From blondell at u.washington.edu Fri Nov 7 09:34:24 2008 From: blondell at u.washington.edu (Ruby Blondell) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:34:24 -0800 Subject: [LCC] [Fwd: Mormons Stole Our Rights] Message-ID: <49147C20.6070900@u.washington.edu> A petition to have the IRS strip the Mormon church of its tax-exempt status: http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/ From blondell at u.washington.edu Fri Nov 7 15:36:58 2008 From: blondell at u.washington.edu (Ruby Blondell) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:36:58 -0800 Subject: [LCC] Courtesans and Fish(cakes) Message-ID: <4914D11A.6050701@u.washington.edu> I know everyone is anxiously awaiting word of the Lambda theme for this year's joint APA opening night reception with the WCC and CSWMG. This year's Lambda panel, Rethinking Homosexual Behavior in Antiquity (details at http://www.lambdacc.org/panels/2009.html), is inspired by the work of James Davidson. Our theme will therefore be COURTESANS AND FISH(CAKES). The possibilities are limitless! Think courtesans, tarts, whores on the one hand, and on the other anything fishy (including fishy tarts of course--or even cakes!). From lockyert at mweb.co.za Fri Nov 7 15:54:36 2008 From: lockyert at mweb.co.za (Terrence Lockyer) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:54:36 +0200 Subject: [LCC] [Fwd: Mormons Stole Our Rights] References: <49147C20.6070900@u.washington.edu> Message-ID: <5071C9CA6E90489BA08575748716AFCA@olorin> Forgive me for weighing in on this: being neither a citizen nor a resident either of the state of California or of the United States of America, my opinion may appear more than usually irrelevant - in some eyes even presumptious; however, I do write with some knowledge of the issues and arguments from following the successful local efforts to achieve a non-discriminatory legal framework for religious and civil marriages and unions, and similar efforts in other places; and I wonder if the kind of thing represented by the post forwarded by Ruby Blondell is the best approach to the situation, even as I recognize, understand, and share the sense of shock, disappointment, and dismay that such a measure as California's Proposition 8 (or indeed those in Arizona and Florida; which however are perhaps less disturbing in that they did not involve the use of a tiny percentage-point split to eliminate an existing constitutional right determined by the judiciary) could be placed on a ballot, and passed, even in the course of an election which in several ways represented a welcome departure from the politics of fear, prejudice, and inequality. I understand the issues of funding especially that have made the Mormon churches in particular a focus of opponents of the California measure; however, I wonder if it is quite fair to maintain that focus when it is clear that it was neither predominantly nor indeed even largely Mormons who voted in favour, and equally clear that political support for the measure came - to mention only the support from those alleging a religious motive - from a variety of churches and religious figures and groups, including notably Catholic bishops, and various prostestant and evangelical organizations, some of which conducted familiar types of hate- and fear-based campaigns around sexuality in the context both of the specific measure and of the election as a whole (from the allegation that Mr Obama supported "comprehensive sex education" for children of kindergarten age, to the now notorious "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America" distributed as a viral by the Focus on the Familay Action lobby group which is apparently legally separate from - precisely to avoid IRS rules on tax-exempt status - but associated with Dobson's similarly named organization, and claiming among other things that Mr Obama's presidency would lead to the Boy Scouts being compelled by the Supreme Court to "hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys"); while it is also true that there were and are groups of Mormons (albeit not representing or accepted by the hierarchy of their church) who opposed the ballot measure and their coreligionists' political campaigning in its behalf. Quite apart from the threat such measures represent to the liberties and human rights of ALL (since, though I myself have never either wished or intended to marry anyone, the limitation or removal of the right of any individual to marry whom they wish is of necessity also a limitation or removal of my own right), I should think that religious groups and people as much as anyone have a great deal to fear from such measures and their passage, due to the assault they represent upon both the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. As of now, more than thirty American states appear to violate these principles through laws that express implicit state approval of the doctrines and policies of some religious groups, and disapproval of those of others, by legislating for the civil contract of marriage in such a way as to recognize and protect the kinds of marriages performed and recognized by the former, and to deny recognition and protection to those of the latter, on no rational basis but that of discrimination on the basis of biological sex: note that the discrimination is indeed based on sex as distinct from sexual orientation, since no state (and for that matter no major church I know of) either permits or bars as a matter of principle marriage on the basis of an alleged or attested sexual orientation of either party, but solely on the basis of an empirical determination of biological sex. For this reason, incidentally, it is also proper to speak of "same-sex marriage", rather than "gay" or "homosexual marriage" (and to note that in a jurisidiction like South Africa, same-sex marriage was constitutionally necessary not only because of a constitutional protection from unfair discrimination based on sexual orientation, but ALSO because of a constitutional guarantee of equality regardless of sex), and indeed the facts from jurisdictions allowing same-sex marriage or civil partnerships support this, as, while most same-sex couples contracting such unions appear to identify as being in a sexual partnership, there are individual instances in which these measures have been employed to create family relationships and associated legal rights and responsibilities between unrelated individuals of the same sex who explicitly do not identify as being in a sexual partnership, but rather as wishing to create a legally recognized relationship between themselves that confers inheritance and other mutual rights and responsibilities. In addition, none of the supposed rationales for bars on same-sex marriage OTHER than discrimination based on biological sex hold water: they cannot be justified on the basis of a state's alleged interest in reproduction, since no state to my knowledge legislates against the marriage of couples who are by reason of congenital incapacity, illness, elective procedure, age, or intent unable or unlikely to reproduce through intercourse with each other (and indeed even the Catholic church will not refuse to perform a marriage if the couple cannot have children; though in at least some instances it might if they are known to intend not to while being able to); and bars cannot be based upon the supposed interest of the state in providing children with parents of different sexes, since none to my knowledge legislates that a parent of one sex shall not be permitted to care for children in the absence of one of the other, and none to my knowledge legislates that a child shall not be permitted to be raised in a household consisting of or dominated by individuals of only one sex; and bars cannot be based on an alleged state interest in the preservation and promotion of traditional models of marriage, since all or most recognize marriages conducted according to a range of older and more recent religious and civil forms, none legislates against multiple consecutive marriages or the dissolution thereof, and none permits multiple simultaneous marriages, which are among the most widely attested of traditional forms. In short, the state's interest in marriage is universally in the registration of, and the administration of the legal and administrative consequences of, a civil contract between two individuals, so that a bar on same-sex marriage cannot be justified or explained except through discrimination based on biological sex, which serves no obvious legitimate public interest, unless it is believed that the state may legitimately align itself with and enforce the doctrine and policy of some religious groups against those of others. Even if that is not the direct intent of the limiting legislation, and even if that legislation does not arise solely from the views of religious groups; its effect and result is to lend state support and public legitimacy to the views of those religious groups that limit marriage in the same way, and to deny them to those that do not impose such limits. If states are permitted to legislate in this way either by statute or by referendum, effectively giving approval through state recognition of the result to the doctrines of some churches, and disapproving those of others, there would appear to be no rational grounds for denying legislation of other kinds imposing the religious doctrines of some upon all, especially if raw-majority voting is considered sufficient reason to amend laws and even constitutions. This renders such measures an intolerable limitation by the state of the rights of religious groups to equal and impartial treatement before the law of the land, a limitation to which there exist only two possible solutions: that the state should recognize and protect equally the forms of marriage between two adults recognized and performed by all churches and religious groups; or that the state should recognize and protect no forms of marriage at all. (I do not, by the way, refer here to forms of marriage or intimate partnership involving more than two individuals, because they are not directly comparable in that their recognition and regulation would of necessity entail a substantially different system of rights, obligations, contracts, and legal and administrative issues from those entailed in marriage between two parties; whereas there is no substantial difference in these systems, and therefore in the state's role and interests, between marriages differing only in terms of biological sex.) Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa From phileleutheros at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 18:14:24 2008 From: phileleutheros at gmail.com (Terrence Lockyer) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 04:14:24 +0200 Subject: [LCC] [Fwd: Mormons Stole Our Rights] References: <49147C20.6070900@u.washington.edu> <5071C9CA6E90489BA08575748716AFCA@olorin> Message-ID: For : presumptious read "presumptuous", obviously. Qwerty's fault. Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa From blondell at u.washington.edu Thu Nov 20 11:26:03 2008 From: blondell at u.washington.edu (Ruby Blondell) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:26:03 -0800 Subject: [LCC] Duke Job ad Message-ID: <4925B9CB.60809@u.washington.edu> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Job ad Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:47:14 -0500 From: Micaela Janan Duke University ? Durham, NC The Duke University Department of Classical Studies invites applications for an open rank position in Classical Studies, with duties to begin in August 2009. The areas we are seeking to address are Greek history, especially of the Archaic and Classical periods, or Latin prose and its historical and cultural contexts. The start date is August 2009. The successful candidate will be expected to teach both undergraduate and graduate courses in the appropriate language as well as courses for non-majors and upper level specialized courses. We seek someone to actively contribute to a department with strengths in documentary studies, material culture studies, history and philology and with strong ties to history, religion, Late Ancient Studies, art history, and political science. PhD must be complete by the time of appointment. Please send dossier with letter of application, three letters of reference, current c.v. including teaching experience, and writing sample of ca. 30 pp. to Classical Studies Search Committee, Dept. of Classical Studies, Box 90103, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0103. Complete applications received by Dec. 15, 2008 will receive full consideration. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Duke University is an Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action employer. _______________________________________________ WCClist mailing list WCClist at u.washington.edu http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/wcclist From blondell at u.washington.edu Wed Nov 26 11:10:31 2008 From: blondell at u.washington.edu (Ruby Blondell) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:10:31 -0800 Subject: [LCC] [Fwd: LCC Roundtable] Message-ID: <492D9F27.8070301@u.washington.edu> See below for a description of the Lambda round-table on Queer Theory to be held at the upcoming APA. Don't forget that you have to pre-register for this, and space is limited. There will be sign up sheets on a bulletin board within the Exhibit area. These will be set up on Thursday, January 8 so that people can pre-register. The roundtable will take place at Franklin Hall, close to the Exhibit area. ------------ 2009 APA / AIA Roundtable: Queer Theory and Classics January 10, 2009 12-1:30 p.m. This roundtable provides a forum for graduate students and faculty to discuss issues concerning queer theory in Classics. We especially seek students working on, or interested in, queer theory, and faculty who teach or research in queer theory. Topics discussed might include: What is the current state of queer theory in Classics, and how does it relate to other disciplines? What alliances may be forged between queer and feminist scholarship? How can one incorporate queer theory into one's scholarship and/or teaching? Is queer theory marketable? Are there pitfalls in applying it to Classics? Is "too much" queer theory professionally risky? Organizers: Konstantinos P. Nikoloutsos Visiting Assistant Professor of Classics, Florida Atlantic University--Honors College, nikolout at fau.edu Sarah Levin-Richardson Lambda Classical Caucus Graduate Student Representative Ph.D. Candidate, Stanford University sarahlr at stanford.edu