Issue 1 includes:

**intro 66**

Hello. We are Jeff and Eleanor, two schnazzy kids from suburbia. Our main purpose of creating this zine is to provide you with clean family entertainment. In our first edition of Pollyanna we have compiled poems, articles, pictures, and other neato stuff that we like.

Jeff lives in Camarillo. His mum and dad are really mean. ah, ah, ah! He is a really good writer, or at least I think so. He's different than other boys, he's actually cool. He is even hardcore into grrrl power. I think he is more passionate about it than I am. He's so riot! He does not get along with any of his teachers at school. He is so "question authority."

I, Eleanor, live in Thousand Oaks, a really groovy town with nothing to do. I used to be fun, but after too much harassment by sXe boys last year I have had to go into hiding. My name really isn't even Eleanor. Just playing. But I really feel hatred towards mean people who exploit otherwise fantab scenes.

We're only going to be around here for another year and then we are off to college (if we get accepted). Jeff wants to go to school in Olympia so he can get a job at kill rock stars over the summer. He wants to answer phones and stuff. As for me, I plan to work at Hot Dog on a Stick. I heart the hats. It's a work-out to crush those lemons.

Jeff is the worst driver in the world. He got me so sick going down to Hollywood one night. Bleh! He also has pretty curly hair. All the girls chase after him because they want to run their fingers through his luscious brown locks. He is also in hiding.

I like big fat cigars like the old men smoke. I am infatuated with them. Jeff is infatuated with going to Berkeley. If he doesn't get accepted he will have to wear those little striped outfits and dip hot dogs in corn batter at the mall with me. IÕve never seen a boy work at HxDxOxAxSx before. It would be a revolution jeff-style now!

**legalize homosexual marrages**

Our laws, our constitution, rest on a bedrock belief in the equal worth and dignity of every human being. The right for homosexuals to get married is not a special rights issue, it is a human rights issue. The decision to marry should belong to the individual, not the government, religious groups, or political extremists. "Depriving millions of gay American adults the marriages of their choice, and the rights that flow from marriage, denies equal protection of the law. Marriage requires the presence and blending of both necessity and intimacy" (Mohr 42). Marriage should be a basic civil right for homosexuals.

"Marriage has two dimensions: the spiritual one of love and commitment, and the worldly one of health plans and inheritance rights" (Underwood 82). Currently, gay and lesbian couples cannot legally marry. They are thus denied many of the benefits society grants married couples. Married couples have many significant rights that unmarried couples, even, "domestic partners" cannot have. For instance, married couples have the automatic right to be on each other's health, disability, and life insurance policies, as well as to be on each other's pension plans. Married couples get special tax preferences for exemptions, deductions, and refunds. As a matter of right, married couples are also able to own real estate and personal property jointly, and to protect that property from each other's creditors. Spouses automatically inherit property and have rights of survivorship. While for same-sex couples the family is next of kin, for married couples, a spouse is the next of kin in case of death or medical emergencies, and spouses may therefore make important decisions for their partners. Last, and certainly not least, a spouse can make financial and medical decisions in the case of a partnerÔs incapacity (Dean 173). At death, marriage guarantees right of inheritance in the absence of will. Married couples also have the right to collect unemployment benefits if one partner quits their job to move with their partner to a new location because the partner has obtained a new job there, and the right to obtain residency status for a noncitizen partner (Mohr 44). It is unfair for same-sex couples to be denied these basic civil rights.

Marriage, the Supreme Court declared in 1966, is "one of the basic civil rights of man. The freedom to marry, is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness" (Stoddard 160). "While marriage has historically required a male partner and a female partner, history alone cannot sanctify injustice. If tradition were the only measure, most states would still limit matrimony to partners of the same race" (Stoddard 162). As recently as 1967, before the Supreme Court declared miscegenation statutes unconstitutional, sixteen states still prohibited marriages between a white person and a black person. "When all the excuses were stripped away, it was clear that the only purpose of those laws was, in the words of the supreme court, "to maintain white supremacy" (Stoddard 162). Same-sex marriage is as important to the gay community as interracial marriage was to African-American civil rights.

"Most state laws only speak of spouses and do not actually make explicit that people must be of different genders to marry" (Mohr 35). The courts have tried to supplement the supposedly obvious requirement of marital gender disparity with appeals to reproduction. By assuming that "the procreation and rearing of children" is essential to married life, the courts have implicitly given marriage a functional definition designed to eliminate lesbians and gay men from the ranks of the marriageable. "All states allow people who are over sixty to marry each other, with all the rights and obligations that entail, even though by natural necessity such marriages will be sterile" (Mohr 38). And it can no longer be argued, if it ever could, that marriage is fundamentally a procreative unit. Otherwise, states would forbid marriage between those who, by reason or age or infertility, cannot have children, as well as those who elect not to.

Those who argue against reforming the marriage statutes because they believe that same sex marriage would be "anti-family" overlook the obvious: marriage creates families and promotes social stability (Stoddard 163). Marriage has traditionally been an attractive option for people because it can provide stability and the respect of society in general. Same-sex marriage would most likely increase desegregation and acceptance of the gay and lesbian community (Dean 176). It is hypocritical for conservative religious faiths to complain about the immorality of homosexual people while denying them the social stability and moral encouragement of marriage. To deny marriage to gay people is merely incoherent and wrong, from the Christian point of view. It is incredibly destructive of the moral quality of their lives in general. It cannot be asked of someone to suppress what makes them whole as a human being and then expect them to lead blameless lives. Human beings need love in their lives. Homosexuals do suffer harm because of the stigma attached to same-sex love. "No Christian can excuse or tolerate hateful behavior. Nor should the church in any way close its doors, its heart, or its helping hand to homosexuals" (Baumann 20).

Marriage is about the equality of love people have for one another. However, to religious conservatives, sanctioning gay relationships is just another attack on American public morality (Underwood 84). It cannot be denied that separation or church and state is a fundamental democratic principle. What is considered immoral by one religion might be accepted by another. Religions would still be free to decide whether or not to perform gay marriages. There are, indeed, churches that welcome gay marriage and would like to perform the ceremony in order for people who love each other to declare their love on a spiritual and legal basis. It is evident, Christian resistance to homosexual activity and "gay-marriages" is a result of prejudice (Wilken 26). They complain that gay relationships are "promiscuous," but then oppose allowing same-sex couples to join together in a legal institution that promotes stability and long-term commitment. And in an age of AIDS, encouraging marriage is a wise health strategy. The recognition of homosexual marriage might direct homosexuals towards a quieter, more stable way of life.

As Robert Knight, director of cultural studies at the Family Research Council, argues that, "Marriage by definition joins the two opposite sexes together. It is the building block of civilization. That's why we shouldn't be messing with it" (84). On the other hand, ÒAdam and Eve had no clergy to marry them, but they had a committed relationshipÓ (Gilliam A3). Religious conservatives should welcome gay marriage as an endorsement of traditional and biblical values.

Political activists are frightened for the affect homosexual marriage would have on the economy. It is interesting to note that marriage puts legal force behind the promise to care for a loved one "in sickness and in health." Presently, heterosexual partners bound by law to care for one another are less likely to ask for government assistance when one partner becomes ill or loses a job, thus, it would be to the taxpayers benefit to permit same sex marriage. Contrary to many firmsÕ expectations, health care costs for gay and lesbian partners are often less than those of heterosexuals, despite corporate fears of footing the bill for AIDS cases (Sullivan 35). Homosexual partners, as a group, are more often younger, healthier, and have fewer or no children at all. Still, the discrimination against sexual orientation continues because of fear and prejudice. The United States is generating a double standard by changing the laws to suit only the needs of some of its citizens. It is not up to politicians to decide whether or not two people can get married. They do not have the right to alter the law to suit their own beliefs. The United States was formed "For the people, by the people." Political extremists are allowing for the discrimination of citizens. Granting equal rights is not always convenient to everyone's beliefs, but it is a crucial ingredient in the foundation for which this country was created. Perhaps, it is time to include not only race and religion, but sexual orientation into the "melting pot."

"Gays and lesbians are raised in the same culture [as] everybody else. When they settle down they want gold bands and they want legal documents" (Salholz 69). Perhaps it is time once again to remind Americans that their government is not a social arbitrator, but a democracy based on freedom--in speech, religion and pursuit of happiness. There is no law to govern your love, only insecure, self-important people to get in the way of it. It is basic. It is fundamental. It is a fairness issue. It is a human rights issue. -eleanor

Baumann, Paul. "An Incarnational Ethic". Commonwealth. 28 January 1994: 17-22.

Dean, Craig R. "Legalizing Gay Marriage Would Help Homosexuals". Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1993

Gilliam, Jerry. "Assembly Approves Rights Bill for Gay, Unmarried Couples". Los Angeles Times, 1 June 1994: Section A3.

Mohr, Richard D. A More Perfect Union. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.

Salholz, Eloise, et al. "For Better or For Worse". Newsweek. 24 May 1993: 69.

Stoddard, Thomas B. "Society Should Sanction Gay Partnerships". Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1993

Sullivan, Andrew. "The Politics of Homosexuality". The New Republic. 10 May 1993: 24-37.

Underwood, Anne and Bruce Shenitz. "Do You, Tom, Take Harry..." Newsweek. 11 December 1995: 82-4.

Wilken, Robert L. "Procrustean Marriage Beds". Commonwealth. 9 September 1994: 24-6.




take me back to pollyanna!


this page is hosted by geocities