Back when CA Supreme Court was ruling on the procedural legality of Prop. 8, I wrote,

This decision will be a ruling once more on our humanity, on our dignity and our worth as equal human beings. Yes, the ruling is about marriage rights, but it’s apparent from looking at the ads and rhetoric of the anti-marriage equality side that the issue at hand is much broader. Are GLBTQI people indeed people, or are we monsters? By virtue of our nature, do we deserve to be shoved into the closet and hidden away so that we don’t corrupt the minds of (assumed to be straight) little children with our existence? Are our lives political footballs to be punted around for points until the election’s over and we’re told to just wait a little longer, our expectations are unreasonable and our demands unimportant? …

I love this city and I love this state, but if the government decides once again that I do not have the rights to equality that are inherent to me by virtue of my humanity, if it decides once again to codify my second-class status into law, not content to leave it unspoken, assumed, and societally enforced, what place will there be for me here? [May 2009]

The court has ruled, and it stripped all the “concern for the children” and “sanctity of marriage” horseshit away from Prop. 8 and exposed its truth, that it was a bigoted attempt to legally classify queer people as inferior to straight people. In the conclusion to his ruling, Judge Walker wrote,

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

This decision was a ruling on our humanity, on our dignity and our worth as equal human beings, and it affirmed that we are indeed people, who have the right to live and love in public. For once, we weren’t told that we had to wait a little longer–the importance of our demands was acknowledged and they were treated as a serious question of law.

I honestly didn’t think this day would come until the Supreme Court took up the case–and I wasn’t confident that they’d rule in support of equality. The composition of the Court is too close. I was still going to try, of course, and was briefly involved in an effort to put a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot for 2010, and would have supported it in 2012. This decision, though, circumvents all of the time, money, and labor that another ballot initiative would have required, and it’s an affirmation that the court system can work as it ought to. Thank god.

There’s a rally this evening at Castro, and a march from there to City Hall. I recall the last time I marched down Market Street for GLBTQI rights, a few nights after the 2008 election. What a relief and what a joy it’ll be to march in celebration tonight.

So this rule is nothing less than an attack on women who are already vulnerable and whose health is already at risk. “Endangering the life of the woman” is not the same as exceptions for “physical or mental health,” and I couldn’t find the text of the HHS rule to see if it includes exceptions for fetal abnormalities that would prevent the fetus from surviving birth, either. This rule bars women from buying insurance policies that cover abortion, even if they use their own damned money. This is an attack on women’s rights and their independence, and is a statement from the White House saying that they do not trust women to make deeply personal medical decisions. You know how Republicans and conservatives shriek about Big Government making decisions for people? This is precisely an example of the government doing just that, except that it’s a position that Republicans and conservatives espouse in this instance. The irony, it kills me. No, wait, it doesn’t kill me, a healthy, employed, middle-class woman–it kills poor women, sick women, and unemployed women.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund: Send a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services

ACLU Press Release with more info

Please write to your senators, your representatives, and the White House and ask them to stand up for womens’ rights and repeal the HHS rule. Midterm elections are in three months, so let’s remind our elected officials that we’re watching them and we expect them to uphold womens’ rights.

Please spread the word; the HHS rule is getting distressingly little publicity in the news.

On the other hand, I occasionally see news article about how there are too many Asians at X Bastion of White Privilege. In other words, I shouldn’t have kids because they’ll outperform white kids and steal the university seats and jobs that they are entitled to.

Here’s a cluebus: kids are not footsoldiers in a demographic war, no matter what side you’re on. To suggest that they are shows deep prejudices about the “right sort of people” that you ought to reexamine. See also: eugenics. Furthermore, it should not be stated or implied that the most important contribution that women can make for the advancement of society is give birth to and raise children. It is insulting and sexist and devalues the contributions that women themselves can make to society.*

I don’t want to have kids, therefore, you shouldn’t want me to have kids, either. What I do want is a stronger social safety net; affordable contraception and health care; better public education; and gender equality so that men can’t coerce women into pregnancy (more info on reproductive coercion); women faced with unwanted pregnancies have genuinely feasible options available to them; and kids can get good educations regardless of their class.

*ETA: This statement is not about mai’a's post “ain’t i a mama” at Feministe; I made this post a few hours before I read that one.

5/22
2 out of service Translink card readers (bus)
45 fucking minutes to get from the Mission to Russian Hill, courtesy of the Black & White Ball blocking Van Ness between Hayes and McAllister.

*ahem* Got distracted there for a minute from the point of the post, which was to ask y’all what books you’d recommend for 101-style anti-oppression reading. We’ve got a book club of two, essentially, and we’re starting with Backlash and then Whipping Girl, and I’d also like to read some bell hooks this summer. I’m looking for books on feminism, queer theory, trans rights, anti-racism, classism, and disability activism. Ideally, they would be intersectional, or at least operate that way when read in conjunction with one another. What do you suggest?

In response, I wrote an email to my representative; I urge you to write to yours (find them here), as well as to Pelosi in her capacity as Speaker of the House (contact link).

Dear Rep. Pelosi,

I am emailing you to urge you to support a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that will fully protect the rights of transgendered individuals. Transgendered people are vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, and outright violence in our society for no reason other than their gender identity, and it is up to our government to take a stand in defense of their civil rights by passing an ENDA that includes their rights as well as the rights of GLBQI people. I was appalled by Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) transphobic comments about trans people, which were reported in RollCall on Monday:

“He said concessions were made in the drafting of the language to address moderates’ concerns. For instance, Frank said, transgender people with “one set of genitals” would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.

And, Frank said, they also would have to have a “consistent gender presentation” in order to be able to sue for discrimination.

“They can’t sit there with a full beard and a dress,” Frank said.”

Those remarks call upon damaging and fearmongering stereotypes of transgendered people. Instead, I urge you to support a fully inclusive ENDA.

Sincerely,
[PD]

From the LA Times:

The trip marks the president’s third visit to Southern California since he took office, and it was not without some drama.. The initial minutes of his speech were interrupted by hecklers screaming that the president had not moved quickly enough to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the Clinton-era rule governing gays in the military.

“It’s time for equality for all Americans,” one woman said.

Obama repeatedly told the protester that he and Boxer agreed.

“But let me say this, when you’ve got an ally like Barbara Boxer and you’ve got an ally like me who are standing for same thing, then you don’t know exactly why you’ve got to holler because we already hear you,” he responded. “It would have made more sense to holler that at the people who oppose it.”

Obama is scheduled to leave Los Angeles early Tuesday, White House officials said.

I say good on the hecklers for bringing the issue directly to Obama’s attention in a forum where he couldn’t ignore them.

Some examples of the last category: dating a feminist is impossible

Oh, I’m sorry that you find it difficult to date someone who believes that people of all gender identities are equal. Wait, no, I’m not–I’m sorry for your +1, who is most certainly better off without you.

feminists ruin marr[iage]

What are you, a Quiverfull proponent? Try this on for size.