.  I think we’ve been brainwashed to believe this is the system of government necessary in order to have an kind of civil society.  Right now we are ruled by the elite, not the minority, not the poor, but by the rich, powerful, and, imho, unethical assholes.  A Libertarian society wouldn’t all of sudden give power to the few, they already possess it.  I don’t think we are on a level playing field.  If we were child molestors (god my spelling is atrocious, is it molesters or molestors?) would serve more time than somone who robbed a gas station.  Hell, in my world they would never be given the chance to hurt another kid, but that’s not the system we have that is suposedly the best we can do.  Children don’t vote.  Animals don’t vote.  Poor people can’t make campaign contributions.  I don’t believe there is a utopia unless it exists in the afterlife, but I sure as hell believe we have to stop being so complacent about the crappy system we have now.

You wrote:
“Why do I want to change minds and persuade people who may think differently that my cause is just and logical? Because that’s the way progress is made. If everyone just shrugged, said “Vive la difference!” for every damn thing, from big issues to small, nothing would get done. Feeling strongly enough to speak up, and even more importantly, to act, then speak and encourage others to act, is the basis for social change.”

Okay, I must not be writing very clearly. I don’t believe in moral relativism.  I’m all for political protests.  I’ve personally been involved in several (I’ve even been arrested for one, shh! :) )  However, I’m also of the belief that I can’t make anyone except my belief system and, cliche or not, sugar attracts my flys than vinegar.  My favorite book is “To Kill A Mockingbird.”  If I was going to have a kid (which thank god I’m not because I don’t like children :bug:  ;-) ) I would want to be like Atticus.  That is the type of person who I see as really affecting change.  I need to remeber that more because I can be a real jerk sometimes. 

You wrote:
“And ask yourself this: why do you constantly bring up the animal rights thing? Almost every post you’ve made to Smart Bitches contains strong statements about how you believe animals should be treated. Why bring up an issue that in almost all cases is, at best, tangential to the discussion?”

Okay, how do I explain this one.  If WWII hadn’t happened.  Let’s say Hitler hadn’t want to take over the world, but is still in power and putting Jews in concentration camps.  Supose the majority of people said things like it wasn’t their problem.  Supose they preached really evil things like Jews don’t feel anything, that they aren’t as smart as us so there’s really nothing wrong with using them for expermentation purposes or abusing them in some way along as it benefits non jews.  Wouldn’t you be going hey, this isn’t right.  We’re allowing a holocaust to go on and nobody gives a shit.  How about if slavery was still legal.  Would you in pretty much every conversation say by the way we really shouldn’t be doing this?  Well, not only are we killing and toturing animals, but we have the audacity to say we are justified doing it.  That’s why I bring it up in practically every post.  You meet me in real life, everyone who knows me knows how I feel about animal rights. %-P Now, more specifically to the issue, I have never said that I support anyone’s right to abuse anyone else just their right to believe and live however they want.  Since the animal issues I have brought up have to do with crossing that line and abusing someone else my stand is not one of tolerance, but intolerance. 

I know, I didn’t post about several things, but this is way too damn long as it is. :lol:  I’ll talk about the whole nativity/smoking/female minister in another post.

Katie,

RWA was formed in 1980. It is a support, education and advocacy organization for writers, published and unpublished. Its general and very basic definition of a romance novel is a novel with a key love story and an uplifting ending.

Ms. Butler now demands that RWA narrow the definition of a romance novel to a one-man/one-woman love story. Her opinions and demands on this topic have already been quoted and discused, so no need for that here.

My point, and the point made by many others is Ms. Butler has no right to demand this organization define the romance novel according to her values or specifications.

If she doesn’t wish to belong to an organization with a wider view than her own—as is the case with this 26-year-old organization—she doesn’t have to pay her dues. If she wishes to have an organization that upholds her particular standards, she is free to form one.

But she doesn’t have to right to demand RWA define the genre it represents to coincide with her personal wishes.

I don’t know when Ms. Butler became a member, but as whenever she did so RWA had formed its mission statement, it’s not up to her to insist that RWA alter its mission.

Hi Candy! :-)

You said:
“Everyone should have the same rights and nobody should have to subscribe to anybody’s beliefs, but if the majority vote to oppress the minority or force the minority to do something they don’t want, then by golly by God the minority should just “suck it up.” These are incompatible views. If everyone really does have the same rights under law, and nobody should be forced to conform to beliefs incompatible with their own, then the minority should never have to suck it up. What you’ve presented here is a classic conundrum that libertarianism has never been able to resolve to my satisfaction: Freedoms are not absolute. The freedoms of one person oftentimes infringe on the freedoms of another person.”

Okay, I’m confused. How is it forcing anyone to do anything, but be tolerant of other’s rights by, yes, sucking it up and putting up with nativity scene for the majority of people who celebrate Christmas?  If I was saying everyone should have to support the nativity then I would be wrong, but to tolerate it being there?  I don’t see the problem.  Freedom does not mean having everything you’re way.  You’re rights end where my mine begin and vica versa.  If I put my nativity scene on you’re lawn I’m infringing on your rights.  If the majority of people want the nativity at a school, city building, or wherever the minority’s rights aren’t being taken away. 

I think there is an attack on traditional things to accomadate a small group of people and that’s what I think is an infringement on rights.  By the way, I would also argue the majority should just suck it up and stop interferring with individuals rights to marry, to burn a flag, or to smoke a joint.  I guess what I’m saying is the real intolerance is in trying to prevent other people from doing things you don’t like, not in doing things others object to. 

One more thing, I do think people’s right to be free is absolute as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.  Our rights are natural not given to us by any government.  That’s my belief anyway.

>>RWA was formed in 1980. It is a support, education and advocacy organization for writers, published and unpublished. Its general and very basic definition of a romance novel is a novel with a key love story and an uplifting ending.<<

I see the point.  I do agree that you should respect an organization’s guidelines and not try to fit them into your own perimeters.  If you don’t like what an organization stands for don’t join it.  Create your own.  However, I do see where the misunderstanding could have occured.  Were there any gay romances RWA was involved with in the 80’s?  I really am ignorant of the particulars.  Why is this such an issue?  Is it just Ms. Butler or are there others upset about gay roamances being included?  And if there others, sorry, but isn’t is a legitimate issue for RWA to address?

*Why is this such an issue?  Is it just Ms. Butler or are there others upset about gay roamances being included?  And if there others, sorry, but isn’t is a legitimate issue for RWA to address?*

One member of RWA wrote a letter to the editor of the Romance Writers’ Report, the organization’s monthly periodical, which sparked this debate in blog-land.  To my knowledge, there isn’t an issue to address. 

If a citizen writes a letter to the editor of the newspaper, demanding the schools in the district teach Intelligent Design, he/she is expressing his opinion.  Ms. Butler expressed an opinion, which, as applies to all letters to the editor of the RWR, reflect the individual opinion of the letter writer - not the organization.

Has anybody noticed that all the comments to Jan Butler’s blog have now been allowed through?

Katie:

You say:

“Okay, I’m confused. How is it forcing anyone to do anything, but be tolerant of other’s rights by, yes, sucking it up and putting up with nativity scene for the majority of people who celebrate Christmas?  If I was saying everyone should have to support the nativity then I would be wrong, but to tolerate it being there?  I don’t see the problem.”

The problem is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  You know, the bit about the government not establishing any religion, or endorsing any one religion.  That clause is in the constitution because the framers (particularly Jefferson) recognized that entangling religion and government is the greatest threat to a democracy on the planet.  THe whole bill of rights exists because the framers wanted to guard against the tyranny of the majority - which means there are rights that cannot be taken away from the minority, no matter how many people want to.  The upshot of this is that government CANNOT put a purely religious display on government grounds - no matter how bad you want it.  The majority CANNOT make the government endorse its religious symbols by erecting them in a public place.  It just can’t.  (Again, I’ve simplified things a bit, but in general, no.)  No one can tell you that you can’t practice your religion on your own time, but you just can’t do it on mine.  YOu may hate that the bill of rights protects my right to have a government free of religious influence, but the constitution says YOU are the one that has to “suck it up.” 

Also, you have a delightfully inconsistent view about when people should speak up against intolerance.  To wit:

Butler espouses a philosophy that leads to the alienation, disenfranchisment, and persecution of gays.  She calls homosexuality “unnatural,” “indecent,” “shocking,” etc, and invokes her religious beliefs as justification. Her exact thought process taken to the extreme even leads to the death of gays at the hands of murderous bigots.  Yet you’ve made posts that this isn’t an “issue,” that people should just allow Butler to be wrong and not say anything, and that “I’ve always felt that by trying to force people to accept something you make their position stronger.  What is wrong with Ms. Butler trying to stop gay romance being included in the RWA…”  and “It’s when we try to stifle their right to be “wrong” that the real damage is done.” (BTW, no one is trying to “stifle” Butler.  NO ONE has said she can’t say what she thinks, just that they don’t agree with it)

But then, when the subject comes to animal rights, all the sudden things are different. All of the sudden, you don’t just accept that the majority of people in this country think it’s acceptable to eat animals or experiement on them.  You don’t just quietly allow them to be wrong, you speak out about it. You say “Wouldn’t you be going hey, this isn’t right.  We’re allowing a holocaust to go on and nobody gives a shit.  How about if slavery was still legal.  Would you in pretty much every conversation say by the way we really shouldn’t be doing this?  Well, not only are we killing and toturing animals, but we have the audacity to say we are justified doing it.  That’s why I bring it up in practically every post.”

So here’s the thing:  Butler isn’t just spouting an opinion, she’s calling for action.  She’s labelling gays as wrong and immoral, and trying to kick them out of an organization with an open membership policy.  And I’m saying, by the way, we really shouldn’t be doing this.  I’m saying she is trying to exlude people, and then has the audacity to say her god justifies it. Butler is coming into an established organization whose bylaws state it is open to ANYONE who writes romances, and trying to kick certain people out.  She passes judgement on people and espouses a philosophy that dehumanizes and belittles gays, and I think that is a big issue.  I won’t justify it, I won’t excuse it, I won’t respect it, and I won’t be quiet.

To my knowledge romance novels featuring same sex couples weren’t being openly read or written by RWA members in the 80’s. Romance as a genre isn’t stagnent. It’s fluid—part of its beauty—and reflects the needs and interests of its readership.

There weren’t romance novels featuring black couples being written and read—in the mainsteam to my knowledge—in the 80’s, nor were there romance novels featuring interacial couples when RWA was formed and created its mission statement.

Should RWA then exclude romance novels with black couples or couples of different races who fall in love if Member X writes an angry, offensive letter to the editor demanding it do so?

What would be the difference?

Neither were there paranormal romances in the 80’s—to my knowledge. So someone could demand that there be no novels featuring a human falling in love with a vampire, a were-anything, etc.

Hey,

This Butler incident made it outside RWA.

dailykos.com

Yay, Daily Kos!  Thanks for posting the link, Angelle.

I have a non-rhetorical question regarding gay romances.  Where are they?  Who is publishing them?  I don’t mean m/m erotica, but plain old love stories.  I have a non-erotic paranormal gay romance that I’d love to see published, but there’s nothing out there like it right now.  The sex scenes are evocative but not explicit. 

As a strong proponent for gay rights and anti-defamation, I find it a little disturbing that the only portrayal of gay romance (that I’m aware of) is in the erotica stream.  It’s as if they’re being fetishized for women’s titillation, the same way that f/f action is fetishized in male-targeted porn.  To me it just reinforces the perception that “those crazy homos think about nothing but sex.”

I’ve read a few lit-fic gay love stories, all written by men, many of which don’t have happy endings.  There are also small presses that specialize in gay and lesbian fiction.  But this isn’t what the current kerfuffle is about.  Maybe that could be the next Good Shit, Shit to Avoid call-out?  “Traditional” romances where boy-meets-boy and they do stuff besides fuck?

Jeri—
Try Bella Books: http://www.bellabooks.com/

Jeri—my friend Rob Byrnes writes for Kensington, a major publisher doing M/M romance.  He has three books out, The Night We Met, Trust Fund Boys and a September, 2006 release, When the Stars Come Out.  These books are very much in the mode of “Sex in the City”, but same sex, or as Rob describes them, “Dick Lit”.

Cool, thanks Darlene and Nicolette!

Interesting news today from Publisher’s Lunch, apropos to Butler’s comments on the popularity of inspies:

HarperCollins is showing record earnings and expansion in every area other than religious books.  CEO Jane Friedman said, “There’s one area where we are having a lot of problems—religious publishing is in a lot of trouble.” Though religious books “have had a fantastic run for the entire 9 years I’ve been at this company,” Friedman observed, “it is starting to see hard times. Right now we are seeing heavy returns—product that just didn’t work, but more significantly, we’re seeing a contraction in the [Christian Booksellers Association], which is what we went through with the ABA.” Rick Warren’s PURPOSE-DRIVEN LIFE still sells more “than almost any other book” on the religious list, but Friedman has “concerns about the whole religious sector.”

Hmm, maybe the post-9/11 surge in religious interest is starting to wane.  Certainly people like Butler don’t help the overall image of the faithful.

Hi Liv! :-)  I really don’t have time to answer this, but I’m going to try to respond a little bit because you’ve thorougly misunderstood my posts.

You wrote
>>Also, you have a delightfully inconsistent view about when people should speak up against intolerance.<<

Okay, let me make this clear AGAIN I am not saying people shouldn’t argue for gay romance, against gay romance, or not campaign at RWA for the inclusion of anything.  What I originally posted was about the lack of respect people have for Christians right to believe in their religious tenets and what I objected to was the villification of them as a bigots. What I later addressed was that if the majority (and I have no clue about that, from what Stef posted it seems that Ms. Butler is alone on this in which case she should create her own org. or stay in this one and respect other’s right to include gay romance) of people wanted to exclude something they find immoral they have the right to do it.  Now unless you’ve only been skimming my posts looking for an argument, I think I’ve made that point very clearly several times.

The animal issue I addressed just recently.  Hell, you quoted me on it.  However, you didn’t quote the part that made my position clear on this:

“Now, more specifically to the issue, I have never said that I support anyone’s right to abuse anyone else just their right to believe and live however they want.  Since the animal issues I have brought up have to do with crossing that line and abusing someone else my stand is not one of tolerance, but intolerance.”

You wrote:
<<” problem is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  You know, the bit about the government not establishing any religion, or endorsing any one religion.  That clause is in the constitution because the framers (particularly Jefferson) recognized that entangling religion and government is the greatest threat to a democracy on the planet.”

I love this idea that the founding fathers wanted us to go so overboard in minutiae that a small group could try to force God to be taken off money, nativity scenes could be deemed as hostile, and the pledge of alliegance could be denouced as opressive.  Hey, if you are so respectful of this country’s history then please let me know what the intention was back then because I don’t agree that it was what we have now.  And, by the way, those oh so enlightened documents were created by men who for the most part didn’t think blacks, gays, or women had rights.  My opinions are based on my beliefs not someone else and, yes, the minority should SUCK IT UP and stop trying to prevent the majority from displaying Christmas scenes.  How pathetic are people that they have to complain and whine about something as happy as a holiday which, by god, in this country is pretty damn secular. 

You wrote:
“Butler isn’t just spouting an opinion, she’s calling for action.  She’s labelling gays as wrong and immoral, and trying to kick them out of an organization with an open membership policy.  And I’m saying, by the way, we really shouldn’t be doing this.”

Yep, that’s my point.  You are fine with people believing whatever as long as they really don’t.  As long as they just think something, not act on thier beliefs, then you support their rights.  I support their right to not only think wrong things, but, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else, do wrong things.  I support Ms. Butler’s rights both ways, whether she had the #‘s to exclude gay romances or if she doesn’t have the #‘s then to create her own org. with no gay romance.  And, so there is not yet another misunderstanding, I will say again I think she’s wrong and I think that people have right to argue against her viewpoint and to get the #‘s to vote her down.  What I think is way too damn easy is villifying her as a bigot for following her religion’s doctrine and offering up, from my own philosophy that you certainly don’t have to follow, that by treating people you think are wrong respectfully rather than as asshats you may actually get them to change their mind.

Y’know, Katie, you are entitled to your opinion and I’m glad you’re sharing it with us here.  Really.  I wouldn’t want anyone to feel stifled by the tone of discussion.  However, I wanted to address one point:

>>How pathetic are people that they have to complain and whine about something as happy as a holiday which, by god, in this country is pretty damn secular.<<

As someone who’s part of a religious minority that has to “suck it up” each December, let me say that I feel sorry for my Christian friends who see their religious holy day being secularized out the wazoo. 

I also didn’t enjoy being put in the position of telling my children’s teachers in public school that no, I did not want them singing songs espousing a faith they didn’t practice, nor did I want them bringing home candy canes, Santa cups or other paraphernalia of the Christian holiday.  I think it’s lovely that people want to celebrate their religious days.  I do not think it’s lovely when they tell the minority to “suck it up” and suffer through it with them.

Foresooth! (or is it forsooth?  is that even a word?)  Anyway, what we need here is a bit of jocularity.  Thus, a joke in bad taste:

A couple attending an art exhibition at the National Gallery were staring at a portrait that had them completely confused.  The painting depicted three very black and totally naked men sitting on a park bench.

Two of the figures had black weenies, but the one in the middle had a pink weenie. The curator of the gallery realized that they were having trouble interpreting the painting and offered his assessment.

He went on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African-Americans in a predominately white, patriarchal society.  “In fact,” he pointed out, “some serious critics believe that the pink weenie also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression experienced by gay men in contemporary society.”

After the curator left, a young man in a Kentucky T-shirt approached the couple and said, “Would you like to know what the painting is really about?”

“Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the gallery?” asked the couple.

“Because I’m the guy who painted it,” he replied. “In fact, there are no “African-Americans” depicted at all.  They’re just three Kentucky coal miners, and the guy in the middle went home for lunch.”

Katie,

I’ve stayed out of this argument for a while because I think we’re starting to beat a dead horse. I’m sure Ms. Butler has many supporters who are staying quiet because they don’t have the cahones to stand up to the passionate and outspoken folks who disagree. Or, she has many peers who she assumes are like-minded supporters, but they choose to stay quiet because they actually disagree with her stance. Most people I know who believe that homosexuality is a sin, practice tolerance. Not because they are hypocrites, but because they practice the Golden Rule.

However, I will say, that the moment she compared homosexual love to pedophilia, she took a step away from championing her beliefs based on her religion to intolerance and prejudice which is exactly what a bigot is:

From http://www.m-w.com

Main Entry: big•ot
Pronunciation: ‘bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

From Jan Butler’s letter (as a reminder—just in case you haven’t seen it)
“romance isn’t about just any “two people” celebrating “love in its many forms.” Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating love “two people” (or more) finding love in one of its many forms” . . . while they actively promote pedophilia.”

Yes. She has a right to her opinion. She has a right to express it. She has a right to call to arms anyone who will fight the fight with her. But that doesn’t make her any less bigoted, IMO.

-Mel

Stef—I think I pulled something when I groaned aloud.  Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Darlene, you PULLED something? Hehe.  Pretty great choice of words after a weenie joke….

Stef, cracking myself up

Katie:

A couple of issues with your argument:

Quote: “What I originally posted was about the lack of respect people have for Christians right to believe in their religious tenets and what I objected to was the villification of them as a bigots.”

I DON’T respect Butler’s opinion.  I do respect her RIGHT to it, but I don’t respect what she says.  And NO ONE, not a single person here, has said that she can’t believe her religious tenets – and no one has been able to explain how allowing gay romance in the RWA would cause her to abandon her tenets.  Allowing gay romance does not mean she has to approve it, read it, write it, buy it, or otherwise acknowledge its existence.  She can continue to believe whatever it is she wants to believe.  And whether she has the RIGHT to exclude people from the RWA (she doesn’t under the current bylaws, even if the majority want to, they would have to change the bylaws) isn’t even the issue.  It’s whether people should sit idly by while she tries to. 

Also, a bigot is someone who shows intolerance for other groups of people, which fits Butler to a T.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with calling someone who is displaying bigoted behavior a bigot. 

Quote: “Since the animal issues I have brought up have to do with crossing that line and abusing someone else my stand is not one of tolerance, but intolerance.”  And : “I have never said that I support anyone’s right to abuse anyone else just their right to believe and live however they want.” And: “I support their right to not only think wrong things, but, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else, do wrong things.”
What Butler proposes DOES hurt people and DOES lead to abuse.  So by your own definition, this crosses the line into intolerance.  By your own definition, we must speak out. Because she proposes that the RWA label gays as immoral, and therefore we can take away their right to join RWA.  (And under the current bylaws and first amendment law, people who write gay romance do have a right to join).  So this sentence: “As long as they just think something, not act on thier beliefs, then you support their rights.” doesn’t apply, because Butler doesn’t have the right to try to exclude people from the RWA based on her personal hang-ups.
So yeah, I must be missing your point.  You say that when people cross the line into hurting people, you are all about calling them on it.  Unless they’re talking about hurting gays, then people should just respect that. Because the existence of gays means Christians can’t believe what they want. And you say I should support people’s right to DO (not just say) something, when they don’t have that right.  And I can’t call a bigot a bigot.  And somehow adhering to the bylaws of the RWA will force Butler to abandon the tenets of her faith.  And you seem to think people can do whatever they want if they are the majority, when the founding principles of the country and the constitution say the exact opposite.
Here’s my point: Butler can believe what she wants and say what she wants.  She doesn’t have a right to DO whatever she wants, and therefore, I do not have to support that non-existent right.  I do not have to respect what she says, particularly when what she says is intolerant and perpetrates harm on a segment of society.  Butler does not currently have the right to exclude gay romance, and I don’t have to sit quietly by while she tries to.  Allowing gay romance in the RWA has absolutely no effect whatsoever on her religious beliefs.
As to the Establishment Clause issue, look over some of Jefferson’s writings, religious freedom was definitely not minutiae.  Also, you do know that neither the pledge nor money initially contained reference to religion?  They were added later by people expressly trying to insert Christian doctrine into government (unconstitutional).  And I, for one, stand up for the constitution. 
Quote: “My opinions are based on my beliefs not someone else”
Thank goodness laws aren’t made based on your opinions or beliefs.  They are made based on the constitution.  And I already explained the intention of the framers regarding the First Amendment.  The constitution expressly forbids the majority forcing Christian beliefs and practices on the minority.  The Supreme Court has found that the government putting purely religious symbols in government places does exactly that.  I’m sorry you have such disdain for the First Amendment.  But in order to ensure your freedom to practice religion, the government has to stay out of it. 
It’s kind of funny what happens when the display of religious symbols gets turned on its head.  A town in Florida allowed space in the public square to display religious symbols, but they had to display ALL symbols (because you can’t favor one religion over the other, that pesky constitution again).  The display got shut down real quick when official government property starting getting adorned with Wiccan and pagan symbols, like pentacles.  And when the Satanists showed up.  Everyone talks about how it isn’t forcing anyone to abide by any religious principles, but they change their tune when ultra-conservative people have to start doing Wiccan incantations at town meetings (cuz there’s nothing wrong with having prayer at city functions) and their kids have to start saying “one nation under Allah” every morning.  And I don’t think ultra-conservative Christians should have to do Wiccan incantations, invoke other gods, or have the government endorse religious imagery that they might find offensive.  But that means I have to say that atheists and Wiccans shouldn’t have to put up with the government endorsing Christianity.
So don’t tell me the majority should get to do what it wants cuz it’s the majority: the bill of rights expressly says that isn’t how this country works.  And don’t tell me it doesn’t infringe on someone’s rights when the government endorses one religion over another.  And don’t tell me it’s not an endorsement, because when the religion is switched to, say, Wicca, conservative Christians start getting pretty offended, showing that it isn’t just a neutral display of harmless imagery.  Cuz personally, if Satanists or Santerians or whoever starting putting up severed goat heads and pentagrams in court rooms, and told you to SUCK IT UP, because who’s going to complain about some happy animal sacrifice to Satan, I’d be the first person to say that behavior violates the First Amendment.

Phew, this has gotten off topic a bit, ya think?

Outrage and anger are somewhat intimately related with me, I think—perhaps more so than you?

Yeah, maybe, although I agree with you that total world annihilating enragement only occurs for me in personal situations. I can get pissed, though, at lots of petty crap.  When the bigger stuff comes along—issue-oriented stuff—my academic training kicks in, I think, and my brain starts to feed me endorphin-inducing messages like, “wow, this would make a good article.”  Sick and sad, but true nonetheless.

And I agree that Butler is acting with integrity and principle, but hot damn, do I ever disagree with that principle.

I disagree with her views, too, Candy, vehemently.  If I said Butler was acting with “integrity,” though, that was pre-emptive on my part.  Integrity is one of those words I love—like radical and mean—because it has two levels of meaning, even though we tend to use only one these days.  While integrity can mean “moral soundness,” it also means “an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting,” which is really the definition I love, because I DO tend to associate someone’s ethical soundness (I’m not a big fan of the “m” word) with the total consistency of their belief system.  Not that we all don’t have moments and places of inconsistency and even incoherence; but I love the interplay of unity and ethical soundness.  So really, I don’t know whether Butler is a person of integrity or not; I’d have to know her personally before I made that call.  As to her argument, it doesn’t seem particularly “undivided” or in “totality with nothing wanting” to me, at least not the way she’s explained it so far.  Principle, definitely.  Integrity, I don’t know.

With all this talk of majority and minority opinions as they’ve become mixed in with political issues, I just want to point out that political conservatism is not necessarily the same thing as social conservatism.  I still think of the Republicans as the party of small government, which, of course, should ideally translate into less interference in our lives.  But because social conservatism has become more and more entangled in political conservatism, we have situations where the government barely regulates the oil industry but wants to legislate a woman’s right to choose pregnancy (think of the flap at the FDA over Plan B, for example).  It reminds me of a West Wing episode in which a Republican character says to a Democratic character that Republicans are the party of small government, and the Democrat responds with “yeah, small enough to fit in your bedroom,” which summed it up perfectly for me.  IMO we need to disentangle social conservatism from political conservatism, both in our political system and in our conversations, because the conflation of these two positions is—I think, anyway—a much greater danger to democracy than many of the issues being debated.

Hi Darlene! :-)

You wrote:
“I think it’s lovely that people want to celebrate their religious days.  I do not think it’s lovely when they tell the minority to “suck it up” and suffer through it with them.”

First off let me say I realized in my last post I was being a total hypocrite. I was way too busy this morning to even think about posting, but it’s no excuse.  I’m sorry I was rude about people who disagree with me about the nativity situation. :red:  I was being disrespectful and I’m sorry.  I still have the same opinion, but there is no excuse to call people whiny and pathetic for not agreeing with me.  Okay, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  I know you have a good case against religious symbols and that is your right.  Personally, I think it’s sad as hell that someday Christmas may be reduced to a one day, private event.  That’s not your opinion fine and it’s cool, it’s just never going to be mine.  I do hate the homogenization of American culture.  Sometimes I feel like there is no room for individuals in this society.  Our schools, jobs, government, and society have become so devoid of character, so fucking “correct.”  Again, that’s only my opinion. 

Hi Mel! :-)

You wrote:
“However, I will say, that the moment she compared homosexual love to pedophilia, she took a step away from championing her beliefs based on her religion to intolerance and prejudice which is exactly what a bigot is”

:bug: Okay, I agree that is bigotry.  I’ve always thought it’s christians do the most damage to christianity. :shut: Let me amend my argument, I disagree with labeling christians who believe in the Bible’s doctrine regarding christianity homosexuality as bigots.  I would say anyone who compares homosexuality to any kind of child abuse is delusional.

Hi Liv! :-)

You wrote:
“So yeah, I must be missing your point.  You say that when people cross the line into hurting people, you are all about calling them on it.  Unless they’re talking about hurting gays, then people should just respect that. Because the existence of gays means Christians can’t believe what they want”

Sorry, but I’m only going to address this part of your post right now.  I have to get off this dang computer or my head is going to explode. :lol:  I think I’ll go veg and watch the 5th season of Gilmore Girls (I’ve gotta find out what happens between Luke & Lorelai, and, on a totally off-topic & shallow point, Luke is hot!!! ;-P alright, I’ll try to behave now).  I know we are on the topic of homosexual romance so you don’t know see me saying things like I think that people are allowed to exclude Katie’s from posting on their message boards or this site could say no more animal discussions tomorrow and I would have to either accept it or start my own board, but I don’t have the right to make you ladies include me.  Does that make any sense?  LOL!  Okay, now when I say we don’t have the right to hurt other people I’m not saying we can’t hurt each other’s feelings.  I’m saying we can’t take away other people’s rights.  I’m assuming you think writers of homosexual romance have the right to be part of RWA and I’m saying not if the majority of people don’t want it included.  And again, for fear of being called a bigot, I would vote to include it and I think it’s wrong not to, however I don’t have the right to decide what is wrong and right for other people.  What I advocate is that everyone has the right to be free, as a means unto themselves not to be used by others for their gain, but as separate entitys with their own worth and that includes animals.  If that was a convoluted mess I’m sorry.  God, I need a coffee! :)

Hi Candy! :-)  I just saw your post and I promise I’ll read it as soon as I get back on. 

You ladies won’t have to put up with me much longer.  School starts on the 21st and I’ve got 2 jobs so I’ll be to busy to post, but I will continue reading. :-)

Hi Candy! :-)  Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply to this. 

You wrote:
“I’m not sure you’re getting my point, here. Butler is certainly free to express disapproval of any RWA policies and to suggest changes. This is all well and good; rah rah the First Amendment, etc. However, claiming that her rights will have been infringed upon should the RWA choose to not actively exclude homosexual and polyamorous love stories from its definition by going with a strict “one man, one woman” standard makes no sense at all, especially if one is coming from a libertarian standpoint”

:red:  I have to confess to a big misunderstanding.  I thought that there were quite a few people objecting to gay romances being included.  Several recent posts here have made it clear that Ms. Butler is basically alone in this position so it really is a moot issue at this point.  What I objected to was the idea that the majority couldn’t vote to exclude gay romance.  No matter how wrong that position is, I do believe they would have the right to do it.  I don’t think anyone can or should be forced to “do the right thing.”  Do you know what I mean? 

In this case I don’t think Butler has a leg to stand on with the majority of RWA members wanting the genre included.  Do you agree with me that if Butler was in the majority they would have the right to exclude it? 

You wrote:
“the rhetoric using the Holocaust has always made me uneasy—makes it too easy for people to dismiss us as extremist nuts. Now, take that passion you feel about animal rights, and apply it to gay rights. That’s pretty close to how I feel about the issue. People are being hurt daily, physically and otherwise, because of their sexual orientation. This is appalling. This is, in my opinion, abuse. So when somebody suggests further abuses, I feel like I have to speak up.”

I totally understand what you’re saying about the Holocaust reference turning some people off.  However, I also think it’s appropriate unless someone is the mindset that animals are inferior to humans.  Now, lol, I am not ignorant.  That is the majority of people in this country.  Of course the majority of people have had similar mindsets about the inferiority of Jewish people, women, Indians, gays, and people of different races.  And, since by sheer volume and amount of pain inflicted what we do to animals in this country eclipses the horrors of the Nazi regime, I find the Holocaust reference wanting as not being harsh enough. 

Candy, I so understand what you’re saying about gay people being abused in this society.  I support gay rights.  If I was in the RWA I would vote in favor of gay romance.  I don’t agree with Ms. Butler.  I didn’t when I was a christian.  I always went by Matthew 22:39 “Love your neighbor as yourself” and Matthew 7:1-2 “Do not judge, or as you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”  Hell, I got in a massive argument with my sunday school group when some of them started that bullshit about aids being god’s punishment on gays.  I no longer think homosexuality is a sin, but even then I thought it was just another one of the sins we all commit and that what was important was loving people and picking up your cross and following Jesus.  God, that was a million years ago.  Haven’t been a christian for a good decade.  Anyway, I support you speaking up! :-) 

What I was trying to say, obviously not very well, is that people can’t be forced to be enlightened.  They can’t be made to do the right thing.  And what I was saying about the nativity is that a large group of people’s right to celebrate something as positive as Christmas shouldn’t be curtailed by a small fraction of people who, just because they don’t believe in Christianity, demand that their rights supersede’s everyone else’s will.