Presenting Gender Binary in Graph Form

One doesn’t have to be a strict constructionalist to see that this sort of concept could present problems for anyone who isn’t 100% male/man/boy or 100% female/woman/girl.

Still as a binary but not so strict a binary.  Still part of the men are from Mars Women are from Venus social construct.

This isn’t what Dr. Benjamin described and it isn’t what Anne Fausto-Sterling has in mind yet either of these two graphs represent how ever crudely the idea of what a gender/sex binary graphs out as.

A lot of the girl brains/boy brains stuff is pretty reactionary with a strong streak of misogyny.

But it is also pretty problematic for transgender/transsexual/intersex people because no matter if you call it core sex identity or core gender identity we fall somewhere in-between any sort of graphing that describes a binary.

Further biologically both sexes share almost all physical structures and those that we don’t often had a common origin.

Will Republicans echo the AFA’s campaign to impeach Prop. 8 judge?

The Asshat Fascist Association…  Ooops… American Family Association…  Do these bigoted morons have enough neurons still firing to realize how ironic their colonization of the word “Family” is?  Not to mention their un-American appropriation of “American” as an adjective to describe their Confederate based perverted values.

From Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/06/american_family_association_walker/index.html

A right-wing group wants Vaughn Walker off the bench. What will Newt and Sarah say?

By Steve Kornacki

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the right-wing American Family Association is calling for the impeachment of Vaughn Walker, the federal district judge whose Wednesday ruling struck down California’s ban on gay marriage.

For the record, the AFA wants Walker removed for two reasons: 1) He shouldn’t have ever taken the Proposition 8 case because “marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution” and is therefore a state-only issue; and 2) He acted unethically by not recusing himself from the case because — as Tim Wildmon, the AFA’s president, put it in a statement — “Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself.” (By this logic, of course, all jurists who are “practicing” African-Americans should recuse themselves from civil rights cases. But I guess latent African-Americans might be OK?)

Continue reading at:  http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/06/american_family_association_walker/index.html

Conservatives believe media should force judge to admit if he’s gay

Damn the time has come for the dictionaries to start defining  “Conservative” to mean “Stupid freaking bigots.”

From Raw Storyhttp://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0806/conservatives-media-force-judge-admit-gay/

By The Associated Press
Friday, August 6th, 2010 — 9:18 am

In wake of gay marriage decision, debate rages over judge’s personal life, ability to rule.

The federal judge who overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban this week is a Republican who once came under fire for his membership to a powerful all-male club that had only recently allowed blacks to join.

But after Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8, he became something else in the minds of some: a gay activist.

Continue Reading at:  http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0806/conservatives-media-force-judge-admit-gay/

What these stupid bigoted fucks overlook is that this judge was appointed  George Bush Sr.  He was one of your beloved Republican, perhaps from before the party was taken over by Kluckers, Know Nothings and Christo-fascist bigots but a Republican nonetheless.

I do not know the judge’s sexuality… But I am not ignorant enough to think that only LGBT/TQ people care about the Constitution and its guarantees of equality.  Perhaps if Conservatives weren’t so un-American they too would embrace some of the values of this nation.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

45 Years Ago

I just received the following e-mail.

It brings it all back home.  Forty-five years ago I was preparing to enter college. Just a poor working class kid, I didn’t expect to go to college because of poverty.  I won a scholarship.

I had been a radical for nearly three years because of teetering on the brink of WW III in 1962 and because of the Civil Rights movement.

45 Years Ago

On March 7th, 1965, 600 of us lined up to walk from Selma to Montgomery, to march for voting rights.

When we tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge over the Alabama River, we were met by state troopers. They attacked us with tear gas, bullwhips, and nightsticks.

It became known as Bloody Sunday, and the national outcry over the brutality that day led to the enactment, exactly 45 years ago today, of the Voting Rights Act.

The progress we’ve made since then is remarkable.

But the expansion of voting rights for millions did not happen overnight. It was the product of a continued struggle, by many people, over many years.

And just as change did not come easily then, it does not come easily now.

Discrimination still exists in America — its effects can be as harmful as they were decades ago. And we can always become a better, more just society.

Two years ago, this movement — led by Barack Obama — brought millions of people into the political process for the first time.

I’m told that many of you are working hard now to get as many as possible of those folks — and others from across the country who are with us in these fights — to the polls this year.

It’s an important effort, and the legacy of the fight for the Voting Rights Act is that it is not only our right to vote, and to help others do so — it is our duty.

Can I count on you to help out between now and the elections in November?

When I was a child, I tasted the bitter fruits of racial discrimination — and I did not like it.

That was what spurred me to act. In those early days, we sacrificed our very selves for our rights as Americans. But we never gave up.

And now barriers that kept an entire people from full participation in this country have been removed.

No longer are people who look like me met with violence when we register to vote.

No longer is the idea that an African American could become president just a dream.

We live in a better world, a better country.

But our work is not complete. We cannot wait for someone else to make change.

We must all do it. You must do it. I must do it.

Please sign up to help millions more vote:

http://my.barackobama.com/VolunteerVRA

Thank you,

Representative John Lewis

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Friday Night Fun and Culture

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Marriage Is a Constitutional Right

EDITORIAL from THE NEW YORK TIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1&hp

Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.

The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of path-breaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.

As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.

The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”

He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.

One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”

To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.

“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.

Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Mexican Supreme Court upholds gay marriage in Mexico City

From 365 Gay http://www.365gay.com/news/mexican-supreme-court-upholds-gay-marriage-in-mexico-city/

By Celeste Lavin, 365gay.com
08.06.2010 11:30am EDT

The Mexican Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Mexico City’s law permitting same-sex marriage is legal.

The city legalized gay marriage in March 2010, and since then, hundreds of same-sex couples have married. Mexico City has been presenting itself as a gay friendly city, even awarding the first gay couple to marry in Argentina this summer a free honeymoon in Mexico City.

Gay marriage opponents argued the case on the basis that the Mexican constitution suggests that a family structure requires a man and a woman. The provision says, “Men and women are equal before the law. This protects the organization and development of the family.”

Justice Jose Gudino said, “It does not appear to me to be unconstitutional. The concept of the family established in the constitution … is an open concept.”

The court’s 8-2 ruling found the law to fall within Mexico’s constitution. The justices have not yet determined the scope of the ruling- whether it will impact regions of Mexico outside of the capital.

The court has yet to make a decision on the constitutionality of the part of the law that permits same-sex couples to adopt children. That decision is expected next Monday.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers