BIRTHRATES AND HOMOSEXUALITY : A CLASSICAL PERSPECTIVE AND A WORD ON TRADITION-BASED ARGUMENTS

AN ESSAY

Over the last few weeks, I have been delving deeper into Aristotle's Politics. In a previous essay, I wrote that I had begun to read Aristotle with more forgiveness. Now, I can confidently say that some of his ideas actually "work" for me. I no longer cast a suspicious eye on everything he writes. Rather, I closely evaluate his arguments to parse points that make sense to me.

In the past, I criticized Aristotle because he was too metaphysical. He presumed that everything on earth has an identifiable "purpose," and that absolute "truth" was obtainable by analyzing various interactions between "purposes." I first read Aristotle when I was college. At the time, I was making discoveries about my own sexuality. Aristotle's metaphysics appeared to argue against "non-procreative" sexuality because "male sexual organs" and "female sexual organs" have absolute, reproductive "purposes." Accordingly, using sexual organs for purposes beyond procreation amounted to "misuse." It is not surprising that the medieval Church and the modern Catholic Church closely read Aristotle. They used this very argument to demonize all sexuality-- with special vehemence reserved for homosexuality.

But a much different picture emerged when I sat down to read Aristotle again. Rather than condemning homosexuality as an abomination--as I always assumed he did, without ever reading as much--he espoused a much less judgmental attitude. To the contrary, he seemed to echo my own belief that homosexuality exists in nature, and that it makes little sense to condemn it. See, e.g., http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/oesterhoudt-strikes.html.

In analyzing the Spartan Constitution, for example, Aristotle reasons as a biologist, observing: "[C]ertainly all people seem compulsively attracted by sexual relations, either with males or females." The Politics, Book II, Ch. ix ¶ 1269b23. Earlier in the same paragraph, he actually praises "societies in which male homosexuality is openly esteemed," because male-centered societies--unlike Sparta--tend to keep avaricious women in check. Id. Aristotle believed that males "naturally" ruled females; thus, it was more an abomination to tolerate females "ruling" men than to allow males to have sex with each other. But in the final analysis, Aristotle suggests that sexuality is natural, no matter whether it involves males or females. Human beings are simply "compulsively attracted" by sexual relations. And that "compulsion" does not draw a bright gender line.

Aristotle does not simply conclude that homosexuality is natural. He even observes that homosexuality performs an essential State function by restraining birthrates. In analyzing the Cretan Constitution, he notes that the lawgiver actually prescribed "sexual relations between males" in order to "keep[] down the birthrate." The Politics, Book II, Ch. x ¶ 1272a12. He also notes that the lawgiver strictly separated males and females in order to prevent unnecessary pregnancies. Id. Put another way, the Cretan lawgiver understood that all human beings are "compulsively attracted by sexual relations" with each other, so he allowed both men and women to find sexual outlets in a manner that would not bankrupt the Kingdom by overpopulation.

I found this fascinating for several reasons. First, I never thought that a classical philosopher--let alone Aristotle--would argue that homosexuality could actually be exploited to fulfill a beneficial State objective. I always thought that Western governments took a moral stance against homosexuality. Apparently that is not true. In the Politics, Aristotle frankly discusses homosexuality as both a natural phenomenon and worthwhile social policy. Morality does not even enter the analysis.

Second, I found it interesting that Aristotle repeatedly speaks out against birthrates. Although he only mentions homosexuality in connection with birthrates in the Cretan example, he mentions low birthrates many times throughout the Politics. He equates high birthrates with poverty, discord and ruin. At the same time, he praises States that carefully control their populations. This makes sense given Aristotle's belief that States should strive to cultivate "good" people, not just "many" people.

Aristotle's views on homosexuality and birthrates fundamentally differ from modern views on the same subjects. For centuries, Western society has learned to revile homosexuality in all its manifestations. Church dogma called homosexuality a "sin;" it warned homosexuals that they would go to hell if they "practiced" it. The law labeled it a "crime;" it warned homosexuals that they would be executed or imprisoned for it. Even the scientific community diagnosed it as a "disease;" psychiatrists did not remove it from the book of "mental illnesses" until about 1970.

Although extreme institutional intolerance toward homosexuality has slowly weakened over time, there remains a virulent moral strain against homosexuality in Western societies. It is still "not normal." It is still somehow illegitimate and "disgusting." Put another way, it may not be "illegal" anymore; but it is still "immoral." Despite some modest legal advances in recent years (i.e., it is no longer constitutionally permissible to jail gay men for having sex), these attitudes force homosexuals to live on the fringes of society. They risk everything by living truthfully. They face a difficult decision whether to tell others about their own sexuality, a decision that no other people need to worry about in society. Or they can simply to choose to live in secret.

These are hardly appetizing decisions to make in life.

Against this background, it is almost inconceivable that a respected scholar would suggest that homosexuality is "natural," let alone that it could serve a "beneficial social purpose." If anything, attitudes toward homosexuality in Western civilization reveal little more than contempt. Until the late 19th Century, "sodomites" hanged in Great Britain. That is a far, far cry from Aristotle's argument that homosexuality actually could provide a benefit to society through lower birthrates.

But Western societies traditionally do not like low birthrates, either. That is why Aristotle's views on low birthrates seem so fascinating today. Historically, Western societies have done their best to encourage high birthrates. They have generally wanted to increase their populations. This coincided with Church dogma that men and women should "honor God" by "blessing Him" with as many offspring as possible. Just as the Church preached against homosexuality, so too did it praise prolific childbearing.

Modern America is no exception to these attitudes. For the most part, the United States encourages procreation among its citizens. Families with many children earn social praise, even congratulations. By the same token, modern America does not fully tolerate homosexuality. Homosexuals, after all, do not procreate. Is there a conceptual link between historical hatred for homosexuals and their inability to contribute to the birthrate?

Is there a moral link? After all, Western history shows that high birthrates bespeak "moral" living, while homosexuality bespeaks "immorality" because it does not contribute to the birthrate. In this sense, there is an inverse relationship between homosexuality and birthrates in modern society: The capacity for high birthrates is moral and good, while homosexuality is immoral and bad because it does not lead to high birthrates.

These views have reigned in the West for centuries. But a quick read through Aristotle reveals that it has not always been so. If a philosopher as renowned as Aristotle suggested that homosexuality is natural and that low birthrates are good, what does that say about "traditional" Western views on these subjects? After all, those who demonize homosexuality as an immoral abomination prize arguments based in "tradition." They say that "tradition" provides a reason to hate homosexuality because "our society has always reviled homosexuality."

But what if "tradition" is wrong? Or at least conveniently tailored to meet ideological ends? When it comes to homosexuality, Aristotle provides a historical example that not everyone in the "Western tradition" thought homosexuality was an abomination. Put simply, Aristotle's divergence from the so-called "tradition against homosexuality" shows that "tradition" arguments can be very misleading. After all, it is easy to just ignore inconvenient voices in a historical tradition, then call the tailored version "tradition."

I do not think that "tradition" categorically supports an argument that homosexuality is necessarily "immoral," or that high birthrates are necessarily "good." We simply must reference Aristotle to wreck any argument that "tradition" on these subjects has been unanimous. It hasn't.

And to those who think arguments based in tradition somehow carry special weight, I offer another quote from Aristotle to temper reliance on tailored history: "Generally, of course, it is the good, and not simply the traditional, that is aimed at." The Politics, Book II, Ch. viii ¶1269a3.

Put another way, it is no answer to a problem to say: "That's the way we've always done it." Solving problems takes independent thought, not blind imitation or historical charades.

THE PROCREATION PROBLEM : WHO WANTS KIDS AND WHY?

AN ESSAY

Last week, a friend told me an amusing story. He told me that a woman sued a man for battery after he put horseradish sauce in a used condom to determine whether the woman was “using” his sperm without his consent after they had “protected” sex. Sure enough, the couple had sex and the man threw the condom in the bathroom trashcan. Then he put horseradish sauce in it while she was in a different room. He went back into the kitchen. She went into the bathroom, and a few moments later the man heard a bloodcurdling scream. The woman irritated herself with the horseradish sauce; she did not suffer permanent injury. The relationship did.

This all might sound funny. But it raises some interesting issues about men, women and procreation. In vitro fertilization aside, men and women need to have sex with each other to reproduce the species. That, in turn, implicates monumental emotional problems, because men and women view sex in very different ways. In the horseradish story, for example, there was tension between the man and the woman because the woman was in her 30s and said she wanted to start a family. To use a cliché, her “clock was ticking.” The man, by contrast, said he just wanted to have sex. He didn’t want to be a father or alter his lifestyle to care for a child. More cynically, he also did not want to pay child support and compromise his income. This difference in opinion led to mutual mistrust between the two parties, which ultimately culminated in the woman’s duplicity and the man’s mean-spirited trick. Men and women do not see sex in the same way. And amid all this suspicion, children usually are a consequence to be either feared or exploited, not a gift to be treasured.

Several male commentators asserted that the horseradish story proved women are “natural gold-diggers.” That assertion assumes that women only want to procreate because it entitles them to a paternity check. It does not acknowledge the fact that women may have deep spiritual and emotional reasons for wanting to have children. Nonetheless, these commentators marshaled some evidence to support their conclusion that women “just want to make a profit” from “unauthorized procreation.” Specifically, they pointed to recent “legal warnings” issued to NBA stars “to guard their used condoms” and always to “assume that women want to get pregnant for money.” In a less extreme example, they also pointed to the right-wing-proverbial “welfare mother” who just wants to mass produce living children in order to maximize her individual benefit check.

As superficially convincing as this “evidence” may be, I am hesitant to label all women inveterate gold-diggers. I have no doubt that some unscrupulous women are willing to bear the pain of childbirth and the difficulty of motherhood in order to get a check. But there are unscrupulous men, too. Women do not have a monopoly on duplicity and deception. In this sense, these modern “male as victim” arguments are at best self-righteous and at worst hypocritical. Historically speaking, men have always enjoyed superior power over women. As recently as the 19th Century, for instance, women faced “petty treason” conviction (and burning at the stake) for killing their husbands, while men only faced “murder” prosecution (and hanging) for killing their wives. In virtually every way, the common law regarded the woman as the husband’s “property” and, as such, the husband had “exclusive rights to use it.” At common law, a husband could not legally “rape” his wife, even if the sexual intercourse was nonconsensual (“Rape be the carnal knowledge of a woman, not the perpetrator’s wife, against her will”)(common law rule, emphasis added). Women could not vote or serve in official positions (unless they were monarchs). They were barred from traditional employment. They depended on men for income and inheritance. At the same time, men had virtually free rein to “discipline their wives;” husbands’ domestic brutality toward their wives rarely troubled the law or society. In short, women have not been roughly “equal” to men until relatively recent times. And for centuries, men could freely tyrannize women without the slightest consequence. To that extent, I find these modern “male as victim” arguments strangely pathetic.

When it comes to procreation, why do men consider themselves victims? Obviously they do not like the law’s approach to child support. For better or worse, the law throws the financial risk of sexual activity on the male. It does not matter whether the male employed measures intended to prevent pregnancy; if the condom breaks, he is the “father” and he owes child support payments. He might consider this unjust, but society has decided—through legislation—that men must pay to help raise their children, whether they wanted them or not. This indirectly benefits women, since a wealthier father must pay more money to support the child. But in the abstract, child support laws are not intended to provide a windfall to women. Nor are they intended to express moral contempt for irresponsible men, no matter what the talk shows say. Rather, child support laws are intended to promote procreation and to protect children. The fact that they breed mutual suspicion and enmity between men and women does not alter their social purpose.

We have seen that men and women think about procreation in very different ways. But child support laws reveal that society and government see procreation in yet another way—a demographic way. For law and government, procreation is not about emotion, love or even suspicion; it is about numbers. Specifically, the law vigorously promotes procreation. After all, the law would not force unwilling fathers to pay money to support unwanted children if it did not have a policy preference for births. The law could care less about a woman’s comfort; the law merely wants women to give birth. More births mean more citizens. And more citizens mean more workers. More workers mean a bigger economy in the future, and a bigger economy means more taxes and more national power. National strength has everything to do with population. Nations with large populations can produce more than nations with smaller populations. More production means more power and influence. Just look at China. The fact that China has the most people means it has more labor capacity and the best economic potential. These are fundamental government interests—and they depend on procreation. No matter how mechanized a Nation’s economy may be, there is always strength in raw numbers. Nations with flat birthrates will not stay strong forever.

In America, both State and Federal governments employ many subtle methods to further their policy preference for greater procreation. Mandatory child support payments are only one example. More significantly, American governments frown upon abortion and contraception, even though the Federal Constitution technically provides a right to both. Many States, for instance, carefully regulate the circumstances under which citizens may obtain consultation about abortion or birth control. They purposely bias the informational debate to favor procreation over contraception and abortion. They tell women who want abortions that the State will pay for hospital stays and adoption services. They exclude contraception from health plan coverage. And from a historical perspective, American governments criminalized “frauds on procreation,” including homosexual sex and nonprocreative heterosexual practices. From the government’s perspective, every ejaculation should be well spent because it needs more citizens to compete in the global economy. Wasted sexual energy, in other words, represents wasted national potential. This is not a moral question. It is an economic one.

In short, governments in America take a positive stand for “potential life” and “procreation,” even if the woman—or the man—does not want to procreate. After all, America needs more Americans. If America promoted contraception and abortion too much, it would flatten the birthrate and allow China and India to overtake us.

I am not writing satirical scrawl. I am reflecting on genuine geopolitical strategy. Governmental support for procreation has nothing to do with mistrust between men and women, nor does it reflect real compassion for children. Government does not care about children’s emotional lives or spiritual well-being; it simply wants them to be alive and healthy so they can mature into productive citizens. Of course, government takes a risk that every live birth may degenerate into a crack addict, welfare recipient or murderer. But every live birth also represents a chance that the child will become Albert Einstein, Bill Gates or at least a bourgeois with taxable income. Abortion may snuff out future criminals, but it also may snuff out future industrial barons. Government would rather save everyone in order to protect the potential industrial baron. Again, this has nothing to do with caring or compassion. It has merely to do with national strength. Government’s support for procreation over contraception, then, reflects government’s national self-interest, nothing more.

There are two realities at work here. On the micro level, men and women bicker with one another over money and child support. Men want orgasms without financial consequence; women want orgasms, child support payments and the emotional fulfillment of motherhood. On the macro level, government just wants men and women to keep having sex. It does not foist financial obligations on men to morally denounce their ill-advised (or even unlucky) sexual practices. Rather, it foists financial obligations on them so that their offspring can develop into productive citizens. Indeed, government may say it prefers that men and women procreate only when married. But from a geopolitical standpoint, this is an inane requirement. Children are children. They all have the potential to later pay taxes, serve in the army and perhaps invent things. Marriage may provide a stable platform for procreation and a child’s emotional well-being, but government just wants births. A child’s emotional well-being is a peripheral concern.

Governments do not exist without people. Procreation is the only way to generate more people. Bearing that in mind, it should not surprise us that government prefers procreation in every circumstance. As obvious as this sounds, however, it is somehow unnerving to think we are just grist for the governmental mill. After all, we were all children once. Although our family lives may all differ in some respects, we all experienced family dynamics. We experienced love in some form. Some of us were more fortunate than others on that score. When we were children, we did not think about our country’s geopolitical fortunes or the State’s goals. Rather, we just wanted to live and experience life because it was new. We knew our families and little else. Yet little did we know that government had very different ideas about our existence. Our concerns and our emotional connections to our families meant nothing. Rather, we were simply “new citizens” with “future potential.” We not only would pay taxes and contribute to the economy, but our future sexual activity might one day result in more taxpayers and workers. Emotion and compassion have nothing to do with these expectations. No: For the government, procreation is about national survival, not the individual mystery of existence. And no matter what private squabbles men and women wage with regard to procreation, they are mere pawns in a much larger chess game.

Procreation is valuable because more people mean more power. Our sex is instrumental in creating power because it creates more people. Government does not want us to waste it. If we did, government would eventually have nothing left to rule.

Women want children for their reasons. Men want children for their reasons. Sometimes neither men nor women want children; they fight about it. But government always wants children. And it wants them for very different reasons than any individual man or woman.

LOVE, HAPPINESS AND MARRIAGE--BY CONTRACT

MARRIAGE CONTRACT

PREAMBLE

This Marriage Contract represents a Binding Agreement, Meeting of the Minds and Mutual Promise by and between Mr. Kyle G. Hurt (“Groom”) and Ms. Annabella H. Keefe (“Bride”). Hereinafter, Groom and Bride shall be known as the “Parties” for purposes of this Marriage Contract. Following execution of this Marriage Contract, Parties shall respectively be known as “The Husband” and “The Wife” unless and until this Marriage Contract be rescinded, annulled, cancelled or otherwise terminated by applicable Divorce Proceedings and Property Division Procedures pursuant to the law of the State wherein The Husband and The Wife reside at the time such proceedings are initiated. By this solemn Marriage Contract, Parties intend to be bound by the terms, provisions, obligations and promises contained herein, it being the Wish and Desire of the Parties to establish herethrough a legally-cognizable, enforceable economic relationship for the purposes of: (1) mutual enrichment; (2) tax advantage; and (3) child production and rearing (subject to exceptions, qualifications and limitations as provided herein). Although Parties profess love and understanding for one another as of the date of this Marriage Contract, Parties expressly disavow any intent to make love or understanding the basis—either in law or fact—for this Marriage Contract.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

1. Mr. Kyle G. Hurt (“Groom”) is an unmarried male, aged 34, resident in and for the State of New York, County of New York, City of New York, Country of the United States of America, established 1776.

2. Ms. Annabella H. Keefe (“Bride”) is an unmarried female, aged 24, resident in and for the State of New York, County of New York, City of New York, Country of the United States, established 1776.

3. Groom certifies under oath and penalty of perjury that he suffers neither from debilitating mental illness, erectile dysfunction, sexually-transmitted disease, low sperm count, schizophrenia, mania, nor any other physical or mental ailment relevant to the performance of the marital promises made herein, including homosexuality or a tendency—whether real or imagined—to find males attractive. Groom further certifies that he is competent under law to make the promises set forth in this Marriage Contract.

4. Bride certifies under oath and penalty of perjury that she suffers neither from debilitating mental illness, sexually-transmitted disease, schizophrenia, Tourette’s Syndrome, mania nor any other physical or mental ailment relevant to the performance of the marital promises made herein, including lesbianism or a tendency—whether real or imagined—to find females attractive. Bride further certifies that she is competent under law to make the promises set forth in this Marriage Contract.

5. Bride certifies further that she does not watch, and has never watched, the Sex in the City television show, nor does she hold any secret aspiration to lead a life similar in substantial part to any female character in aforenamed Sex in the City television show, it being mutually understood that the values expressed in aforenamed Sex in the City television show be hostile to and inconsistent with the mutual promises made in this Marriage Contract.

6. Pursuant to full and fair bargain, Groom promises to take, have, hold and keep as his lawfully-wedded wife aforementioned Bride (see supra at ¶2).

7. In exchange for and consideration of Groom’s promise contained supra at ¶6, Bride promises to take, have, hold and keep as her lawfully-wedded husband aforementioned Groom (see supra at ¶1).

8. Parties certify under oath and penalty of perjury that the promises contained in ¶¶6-7 supra resulted from a full and fair bargaining process following full disclosure and independent legal and financial counsel, any profession of love, tenderness, understanding, joy, forgiveness or hope notwithstanding.

9. Parties mutually agree and consent that all property respectively owned by each shall remain the property of each while this Marriage Contract is valid. Parties mutually agree and consent that all property obtained while this Marriage Contract is valid shall be considered “Martial Property” owned in ½ shares by the Parties, and subject to the Marital Property Division laws in the State wherein Parties reside.

10. Parties mutually agree and consent that the Property Covenants made supra at ¶9 may be altered at any time following negotiation. In such negotiation, both Groom and Bride shall vote “Yea” or “Nay.” Groom shall have a 65% vote. Bride shall have a 35% vote. Votes are final. A simple majority shall prevail. Vote results shall not be reviewable in any court, any law, constitutional provision or principle of natural justice notwithstanding, it being understood that this paragraph is the product of full and fair bargaining between the Parties.

11. Groom promises and covenants to maintain income and employment at all times while this Marriage Contract is valid.

12. Bride promises and covenants to carry out all household duties while Groom pursues income, including, but in no wise limited to: washing floors, doing dishes, cleaning bedrooms, washing laundry, ironing shirts, obtaining groceries, cooking meals, cleaning toilets, scrubbing tiles, gardening, sending mail, receiving mail, coordinating mealtime arrangements, planning weekend activities, maintaining good physical appearance, adhering to a reasonable fitness regimen, maintaining suitable breast size, maintaining a suitable body mass (no more than 110 pounds) and any other activity deemed reasonable and advisable by Groom.

13. Bride promises to provide conjugal services on demand, pursuant to notice and opportunity to be heard; but in no event shall wife be granted an opportunity to be heard if Groom, in his sole discretion and without possibility of appeal, finds that Bride has defaulted in her obligations under ¶12, supra. Bride further promises to perform conjugal services without notice at least four (4) times per month, at times directed and approved by Groom in his sole and unreviewable discretion. Groom shall have the right to define the parameters and circumstances under which such conjugal services shall take place, including the language in which such services shall be conducted, and any other individuals who shall participate in such activities, be they male or female.

14. Groom promises to provide ample conjugal services to Wife, it being understood that the term “ample conjugal services” does not include the provision of female orgasms to Bride, such “ample conjugal services” being strictly limited to coitus no longer than 60 seconds per scheduled session, pursuant to law and notice. The Parties expressly consent and agree that Bride shall in no wise be entitled to female orgasms under this Marriage Contract. The Parties further expressly consent and agree that Bride’s failure to obtain sexual satisfaction from Groom shall not constitute grounds to rescind, modify, cancel or annul this Marriage Contract.

15. Bride promises to remain faithful to Groom, it being understood that Groom possesses a common law tenancy-by-the-entirety interest in Bride’s body, the claims of others notwithstanding. In exchange therefor, Groom promises to make best efforts to remain faithful to Bride, provided in all events that Groom shall not be obligated to maintain faithfulness to Bride following arguments, disagreements and domestic strife, as those terms may be defined in applicable State law or at Groom’s sole discretion.

16. Parties mutually agree and understand that this Marriage Contract establishes a property relationship intended to secure tax advantages and the appearance of a stable, decent lifestyle. As such, this Marriage Contract makes no provision for—and is not intended to result in— emotional satisfaction, happiness, bliss or even mild contentment. Neither unhappiness, frigidity, hatred, bitterness, frustration, dissatisfaction, gloom, depression, ennui, desperation nor any other common marital emotion shall constitute grounds to rescind, modify, cancel or annul this Marriage Contract, unless Groom deems it advisable.

17. Bride promises to conceive and bear Groom’s children pursuant to notice and regularly-scheduled marital conjugal services (see ¶13, supra). Groom shall have the sole and unimpeachable right to name any children resulting therefrom; provided in all events that Groom gives due consideration to any name suggestion made by Bride, it being understood and agreed that Bride’s suggestions carry no authority whatsoever.

18. Groom promises and covenants to treat Bride fairly subject to all reasonable rules, regulations, customs and usages as may be appropriate in the circumstances. In the event that Groom subjects Bride to physical discipline pursuant to such reasonable rules, regulations, customs and usages, Bride promises and covenants never to contact police authorities in reference thereto. Parties mutually agree and understand that Groom has the sole right to mete out family discipline, except in those cases in which Groom requests discipline incident to regularly-scheduled conjugal services (see ¶13, supra).

19. In the case of domestic disagreement between the Parties, the Parties agree that Groom shall convene a Domestic Resolution Court (DRC). Such Court shall consist of Groom presiding as Chief Justice. Such Court shall decide all cases and controversies pursuant to law without right to appeal or argument, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution notwithstanding. Bride shall not have the right to seek counsel in cases before the Domestic Resolution Court, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution notwithstanding. Bride further must bear all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with any case or controversy pending before the Domestic Resolution Court. Groom promises to publish all decisions made by the Domestic Resolution Court, except those passages that may reasonably impinge upon national security. See, e.g., Cheney v. United States, 198 D.R.C. 139, 157 (2007).

20. Parties mutually declare that they love and respect one another. But Parties further mutually declare that this Marriage Contract establishes a legal relationship governing property and allocating rights and obligations. Parties hereby mutually declare that they intend to adhere to their obligations in good faith, pursuant to law, and without waiving any right contractually guaranteed hereunder. Parties mutually declare that neither love nor respect shall influence the interpretation of any substantive or procedural provision enumerated in this Marriage Contract. Rather, Parties mutually agree that only the common law shall provide a basis to construe any ambiguities contained herein, with a presumption that all provisions contained in this Marriage Contract be reasonable and fair, unless such provisions favor Bride.

21. This Marriage Contract represents a full and final integration between the Parties. Neither prior nor contemporaneous oral statements, nor prior written statements, shall be admitted to modify, vary or negate any provision enumerated herein. But Groom may vary any provision—either orally or in writing—as he deems necessary and proper.

22. The Law of the State of Nebraska shall govern this Marriage Contract. In case of dispute involving this Marriage Contract, Bride hereby waives her right to a jury trial thereon, the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or any comparable State constitutional guarantee notwithstanding. In all such disputes, Groom shall convene a Mandatory Arbitration Panel (MAP) consisting of himself and his mother to fully and fairly adjudicate any grievances pursuant to law and notice. But in no event shall Bride be entitled to any evidentiary presumption or procedural advantage granted by any State evidence code, the Federal Rules of Evidence or the United States Constitution. All decisions of aforesaid Mandatory Arbitration Panel (MAP) shall be final, with all costs to be borne unconditionally, and without discount, by Bride.

23. This Marriage Contract shall be read aloud in full prior to the exchange of marriage vows and rings, publicly, on June 14, 2009, in the presence of a notary public and a judge of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

24. The Parties may kiss only after execution of this Marriage Contract pursuant to all formalities and evidentiary procedures under State law.


DONE and EXECUTED this ____ day of ____, 2009


Witness our hands in Holy Matrimony set unto,




________________________
KYLE G. HURT
Hereafter, “MR. HURT”
Groom-Husband-Party

________________________
ANNABELLA H. KEEFE
Hereafter, “MRS. HURT”
Bride-Wife-Party

________________________
BERNABE H. RODRIGUEZ
Notary Public
Nuestro Cambio en la Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY
License No. : NY-1097F-G

At New York, New York.

GENDER EQUALITY NOW : WOMEN MUST BE EQUALLY LIABLE FOR SEXUAL CRIMES

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Ms. Geraldine F. Goldman-Marquez, J.D., M.D., Ph.D., M.P.A., D.D.S., C.P.A., D.V.M., Wyoming State Champion Skeet Shooter (1989); Art History Expert; Chairwoman, Fly-Fishing & Big-Game Hunting Association of Northern Montana; President and Chief Spokeswoman, The National Association for Gender Equality Everywhere and Forever.

In Connecticut last week, authorities charged a woman with rape. Newspapers reacted with horror, quoting police officials who claimed that this was an “extraordinary case” because “women do not commit rape.” Reports also quoted shocked acquaintances. They all said: “Mrs. X could not have raped that child. She is a caring, tender woman.” Court officials say that no woman has ever been convicted for rape in Connecticut. That is not surprising; after all, for centuries in every American State, the rape statute defined the offense: “Rape means the carnal knowledge by a man of a woman not his wife against her will (emphasis added).” Grammatically, only men could commit rape. Only brutal men could seize and defile innocent, pliable women. Here, as in almost every other legal field, the law condescended toward women, making assumptions about their merit, their inclinations and their capacities. Although Connecticut rewrote the rape law to encompass male-on-male rape and female rape, we have yet to see prosecutors bring a case against a woman. Today, Connecticut faces a historic challenge in the battle for absolute gender equality.

We demand that women be liable for rape. We refuse to live in a society that assumes that women cannot do all the things men can do. Rape laws reflect misogynistic, outdated prejudices about women’s roles. They assume that women are “objects” who must be protected from dominant male aggression. Even if women sexually abuse other women, men or children, the law stands idly by, calling such behavior an “abomination.” It does not prosecute sexually violent women because it assumes that “women do not do such things.” Yes they do. And we have a right to be just as vicious, sexually perverse, lascivious, cruel, savage and bloodthirsty as the worst male rapist. We take equality seriously. True gender equality does not exist when women only enjoy beneficial opportunities open to men, such as voting, drinking and working in government. Rather, true gender equality exists only when women enjoy both every opportunity open to men, and suffer every potential liability open to men. Rape is a major criminal liability. Although the law technically covers women now, no prosecutor has dared to charge a woman for the offense. We refuse to accept the law’s stereotypically sexist protection from rape liability any longer. We are women. We are equal to men in all things, good or bad. We do not just stay home, sew and cook meals. We can rape, too.

In the Connecticut case, the female suspect allegedly violated a male child by inserting objects into his body cavities. This is not the first time such conduct has taken place in North America. Yet this is the first time prosecutors have initiated formal proceedings against a woman for it. We applaud Connecticut for pressing forward against this woman. We urge prosecutors not to heed the public outcry defending this criminal. She is a woman, but she is just as much a criminal as a male would be in the same circumstances. We defend her right to be legally judged for sexual deviancy, violence and brutality. We reject all reasoning that “women cannot be sexually deviant, violent or brutal” because women are “nicer” or “daintier” than men. This is Victorian balderdash. It is 2009, not 1879. Women have a right to equal treatment under the law, and that means equal liability for rape. Men do not have a monopoly on sexual viciousness. Women, too, can depredate other people’s sexual integrity to satisfy their carnal lusts or assert their power. Men are not the only ones who commit atrocities for pleasure. Women have insatiable passions, too. And they are equally able to turn those passions into violent, shocking and horrific crimes.

Our Constitution provides that both the Federal government and the States must provide “equal protection” under the law. That means that no law may make distinctions between men and women unless those distinctions are “substantially related to an important governmental purpose supported by an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification.’” See, e.g., United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). But the constitutional standard says nothing about equal liability under the law. We believe that women have a right not only to equal legal protection, but also equal legal liability. We have won the war for equal employment opportunities, equal pay and equal political rights. But the law continues to treat us like defenseless damsels because it refuses to hold us liable for so-called “male crimes” like rape. We assert that this is unconstitutional. We demand the right to face equal suspicion, equal condemnation and equal moral revulsion for committing the same acts as men. This is the only way to truly equalize our society. As long as the law countenances gender-based stereotypes in any field—no matter how well-meaning or benign—it perpetuates the same injustice that has always plagued our Republic with regard to women’s rights. We demand an end to injustice. We demand equal liability for rape NOW.

Some legal scholars will argue that differential liability for female rape is appropriate because rape implicates a “real gender difference” between men and women. See, e.g., Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981). In that case, the Court held that because women could become pregnant and men could not, the “effects of rape” fell upon women more severely than upon men. That “real gender difference” justified holding only men liable for rape. We wholly disagree with this reasoning because it makes unwarranted assumptions about women and rape. It is true that only women can become pregnant. But that biological difference has nothing to do with the reasons why the law condemns rape. Rape may lead to pregnancy, but impregnating the victim is certainly not the actor’s primary purpose. Instead, rape involves the assertion of raw, sexual power over an object, whether the object resists or not. Rape involves sexual integrity and control over the body. The rapist commits a terrible crime because he or she forces the victim to intimately use his or her body in a way he or she does not want to be used. The rapist does this merely to satisfy his or her base lusts, completely disregarding the victim’s bodily and spiritual well-being in the process. Typically, rape involves violence. Sometimes it does not. In either event, however, rape degrades and humiliates the victim solely to placate the rapist’s sexual desire. That is the heart of the crime. The fact that pregnancy may result from male-on-female rape does not change the crime’s essential character. In short, you do not need a penis to commit rape. You must merely be a sexually violent, ruthless, unrepentant person determined to sate your sexual urges against another person’s will. Being sexually violent, ruthless and unrepentant is not a “real gender difference.” Women can be just as sexually violent, ruthless and unrepentant as men. For that reason, there is no justification in either logic or law to accord differential treatment to women for rape.

We are not hypocrites. We believe in absolute equality. We are not “fair-weather crusaders.” The battle for gender equality did not end when women obtained beneficial advantages in society. No, the battle rages on. Now, we must fight the battle for equal liability. As long as the law refuses to hold us liable for despicable sexual offenses, it perpetuates stereotypes about women. When the law says: “Women cannot do such things,” it makes assumptions about our character as women. This is a fundamental injustice. We do not want the law to evaluate our character as women. We want the law to simply evaluate our character. There is no “woman character” or “man character.” There are not things that “only women do” or “only men do.” The law must understand this. Women can be irrepressible sexual deviants just as readily as men, no matter what the Victorian prudes say to the contrary. In fact, we demand that the law evaluate us for our flaws as well as for our merits. We insist that society stop assuming that women can “do no wrong” in certain areas “because we are women.” Yes we can. We can be just as naughty, evil, merciless and cruel as men. People should not assume that a man commits every violent and shocking act that appears in the news. Nor should they gasp when they hear that a woman committed some atrocity. We can be just as atrocious as men. We may not be as physically intimidating as men, but we can stab, shoot and thrash if our muscles prove insufficient to the task. We do not want legal and social solicitude. We do not want to benefit from outmoded, chivalrous assumptions about quaint “women’s ways.” We just want to be regarded the same as men in every way, and that includes liability for rape.

We may not have penises. But we can savagely violate orifices just as effectively as a man. And we should be punished just as severely for it, too. Equality means taking the good with the bad. When the law gives women advantages at the same time it protects them from liability because they are women, we perpetuate injustice. It is a new day; it is time to stop thinking that women cannot be sexually violent and heartless. We are not dainty maidens. We are not always peaceful creatures who wear frilly dresses and cook dinners. We can be tattooed, recalcitrant rapists, thugs, killers and child molesters, too. The next time you look at a woman, do not assume she is a flimsy, meek little kitten. She can be an ogre, just like you.

A CALL FOR EQUALITY

By : Mr. Edward G. Donaldson, Partner, Donaldson, Anderson & Williamson, LLP, Attorneys at Law Specializing in Property & Wealth Management

Next month, America will celebrate National Women’s Day. In February, we celebrate Black History Month. After that, America will observe Gay Awareness Week. Still later, Americans will come together for Disabled Rights Month. In the 21st Century, it seems we can scarcely go a month without recognizing some historically disadvantaged group.

But what about white male pricks with jobs and wives? Don’t we deserve some recognition, too? After all, ladies, fruitcakes and colored people get special days, and they are far less important than we are. America needs to remember who pays salaries and creates opportunity: White male pricks with jobs and wives. Yet we get no special respect on the calendar. This is inequality. And we refuse to countenance it any longer.

America underestimates white male pricks with jobs and wives. We are the guys who drive this Nation. We write the laws, pronounce the sentences and make the money. We own the banks, businesses and airlines. We do the hiring. We do the paying. We have almost all the money. If it were not for us, no American would have a job. No one would be able to pay their bills, and no one would be able to afford Christmas gifts. Yet how does America repay us? America honors women and blacks. It should be kissing our white posteriors, but instead it wastes its energy on fringe groups who do nothing for the economy. America would do well to remember that we were the guys who allowed blacks and women to be people in the first place. In that light, the fact that white male pricks with jobs and wives get no special recognition smacks of ingratitude. If it weren't for us, they would still be slaves and serving wenches.

True, America did elect a black President. But that is just a passing fad. And what will Obama really do to change things, anyway? Take away our companies? If he tries to cut in on white ownership interests, he had better hire a better security detail. As white male pricks with jobs, we understand what we have. We enjoy what we have created. We will not lose what we have earned over two and a half centuries in North America. History shows our willingness to defend what we own. Obama will not take away what is rightfully ours.

Americans do not really care about women, blacks, homosexuals or cripples. They are happy to take a day off for them once in a while, but when push comes to shove, they would prefer to celebrate the guys who allow everyone to pay their mortgages. That’s right: White male pricks with jobs and wives. We’re the guys who bankroll your paycheck. We’re the guys who manufacture your car. We’re the guys who defend you in court. While it may be tempting to celebrate dynamic speakers like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Susan B. Anthony, Americans should also show some respect to the “silent partners” who run this country. Just imagine if Dick Cheney never became famous. That’s us. And we want some damn respect.

In this country, all men are created equal. Everyone has the same opportunity to reach success. But white male pricks with jobs won the race first. Everyone else has to play by our rules, whether they like it or not. Jefferson said that Americans have a right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. The key word there is “property.” There is only so much property to go around, and we have most of it. Sorry, everyone. That’s just the way it is. We might be white male pricks, but we also have jobs and almost all the property. Sure, a few token black athletes have some cash. But chances are they’ll blow it all before their balling days are over. Why celebrate that? You should celebrate the quietly strong white male pricks who generate this country’s wealth.

We just want to be heard. We are sick and tired of hearing about “disadvantaged minorities” who want to tell their woeful tales to the world. What about us? Don’t we get a chance to tell our stories? We have heard enough about the suffrage battle and the slave ships. Let’s talk about getting dressed for work every morning, scheduling client meetings, rejecting loan applications, commuting and buying homes. These are the kinds of things white male pricks do. We might not do really exciting or inspiring things, but we do important things. If you follow our example, you might actually get somewhere in life. By contrast, if you try to follow Michael Jordan’s example, you will almost undoubtedly fail. In that light, by honoring white male pricks with jobs and wives, you will encourage feasible goal-making in our society, not fantastic daydreaming. Just face it: If you’re black, chances are you will not be a sports star, rapper or civil rights leader. If you’re a woman, you will not be a gender rights crusader. So why waste your time listening to hackneyed myths? Stop inflating your hopes. You are setting yourself up for disappointment.

White male pricks with jobs are wives are realistic people. We did not get where we are today by dreaming impossible dreams. We got where we are today because our dads gave us our jobs and we kept working until our bosses told us to go home. Yet no one tells our story. Rather, Americans waste their time hearing “moving” stories about downtrodden groups every month. It is time for white male pricks with jobs and wives to be heard. We refuse to be second-class citizens any longer. We demand a special week for recognition. We insist that all Americans pay homage to white male pricks with jobs and wives. We matter more than anyone else; isn’t it only fair that we, too, get a special recognition week? Who really cares about Native American History Day? Wouldn’t you rather celebrate Banking Services Executive Day? We need to stop the discrimination. We need to start recognizing white male pricks with jobs and wives. We might not be the most inspiring or commendable people in the world, but we are your bosses. We have your money. And we are people, too.

In 2009, tell your Congressman that you do not believe in segregation or unequal treatment for anyone. Tell him that everyone deserves a special day, week or month, even the white male pricks with jobs and wives who make everyone else’s life miserable.

Some may say that white male pricks with jobs and wives are the very people who created the difficulties that minorities remember on their special days. But that is not the point. White male pricks with jobs and wives may very well have made life difficult on blacks, women and homosexuals, but that does not justify differential treatment for white male pricks with jobs and wives. In this country, everyone deserves equal treatment, even the people who treat others unequally. The bottom line is that blacks get a whole month to celebrate their heroes. White male pricks with jobs and wives do not. That is discrimination, pure and simple. With your support, we will bring justice to white male pricks with jobs and wives. Soon, white male pricks with jobs and wives will get a month to celebrate their heroes as well.

During Black History Month this February, you will hear about George Washington Carver and Otis Redding. During White Male Prick Month in March, you will hear about Archibald F. Witherspoon III and Raymond F. Horvath, Senior Financing Managers at National Deposit Trust Co., Inc. These are our heroes. We refuse to be silent. We demand equality; and we will get it. If history has shown us anything, it is that white male pricks with jobs and wives always get what they want in this country.

Stand together, all you proud white male pricks with jobs and wives! You are doing the right thing in life. The day of official neglect is over. The day of official recognition is about to begin. And we will not be moved. Then again, how could we? We are the ones who move everyone else.

A WARNING

Issued By :

THE DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECT LIVING & CONVENTIONAL CHOICES

Have you dedicated your life to making the right decisions? From day one, have you believed that the pathway to success is to study hard, work hard, get married, have children, go on vacation, eat meals, retire and die? If you have, we salute you. You have honored the conventions that make this Nation great. Conventional living brings stability. Stability brings prosperity. Prosperity brings jobs. Jobs bring money. And everyone likes money.

Do you excel at conventional living? Are you a manager at your job? Do you lead at work rather than follow? If you do, chances are you are a successful person. Successful people excel at conventional living because they follow all the rules every time. They do what they are told, make their way up the ladder and take home big paychecks. If you excel, chances are you walked a hard road to get where you are. There are many rivals on the road to conventional success, and winning is everything. There is no second place or runner-up prize for a close loss. It matters how you play the game, but winning is far more important than how you win.

To win at life, you need to work, work and work some more. Yet there are other elements in a conventional life that compete with work; and it is a challenge to balance them. To truly win at life, you not only must work more than your rivals, but you must also find the time to find an attractive wife, beget children, raise your children, go on family vacations and buy Christmas gifts each year. You must take time off work, which jeopardizes your success in the career race. But without attending to these other matters, you will not master conventional living. The truly successful man finds time to eat a balanced breakfast, work 15 hours a day, go to the gym, keep off the love handles, say good night to his children, pick up his dry cleaning and convincingly have intercourse with his wife on a semi-monthly basis. If you fail to accomplish any of these tasks, you risk your success.

Sadly, there are many "near-successful men." Most near-successful men focus exclusively on work; and for good reason. After all, work is the key to all other conventional living goals. Conventional living depends on careful planning, and careful planning depends on a reliable money source. Reliable money sources can only come from reliable, lucrative employment. Part-time jobs and contracts will not suffice. Only full-time, regular employment in a respectable field will supply the money necessary to fuel a conventional life. Near-successful men understand this. That is why they dedicate all their energy to their work. They stay hour after hour in the office, zealously advancing their employer's cause. They rightly think that enough dedicated work will eventually propel them to higher positions and a larger income. This may be true, but a man can never go beyond "near-successful" if he does not attend to conventional matters other than work.

Society mistakes near-successful men for truly successful men. Near-successful men project a confident, get-it-done attitude at work. They win their superiors' admiration with fanatical devotion to business. They stay late every night. They sacrifice their weekends to get projects done. They go on company outings and trips. They regularly travel, even to foreign countries. They do this for years on end, and their superiors reward them well. They bring home ever larger salaries and bonuses, delighting their wives. But during these "successful" years, they neglect the other key elements of successful conventional living. They get home late at night, long after their wives and children have gone to bed. They drop exhausted into their own beds, knowing that in a few hours they again will have to get up and head back to the office. They rarely see their wives and children awake. Even on weekends, they see them only for brief intervals before "putting in a Saturday afternoon at the office for client development."

This is the life of the near-successful man. Society may think that he is a great achiever. But in fact he is in great danger. Today, we present A WARNING to near-successful men: Your wife is cheating on you, you idiot. What did you expect her to do: You're never there! Did you truly put your trust in the wedding vow she gave you six years ago? Did you think she was going to let her erotic life go while you fanatically pursued an increased salary? All you do in bed is sleep. She is sick and tired of being unfulfilled. You don't even give her the emotional support she needs. When you do show up, all you do is talk about office intrigue, bosses, quarterly revenues and possible Christmas bonus amounts. True, she genuinely appreciates the life you give her, but she understands that there is more to life than sitting in a nice home and eating meals. You have not met the other requirements for a successful conventional life. And what about your children? They do not even know you because you are never there. It's always: "Daddy needs to go back to the office now," or "Maybe next time, kids." Pretty soon they will be adults and you will have spent 1 day out of every 30 with them for their whole lives.

Here at the Department, we recognize that we framed our advice in male terms. But we recognize that it is 2008. Women, too, pursue vigorous and challenging careers. We applaud them for their commitment to conventional living. Nonetheless, we present the same warning to near-successful women that we presented to near-successful men. In fact, we make an even more acute warning to working women, because women must work twice as hard to achieve the same success as a comparable male in the same industry. Your success will depend on your dogged dedication to company interests. That will leave you precious little time to be with your husband and children, assuming you elect to have children. Like the near-successful man, you too will be utterly exhausted when you return from work each night at 12 midnight. Neither you nor your husband will have the appetite or capacity to satisfy your erotic desires. Yet those desires will burn in both of you despite your efforts to suppress them. He will cheat on you, and you will cheat on him. It is merely a matter of time before it happens.

We present these warnings in order to spot trouble in your spouse before it develops. We do not advocate negative measures intended to root out cheating. That would betray the spirit of true success. After all, a truly successful man pleases both his wife and his employer. He is "near-successful" because he only satisfies his employer. Spying, suspicion and other devices intended to "catch" an unfaithful mate merely perpetuate near-success; they do not solve the underlying problem. If the man were truly successful, the wife would not even think of cheating. Thus, when a man adopts nefarious machinations to catch a desperate wife, he has admitted his own failure to please her. And when he admits that, he confesses that he is not truly successful in conventional living.

In that light, redouble your efforts. We understand how easy it is to devote all your energy to your employer. But there are other parties to please. Do not surrender. Fight harder. Tell yourself that you can work 16 hours a day, get a promotion, say good night to your children AND THEN make your wife feel like she did the first time when you were both 18. You can do it. You are almost there. You work harder than almost anyone else. You support our economy and set a wonderful example for every lazy sluggard in the world. But there is more to be done. Conquer your fatigue. Go the extra mile. Dig deeper. Remember: Life is a race. You don't want to lose, do you?

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

Henpecked Husbands’ League for Islamic Spousal Control

By : Mr. James D. Heelgood, Senior Husband and Managing Director

“Honey? Why didn’t you get home at 5?” “Honey, could you please stop doing that?” “Honey, how many times do I have to tell you to take out the garbage?” “Honey, are you so stupid that you can’t remember to pick your dirty underwear off the floor?” “Honey, stop acting like a 4-year-old.” Are these the kinds of things you hear everyday from your lawfully-wedded wife? Are you one of the millions of devoted American husbands who receive nothing but scorn and derision from the woman you support? We know you are out there, and we know you are sick and tired of the ingratitude. Marriage is the key to a stable society. Only in marriage can we successfully raise children and perpetuate our values as a Nation. Husbands should be praised for marrying, not insulted. Marriage works because spouses divide labor; it is simply unrealistic for wives to think that husbands can do everything they want all the time. Husbands have a role: They work, pay household bills, come home, eat, perform conjugal services consistent with the marriage contract and drive their wives to pre-selected commercial locations on weekends. They do not clean, do laundry, move furniture or help buy groceries. Yet wives today all too often demand that husbands assist them with their own duties. Worse, they jibe, cajole, excoriate and humiliate us at every opportunity they get. This is not in our job description. We are supposed to be in charge. Now our own nymphs are walking all over us. We, the Henpecked Husbands’ League for Islamic Spousal Control, promise to end this unnatural revolt against our authority. We promise to assert Islamic tradition over unruly wives, including the power to divorce them simply by repeating the phrase: “I divorce you!” three times in the presence of a witness. Further, we aim to restore obedience in our wives by using the whip, the open hand and the switch to inflict corporal punishments for insolence. Wives must be humble with their husbands. They must acknowledge their place before us. Marriage in this country has decayed, but there is still time to salvage it. If you care about tradition in marriage, vote for Islamic Spousal Control. For centuries, Christians controlled their wives. Then, sometime within the last 40 years, we lost control. The Muslims never lost control over their wives. Although we despise terrorism, we believe that Muslim marriage doctrine is correct. It is time to restore order in the marriage relationship. It is time to rein in the back-talking. We must not allow willful wives to corrupt our children with disrespectful rhetoric about “gender equality.” And the law must no longer entertain specious claims labeled “domestic abuse.” Domestic abuse is our right against defiant wives. Let us bring new meaning to gender roles. Let us defend our children. Vote for Islamic Spousal Control in 2008. Do your part to end the insolence now.

Gentlemen of Commerce United to Halt Lawsuits by Unruly Office Wenches

By: Mr. Rupert H. Swanson, Chairman & Director

Equality in the workplace is a vital ingredient in this Nation’s recipe for success. Despite this, however, office wenches actively burden commercial enterprises with false claims that their male coworkers “harass” them. Defending these claims costs business millions of dollars per year—millions that could have been used to reduce consumer costs and increase wages for workers. And each claim stains reputations, impacting honest men’s ability to do business without fear. We, the Gentlemen of Commerce, are committed to ending this threat to economic prosperity. First, we must convince Congress that the perceived “bias” against female workers in the workplace no longer exists. It is not 1908 anymore; it is 2008. Women can vote and work now; there is absolutely no reason to think they require any further “special protection” under the law. Second, we must lower the standard under which men’s remarks are judged “offensive” or “harassing.” Men have a right to banter about the workplace. Remarks such as “Nice rack,” “Girl, you make me wanna holler,” “When you gonna gimme some of that, sweetie,” or “When can I hit that” must be regarded for what they are: Harmless observations that are part and parcel of everyday work exchanges. Third, we must deter unruly wenches from lodging wholly unjustified complaints against innocent men. To do this, we must have the freedom to fire women at will when they claim men are “harassing” them. In fairness to the accuser, however, we propose establishing all-male Investigative Commissions to probe all facts relevant to the claim, provided the accused male knows at least two members on the Commission. Put simply, lawsuits help no one but lawyers, and when legal costs impact a business’ ability to contribute to the economy, nobody wins. On Election Day, put a party in power that will approach workplace equality with sensibility, not litigation.

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

Hot Dudes in Favor of Putting Hot Chicks in High-Level Cabinet Positions for the 21st Century

By : Brent G. “Fo’ Shiznit” McKillup, Senior Party Spokesman and Chief Event Planner

Guys, you know who you are. You’re about 30, you work hard, you work out hard, you take care of yourself and you like to go out on Fridays and Saturdays (or Sundays if it’s a three-day weekend). You care about your appearance, and you expect the ladies to do the same. You are a hot dude; and you know it. But most importantly, you care about gender equality. For too long, only boring old men have held senior cabinet positions, from Treasury Secretary to Chairman of the Federal Reserve to Secretary of Homeland Security. For too long, government has silently endorsed sexism by relegating women to lower positions with lower pay. It is time to turn the tables. It is the 21st Century: We need to get some hot chicks in high-level cabinet positions. We believe that hot dudes deserve to see some smokin’ females talk about interest rates, Grand Jury investigations and foreign policy trends. Hey, we work hard. We want to see some first-class babes in our government, not tired old geezers and crabby old women with facial hair and buckteeth. We want some “bud-onk-a-donk” in our female public servants and we want it now. Enough of this business attire; let women dress the way we want: We want to see our next Secretary of State in a G-string, spandex and halter top. In short, we, the Hot Dudes in Favor of Putting Hot Chicks in High-Level Cabinet Positions for the 21st Century, have a simple demand: “Show us what you’re workin’ wit’.” This is no longer a male-dominated society. Dudes, it is time to get some fine females into positions of power. We have no problem with women as long as they are hot. This year, vote for gender equality. Vote to see what you want to see in government. Vote to get some Hot Chicks in ’08.

Disappointed Debutantes United for Sanctions Against Frivolous and Noncommittal Men

By : Ms. Doris G. Witherspoon, Managing Director and Spokesperson

Every day, dangerous men break their word in America. Every day, dangerous men spin self-serving stories, disarming innocent women against future betrayal. How often have frivolous and noncommittal men lured women into believing that they are ready to make the marriage vow, only to back out at the last minute, claiming: “I need time to think about this,” or “Something is telling me not to do this”? We, the Disappointed Debutantes United for Sanctions Against Frivolous and Noncommittal Men, believe that government must take a stand against these male scoundrels. In an earlier time, men kept their promises. Today, men say anything to get what they want. Our Nation rose to strength because men had honor and integrity. They did what they said. They did not fear commitment; they embraced it. Now, American men cannot even commit to going out on Saturday night because “they might want to hang out with their buds.” This is national travesty. No longer may government permit men to shirk their promises. We must root out vacillation, hedging, conditional assents, “maybes” and lame excuses. We advocate creating a National Promise Registry enabling women to charge men with violating their commitments. This may seem a harsh measure. But when trustworthiness is the goal, all means are justified. Answers such as “I’ll think about it,” “Let’s talk about it tomorrow,” “Do you have to do this today?” “What are my options?” and “Maybe later this week” must be categorically banned. Men will only restore their honor with strong, confident language. They must be forced to say: “I will,” not “I’ll think about it.” They must say: “I will be there at 9 PM,” not “I might see you at 10-11ish.” Our Nation rose to greatness because men kept their commitments. They did not break their word. It is time to restore trustworthiness to the American male. In the process, we will not only revive honor in the United States, but we will save countless women from the agony inflicted by frivolous, noncommittal men. This is a fight for values. This is a fight for integrity. Take a stand for straight talk this election. Protect women from disappointment at scoundrels’ hands. Vote for Disappointed Debutantes in 2008. This year, tell the world “I will,” not “I might.” It is time for this Nation to finally say “Yes,” not “Maybe.”