The Yes on 8 folks just won’t stop. Not satisfied with blackmailing major No on 8 donors last week, last night they launched a DoS attack on NoOnProp8.com . The site is still down as we speak.
Classy, Yes on 8, classy. You were supposed to be the ones on the side of “morality,” right?
From the ever-clever folks at “A Softer World” comes this gem.
Delightfully enough I found myself thinking: “But I have hope again! This would have been much more apt during all those years of the Bush administration without hope.” But given the speeches I’ve been hearing all week during the RNC, maybe it is apt after all.
With all the preparations for Pride this year, it’s already a breathless season. Increasing the fervor of the season, of course, was the beginning of gay marriage in California yesterday at 5 pm. I watched coverage from some of the first gay weddings last night, live on the local news. It’s exciting to live in a state with legal gay marriage again.
On the other hand, a visit to my old roommates last weekend gave me another reminder about the problems that come along with gay marriage–the enforcement of the same norms that affect straight people. For as long as gay relationships exist only outside the law, all sorts of extra-legal legal precedents can sneak their way in. In the case of my former roommates, three lesbians who decided to raise a child together, gay marriage ruins the hopes they had of securing a three-parent adoption for their little girl once she was a toddler and they could argue their parental rights.
For so long, homosexuality has been an outstanding shelter for any number of norm-violating sexual and romantic arrangements–polyamory, kink, domestic partnerships without marriage, etc.– that heteros have engaged in too, but which have generally been more accepted in the queer world than in the world at large. With the harsh light of legal marriage shining on gays and lesbians, will we all line up and join the establishment? What happens to folks who don’t want to?
I continue to hold out hope that the government will step out of the business of providing “marriage” as a concept and will just do civil unions, leaving folks to chose whatever idea of marriage works for them, be it traditional or nontraditional. (This is one of the times I side with libertarians on an issue.) However, the precedent does not seem to be heading that way.
In other news, looks like Google is branding search results containing terms related to gay pride with rainbows. For a limited time only! Catch it while you can!
ETA: As usual, Alison Bechdel has commented on a similar aspect of things that is both subtler than what I’ve said here, and more poignant.
I am a Registered Female, and so naturally I get regular email from NOW in my college email account (I think I may have been signed up when I participated in a pro-choice rally at some point?) Periodically I agree with what they have to say; periodically I roll my eyes. Never have I been made more angry by NOW than I was this morning.
BELOW THE BELT: HISTORY, LEGACY, AND THE SHAME OF MEDIA
Hillary Clinton’s campaign inspired millions of women across the
country, and the increased female voter turnout has helped many women
running for office - but will those women candidates now face a media
gauntlet that is more about their gender than their qualifications?
I understand NOW endorsing Hillary Clinton for no reason other than her gender. They are, after all, the National Organization for Women, not the National Organization for People Whose Politics I Agree With. But to continue blaming her gender for the fact that she lost after the last six months is dishonest self-victimization.
Clinton ran a close race; she lost relatively narrowly. The media dismissed her EXACTLY as they would have dismissed a man in her position. It is not her femininity that made people predict that she would lose; it was the fact that she spent most of the last six months behind in votes and behind in delegates. Before Iowa she was the media’s darling, and the fact that Barack Obama took over that position has entirely to do with their relative position in the race and nothing to do with either his skin color or her gender. (The decisions of a lot of the voters were doubtless affected by these things; both issues came up frequently in the news; but they did not affect the relative assessment of who stood where in the race)
I look forward to voting for a woman candidate for President, but I will do that only when there is a woman who I agree with running for office.
ETA: Ok, I just re-read the original statement, and it was probably not worth nearly as much anger as I threw at it just now. The real thing I’m upset about here is the fact that NOW doesn’t seem to be seeing the victory of a woman getting as far as Clinton did. They, like the Clinton campaign in general has been doing since she fell behind, have resorted to gender-based victim playing rather than taking an honest look at the race and the many other factors that have resulted in Obama winning.
twitter | meaplet on Holiday cooking |
 | Shannalee on Holiday cooking |
 | Marjorie on Playing Backgammon as the Worl… |
| meaplet on Playing Backgammon as the Worl… |
| Marjorie on Playing Backgammon as the Worl… |
