Hoping this text helps me think thru the body!
Today is a sad day for so many. I was just notified that Ada passed away this morning. While I knew she was struggling, a common theme in her Mujerista theology, to battle the cancer and infections that were destroying her body. She ended her life en la lucha–in the struggle–yet not so in deep struggle, since she passed away in her deep sleep, and I am grateful for her pioneering a way for me, a Queermestiz@ to participate in the fullness of life. While my life is not free from struggle, I have been able to look to Ada and her work (including her kinship among Womanist scholars) as a way to imagine queer\Ethics. Thank you Ada for giving us a way to think and explore and imagine Hispanic/Latina Liberation Theology & Ethics.
I am not alone as a mujerista, a queermestiz@. I am surrounded by the Hispanic Theological Community who proudly recognizes your contribution to Liberation Theology. Your memory and theological imagination and commitment to la lucha remains with me and others this day, and will as we continue to take steps for liberation.
While I enflesh loads of doubt, I cannot help but call you a theological gift helping to pluralize women’s experience in theology and ethics. You will be missed, eternally.
This past Tuesday I spent my evening at the Colorado State Capital. I was eager to see the process, especially since SB 002 would have a chance to have an up or down vote. For those of you who don’t know, SB 002 is the Civil Unions bill that would have been voted on Tuesday night. It didn’t make it the floor; House Republicans called a 3 hour recess and essentially killed the bill. Not only was I frustrated, but I was also sad and perhaps a bit enraged that these are the politics we are paying for: the politics of hate and exclusion. I felt it my civil duty to respond before the Special Session gets underway.
By training, I am an ethicist. I like to think about ethics and moral reasoning in every area of life. And so, when I began to think about the ethics of the politics I saw enacted, I called it “bad ethics.” It was bad ethics because the relationality of House Republicans was rooted in exclusion. There wasn’t even an opportunity for the bill (and three dozen other bills) to be heard. These politics and ethics seem to be motivated by hate and fear. Why is that?
I’d like to tell you a story, because I think stories are useful when hot-button issues are lit up in flames (and civil unions, unfortunately) is one of those issues.
I remember when Bush was on the ballot for his 2nd term. It was time to vote. I had weighed the candidates and because I don’t tend to vote a straight ticket, I was ready to make a decision. The war was well under way and I began to think about the politics of John Kerry (and how he might respond to the war) and the politics of Bush (and the history of his inciting war). My commitment is war adverse, and at times I call myself a pacifist. I knew that the “war on terrorism” was T-H-E major issue for Americans in 2004. For me, I wondered: Do I vote for a candidate who started the war, or for a candidate who might intensify the war? I was divided on this very issue. I was so divided that I ended up not voting. I recused myself from the American political process and ended up spending the last 4 year’s of Bush’s presidency frustrated. My point here is not that “my” candidate won or didn’t win. My point here is to highlight the process. If you recall, this election was a mess, too. The war was such an issue for everyone: both those on the Right and the Left. Americans just wanted a process to be fair; a process that would hear both sides about the war. Choosing a president wouldn’t necessarily ensure that both sides would be heard, because politicians have their agendas, but we were all hopeful. And, the way that these items are heard is in Congress and Senate. The same is true for the State.
Civil unions is the same way in many ways. Both sides want a fair hearing; they want their side to be heard. The way this is accomplished is for civil unions to be debated in the legislature. When the House recessed, that initiated a domino effect: silence in all forms, except when supporters of civil unions cried out “shame on you!” Regardless of your position on the matter of civil unions for Lesbian and Gay couples, you can imagine that both those in favor and opposed would like to have their side heard. The way this happens is in the legislature, not in recesses where votes cannot be counted and support not measured.
The politics of this state, the State of Colorado, perpetuated long-standing politics of hate and exclusion when House Republicans called for recess. Lesbian and Gay folks know these politics well. This bill should be heard for the process to complete itself. Lesbian and Gay citizens should be able to trust their elected officials to allow for a process, not the game of bad ethics.
I’m hoping for a process to take place for the Special Session, a process where Speaker of the House, Frank McNulty, allows for the real process of politics to unfold. Whatever happens, it is my great hope for this state to invite the process of inclusion.
The politics of our state should not be the politics of hate and exclusion. When it is, it is our duty to speak up and be counted.
Shame on you, Colorado, for refusing the process.
5th CSBR Sexuality Institute | Sept 18-23, 2012 | Alexandria, Egypt
Call for Applications | Submission Deadline: May 20, 2012
View it in your browser (http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0c55a9feec53d5aa297d3ecc3&id=f3c1b8cd69&e=).
As the only international network working on sexual and bodily rights in Muslim societies, CSBR has succeeded in creating an alternative discourse and progressive spaces in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and
Southeast Asia. The CSBR Sexuality Institute brings together leading sexual
and reproductive rights activists, academics and researchers. Held previously in Turkey (2009), Indonesia (2010), and Malaysia (2008/2011),
with participants from 23 countries throughout Asia, Africa and the Middle
East, the institutes include lectures, group work, round-tables, panels,
site visits and film screenings, as well as a methodology to engage
participants’ own experiences around sexuality.
Designed as an intensive six-day participatory group training, the Institute will be limited to 20-22 participants. Do you have a minimum of 2 years experience working in the field of sexual and reproductive health and rights? Are you committed to undertake efforts to promote sexual and bodily health and rights at national and international level? Do you represent an organization/institution engaged in sexual and reproductive health and rights advocacy, research or fieldwork? Please submit this form http://www.csbronline.org/institute/application-form/
online and send a C.V. to email@example.com
subject: Sexuality Institute C.V.
by May 20 2012.
I’ve been doing lots of reading lately, and not a lot of writing. It seems that though I am done with coursework, there still is a bit more to read–or, to my chagrin, a lot to read! I actually love learning and reading, but at some point I have to start writing.
I’m enjoying the nature of the dissertation, because it gives me an opportunity to have a sustained academic thought–a place where my ideas can marinate for a bit. So, that’s what I’m doing on this Saturday night–reading and learning. Tonight its Elizabeth Grosz’s Volatile Bodies. I seem to appreciate her work…
Onward, as they say…
This is my current dissertation reading on materiality and ethics, epistemology and ontology. I wanted to share it with y’all!