Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

Terrorism That’s Personal – NYTimes.com.

“Since 1994, Ms. Bukhari has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only 2 percent of those cases was anyone convicted.”

This NY Times article highlights the prevalence of acid and burning attacks against women in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries where women are viewed as inferior to men. It’s disgusting that these men are getting away with these acts 98% of the time. Absolutely disgusting.

Watch the video. You need to watch the video.

Pam’s House Blend:: Shopping With My Pink Dollars…How Much Research Do I Need To Do?.

Shopping with my pink dollars in a way that rewards businesses that have progressive policies for their trans employees apparently is going to take a lot of effort on my part. I believe after watching Milk on T-Day night, I believe it’s incredibly important to reward the businesses that support people like me the most.

Turns out the company she was looking at was doing the BARE minimum to get a 100% rating from HRC – and it wasn’t very much. I don’t think anybody should be surprised that HRC isn’t going to provide a sufficient measure for trans-friendly businesses… considering they’re not particularly trans-friendly themselves. 😛

As for anybody who would criticize and claim we’re “blacklisting” companies for their beliefs? Guess what? You people have been doing this for YYEEEEEEAARS. Just ask the American Family Association, which has browbeaten countless corporations into repealing their support for LGBT causes or pulling their advertising from gay-friendly TV programming, and which has organized multiple boycotts of companies which simply committed the heinous crime of offering domestic partnership benefits to its employees. OH NOES – EQUALITY! Punish! Punish! Kill! Kill!

Deal with it. It’s a taste of your own damned medicine.

Seth Grahame-Smith: Should Adopted Children be Allowed to Say “Mommy” and “Daddy?”.

Pam’s House Blend:: An Interesting Social Experiment:

Fun indeed! Ackerman decided to no longer recognize the marriages of those around him, much like what happened in the last election. It’s an interesting idea.

I like it. It entertains me. But I think I might only apply it to people who don’t recognize my wife as my wife.

Facebook | Cheryl Hussein Jones’s Notes | If you could save a man from going to federal prison, would you?.

It should be noted that the judge in this case refused to allow evidence relating to medicinal marijuana, including the simple fact that Lynch was operating within state laws. As a result, the jury never knew that he was operating legally or that his 2,000 “customers” were in fact ill patients with legal prescriptions – including a 17-year old cancer patient whose parents brought him to Lynch when nothing else would help him with pain and nausea. There were countless sick patients who were willing to testify to their experience with Lynch, and the judge barred them from the courtroom.

This is an absolute travesty.

CitizenLink: Hundreds Thank Mormon Church for Supporting Marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage has launched a petition drive in response to incendiary attacks from gay activists in California and around the U.S. AboveTheHate.com has collected nearly 1,500 signatures of people thanking the Mormon Church for its support of Prop. 8, California’s marriage-protection amendment.

Well, isn’t that nice of other churches to be so open toward the Mormon Church? Golly, it’s nice that they have gained such wide acceptance.

Oh, wait.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said: “The answer is to organize together in defense not only of marriage, and God’s truth about marriage, but in defense of basic, American decency about how we treat each other when we disagree.”

Maggie Gallagher. Gee, that name sounds familiar. OH YEAH. She’s a MORMON. A BIG Mormon. Her own direct ancestors were polygamists, and although she claims to be rabidly against polygamy, I’ve watched her defend it with my own eyes, live and in person.

So this petition wasn’t an act of open-mindedness and interfaith collaboration. She’s patting her own damned church on the back, and urging others to do the same. Gee. HOW sweet.

I’ll warn you now… my post today contains profanity. Deal with it.

D O G P O E T » Drag Queens and a Few Bricks:

Last Friday a couple hundred gays and their friends chased a small group of young Christian preachers out of the Castro, calling them “bigots” and chanting “Don’t come back!”

I wish I’d been there.

Read More.

I know people are going to be pissed about this story and complain that gay people are soooo intolerant, and not really “helping our cause.” But this guy is right. We’ve been “helping our cause” by being calm and rational for years, and we’re still being treated like shit. Just how much more of this are we expected to take?

How would they expect a crowd of Jews or black people to react if a bunch of white-robed Klansmen or swastika-clad neo-Nazis showed up to demonstrate on the street corner in Fairfax, or Brooklyn, or Compton, especially on Yom ha Shoah or the anniversary of MLK Jr’s assassination? We would demand that they get the HELL out of our neighborhood, and we’d be right. We would CHASE THEM OUT, and somehow I doubt people would have much sympathy for them, even though they’re just “expressing an opinion.”

Historically speaking, members of a civil rights movement being “calm and rational” works best when there is a contingent of people who are fucking pissed off and ready to do what they need to do. Martin Luther King Jr. looked awfully good to white people, compared to Malcolm X. You think radical women didn’t riot in the streets and take over buildings to demand their right to vote at the turn of the last century? And damned if we wouldn’t still be hiding in the bushes and fearing imprisonment for congregating if a bunch of trannies and drag queens hadn’t gotten fucking pissed off at Stonewall. I’m not saying I’m ready to go out in the streets and riot – and I’m certainly not advocating violence. That’s not me. I’m more inclined to be calm and rational. But I’m most definitely not going to tell people they should sit back and let these people trample all over them, especially when they came into the Castro to do it. I am sick to death of gay people having to be super-duper perfect in order to gain “sympathy” from people, and I’m sick of being held to standards that no other groups are expected to meet.

We got FUCKED on November 4. We literally had our rights torn away from us by a simple majority. We were reduced to second-class citizens – again. Six million people voted for bigotry and hatred. I know that’s not how some people see it, but it’s God’s honest truth. Frankly I think people should be relieved that the reaction isn’t stronger than it has been. This state certainly deserves a stronger reaction than it has seen thus far. I know people don’t think they’re being hateful by supporting Prop 8. I know they don’t see it that way. But hate is hate, and bigotry is bigotry, no matter how hard you try to couch it in love and prayer. “Love the sinner and hate the sin” is the biggest cop-out in the WORLD. And I know they say “Oh, you guys aren’t really helping your cause by protesting. We gave you domestic partnership rights – be happy with that.” Yeah. These are the same people who told us to keep our mouths shut when Jews got pissed off over Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. They’re the same people who told us, “We support Israel, so shut up and let us have our anti-Semitic movie… or else.”

I know some people see this about religious freedom and religious liberties. They say we should be “tolerant” of people’s religious beliefs about how we’re going to hell. But here’s what I want to know: WHEN has ANY other minority group been expected to sit back and let people walk all over them just because it’s their religion that tells them to do it? Some of the worst forms of bigotry and racism have been justified by religion. Slavery was justified by religion. The HOLOCAUST was justified by religion. The Crusades were PROPELLED by religion. Women were treated as property because of religion. Racism against black people stems from the Bible, according to multiple Christian sects (the Mormons didn’t even let black people enter their religion until the late 1970’s, and they were NOT happy about it). Most of the Native American population was wiped out because American settlers believed they had God’s mandate to take this land from them. And of course, we can’t forget that timeless classic, “We hate the Jews because they killed Christ.” But who would expect a black person to treat a Klansman with respect and tolerance? Who would expect a Jew to smile and be friendly to somebody wearing a swastika armband?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

So why the FUCK should I be friendly and respect the viewpoint of somebody who bases his opinion of me on a Biblical passage that says I should be stoned to death simply because of who I love?

Nepal SC approves same-sex marriage- Hindustan Times.

Fascinating. So let me get this straight (so to speak): a country in which gay people were not even recognized as citizens a year ago now recognizes same-gender marriage… but America doesn’t? What’s it going to take for America to get its act together???

From Yahoo News:

US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

How did you score on the ISI’s Civics Quiz?

I’m ashamed to admit I missed 2 questions, #27 and #33, giving me a score of 93.94%. Sad, considering that I’m IN an economics right now… ah well. It’s microeconomics anyway. Not sure if we get to take macroeconomics in my program.

To be fair, I missed #33 because of a semantic misunderstanding; I was reading debt and thinking deficit spending. But in retrospect, the real answer makes more sense.

In any event, I think it’s particularly sad that most Americans would fail this quiz. Sad that new citizens probably know more about American civics than lifelong ones, eh?

Mommy, Mommy, guess what I learned in school today??.

What they never told you in the commercials for Prop 8 was that the case in MA was decided under the “mere exposure” rule – i.e. mere exposure to the knowledge that something exists does not constitute a violation of parental rights. For example, teaching that Mormons exist does not equate with teaching the Mormon faith to your children. And teaching that gay people exist doesn’t equate with teaching your children that they should be gay. They were never “teaching” gay marriage; they merely had a packet of information about many types of families, and one of the families happened to have two parents of the same gender.

Mere exposure to the reality of existence does not constitute “teaching” it in public schools. If you don’t want your kids to know that other people exist, don’t send them to schools where they will meet other people. Nothing proves existence like coming face to face with it.

I have an idea for a new commercial. “Mommy, Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today! There are some people who don’t believe Jesus is the Lord! They’re called Jews! Mommy, I think I might be a JEW when I grow up!” [mother shows concerned look, calls the school board for an emergency session…]

Or even better: “Mommy, Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today! All Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law! It’s called the 14th Amendment! And we have a law just like it in our California constitution.” [mother tilts head in horrified consternation.] “Well, sweetie, actually some people don’t deserve equal rights and protections.” “But mommy, they told us in school that discrimination is wrong and everybody is equal!” “Well, sweetie, some people are more equal than others.” “Oh. Does that mean Christians are the boss of Jews?” “Yes, sweetie, it does.” “Oh, good! I’m going to go tell my friend right now; she wouldn’t let me on her swing set and now I can tell her she has to!” “Good job, sweetie.”

Okay, so I’m a little bit bitter. I did have a childhood friend/neighbor whose parents did a perfectly fine job of offsetting whatever tolerance she may have learned in school. One day when we were about 7 years old, we were playing on the swing set in my back yard and she wanted me to get off of my swing and let her have it (we had two swings, mind you). I said, “It’s my house!” and she said, “Well, Christians are the boss of Jews!” Needless to say, I sent her straight home. She frequently had similar things to say when she was angry; while our families had a working facade of tolerance, in which I would go over there and help her decorate her Christmas tree and she would come over and be our guest at the Passover seder, whenever we were in an argument, it always came down to “I hate Jews,” or “stupid JEWS!” or “Christians are the boss of JEWS!” I have absolutely no doubt as to where this sentiment came from. This same girl’s parents pulled their little boy out of school when “Heather Has Two Mommies” was put on the suggested reading list. So I have every confidence that parents will do JUST FINE at making sure their children are indoctrinated with their own morals even if they are “exposed” to “alternate cultures and lifestyles” in school. It’s not the public school’s job to make sure that children share their parents’ moral values. It’s the public school’s job to give the students an education, and to make sure that they learn how to be contributing members of society. That includes learning about all sorts of people and families, because, hey, guess what? This is America, and this is California, and we are beyond diverse.

Kids (and hell, most adults, still) need to learn that groups of people can be different and still be equal, because equal doesn’t mean the same.

A classmate of mine made a comment about equality and how same-gender marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriages because they are inherently different – and how that is just a fact about their difference, and is not meant to demean same-gender couples. Or at least, that’s what I took away from her comment. But I was thinking about that definition of the word “equal” in terms of marriages, and how under that definition, our marriage is inherently different from theirs and is therefore not equal.

Even mathematically speaking, “equal” doesn’t mean “identical.” It means that two sets of numbers or characters have the same *value*. Saying 2+2 is inherently different from saying “4” which is inherently different from saying 5-1 or 8/2 or sqrt{16} or 2^2. These are all COMPLETELY different expressions that mean completely different things and require completely different approaches – but they are all *equal* values. Recognizing couples’ equality doesn’t mean you’re saying that they are identical, or that they are not different. It says that they are *worth* the same and should be *valued* the same. How would you feel if you *needed* something that cost $20, and all you had was two $10s, and the store wouldn’t take it, because they kept insisting that two $10s was simply not the same as a $20 bill? This is the same kind of frustration we’re experiencing now, because we have something that may look different, but has the same value. Essentially, we’re trying to access this institution with our two $10s, and they’re insisting that only a $20 can buy a marriage license (presumably, a $20 out of the man’s wallet). I disagree. We are equal. We should be valued the same. And we deserve the same rights and responsibilities.

And now for the ridiculous parody cartoon that sparked this whole disjointed rant… ridiculous in the sense that what it depicts is pretty much what went on in the Yes on 8 campaign, which was utter ridiculousness. “If your children learn it, they will become it!”

Okay, I’ve changed my mind. We SHOULD have put our children on TV. The other side clearly had no problem “faking” families with LGBT parents, and depicting contrived conversations that could only have taken place in a Yes on 8 commercial scriptwriter’s fantasies. (I mean, please. This commercial is just… wow. Is this really how they imagine things are in our households? And notice how the kid never acknowledges the other parent in the room. Goes along with the whole argument that having two parents of the same gender is akin to being raised by a single parent.)

So yeah – we should have put REAL families, and REAL children of same-gender couples, on the air to talk about how their families are REAL and deserve REAL rights. Otherwise all that’s left is this ridiculous propaganda.

Obese have right to two airline seats | Oddly Enough | Reuters.

Very curious as to how social conservatives will view this decision. I can just see the debate now: Side A: “Public businesses have to provide accessible seats to their customers, including larger people, and shouldn’t penalize them by charging double fees if the provided seats are too small.” Side B: “Fat people just want special rights. Let them lose their fat asses if they want equal prices.”

Pam’s House Blend:: Domestic Partnership Benefits? They are after those too..

Of course, this shouldn’t surprise us – it’s exactly what the Prop 22 supporters (or as I like to call them, the Kalifornia Knight Koalition) did when the legislature passed AB 205. They ran straight to the court and demanded that we be stripped of domestic partnership rights because Prop 22 prohibited marriage or anything LIKE it from being granted to “those people.”

Every article I’ve read supporting Prop 8 and opposing same-gender marriage can be reduced to some “objective” set of “points” which serve as a very, very thin mask for the religious, moral arguments really being offered up.

People don’t seem to want to admit that they adhere to the moral, religious arguments, and so they couch them as pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-secular arguments about politics and society, rather than be honest about the fact that they really just don’t think that same-gender relationships can ever possibly live up to the high moral plane upon which they place heterosexual relationships.

But of course, it’s impossible to have a genuine dialogue with people who can’t admit that the arguments they’re offering up are not actually the reason they’re supporting anti-equality legislation.

Just be honest, people! Offer up a debate on the issues as you really see them, instead of couching them in the language of secular intellectualism.

Let’s look at these popular “points” of discussion:

1) Gay people can’t procreate, so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

What it really means: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: This country has never required applicants for marriage to be fertile or to have children. The elderly can marry. The infertile can marry. People who choose not to have children can marry. People who have had tubes tied can marry. Married couples have a constitutionally-protected right to choose to use birth-control even while they are married. And yet gay people have babies every day, but can’t get married. And hey, guess what? Adoption doesn’t require procreative ability.

2) Recognizing gay relationships will lead to recognizing incest, polygamy, or even bestiality.

What it really means: God thinks gay sex is in the same moral category as incest, polygamy, or bestiality.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: Well, aside from the fact that incest is already legal in 26 states (you can marry your first cousin!), animals are not adults and cannot sign a contract, and polygamy is double-dipping? A marriage takes two people and makes them a single legal entity. You can’t do that if you’re already a single legal entity with somebody else. It’s a legal impossibility that has nothing to do with *couples*, which the law recognizes. If the law allowed a man to have two wives, *then* we might talk about whether a woman can have two wives too. Until then, the polygamy debate is a moot point. The great irony of course is that if only some states allow same-gender marriage but not others, then polygamy WILL occur. Requiring 50-state recognition is the only way to *prevent* polygamy.

3) Denying the right for gay people to marry is no different from denying the right for an adult to marry a child.

What it really means: Gay sex is morally equivalent to pedophilia and should be denied in the same way.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage:

A) A CHILD CANNOT SIGN A MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Get with it, people!

B) Actually, that’s not true. In most states a child CAN get married, with a court order and/or parental permission; and

C) If an adult-minor couple (such as Sarah Palin’s daughter and her boyfriend) REALLY, REALLY want to get married and can’t get parental permission, they have the option of waiting until the minor is 18 years old, and THEN they can get married. A gay couple does not have that same option.

D) Let’s stop for a second and get something straight here, okay? (No pun intended).

There is virtually NO other situation in which two unmarried adults who are legally allowed to have sex with each other are NOT allowed to get married.

Incest (sex between close relatives) is ILLEGAL. So the argument that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage is moot, because there is a crime being committed by virtue of the fact that these two people are having sex in the first place. Marriage does not absolve them of the crime.

Sex between adults and minors is ILLEGAL. There is a crime being committed by virtue of the fact that they are having sex – therefore, marriage is out of the question, because the relationship itself is illegal. Marriage does not negate the fact that a crime is being committed – except in Utah. (Nah, I’m sure there are other states besides Utah where a 40 year old can marry a 16 year old and legally have sex with her. But that is a WHOLE OTHER moral argument.)

Sex between people and animals is ILLEGAL. There is a crime being committed by virtue of the fact that they are having sex – therefore marriage is out of the question, because the relationship itself is illegal.

Sex between two unmarried adults of the same gender is NOT illegal. No crime is committed based on their relationship. And yet they are barred from getting married on the grounds that their relationship is identical to that in which a crime IS committed.

How is this logical?

Well, it’s not. In fact, MOST anti-gay laws are grounded in the notion that you can legally treat gay people as presumed criminals because their sexual activities are against the law. Job discrimination, housing discrimination, and marriage discrimination all stem from the outdated view that gay sex is not only immoral, but illegal. But guess what? That’s not the case. There is no longer any legal grounds for treating gay people like criminals. And yet it continues.

4) Gay people have the same rights as straight people – to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

What it really means: “Gay” is a disease that can be cured. It’s not an identity; it’s a behavior. Let gay people turn straight if they want to be married.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: This one should speak for itself. If you’re willing to make the argument that I should have to subject myself to rape (I would never consent to heterosexual sex) just so I can have access to the institution of marriage, then I have nothing to say to you.

Nobody should ever have to make that choice; that’s what it means to live in a free society.

The argument in Loving v. Virginia was not that being black was somehow an immutable characteristic and that’s why they allowed the marriage. The woman in that case had a choice too. She could have left her husband and found a black man to marry so she could have legal marital recognition. But she didn’t love a black man. She loved her husband. The court acknowledged this ridiculous, offensive argument, but found it to be distasteful and fallacious. Having the “same” rights does not necessarily mean having “equal” rights. A person in a wheelchair has just as much right to vote as somebody who can walk, but if all the polling stations are upstairs, how can you say there is “equality” based on the “same” rights? The law doesn’t have to treat you “the same” in order to treat you “equally.”

In any event, being gay is not a “choice,” not that this should matter, and it’s not an “illness” to be “treated.” Religious membership is a choice, and you’re not banned from marriage because of it. (well, maybe you are by your religion – but not by the government!)

If you believe it’s a choice or some sort of reflection of life experiences? Let’s have a talk some time. Ask me how old I was the first time I liked a girl.

5) But if we allow gay marriage, then we won’t be able to discriminate against gay couples! (Oh noes!)

What it really means: But if we allow gay marriage, then we won’t be able to discriminate against gay couples! (Oh noes!)

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: Trust me – you’ll be able to discriminate. You’ll still be able to deny us religious recognition. You’ll still manage to keep us out of your congregations. You’ll still hate us even while you tell us you love us but hate our sin. The LAW, however, CANNOT discriminate like that. If you want your religious freedom, then you need to allow me my religious freedom, and that includes the right to have my religious marriage accorded legal rights.

6) Domestic partnerships are the same as marriage, legally speaking.

What it really means: Either “Separate can be equal,” or “You aren’t equal, so why should you get equal access? And by the way, give us time and we’ll go after domestic partnership rights too.”

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage:

A) No, separate is not equal.

B) Even if separate were equal, domestic partnership is not the same as marriage. No husband is taxed on his wife’s and children’s health insurance benefits. Domestic partners ARE. There are a million reasons why these are completely unequal institutions, taxation being only one of them.

C) We already HAVE two separate institutions of unions, and you can’t seem to get your head around that. What makes us think that in another ten years you won’t say, “Domestic partnership is marriage! Protect the sanctity of domestic partnership!”? Civil marriage was supposed to be the secular equivalent of marriage. Somewhere along the way, you guys conflated it, and now we’re fighting over creation of a THIRD institution to do what the SECOND one was supposed to accomplish.

D) The organizations that instituted Proposition 8 have proven time and time again that they are not willing to stop at marriage. They have sued in countless states to eliminate domestic partnership, they have instituted boycotts against companies that give domestic partnership benefits, and they have circulated ballot petitions to eliminate domestic partnership in California. Why on EARTH would we believe they will stop fighting now that they’ve tasted blood?

Joe. My. God.: The Truth About Phyllis Burgess.

Yeah, I thought there was more to this story than some innocent old lady being attacked… not saying the crowd was in the right, but dude, she elbowed her way through the middle of the crowd, and had already knocked over a disabled man – and would likely have continued to be violent herself. It seems she’s something of a Phred Phelps character, frequently showing up and antagonizing people at LGBT events.

Still no major coverage of the off-duty CORRECTIONS OFFICER who mocked a No on 8-protesting family (including children) by showing his gun and crowing, “Look what I have!”

Prop 8 Protest and March on Flickr.

This has got to be one of the most entertaining signs…

California Council of Churches: Marriage Equality.

Recent events have converged to make the freedom to marry a concern to all people in California. The California Council of Churches and IMPACT have long stood strong against discrimination against any of God’s children. At the same time, we recognize that many churches and people of faith believe they must oppose the freedom to marry based on what they have been taught the Bible has to say on the subject. Therefore, we have produced this study guide to help congregations in California struggling with differences of opinion on the subject of marriage equality to discuss the biblical texts, theology, church traditions, and civil rights from a place of compassion and love of neighbor — the central elements of Jesus’ teachings.

They have joined the barrage of organizations and entities filing lawsuits to invalidate Prop 8 – and bless ’em for it.

Wayne Besen – Broad Outlines For Change Within the GLBT Movement.

Pretty great article…

My favorites:

4) We have to give America a civics/history lesson. a) People don’t understand that the courts are there to protect minorities from mob rule – tyranny of the majority. b) People buy the line that anti-gay churches are just voting their values. Voting values is only to ensure that a religious group can practice their beliefs and live their values. It does not allow them to force other people to live by the rules of their church – effectively making everyone members – against their will.

5) We must do a better job making people understand the difference between civil and religious marriage. It must be hammered home. Until people get this simple point – we will have trouble.

CA Supreme Court, Order to Show Cause, etc.. (PDF)

Issued today, November 19.

Text:

The motion for judicial notice filed in S168047 by petitioners on November 5, 2008, is GRANTED. The requests for a stay of Proposition 8 filed by petitioners in S168047 and in S168066 are DENIED. Respondent Secretary of State Bowen’s request to be dismissed as a respondent in S168066 is GRANTED. (Kevelin v. Jordan (1964) 62 Cal.2d 82.) The motions to intervene in S168047, S168066, and S168078, filed on November 17, 2008, by Proposition 8 Official Proponents et al. are GRANTED. The motions to intervene in S168047, S168066, and S168078, filed on November 10, 2008, by Campaign for California Families, are DENIED.

The State of California, the Attorney General, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the Deputy Director of Health Information and Strategic Planning of the California Department of Public Health are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE before this court, when the above entitled matters are called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted. The issues to be briefed and argued in these matters are as follows:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, sections 1-4.)

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

The return is to be filed by respondents, and a brief may be filed by intervenors, in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Friday, December 19, 2008. A reply may be filed by petitioners in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, January 5, 2009. Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, January 15, 2009. Any reply to an amicus curiae brief may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

Moreno, J. joins this order except that he would grant the requests to stay the operation of Proposition 8 pending this court’s resolution of these matters.

Kennard, J. would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.

Votes: George, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

Not sure what to think about the fact that Kennard, who JOINED the majority in the marriage cases, now seems to think that they should let Prop 8 stand. That’s upsetting and a little disturbing considering the precedent this would set – if Prop 8 stands, then any minority group could have their rights abridged by popular vote, particularly those groups not expressly protected by the US Constitution – gender being one of them. Interesting, huh? Don’t think it would happen? Don’t forget that this is the same state that literally responded to an anti-discrimination bill by voting by an overwhelming majority to allow racial discrimination in housing.

As somebody said on another blog (can’t remember where): You might not be gay, but you might be next.

At least the court is willing to listen and consider. That’s nice to know, considering the fact that this so-called “amendment” literally strips the court of its power in every respect. If you don’t believe that, consider that the Yes on 8 people are already starting their extortionist tactics, threatening to remove any judge who votes against them.

Consider that Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and all of the other major civil rights court decisions were unpopular and contrary to the majority’s opinion. What if those decisions had been subject to the whim of the popular vote? We would still have segregation and interracial-marriage bans today.

The purpose of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And this “amendment” removes their power to do that, and completely undermines the institution of equal protection under the law by saying that the Constitution only affords equal protection to those belonging to and approved by the majority. That is not what the Constitution is for – and I guarantee you that if Prop 8 stands, the “Yes” folks will not be sated merely by dissolving the rights of the LGBT community. They will go after you next.

I hope the Court thinks about this long and hard before they issue their opinion.

[Edit: Now that I look, Justice Kennard wrote in her concurrence to the original marriage cases:

In holding today that the right to marry guaranteed by the state Constitution may not be withheld from anyone on the ground of sexual orientation, this court discharges its gravest and most important responsibility under our constitutional form of government. There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court. Both the federal and the state Constitutions guarantee to all the “equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7), and it is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those guarantees. The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection. (See Davis v. Passman (1979) 442 U.S. 228, 241 [describing the judiciary as “the primary means” for enforcement of constitutional rights]; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 141 [stating that, under our constitutional system of checks and balances, “probably the most fundamental [protection] lies in the power of the courts to test legislative and executive acts by the light of constitutional mandate and in particular to preserve constitutional rights, whether of individual or minority, from obliteration by the majority”].)

Here, we decide only the scope of the equal protection guarantee under the state Constitution, which operates independently of the federal Constitution. (See Cal. Const., art I, § 24 [“Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution”].) Absent a compelling justification, our state government may not deny a right as fundamental as marriage to any segment of society. Whether an unconstitutional denial of a fundamental right has occurred is not a matter to be decided by the executive or legislative branch, or by popular vote, but is instead an issue of constitutional law for resolution by the judicial branch of state government. Indeed, this court’s decision in Lockyer made it clear that the courts alone must decide whether excluding individuals from marriage because of sexual orientation can be reconciled with our state Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. (Lockyer, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1068-1069.) The court today discharges its constitutional obligation by resolving that issue.

So I am seriously confused as to where she stands now since she suggested denying the petitions. Is she saying she doesn’t think the Court should retain its original jurisdiction, but should rather let the case go through the lower courts first? Is she saying Prop 8 should stand? That seems SO inconsistent with her prior statements.]

‘Pregnant man’ and wife: We’re a normal couple – CNN.com.

I have been reading people’s comments on the various blogs discussing this story. I will *never* understand how people can be so ignorant that they do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. So let’s try to spell it out in an easy way.

Some people who are born as women identify as men. Some people who were born as men identify as women. Some people identify with neither gender, and some people identify with both. People who don’t identify with one particular gender sometimes call themselves “genderqueer.” People who identify with an opposite gender sometimes call themselves “transgender.”

Sometimes this dissonance is because their brains are hard-wired to identify with one gender, while their bodies reflect another gender. Many trans people will tell you that they always felt that their bodies were not right, that their bodies did not belong to them. This is called gender dysphoric disorder, and has led many a trans kid to suicide out of sheer confusion and helplessness. *Many* trans people know that they are transgender even from childhood – in fact there are many transgender children even now who are living their lives as a gender different from the one they were born with. You think this is a sexual deviancy thing, but if you could see these children who are *so much* happier being able to live as they *are*, you would understand.

You cannot “fix” a person’s gender identity. You identify with the gender you are, regardless of what your body says. We have known for years that there are really more than two genders – some societies have known it for generations. We are a society that loves its dichotomies, though, so we try to force people into boxes. This doesn’t always work. Most of us are born with a physical body that reflects our genetic and spiritual gender. Some people are not.

Now, sometimes people identify with an opposite gender because genetically and chromosomally, they ARE that opposite gender, but physically, something went wrong. In more cases than most of us actually realize, babies are born with ambiguous genitalia, and the doctors decide it will be easier to just do reconstructive surgery and make the baby a girl or boy and hope they made the right guess. Sometimes they are right – and sometimes they are not. This is called “intersex,” and is an absolute abomination on the part of the doctors, who make a life-changing decision for a child based on what is most convenient for themselves.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation. Gender identity is about the gender you *are*. Sexual orientation is about the gender you *love.* Many trans people are heterosexual. They share their lives with their partners in a heterosexual relationship. Some trans people are gay. Some trans people are bi. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing so quit trying to tell this man that he is a gay woman. Believe me – if you knew trans people, you would know that this approach is ridiculous and unnatural. A straight man is not a gay woman just because he happened to be born with the wrong genital parts. So he chose not to have a full hysterectomy – that is a dangerous procedure that not all trans people choose to have. And if he has the opportunity to have biological children when his wife is infertile, why shouldn’t he take it? Wouldn’t it be nice if more women with difficulty conceiving could pass that particular duty on to their husbands?

Frankly I just wish people could get the hell over themselves and realize that just because they can’t relate to something, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong or morally corrupt.

Pam’s House Blend:: Newt Gingrich: angry gays promoting secular fascism.

Oh please, Newty. Don’t give me this bullshit. What about the gay man who was punched in the face by a Yes on 8 proponent who got out of his truck to hit him? What about the family – including children – who had a gun flashed at them by an off-duty CORRECTIONS OFFICER who was taunting them, saying “Look what I have…” What about our community members who have been beaten, tortured and murdered just for being LGBT? What about the way we’ve had our fundamental rights ripped from us time and time again? What about the teenagers who have been so rejected and mistreated by their families and communities, and forced to feel such deep and misguided shame, that they have taken their own lives to get away from the pain?

This protesting is NOTHING compared to what we’ve had to deal with as a community, and it’s NOTHING compared to what you deserve.

And you’re going to criticize the boycotts? SERIOUSLY? After the American Family Association has been staging wide-scale boycotts on companies for YEARS, for “sins” including providing domestic partnership benefits, advertising on gay-themed television shows, including sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, or saying “Happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”?

Seriously? You’re going to complain about us refusing to fund companies that fund our oppression?

And all from a guy with a lesbian sister? Why are the most hateful always the ones with queer family members? (Don’t forget, Pete Knight had a gay son and a gay brother.) Are you that unwilling to deal with your own families instead of trying to legislate us away and punish the rest of us for your inability to accept that you have a gay family member? If you believe in “family values” so much, why don’t you start valuing your own families, and leave ours alone???

Incidentally… the major leaders in this fight for marriage equality are religious leaders. We’re not all godless heathen, and you know it, Newt Gingrich. You, on the other hand… YOU are the one who cheated on your wife (even while you were leading the crusade against Pres. Clinton for doing the same), bringing shame to yourself, your family, and your party. YOU are the one who needs to take inventory of your sins. So go sit in a corner and start counting them, and leave us the HELL alone. Glass houses, man. Glass fuckin’ houses.

No on Prop. 8 rally produces anxious minutes when gun appears – San Bernardino County Sun.

So far the only violence and threats have been by YES on 8 supporters, against gay people and No on 8 supporters. The only act of violence so far was when a guy ripped somebody’s Yes on 8 sign and the homophobic asshole got out of his truck and punched the guy squarely in the face. And now we have “correctional officers” taunting protesters with the fact that he’s carrying a gun? What the hell has this state come to?

Protests to be a key test for Proposition 8 opponents – Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Schubert, you and your supporters did not “participate in the democratic process.” You HIJACKED the democratic process in order to strip a protected class of citizens of their fundamental rights. We have EVERY RIGHT not to provide economic support to those who participated in this mass crime against our community.

Anna Quindlen: The Loving Decision.

The last word here goes to an authority on battling connubial bigotry. On the anniversary of the Loving decision last year, the bride wore tolerance. Mildred Loving, mother and grandmother, who once had cops burst into her bedroom because she was sleeping with her own husband, was quoted in a rare public statement saying she believed all Americans, "no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry." She concluded, "That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage – NYTimes.com:

Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.

But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.

Of course, they don’t mention Script C, for those who indicated support for gay marriage. “Oh, you support gay marriage? Great! So do we! Don’t forget to vote YES on Prop 8 to protect gay marriage!”

SHAME.