kiwi_grrl

... giving up your babies ...



The above is my primary bookcase in my bedroom, and all the books I'm having to give away. But that's not all ... immediately below is my secondary bookcase in my bedroom, with more books I have to give away. I even have more books on my bedside tables, but I'm not taking pics of those as well ...



And, naturally, that's not it either, as below is my office, where most of my academic texts reside ... again books I'm having to give away.



They're just too heavy ... this isn't like a move across the city, or the state, or even to elsewhere in the US of Canada. No, this is a move to the other side of the planet, and weight matters. So I'm having to give up my babies ...

*sob!*

Okay, I'm going to have a moment of utter self-indulgent hedonism here for a tick ... a couple weekends ago my wonderful gf and I went out to Woodfield Mall (she is wonderful because she totally indulged going to the Mall, which she dislikes ... although she did get completely entranced in the new iPhone 3GS while there, I must say), and I spent a while in the Apple Store there, playing with this ... gaze at it in all it's beauty (cue heavenly chorus):



This is the new Apple 13 inch Macbook Pro ... in all it's completely incredible gloriousness. I can't describe how blown away I was with this little machine. It was responsive, it was startlingly clear, it ran multiple applications seamlessly without so much as a hesitation or hiccup ... compared to my old machine (which I do still totally love), my baby was outclassed like Japan playing the All Blacks.

Many that know me know that I've had a love-affair with Macs for a number of years now. This wasn't always the case ... I've had a number of home-built and off-the-store-shelf PC's (even one robust Toshiba laptop back when it ran Win95), and I used to spout all the usual inanities about Macs. Then I got to play with OSX when it first came out, and I was hooked ... I never looked back ... all the issues and complaints and worries, all the baby-sitting, all the managing, all the hoping the PC would do something rather than expecting it, was gone. Gone. Macs were what I had originally thought computers should be.

My first Mac was this:



A 12 inch iBook G4 1.2 Ghz ... she was my workhorse, going up to a max-out on RAM, hard-drive upgrades, and problem-free OS updates ... till finally after years her motherboard gave out and she had to be retired. Needless to say, I couldn't be Mac-less as it would be like being without a ... well, it would be like being without a Mac, which all my fellow Mac-lovers out there will tell you, it's painful. So, for about $200 I bought an old machine off a friend who wanted to upgrade:



She is one of the original Powerbook 1 Ghz G4 Titanium models ... yes, THAT old. But she's still ticking, and I have maxed out the RAM, and have the latest iteration of OSX, Leopard, running on her (hell, she is what I am currently typing this entry on right now). Nor is she the only Mac I use, because my university department has this on my desk:



Yep, that's right, an old 'lampshade' 1.25 Ghz 17-inch widescreen iMac, the first mac ever to sport a widescreen (and still, in my humble opinion, a simply more beautiful piece of industrial design than the current iMac).

But, she's old, she's only running Tiger, as despite all the RAM, she can only really deal with the previous iteration of the OS. Hell, even my beloved Powerbook will not be able to run the newest version of OSX when it comes out later this year (Snow Leopard) because that is designed only for the 'new' Intel chips, not the older IBM chips, which my Powerbook (and the iMac) runs.

I've kinda made a habit out of getting the longest I can out of my Macs ... I still have one of the original iPod Mini's (in silver with a black-&-white screen) that I only upgraded to the latest iPod Nano because the battery life had gone down to 45 mins, which is less than 1/3rd of my usual workout length. I expect I will get years out of that new Nano if I can (altho I still do have my iPod Mini close by).

However, there is something I know is coming ... namely moving back to New Zealand in the Fall. The price of the 13 inch Macbook Pro in New Zealand is close to NZ$2,400 (which if you do the sums is WAY over even the price difference due to exchange rate, which is about NZ$1,900). Trust me on this, I've checked:

http://www.magnummaconline.co.nz/public/product/item.php?itemcode=APPMB990X/A

So upgrading to a current machine, which I definitely need, is out of the question back home in NZ. But even the US$1,200 that the 13 inch Macbook Pro is here is simply beyond my means, as everything funds-wise has to go towards the move back to NZ.

Hence, this utterly hedonistic blog-post of love ... think of it like a love-poem, a wish, a dream, that called and had to be put down on paper ... well, on my screen, and your screen, as I stare in love ... and hell, my friend Melissa McEwan gets to make drooling posts on Shakesville over shoes, so I figure I can do them on my blog over a Mac ... an oh-so beautiful Mac ... *sigh* but yes, she will just have to remain a dream, an entry on my amazon.com wish-list. An ode-to-Mac if you will ...

Okay, I'm just making a glancing post as I need to pop off and lecture in a couple minutes, but I couldn't let this pass:

South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford released another statement today, this time blaming her husband’s affair on the declining moral values in America.

“Of course I’m not saying that Mark is gay,” Sanford said, “but he may as well be. The moral decay in this country has claimed another victim and this time it was my family. Our marriage was perfect until these laws started passing around the country. Clearly the slow dissolution of the sanctity of marriage in America seeped into Mark’s psyche until he no longer felt compelled to abide by our vows.”

http://thediscust.com/?p=547

Okay, boys, girls, & everyone else, this is the nutjob conversative verbal version of putting a couch and Tom Cruise in the same room. Gay marriage ruined Jenny Sanford's marriage.

So, you heard it here: us queers having loving, committed, solid relationships and families made Govcernor Mark Sanford cheat. He's not responsible for his fucking his way through South America, we are.

Don't you feel awful?

I'm in my mid-30's now, so I am old enough to remember Jackson when he was merely a pop star, and how huge he was. He was so beyond the fame of anyone since that it's kinda hard to describe to those who didn't live through it how huge he was. He was loved and adored by so many, and even I had a couple of his cassette-tapes ... although I was more of a David Bowie fan.

And you know what my first reaction was after receiving texts from my friends when I left the gym yesterday afternoon was?

At least this means no other child will be included in his list of victims.

I believe the claims made by the kids. I believe them. In so many spaces where they are doubted, and their abuses are minimised or outright denied, in this space I believe them. The only reason he was found not guilty was because he could afford to purchase the legal teams to construct those verdicts.

A man who molested children died yesterday. That he made incredible music merely makes those acts in his life even more of a tragedy.

I know this opinion won't make me any friends, or be very popular, but it is how I feel.

Okay, seriously ... the weather in Chicago? Fucking insane ... I've posted pics of the damage from the storms last week? Well, this week the temps soared up along with humidity into the mid-90's (mid 30's C) with the overnight temps still in the 80's (high 20's C). Last night the gf and I spent a very sticky night, even with the air-con blowing, tossing and turning.

What the hell happened to spring? You'd think after living in Chicago for so long I'd be used to the abrupt transition between summer and winter (we joke about picking what days of the week fall and spring will fall on each year), but I'm soooooo not.

Next week we're supposed to drop down to something a tad more reasonable ... but until then, I'm going to soak up the wonder that is residential air conditioning and be outside as little as possible.

Bleh.

Though in other news ... have to wish today, to my utterly wonderful girlfriend:


HAPPY BIRTHDAY BABY!!!!!

*kiss*

Love you



(yes, I know, I'm cheesy, so sue me)

You know you're a political wonk when you get home after a few nights at your girlfriend's place to find that both telli's in your house are still tuned to MSNBC.

:)

I so have to find out how to get this channel in NZ ...

You know, I've been thinking about the situation over the past week about the aftermath of the Iranian election, and I've really been unsure about how to write about it without making it about me, and not who it is about, the Iranians.

I particularly take cue from this from President Obama. Despite my natural frustration and anger with the man over his rather obvious lack of action on LGBT civil rights, and then quite obvious pandering with his rather hollow memorandum signing earlier this week, I find that the line he has been walking has been quite excellent.

Namely, by expressing support for a transparent, open, and clear election process, and decrying suppression of protest, but not openly supporting one group, he is doing exactly what is necessary, for a number of reasons.

The most obvious thing is that by not supporting any one political force, he prevents such force from being tarred as being really support by "the great satan", which is how the US, for better or for worse, is seen there, and throughout a lot of the Islamic world, for good and bad reasons.

In other words, if he openly came out in support of the opposition, he would be undermining their cause. Hardly the kind of consequence one would want for such an action. Not to mention, such a nuance is really basic poli-sci 101. This is really basic diplomatic tradecraft.

Not that this has stopped many conservatives here in the US mind you (including one particularly such moron on the major academic faculty listserv, claiming that Obama's actions show him to be weak). They're claiming that in not openly supporting the protesters across Iran, Obama is denying the 'reality' of America's supposed mission across the world; namely supporting democracy and freedom. In other words, that Obama is undermining and lessening and what the US is supposed to stand for.

And this then brings me to the other reason why I feel that Obama is treading a fine, but very correct, line. Namely, this is about Iranians. This isn't about Americans or the US. Nor is it about Europeans. Nor the British. Or New Zealanders (however ex-pat *smile*). Not all expressions of support actually really are. One needs to make sure one's solidarity with those that would protest for their rights actually is about them, and not about oneself.

And that involves nuance and attempting to understand the specifics of what is occurring, culturally and politically, on the ground within a country.

Naturally, this is not sexy, nor easily lends itself to bluster and political sound-bites. Not that this has stopped some, mind you, which then in turn speaks volumes about those that would do so, rather than those for whom they are claiming to speak for.

Because, as far as I can tell, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the primary opposition leader, doesn't really have political positions that much different from Ahmedinejad. He is certainly more of a moderate and rational than Ahmedinejad, but that is hardly an even minimally useful yardstick to determine an objective measure of 'good'.

That said, mind you, the way Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi's wife, has been readily present throughout the campaign, something not only that wasn't a part of Ahmedianjad's approach, but is apparently not something one would see that frequently in Iranian society in general. We in the west might take such an action as something to be taken for granted, even to the point of seeing such as part of an actual denial of women's autonomy and independence. But that would be viewing such an action via a ethnocentric culturally-specific lens. Actually being present in a political sphere as a contributing agent in her own right, Rahnavard is making a very progressive statement that I cannot but admire.

Of course, one must also look to context in all this, because as one must notice, this is hardly a revolution.

I say this, because the protesters are not asking for a change in the political system, or an overhaul of their society (or, at least, the majority of protesters). In looking at the political protests in Iran, one must understand a couple things about the Iranian political situation.

Primarily, the most powerful position in Iran is not the presidency, but rather that of the most senior religious figure. This is because, since the revolution there in the 1970's (ironically enough, caused in part by the US getting overly involved in Iranian politics), Iran has been a theocracy. The power dynamics in the country are such that while the president is a CEO, the ruling religious Ayatollah is nonetheless the Chairman of the Board. This seems to be missed by many of the conservative politicians calling for the open support of Mousavi by Obama, because Mousavi is certainly not in any way calling for the removal of the theocracy in Iran at all.

Second, there is the fact that a considerably significant minority of Iranians are under the age of 30, and are not only less publicly religious than their elders, but have slowly and progressively been moving towards secular principles across Iran. In other words, you have a significant proportion of the population that has quietly moving in the direction we in the west would want for quite a while. This is readily apparently to anyone that has read about the political and cultural situation in Iran. I'm hardly going to call their movements a full-on run towards a modern pluralistic secular society, but it's a slowly evolving process towards their own version of such.

Revolutions are nasty things. By their very nature they result in people, families, groups and whole peoples being killed. That's why they tend to be things to avoid if one can. And it is apparent that the majority of people in Iran are wanting to avoid this. For both of the reasons above.

Now, this is not to say those in power don't see the huge protests as a challenge to them. It's readily obvious, even with the failing media clamp-downs, that they do see such, and I personally deplore the inhuman and uncivilised attacks on, and murders of, the protesters that the ruling elites have seen fit as to impose. If there is one thing that speaks to me of the righteousness of the protesters' cause, it was the BBC image of a Mousavi support, clad in green, supporting a bleeding police officer and carrying him away from those protesters that may have wished him ill, even though mere moments before this same police officer has stood opposite him, armed and ready.

Personally I would wish that this were a campaign against theocracy. As a queer atheist woman the idea of a theocratic society scares me like not many things on earth can. But the thing is, Iran isn't my country. Despite my skin-crawling reaction to the idea of a state ruled by any religion, it is not my country, my society, that is structured in such a way, nor is it my fellow citizens that want such.

I don't get to say what is best for Iranians. They do.

It is up to them what form their democracy takes, how they perform such, how they wish to be goverened and have their votes counted in that regard. If there is one thing we can take from the protests it is that they are not going to stay silent when they feel their political leaders cross a line they will not take. That their line will be different from my own should be a given, and a given I should, and must, respect.

Hence, I can openly support the calls for open, transparent and clear elections in Iran. Furthermore, I can openly plead for those with the real power in Iran to please do what they can to minimise deaths and bloodshed, primarily by calling off those that would use violence in their support of the state, but also by respecting those that would protest peacefully.

But, I will not presume that I know what is best for Iran, or the Iranian people. That is what is for them to decide, and they are obviously very fully capable of doing. We in the West can do this by making sure the words, deeds, and arguments made in Iran are reported, recorded and shown to the world at large. It is their voices that we need to be hearing. Their tweets, blogs, youtubes, etc. Not ours.

It is their time to lead, and our turn to support, and we in the West must particularly understand the nuance in that.

Where is our vote indeed.

So, mother nature turned up and made sure I would remember what midwestern thunderstorms were like ... this morning around 2am-5am a thunderstorm the size of the state of Michigan passed overhead and lightning strobed all over (a student of mine had a direct strike on her building, which causes sparks to fly out of her power-sockets, which she was up to see because she was trying to stop flashing flooding of her garden apartment).

Then around 11am this morning another thunderstorm struck, this time a smaller, but insanely more intense one, focused on my neighbourhood. I think the technical term is 'microburst' ... having hail, rain so heavy you can't see anything but the trees outside your apartment, trees that LITERALLY went sideways with an INCREDIBLE burst of hurricane-force winds, and naturally bucketloads of thunder and lightning. And there's another one apparently about to arrive in the next hour.

But anyway, here are some pics from the damage from this morning's microburst









Okay, going home now from Starbucks before the next insanity ...

In case you've been under a rock, two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee we captured/detained by North Korean military recently around the area of the NK border.


Euna Lee (left) & Laura Ling
They were reporting on North Korean refugees in China (although some news outlets are reporting they were focusing on trafficking of NK women into China). Reports are also fuzzy if they were detained in Chinese territory, or if they inadvertently crossed over in NK while doing their work. Either way, they were working to give voice via their media outlet, Current TV, to give voice to those that have none in their oppression.

What is clear however is what happened afterward, in that the women were put on trial in North Korea for espionage, and convicted of such in a court with no coverage, legal representation, nor chance for appeal. Needless to say they were found guilty, and sentenced to years in a North Korean gulag, a hard-labour camp, a place where the conditions are apparently inhumane.

There have been exclamations around the world, and widespread appeals for her release, from nations, organisations, and the families of the two journalists.


Journalist Lisa Ling breaks down while issuing a statement to the press about her sister.
This, of course, occurs at a moment when relations between the US and North Korea are at the most tense they have been in years (in no small part due to the atrocious diplomatic policies of the Bush administration), with NK pulling out of agreements and testing nuclear weapons and missiles. Technically the US cannot actually negotiate directly with NK on this, though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken out, condemning these acts by the North Koreans.

However, regardless of the US relationship with NK, these kinds of things are normally handled behind the scenes, particularly with a nation as politically insecure in itself as North Korea. Bluster and sabre-rattling would only result in NK puffing out its chest and like the average teenage boy overcompensating to prove their masculinity will just result in actions that will make all this worse, particularly for the two women. Not to mention, the North Koreans just recently announced the successor to dictator Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-Ong, so they are feeling particular need to 'prove' themselves and hold a hard line.

Many other nations, including NK's traditional allies, Russia and China, are working quietly behind the scenes to get the women released. Further, there is talk of the US working through a proxy like Al Gore (who runs Current TV) to negotiate and maybe give some small concessions in order to have the women released. It's not pretty, it's not black and white, it's slow and doesn't play well on TV like the camera in the nose of a 'smart'-bomb, but it works, and it's how this is always done.

Everyone is expecting the two women to be released, with the amount of international pressure virtually being something NK can't resist. Although, one need only look at Burma (Myanmar) to see that this doesn't always work. So, please do your bit and at least sign the online petition below. It's a small thing, but it's still something:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-euna-and-laura


Worldwide protests and vigils have been held for the two captured journalists.
I think there is also something that bears mention at this too that I find seems to go unmentioned ... more often than not, the journalists that we see taken captive by various groups and nations are of white ethnicity, which plays very well on the news networks in appeals for release (we see this similarly in the 'Missing White Girl Syndrome').

But these are two women of colour, and as my girlfriend, who is Asian-American, reminds me from time to time, that matters to those who see themselves in such women. To have the international community of nations speaking out loudly about this, as well as doing the necessary work behind the scenes, seeing them on the screen as women not only doing their jobs, but working for others, and then having the world step up for them, for their rights, this is an amazing thing.

Nonetheless, my thoughts are with the families of these two women, and the agonies they must be going through.

Please do whatever you can.

Dear Right Wing,

Can we please stop describing Obama as some variety on "left wing radical"? Please?

I say this, because as a solid left-winger here in America (which, ironically, puts me just a little left-of-centre in the rest of the western world), I would DREAM of having a "left wing radical" as President of the country in which I live. Trust me, I know from the serious left-wing, and Obama is no left-winger.

The man is centrist. Seriously, he is. His policies, his approaches, his picks for his administration are all HIGHLY centrist. And yes, that includes Sotomayor (and btw, would it kill you to just once pronounce that correctly? And yes, your social identity DOES bloody well impact how you see the world, get your heads out of your collective arse). I can't count how many times I've hit my head against my laptop screen over his choices.

Don't get me wrong, I'd still have him much more than Shrub, or certainly McCain, but as a firmly located left-winger, I will unilaterally say here that the man is way off to the right of me politically.

So, please stop? It just makes you look like idiots.

Thanks.

After the death of Dr George Tiller, many anti-choice groups are claiming that they abhor the killing of this man even as they opposed what Dr. Tiller did ... divesting any possible connection to the terrorism of the act. I vehemently disagree, and this is aside from how their language connects them.

I’ve stood outside women’s clinics and done clinic escorting, I’ve seen the looks of fear on the faces of women as they duck down to avoid the harassment of the anti-choice ‘protesters’.

I’ve seen these ‘protesters’ repeatedly and flagrantly break federal and state laws to confuse, lie to, and mislead women driving into women’s clinics.

I’ve seen these ‘protesters’ purposefully wear outfits similar to ours in order to appear to be working for a clinic, I’ve seen them use props to seem official, I’ve seen and heard them scream harassment across parking lots, over hundreds of feet from them.

I’ve seen these ‘protesters’ set up video recording equipment, not to record because that is illegal and has been banned, but without recording materials in them, so that it’s obvious their only intent is to intimidate.

I’ve heard my name used by these people after I had been doing clinic escorting for a short while, as well as them knowing details of where I was from, what and where I was doing my doctorate, etc ... and they said it amongst themselves loud enough so that they made sure we could hear.

Even the ones that don’t go after those providing reproductive services wielding guns, bombs, etc aren’t like protesters that protest other things they are trying to get changed. If they were, they would be outside political entities, outside congress-people, outside the White House. No, these ‘protesters’ stand outside hospitals and health centres, clinics and providers. They actively try to harass, intimidate, guilt-trip, etc both the women accessing necessary services, and the health-provision providing them.

They aren’t protesters, they are specifically here to generate fear and scare people away. They may not kill directly, but they are most emphatically are using fear to cower people into achieving their political ends, to impose their worldview on everyone around them.

And that’s terrorism ... it doesn’t always require a bomb or gun to achieve such, but that’s only a small step from the fundamentally similar ways they act.

Oh, and I only stopped clinic escorting when where I had been doing such didn’t need us anymore, as the protesters had given up ... I’m wondering if they may be needing us back again soon.

Update:
I had posted a version of this post as a comment at one of the big feminist blogs, and it got picked up and elevated ... how about that then?
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/the_non_violent_anti_abortion_activists/

Earlier today, a doctor was gunned down, in his church, because he provided necessary, and often life-saving, medical services to women.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/
In Wichita, Kansas Dr George Tiller provided, amongst other things, late-term abortion services, as well as regular abortion provisions and a range of other reproductive options. He had done this for years, in the face of threats, etc from the so-called 'pro-life' anti-choice nutjobs. He did what he could for women.

But this morning this husband, father of four, and grandparent of ten, was murdered in an act of terrorism as he served as an usher in his church's sunday services by an anti-choice terrorist.

Now, of course, naturally none of the major news networks are labelling this what it is; terrorism. But this is of course what it is. An act of terrorism, one that all 'pro-life' people are complicit in.

And I say such without hyperbole, consciously.

I say that because by pushing and pushing and pushing to have abortion framed as a 'moral' issue of "ZOMG, SAVING TEH BABIEZ!!!11!!" it is not, they have encouraged those that then use this artificially binarised moral construction as justification for performing the obvious result. By not allowing for anything other than right and wrong, good and evil in their absolutist singular framing of abortion, every single pro-life person out there has a hand, however small, in the murder of this giving man.

There is a reason we call ourselves 'pro-choice', and it's not to paint ourselves in a good light. It's because the act itself is not what we concern ourselves with; we focus on the ability of individual women to make their own moral decision about what is right and necessary for them when it comes to their reproduction. It becomes an act of individual morality, individual right and wrong. You can scream about the murder of foetuses, about mythical babies, all you want, but all you are really doing is imposing your morality on someone else's bodily autonomy. And in such, providing the justification for those that would do such with lethal force.

In case you're thinking I'm exaggerating, here is the reaction from the contradictorily-named 'Operation Rescue' organisation:

George Tiller was a Mass-Murderer, says Randall Terry -- We Grieve That he Did Not Have Time to Properly Prepare his Soul to Face God

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, led protests against George Tiller's late-term abortion clinic in Wichita in 1991.

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue states, "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.

"Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

Btw, the terrorist, the murderer, was a member of Operation Rescue.

Think about that as a family loses it's husband, father and grandfather ... and women in Kansas loose an advocate.

Do you contribute to this, or do you work to prevent this?

So, finally I get to put down my specific thoughts on the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition (H)8 ... sorry for the delay, but I've been kinda busy, not to mention I wanted to get my thoughts in order.


To those who haven't been following things, on tuesday this week, the California State Supreme Court announced it's ruling upholding Proposition 8, the voter referendum that denied the right of same-sex couples to legally wed in California, although in that ruling they also found that the 18,000-odd same-sex marriages that had taken place prior to the referendum were nonetheless valid.

Confusing? You're not the only one scratching their head on this.

The ruling was whether or not Prop 8 was a revision to the constitution or an amendment, and hence required oversight by the legislature before going to referendum.I disagree with the ruling because I would argue that Prop 8 was indeed a revision. The court had last year found that equality under the law, including the right of marriage, did exist in the CA state constitution for LGBT individuals ... hell, they actually found provision to recognise LGBT as a minority group on par with other minority groups. Hence, a proposition removing such is not merely an addition to the constitution (ie an amendment), but an actual change of meaning (ie a revision).

The defence against this, the court seems to say, is that because this doesn't effect a significant minority of CA citizens, it such doesn't constitute a significant enough of a change to be considered a revision. I can only presume that this is a defence against the charge that a similar proposition could be used to remove the rights of women, or of ethnic minorities. Particularly, the court's meaning of narrow was actually referring to nomenclature, or more specifically, the difference between the term 'marriage' and 'civil union'. In other words, the court stripped the amendment of any validity it had outside of merely referring to the term marriage ... ie all other forms of recognising same-sex relationships were still valid.

However, that said, I hardly think nomenclature would have been seen to be a narrow concern should it have referred to larger minority groups. Had this been based on gender, or ethnicity or race, then the separate-but-equal fallacy would have been acknowledged as such, I would argue. Only when the group in question is perceived as not such a large percentage of the population does this argument hold weight. Which is ironic given it is the opposite that should be true ... ie we should be MORE aware of ensuring equality the smaller a group is.

Now, I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, and as a lesbian I will totally admit to a having a horse in this race ... but it seems to me that the CA supreme court has tied itself around in a legal pretzel in order to not actually do anything to change the status quo ... it may be technically legally justified, but it's really just BAD LAW, and way over convoluted. Hence your above head-scratching.

On a personal moral level, and a tad separate, I personally think it is fundamentally wrong for the majority to be able to vote on the rights of a minority by simple ballot measure and numerical majority. This is why we live in a republic with supposed protections against such, not strict democratic mob-rule. Voting on people's rights is not the way a modern, pluralistic, civilised society should act.

Nothing but bigotry won on tuesday ... and particularly so, because the original plan had been to release this decision last thursday, until it was pointed out to the Court that thursday last week was the anniversary of the slap-on-the-wrist sentencing of Dan White ... the murderer of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician of any high office in the US. They changed the release date to this past tuesday.

This should tell you something about the decision. Yes, the push is on to have Prop H8 overturned by referendum next year, 2010, during the midterm elections here in the US in November, and the chances are by the statistics on voting for same-sex marriage, that we, and the forces of equality and humanity, will win.

But we shouldn't have to. We shouldn't have to.

Okay, first off I wanted to link through to this beautiful post opposing this week's court decision on Prop H8 on another blog:

http://libba-bray.livejournal.com/48582.html

There is nothing wrong with you

There is nothing wrong with you. There is nothing wrong with you. There is nothing wrong with you.

Yes, that statement resonates with anyone who has ever felt lost, out of the mainstream, a step ahead or beat behind. Keep that feeling—it is the root of compassion, of empathy. It is what joins us to others and reminds us that we are all fragile and searching and in need of one another. But now let’s move on to the specific: There is nothing wrong with being gay. There is nothing wrong with the way you love

Do go read the rest please, it is quite wonderful ... however, there is one thing I do disagree with, and that's her plea to be respectful of each other's views. Now, it's her blog and so it is her rules, but I do not agree with that at all ... don't think we should be so forgiving to those that oppose same-sex marriage. There are no non-religious rational reasons for opposing SSM. All the scientific evidence in the world shows gay and lesbian relationships and families are exactly the same as straight relationships and families.

So, to oppose SSM is to say "I don't care what all reality, reason, science and rationality say, I don't like it". Which is bigotry, plain and simple, regardless of where it comes from.

The religious arguments are superfluous, because we don't live in a theocracy. If you believe that gay and lesbian relationships are wrong and sinful, go ahead, I can't and won't stop you. You can believe that I, as a lesbian, along with my wonderful girlfriend, are going to hell as much as you want. If you think your religion should not sanctify gay and lesbian unions, then that is your right.

However, where you rights end is imposing your religion on me, my family, my friends and loved ones. Your religion and beliefs dictate how your church practices, but if you want to have something change in society, you must make that argument based on reason and rationality. I'm not saying this because I think faith or belief are wrong either, because I don't ... my girlfriend is a church-going and god-loving Christian, and very proud and open about that, as much as she is about being gay ... why would I hate something that brings her so much joy and love, and means so much to her?

So, if religion is extraneous to the discussion, and there are no rational reason for opposing SSM, then we must not treat those who oppose SSM as someone worthy of respect in those bigoted beliefs. In feigning respect we merely validate their bigotry, and validate the denial of equal rights. We would not respect those that would oppose interracial marriage, yet precisely the same arguments are made when it comes to opposing our equal rights.

I'm not saying be rude or nasty to them ... but these are people voting against our equal civil rights, and we want to take nothing from them at all. These are not equivalent arguments, and we should not validate their imposition of their beliefs on us as somehow something at all worthy.

Epic. Fucking. Fail.





(I'll write more later, right now I'm just fucking pissed off)

... after cuddling with my gf & she leaving for her apartment, I come across this:



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/fashion/weddings/24VOWS.html
As my friend keori said "The terrifying face of marriage equality"

Coffee was all Kate Adamick had in mind for her blind date with Kay Diaz. So Ms. Adamick did not anticipate proposing marriage. Especially not before their second date.

The two women were introduced Feb. 4, 2008, via an e-mail message from their mutual friend, Jim Rogers, the New York State deputy attorney general in the social justice division, for which Ms. Diaz, 45, is a senior trial counsel.

“I’m no yenta, but I think this is going to work,” Ms. Adamick said Mr. Rogers told her in a phone call.

It was the first time Ms. Adamick, 47, was fixed up by a straight man, she said. “I don’t know why I didn’t think of that sooner. Who else would know best what to look for in a woman?”

The terrifying face of marriage equality indeed ... because this IS what the bigots are scared of, that everyone will see and realise that our love is no different than that of straights, that we are just as loving in our wonderful beautiful boring everyday-ness.

Congratulations to Ms Diaz & Ms Adamick, may their love be long and joyous ...

Check this out:

http://www.wowowow.com/relationships/dear-margo-howard-religious-fanatics-cooking-family-advice-302443

A mother who is a religious fanatic and all-around nutjob, with a husband who appears to be similar, if not more so, wrote to the relationship counsellor 'Margo', asking about her daughter:

Dear Margo: Our daughter started college a year ago, and we’ve noticed during her visits home that she’s not the sweet, innocent girl we sent away for higher learning. We raised her with strong Christian beliefs, but lately she’s saying that she’s joined an atheist club on campus and is questioning everything we taught her. Now my husband refuses to let her in the house and is threatening to turn her in to the FBI. I’ve tried to cure our daughter and reconcile with her, but nothing seems to work. I’ve prayed over her at night while she sleeps, enlisted friends in a phone prayer tree and even spoken to my priest about the possibility of an exorcism. I’m at my wits’ end. How can I recover my daughter and keep her from hell? — God-fearing

To which, Margo replied:

Dear God: Whoa, dear. While I am sympathetic to anyone’s devotion to their religion, you need to realize that your daughter is a sentient being with the right to reject your religious views if she so chooses. Your husband is pathetically misguided if he thinks he can call the FBI to report the "crime" of your daughter joining an atheists club. Ditto for the exorcism. This young woman is not possessed, demonic or doing weird things; she is merely thinking and questioning the religion she grew up with. I would encourage you to understand that all people, your daughter included, have the right to think for themselves, particularly about something as meaningful as religion. As for hell, well, she appears willing to take her chances. — Margo, contemplatively.

I have to say, though, I think Margo is asking the tide to not come in a tad here. I mean, these people are obviously fundamentalists, people that intrinsically detest critical thinking, or even any independent thinking of any stripe. Fundamentalism, at it's core, focuses on a literal reading of their (whichever) religious text (yes, I know, reading as-literal a text that has been miscopied, mistranslated, and voted on content-wise by committee, over a couple thousand years, is about as incredibly stupid a thing as can be done) ... hence "fundamental".

Thus, applying critical thinking, questioning, investigating, etc, outside of the bounds of the accepted dogmatic interpretation of the church, is an anathema to the very core of the religion "God-fearing" and her husband slave themselves to (hell, the core of "god-fearing", as a good thing, should be a bit of a warning in that respect at the very least).

What the daughter in this scenario is doing is something fairly typical that one knows of as a sociologist. To question the meaning-giving systems in which you were raised, and/or have spent considerable time and investment in, it is not enough to merely come across evidence challenging them. In fact, one will cling to a meaning-giving system (called a 'frame') for a long long time, in the face of considerable science, fact, and evidence, before one change's one mind. This is because of the amount of self that is intertwined in that system, so when one questions the system, one is questioning one's self.

But eventually, when one gets enough evidence, enough information, to the point where it is simply incontrovertible and overwhelming and one cannot explain away or shut one's eyes, one will change one's position. This often takes an immersion in a space where culturally the meaning-giving systems are quite different, exposing one to a number of different ways of seeing things. This will often happen at university/college, where for many students they are exposed for the first time to ethnic diversity, or even such basics as critical thinking (which, is a skill to be learnt, just like everything). For many college/university students, their undergraduate years are a period of thinking for themselves and figuring out how their self fits with such.

And naturally, you see this in the above, where out from under the rigid and tight controls of her parents and their grip on information and perspective, the daughter is questioning and learning about the world for the first time. And naturally, from the world-view of her parents, this "thinking" is horrendous.

Because it's not merely about thinking differently that scares her mother, it's thinking itself. If their belief system was robust and strong, you'd think the mother wouldn't worry about her questioning things. But acknowledging different perspectives is tantamount to saying that there isn't one singular Truth, and that, rightly so, terrifies them. They're not different from fundamentalists of any ilk.

Margo is obviously coming from a perspective of pluralism, but this mother really won't get that. Her response will be thinking Margo really doesn't "get" how bad this is, or worse yet, is part of the satan-fueled hell that is pulling at her daughter. I'm actually scared that Margo's response, despite being intelligent, measured, compromising, etc, will actually push this woman into something more serious against her daughter.

These kind of religious beliefs are a blight on humanity.

Driving down Lakeshore Drive ... a brand new X-Type Jag with the licence/number plate "THXSGOD" might just be missing the point of their deity's message a tad.

Is it wrong to wonder why your mother's birthday present costs more to ship to NZ than it does in actual price?

How weird is it that your pillow talk involves your gf using the correct terms for governmental bill procedures, and you find it insanely attractive? Might one be a politics junkie?

It appears the scooters in my neighbourhood may have bred over the winter months, because they seem to have multiplied ... to whit, I can only say "waaaahhhh, I soooo want one!"

You know you've turned into a measure of that cutesy couple everyone wants to hose down, when your girlfriend thinks the way you put the trash into the rubbish bin was cute ... and yet, you don't care in the slightest.

You know, given the imploding cluster-fuck that the GOP is right now, I think this is particularly apt.

Not to mention, from the people I saw attending the tea party I saw, well, this is then apt AND highly accurate (aside from age and sexiness though).

At least, one would HOPE he would ...