From a NY Times article published Saturday. Link below.

This is one of the best NY Times articles I’ve read in years, a behind the scenes description of how Cuomo, working with some Wall Street conservatives who donate to politics, as well as a tightly organized coalition of gay rights organizations, got the issue through. I am putting this up mainly for those who have some aspiration of accomplishing anything through politics. It’s always the same. You have to build a coalition to stand up against the chickenshits who will only vote the party line. Then, it’s history. I mean that literally: all the former opponents disappear into the mists of time, the better to be forgotten.

To the Justices of California’s Supreme Court:

This is a joint letter from a heterosexual woman and a gay woman. We’re writing today as sisters for a cause.

As a straight woman and a woman of color, it was unnervingВ for me to watch yesterday’s proceedings in the state’s Supreme Court, hearing the arguments to overturn Proposition 8. My sense of unease was not because I felt in any way that testing the constitutional limits of what the voters approved was wrong. It was because we were trying the constitutionality of a referendum that should never have happened in the first place.

I am the child of immigrants. A first generation American born and raised in California. More than 10 years before I was born, my uncle and aunt had to cross the state’s border to get married. He was Filipino and my aunt a Caucasian woman from Arkansas. Anti-miscegenation laws prevented them from being married in California.

Fortunately, with the repeal of miscegenation laws, first in the state and thenВ across the country, their marriage was validated. They stayed married for nearly 60 yearsВ separated only by death, less than a year apart. What makes my uncle and aunt’s desire to be married in the days of state’s miscegenation laws is no different than what same-sex couples are contending with Defense of Marriage laws across the country. What gives the states the right to dictate who gets to marry?

In yesterday’s Prop 8 hearing, Ken Starr argued that the people have the right to dictate who gets to marry whom. The rule of the people is “sovereign,” he stated, “even when they are unwise.” Even if they vote to take away the rights of all minorities, the Supreme Court should not intervene. Unless the ruling would enact “far reaching change in the structure of government,” California’s Supreme Court cannot get involved. With this perspective, it would be perfectly legal to impose, with a majority ballot vote: slavery in California, segregation, internment camps, anti-miscegenation laws, job discrimination based on race, ethnicity or gender — the list goes on.

“Every civil rights group sided [with same-sex couples and LGBT advocacy groups],” Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund explained in last night’s teleconference.

Continue Reading »

Dear Friend and Reader,

After spending most of the day taking furious notes and listening to attorneys hash out the biggest civil rights issue of my generation — the rights of GLBT citizens of this country — I want to reflect, but am just too wrecked to process it all right now. So instead, I’ll provide a rundown of what transpired today, to the best of my ability, and will save the analysis for another day.

Terry Stewart, representing the city and county of San Francisco, presenting her rebuttal to overturn Proposition 8. "If the people seek to take a right that’s fundamental away from a suspect class, the court has recognized that when the majority takes away rights that don’t apply to itself -- when the court sees a law like that -- then the court applies a kind of heightened scrutiny."

There were five people who presented their positions in court today: Shannon Minter, the head attorney in favor of marriage equality; Ray Marshall, a friend of the court, former state bar president and representation for many civil rights groups (NAACP, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, et al.); Mike Morocco, representing a private couple; Terry Stewart, representing the city and county of San Francisco; Chris Kreuger, representing Attorney General Jerry Brown; and Ken Starr, representing supporters of Proposition 8.

While I presumed that today’s primary argument would be regarding amendment and revision: whether Proposition 8 was serious enough that it should have gone through the courts, there was much more discussion around what the spirit of California’s constitution is really about, what direction previous state supreme court justices leaned towards in their decisions about constitutional changes, and whether that direction should be followed.

As Jenny Pizer of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund described during today’s teleconference:

The SupremeВ Court’s decision will tell us something about the initiative process that we did not know before…We’re plowing some fresh fields…[questioning] the basic constitutional principles: what is the constitution for, what does balanced government mean? [Today's arguments were] creative and persuasive because it’s a new area.

Continue Reading »

Dear Friend and Reader:

As Mars and Chiron move towards an exact conjunction in Aquarius today, we’re watching the build up in a courtroom drama on marriage equality in the state of California. В It is of no small import that Mars, the planet governing sex is hooking up with Chiron, the planet of mavericks, in the sign of Aquarius, the sign of revolution, individual freedom and its expression. The hearingВ began 9:00 am PST today at the State Supreme Court in San Francisco.

As Rachel reported earlier this week, opponents of gay marriage attempted againВ to stop same-sex couples from marrying through the state’s voter initiative process with passage of Proposition 8, a measureВ which would define marriage solely as a bond between a man and woman. On Tuesday, both the CaliforniaВ State Assembly and Senate approved State Senator Mark Leno’s Senate Resolution 7 which opposes Proposition 8.

Yesterday, State Attorney General Jerry Brown posted a diary on Daily Kos, summarizing his opinion on Proposition 8′s constitutionality, excerpted below:

As California’s Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 … because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.

…Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights” and “among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Continue Reading »

(Note, that is noon to 3 pm EST.)

Dear Friend and Reader:

The Proposition 8 oral arguments will be heard in California’s Supreme Court today, streaming live from The California Channel. Fe Bongolan is in San Francisco and will be reporting back with some firsthand views.

I’ll be writing in after 6 pm EST, with my reflections on the hearing and Lambda Legal’s member’s teleconference. Lambda Legal is part of the Strauss v. Horton case, and the team is making themselves available to answer questions about Prop 8 and the hearing.

–Rachel Asher

Editor’s Note: The following article was written for Daily Astrology and Adventure in October, when I analyzed the philosophy behind the gay marriage debate. I’d like to revisit the topic tonight, as tomorrow morning in California, the Proposition 8 hearings will be held. It’s difficult and frustrating for both sides to understand each other, and part of this is because of how we prioritize morals and values. In the article below, I examine this divide, and have a look at what we’re really fighting over in the debate over marriage equality. –RAВ

Dear Friend and Reader,

Last night, I watched a talk about the battle between good and evil, and it had nothing to do with Star Wars. It was about the differences between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, exploring what that essential thing is that divides us.

The Garden of Earthly Delights: Triptych 1. Hieronymus Bosch, 1503-4.

Conveniently, psychologist Jonathan Haidt provides us with a fairly simple answer. There are five primary moral issues that are innate to all humanity, across all cultures, and while conservatives prioritize all five of them, liberals only find two to be highly important.

The five are: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity. Liberals only find the first two issues to be important, and this is the primary aspect that divides us. Conservatives care about tradition, order, history. Liberals care about equality, open-mindedness, change.

When we’re confronted with these basic differences in how our minds order things, it’s easy to see why the opposing mentalities butt heads. If you’re in favor of gay marriage, for example, because you believe that the LGBT community should have the same rights as everyone else, you’re arguing in favor of fairness/reciprocity: we’re all in this together, we have to help those that are underprivileged.

Also, you may say that the lack of marriage rights is harmful to gay couples: they aren’t guaranteed rights to make emergency decisions, child care rights or even the rights to inherit their homes if a partner dies. This is a harm/care position. If these are your debate points, you’re a liberal.

But the fairness angle doesn’t work with a conservative, because ingroup/loyalty is a factor: I’m straight, I have to take care of my own first, as is authority: my church and my government say gay marriage is bad, and I have to defer to their judgement and purity: this is the official word of god, and marriage law was originally created for the union between a man and a woman.

We’re working on two different planes, parallel lines that could stretch to the Moon and back without meeting.

Haidt describes the opposing forces as complimentary, like Yin and Yang, balancing each other out and preventing us (ideally) from complete chaos or well, you know, fascism.

So today I’m putting on my Dalai Lama costume, and I’m trying to understand those freaks in California that have been praying for Proposition 8, to overturn gay marriage. And on hold for another day, I’ve got a bone to pick with South Dakota and their modified abortion ban that’s up for a re-vote. (Sorry, sorry: I’ve barely started and I’ve already lost my objectivity.)

Continue Reading »

Dear Friend and Reader,

Yesterday morning, the State Senate and Assembly of California passedВ Resolution 7, introduced by Senator Mark Leno and Equality California, which states their opposition to Proposition 8. This is the strongest message a state congress can possibly send.

California Congress’ primary argument against the proposition that banned same-sex marriage in California is that it usurped the standard legislative process. To alter the Constitution in California, which Proposition 8 did by changing the definition of marriage, certain procedures must be followed. These procedures are outlined in Article XVIII.

Article XVIII describes how to revise the California state constitution. It states that the change must originate in the state legislature, and be approved in both houses by a 2/3 majority. After this, the revision can be brought up for a vote.

By skipping this important step in the legislative process, theВ Proposition 8 В vote circumvented whole system of checks and balances that California law relies on.

This all seems straightforward enough, but it’s actually a cover for the massive semantic argument occurring in the Golden state. William Eskridge, who is the Bono of gay and gender-related legislation and theory, explained the debate in his amicus curiae brief againstВ Prop 8: [an amicus curiae is a paper that can assist the court in a legal proceeding, provided the person is not directly involved in the case.] You can read Eskridge’s brief here, in pdf form.

It all comes down to two words and their shaky definitions: revision and amendment. A constitutional revision is a big deal: it makes a substantial change to existing law and has to go through the process described in Article VIII, while an amendment is less significant: it’s a clarification or a slight tweak, and can be changed with a public vote.

Continue Reading »

Dear Friend and Reader,

After millions of dollars in campaign contributions, days of protests and miles of writing, the California Supreme Court will hear three arguments to overturn Proposition 8 and return the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. The hearing will take place this Thursday, March 5, from 9 am to 12 pm PT.

For those of you who are jumping in in the middle, California’s fight for marriage equality has been in the courts and on the ballot since 2000. That was the year George Bush was elected for the first time, the Uniting American Families Act was first introduced to the House of Representatives and a conservative group put Prop 22 on the California ballot.

Proposition 22 took the loophole out of California’s marriage law on March 7, 2000. Before then, marriage was defined within the state as “between a man and a woman,” but included a clause that recognized all legal marriages performed in other states. In other words, it opened up the possibility to get same-sex married somewhere else, and have it recognized in California. (New York State currently has a provision like that, thanks to Gov. Paterson.)

The proposition was approved by an obvious majority:В 61.4% in favor and 38.6% against. Since then, marriage equality advocates worked to get the proposition overturned.

Continue Reading »

I’ve looked for sexual stimulation from outside sources since I had my first orgasm at 12, when my best friend ventured down to my vagina and didn’t come up for two hours. I’ve been chasing that orgasm ever since; first, from a foot massager I got as a present for Chanukah and, soon after that, I was on the family computer printing off erotic writing surreptitiously. I would scurry up to my bedroom with five pages at a time, nervous, flushed and excited to read the new stories, hoping I caught a good one with the limited time I had to scan it on the screen.

Christine from the Book of Blue. Photo by Eric Francis.

There was one story in particular that I kept crumbled between the wall and the frame of my metal trundle bed. It was about a girl who went out in the middle of the night to buy cigarettes from the 7-Eleven across the street. It was pouring rain, and all she had on was a long white tank top, which soon became sheer, leaving her the sole participant in the parking lot’s wet t-shirt contest. Out of the shadows, five men appeared and took their turns with her, touching her and jerking off and fucking her. I loved this story, and would remember every so often that it was there, pull it out and read those last few sentences: the culmination of the gang bang, over and over again until I climaxed.

This all occurred before I had my own computer and discovered video, before I really knew what feminism was and how much it would complicate and enrich my life in the future, before I knew I was gay. I was just a happy, porn reading, vibrator-using, masturbating adolescent. Then feminist politics came along and started teasing me, turning my seemingly innocent masturbation tools around. At first it was just a slight jolt, like the spinning teacups at the county fair. But feminism has a way of reconfiguring things, questioning the power inherent in every aspect of our lives in a wonderfully challenging and frustrating way; and eventually, I was on a ride that more closely resembled the Batman rollercoaster.

Continue Reading…

Dear Friend and Reader,

Today is a big day for civil rights: not only is it Abe Lincoln’s 200th birthday and the NAACP’s centennial anniversary, but it’s also LGBT strategy week:В the chess board is out and our pawns are advancing.

Photo by Rachel Asher.

This week, leading up to Valentine’s Day, is the 12th annual Freedom to Marry Week, where supporters of marriage equality can participate in nation-wide events. This morning,В same-sex couples went to city councils to apply for marriage licenses in states that don’t permit same-sex marriage. Tensions were particularly high in California because of Prop 8, but also in New York State, where Gov. Paterson has issued a directive to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, without making any moves towards actually legalizing it in New York.

On Feb. 6, VermontВ Representatives Mark Larson and David Zuckerman introduced a bill for same-sex marriage to the state legislature. While lawmakers are expecting “tripartisan support” of the bill, the House Speaker, Shap Smith, questions whether the bill will pass this year.

In national news, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) was introduced to the House of Representatives today by Congressman Jarrold Nadler and 52 co-sponsors. UAFA would change American immigration law to include “permanent partners” in addition to heterosexual spouses. Currently, there are over 40,000 binational same-sex couples in the US who are struggling to remain in the country through student visas and a dwindling number of work permits (and employment opportunities) available.

Continue Reading »