Obscanity: You'll know it when you see 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.

Obama may have to give up e-messaging – CNN.com.

Not the Crackberry! NOOOOO, DARKNEEEESSS! CHAARRLIIIEEEEE!

My guess is he’ll keep the thing, and just switch it out somewhat frequently. You can’t just give that up. You’ve gotta ease out of it over a period of like… you know… a decade or so. Or until the Next Great Thing comes along to replace it.

Worlds Tallest Mohawk – New Guinness World Record – iReport.com.

You pretty much just need to see this. It’s just… yeah. LOL.

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.

Revolution No. 8  | PROPOSITION 8 | Advocate.com.

I’ve been waving a sign on street corners since H8 passed: “Black Queers.” Responses have varied — from honks of support to looks of disapproval from both blacks and whites. A black woman came up to me at a rally and asked me if I didn’t think the sign was offensive to black people. I said, “It’s who I am, and people should know.” [Read more]

Pam’s House Blend:: Fired by owner of Mormon-owned business for voting against AZ Prop 102.

Yes, indeed — more of the loving faith-based behavior we saw out in California is also at work in Arizona. Jim Burroway received a letter from a reader who was canned by her employer, a CPA firm, that is owned by a member of the LDS. He removed identifying information.

Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8 – Sacramento News – Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee.

Robin McGehee, who enrolled her son Sebastian at St. Helens Catholic School, says she went to a vigil for the "No on Proposition 8" campaign last Thursday. After that, a priest from the Diocese of Fresno told her to step down because she had gone against church teachings.

A Message to the Haters: Gay Boycotts & Protests Are Not ‘Intolerant’ / Queerty.

Priest: No communion for Obama voters – Faith- msnbc.com.

Largest earthquake drill in history ‘rattles’ California – CNN.com.

Eeesh. They make it sound like all of California – or even all of southern California – was involved. So not the case. But whatever, at least it’s for a good purpose.

Pam’s House Blend:: Californians Against Hate founder files complaint against LDS.

Memo: Same-sex marriage strategy discussed by Hinckley in 1997 – ABC 4.com.

Interesting that the LDS Church also basically informed church members that they were expected to donate their time and money to this effort. I don’t think people appreciate just how much influence the church has over its members. Check out this letter to church members. (PDF)

Pam’s House Blend:: Marriage Matters to Us.

An excellent article challenging the notion that marriage equality is not important to black same-gender couples; it’s a response to Jasmyne Cannick’s article in the LA Times, in which she suggests that marriage equality is (or should be) a low priority for black queer folks, or that somehow the entire community deserves what it got because the No on 8 campaign failed to reach out to black voters. At least, that’s what the article sounds like to me. But this first article I posted definitely combats the myth that marriage rights are really only important to rich white people who have property to protect. In fact those are the ones who are least likely to NEED marriage protection, because they have the resources to hire attorneys and create trusts and stuff. They are also less likely to be working in public sector jobs and therefore relying on family benefits provided to county, state and federal employees.

Anyway, yeah. Check out the article.

Lisa Derrick: Prop 8 Boycott Called on Legendary El Coyote Restaurant.

I tried giving the lady the benefit of the doubt because she was only an employee of the company according to her donation form, where she claimed she was just the restaurant manager… but it seems she lied. She’s a co-owner and her family has had ownership in the restaurant since it opened.

Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews – CNN.com.

Pam’s House Blend:: Legislators file friend of the court brief to stop Prop 8.

AmEx becomes bank to stabilize funding – Nov. 10, 2008.

Hey, I’m not doing so well economically these days. Maybe I should become a bank too. Obscanity Savings & … Savings. Get me some corporate welfare, and all that…

Talking Points Memo | The Importance of Being Earnest.

Quoting another blog:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No, seriously. Seriously? There have been BOOKS published just to compile Bush’s blunders and gaffes. I say BOOKS, because one book simply could not contain it all!

Wow.

Miriam Makeba dies after collapsing on stage – CNN.com.

Wow. It’s so weird, just a little while ago I was playing Pata Pata in iTunes, and now I see this headline on CNN. 🙁