Call for Submissions: Read These Lips, Volume 4 (June 2010)
Read These Lips is a free e-book project dedicated to lesbian literature. In our fourth year, we are inviting submissions to our anthology series.
We seek multi-dimensional literary writings that speak the possibilities of lesbian lives. We feature popular genre as well as cross-genre works.
Submissions are open from 1 November 2009 to 31 January 2010. Please read our Submissions Guidelines carefully, and our previous anthologies for guidance.
Early expressions of interest are encouraged.
All correspondence to submissions@readtheselips.com
(more…)
Add comment October 28, 2009
Has they done it?
The Stanhope government in the ACT might’ve found the loophole that will force the federal government to act, instead of passively recognising same-sex relationships.
After several high-profile attempts to secure and allow same-sex marriages/civil unions in the ACT which were knocked back by two federal governments, the ACT yesterday passed legislation cheekily recognising same-sex civil unions that have been legally officiated, while denying the same to heterosexual couples as they already have the Marriage Act (Cth). Guess who’s not happy?
Background: The ACT or Australian Capital Territory is one of several areas in Australia that fall under federal rule, as compared to states which are semi-sovereign in their own right, but it is the only self-governing capital territory.
Also in Australia, homosexuals have all the same rights, obligations and benefits as heterosexuals, except for ‘marriage’. In my view, marriage is redundant when all else is equal.
Add comment November 12, 2009
Tea and art
Many years ago, we overnighted in Braidwood NSW on a mistaken assumption it was a large-ish town. It’s not, but it had fresh Devonshire Tea.
If you’re in the Southern Tablelands of NSW, why not pop into Suzanne Bellamy’s open day at her studio, from 27-29 November. Not only are her sculptures colourful, but she collaborates on art and text fusion projects (such as Unsettling The Land with Susan Hawthorne) which I, unexpectedly, found to be quite lovely.
Suzanne promises endless tea while you explore her studio, creek and environs.
Add comment November 11, 2009
Plagiarism or mash-up
Mash-ups are a sort of sampling technique, where you take bits of sound/visual/sculpture or what have you, mix them up a lot perhaps changing an edge or two but still retaining recognisable origins, to create a ‘new’ work. How original the ‘new’ work is can be hard to tell, because if it’s not sufficiently original or clearly rips off too much from elsewhere, well, you’ll be hearing from lawyers.
Sampling is very common in the music industry but almost always credit is given or permission obtained. In literature, sampling, if not used as quotation, can come very close to plagiarism. Of course there are ways around this call, for example if bits pulled are from public domain works or the bits fall under ‘fair use’. The key here is giving credit – if you’re not sure if you should point to your source, best to do so. But if you’re copying someone, please don’t say “everyone does it”, because dude, it’s still wrong – unethical if not illegal.
Other ares, such as photoshop-ing images are harder to catch but I don’t know much about visual use except to say that trademarks are what companies register to protect their brands.
Add comment November 9, 2009
Very sad for Maine and for all hoomans
Legislation recognising same-sex marriages in Maine was overturned by hateful homophobes. Sad and angry me. Stupid peoples. Obviously they need to get out more – to other civilised nations that have allowed SSMs and where the population is much happier for not squabbling over this non-issue.
Add comment November 5, 2009
SSM fight on in Texas
I’m a bit late on this – there is a constitutional challenge in Texas, USA, over a court decision that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Strangely enough, the case against the ban was prompted by a case of two gay men seeking divorce in Texas. If you know Texas, you’ll know this is huge.
Recently the brave judge in that case, Tena Callahan J, shared some personal insight into how she came to her decision.
Add comment October 31, 2009
Good bidding
Charlize Theron auctions off a 20-second kiss for charity. The winner, a woman.
3 comments October 27, 2009
Reasons not to marry
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny marriage rights to infertile couples and old people.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears’ 55-hour escapade, will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed.
5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can’t marry whites, Catholics can’t marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.
9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.
10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not.
11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.
12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and incest. Because we don’t know what comes next, we should never change our laws.
13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
14. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like suburban malls and tupperware parties.
15. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic the straight traditions of spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.
16. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption.
17. Civil unions are a good option because “separate but equal” institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.
18. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.
19. If gays marry, some of straight people’s tax dollars would end up going to families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people’s tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.
20. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society.
21. The people’s voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can’t think of any other way to discuss the issue.
22. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be recognized, because there is no “full faith and credit” clause that requires states to recognize each other’s institutions.
23. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse.
24. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and substance abuse. That’s why we invented the Quality Control department to pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants, such as convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez who married a woman while on Death Row.
25. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it.
26. The country can’t afford to provide benefits for married gay couples. That’s why Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that encourage more straight people to get married.
27. Gay couples do not deserve marriage because, if everyone on earth limited themselves to same-sex sexual behavior, humanity would soon be extinct. Based on the same concern, we also deny marriage rights to the biologically childless and to those who have borne only one child. (We are also considering denying marriage rights to those who have borne three or more children, because if everyone copied them, the world population would shoot through the roof.)
28. Marriage was created in the Bible as a bond between a man and a woman. The people who lived prior to the writing of the Bible, such as the Chinese, sat around in confusion for many years until the Mesopotamians finally came around and invented the family unit.
7 comments October 26, 2009
