naamah_darling: The Punisher skull with a red ribbon barrette. (Punisher Ribbon)

I'm late to saying anything, but on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled that Oklahoma's anti-marriage law violates the 14th amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.  You can read the document here.

Nobody's marching to the courthouse to get their papers yet, things are still kind of up in the air, but we've gotten this far, and that's a hell of a lot farther than I expected us to get this soon.  I thought we'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but Kern's language is a powerful blow.

In the conclusion of the court ruling, Kern eviscerates nearly every justification for denial of equal benefits under the law, using other court rulings to prove that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unjustifiable and irrational.  About the only thing he didn't attack is the assertion that if same sex couples are allowed to marry, there would be nothing to stop people from marrying (and fucking -- that's where all the pearl-clutching comes in) animals, appliances, cartoon characters, or children.  I'm assuming he considered addressing that beneath his attention.

This article by David Badash at The New Civil Rights Movement is pretty excellent as far as overviews go, but I'll pick a few passages.  Emphasis added.

The Court recognizes that moral disapproval often stems from deeply held religious convictions. However, moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification for a law.

A same-sex couple’s inability to “naturally procreate” is not a biological distinction of critical importance, in relation to the articulated goal of avoiding children being born out of wedlock. If a same-sex couple is capable of having a child with or without a marriage relationship, and the articulated state goal is to reduce children born outside of a marital relationship, the challenged exclusion hinders rather than promotes that goal.

Same-sex couples are being subjected to a “naturally procreative” requirement to which no other Oklahoma citizens are subjected, including the infertile, the elderly, and those who simply do not wish to ever procreate. Rationality review has a limit, and this well exceeds it.

The Court cannot discern, a single way that excluding same-sex couples from marriage will “promote” this “ideal” child-rearing environment. Exclusion from marriage does not make it more likely that a same-sex couple desiring children, or already raising children together, will change course and marry an opposite-sex partner (thereby providing the “ideal” child-rearing environment).

In addition, the Court cannot discern how exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage makes it more likely that opposite-sex marriages will stay in tact (thereby remaining “optimal” child-rearing environments).

Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived “threat” they pose to the marital institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority’s disapproval of the defined class. It is also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships. “‘Preserving the traditional institution of marriage,’” which is the gist of Smith’s final asserted justification, “is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”

The conclusion is simple, short, and sweet:

Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.

Bam.

There you have it.

This isn't going to stop.  This isn't a thing that can be turned back.  We have to keep fighting, the struggle still requires us to remain fully engaged, but this is most definitely a struggle we can win if we continue to demand that all adults be allowed to marry as they wish.

Oklahoma's littered with failure on the civil rights front so I think it's far too late for me to salvage any pride in my state, but I am damn proud of Kern.  If you wish to thank him personally for standing up for Oklahomans' marriage rights, drop him a line:

TERENCE C. KERN, District Judge
224 S. Boulder Ave., Room 241
Tulsa, OK 74103
918.699.4770

Because I rather imagine he's getting a lot of hate mail right about now, and some encouragement might be nice.

Originally published at Silver Into Steel.  Comment where you like!

naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Angry)
From Tumblr's queerandpresentdanger:

I think another reason why it’s important to not be nice when speaking of your oppression—not just a prerogative but important—is to try to really convey the severity of what you’re dealing with. When you’re nice, it’s easy for the person you’re speaking to to assume that you are dealing with minor pet peeves, not seeing the necessity of them to look within themselves to think about the ways they’re contributing. It’s easy for them to dismiss what you’re talking about as trivial interpersonal annoyances that are not representative of larger structural problems. But when you’re fucking angry—when you let across how much pain you’ve endured because of this—it comes across. It’s serious. And even if the person you’re talking to shuts down, fuck at least you feel better, and that’s a minor victory in itself.

Instead of asking us not to be angry it’s more productive to think about why you’re not. It’s more effective to think about what privilege you have for not being angry. It’s more effective to realize the oppression you’re perpetuating by demanding we convey knowledge in a comfortable manner for you when we’ve likely spent our entire lives being uncomfortable. It’s important to recognize the privilege in demanding to control what type of information you’re given and how. Realize the violence you’re inflicting by doing this, supported by and representative of larger types of violence inflicted throughout our lifetimes. And realize when that I don’t comply with your attempts to control me it’s an act of resistance.


I'm just gonna leave that there so as not to speak over the message.

Also gonna link to this guy's other tumblrs: fuckyeahchubbyguysofcolor and fatnudes. The fatnudes one is racially diverse and features nudes of all genders. I think they are both pretty awesome.
naamah_darling: Spotted hyena teeth. (Teeth)
From Social Justice League, a really neat blog, comes this fanfuckingtastic article about how to be a fan of problematic things.

It talks about – surprise! – how to be a fan of problematic things without falling into the pitfall of defending or denying the problematic aspects of it. So if you are a fan of stuff that is occasionally fucked up – the way I am a fan of Howard and Lovecraft and Spartacus and old pirate movies – you should check this out. It's very useful in the How Not To Be a Dick department.

You also really need to read it if you have ever had the shit annoyed out of you by someone insisting any of the following:

* But the sexism/racism/homophobia is realism!

* It's just a book/movie/TV show. Don't take it so seriously!

* Sure it's sexist/racist/homophobic, but it has dragons/man-eating tigers/explosions, and that totally excuses it!

It gives some excellent takedowns for that kind of logic.

On "realism":

"But when you say that sexism and racism and heterosexism and cissexism have to be in the narrative or the story won’t be realistic, what you are saying is that we humans literally cannot recognise ourselves without systemic prejudice, nor can we connect to characters who are not unrepentant bigots. Um, yikes. YIKES, you guys."

". . . I don’t see you arguing for an accurate portrayal of everything in your fiction all the time. For example, most people seem fine without accurate portrayal of what personal hygiene was really like in 1300 CE in their medieval fantasy media. . . . In real life, people have to go to the bathroom. In movies and books, they don’t show that very much, because it’s boring and gross. Well, guess what: bigotry is also boring and gross. But everyone is just dying to keep that in the script."


On not taking things so seriously:

"If it doesn’t matter, why don’t YOU stop taking your media so seriously and stop fighting us on this? You with your constant demands for your narrow idea of “realism” (which by the way often sounds a lot like “show me naked skinny ciswomen, and gore”). If in your framework tv shows aren’t serious business, why does realism matter?"


Great, great post.

As I said, I'm a fan of lots of problematic things. I don't mind when other people are fans of problematic things, provided they do neither of the following:

A) Categorically deny that the thing has flaws or is problematic.

B) Insist that not only do the thing's good qualities outweigh its bad qualities, but that anyone who can't look past the bad is "too sensitive," "taking things too seriously," or somehow missing out.

Those are things that I, as a fan of some pretty egregiously racist/sexist/etc. stuff, try not to do . . . with, I will admit, varying degrees of success. I'm not any more perfect than the next geek.

The ability to look past the ugly aspects of a thing because it is not ugly in a way that affects you personally is a form of privilege. And it ain't pretty.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Default)
A comment in passing.

Someone in comments elsewhere remarked "I’m sick of [X state]. Why do women even live there if the whole state hates them?"

Because women there are stupid and therefore deserve what they get?

I mean, seriously, what answer does this person expect? Fuck. "Why don't you just leave?" That's basically what they're asking.

I live in Oklahoma because it is incredibly cheap to live here, and because I don't have the money to move away, or the spoons, or the social resources, or the medical support system necessary. There are so many reasons people stay in a state that "hates them." Being able to leave a state that "hates you" is a fucking privilege. Not all of us have it!

Everything that allows me to survive is here. My home, my friends, my doctor, my father. I could theoretically buy or create a support network elsewhere, if I had the money and the emotional and physical energy to do it, not to mention the emotional drain of leaving friends and home, but I have none of those things. I have fifty bucks in the bank, and a mental illness, and most days I am so fucked in the head I can't manage more than an hour or two of concentrated effort at anything. So show me the map to the pirate treasure you expect me to dig up to fund this little venture. Please! And show me the magic spell that will make me not-crazy enough to take advantage of it.

I think the solution is not people moving away from their homes and families and familiar places and things that they love. I think the solution is to fucking fix what is wrong. Call me crazy.

Besides, even if I had the resources, I'm not being chased out of my territory by assholes. If I go, it will be because I found someplace I want to live, not because I don't want to live here.

In short, STFU, whoever you are. I know that was probably flippant, I know you are probably not as much of a jerk as that makes you sound like and you were just trying to be funny, but it stops being funny when you consider, you know, the thousands of people who would love to follow your cute lil' suggestion and can't. We deserve a little more consideration from you than that.

Also, if you're "sick" of my state, fuck off. Just fuck off. I don't care what state it is. Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Kansas, New York, Alabama. If you have a problem with how shit is run someplace specifically because it is hurting people like you, you have an obligation to support the folks that live there by not, you know, being a fucking asshole.

I live here. I don't have the option of being "sick" of it, of ignoring news about it, of just switching away from what goes on here. Rejecting a bad place as irredeemable, and labeling all the people who live there as stupid hicks who obviously don't care about their rights, is not really helpful to the cause of promoting equality and justice.

It is a nice little dodge for having to give a shit or do anything to help, however.
naamah_darling: Lucian from Underworld next to a snarling wolf. From the dark into the black, throwbacks always have to go. (Lucian Throwbacks)
Rape is a "pre-existing condition." Enjoy maybe getting AIDS.

Sometimes I want to resign from the human race just for the pleasure of saying "I have nothing in common with you shitfuckers. I hope you die in agony. Alone. Except for those 3d6 priapic wild pigs."

You can claim that those mule-felching piles of assvomit are not human all you like and that won't make it true. They are human, and that is the most disgusting part of this. You can't just stand up, point, and say in outrage: "Get away from me you pile of shit! I am chocolate!" They are human, you are human, we are all human. You share that with them, whether you like it or not.

As humanity is not something you have to earn, the label isn't reserved only for the best of us. That's part of the point that women and people of color and people with disabilities or mental illnesses and fat people and queer people are always trying to make. That you can't bestow or deny humanity, that we have that without asking, and that it cannot be taken away. So I can't say they aren't human, even though they obviously lack the constellation of traits (decency, charity, compassion) that we have come to call "humanity."

Why we call it "humanity" when most of our species is by that definition inhumane in the extreme is quite beyond me.

If I really were a werewolf, instead of a crazy person with a damn good metaphor, I would be taking great comfort in my inhumanity right about now.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Alpha Female)
The Sodomite Hal Duncan has a wonderful letter to share with you all this fine Friday afternoon.

My own letter is below.

To Mr. Wright,

Two things, before I begin.

First, if people have attacked you for your religious views, I don't approve of that. I am an atheist, not an anti-theist. As easy as it is to take pot shots, I cannot insult you for your beliefs without also insulting people I love.

Second, I had not heard about the incident with your wife until after discovering your entry. Going into what I think of that issue would not be appropriate here; I merely wished to point out that I'm not part of the mob that descended on her, lest you believe that everyone who took you to task is simply nursing a grudge from that whole affair. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Moving on, I was not the only person to link to that entry, but I concede I was one of the first, and my readership, for reasons I have never quite understood, is wide. I never would have called out your appalling remarks had you not been a published author whose books I have purchased in hardcover, and as gifts for others. You aren't a random dipshit on the internet yodeling into the vacuum of his own ass. You are a published writer in a field I love, and thus you are a person of whom I had stupidly assumed better. As someone who does not apply her money or loyalty to those who believe that I or my loved ones are perverted or defective, I felt betrayed.

If gay and gay-friendly folks choose to support you despite your views, that is their choice, but I believe they deserve to make an informed choice. That's why I pointed them your way. The fact that I pointed 1,500 people your way while saying "fuck" a lot is just how I do things. Because if we don't laugh and make fun of people who use ridiculous arguments to deny the validity of our relationships and the humanity of our brilliant, brief lives, well, that would just be too depressing.

It is unfortunate that the people who came to comment on your journal were angry, and not up to your desired level of discourse. I asked them not to troll, and apparently I misjudged their restraint. That was an error on my part. I didn't rile them, though. You did that on your own. Your words were offensive. Your words were hurtful. When a person says offensive, hurtful things, those who hear will lash out. When compared to pedophiles and necrophiliacs, they will come in mobs and be downright cruel. This is not the most wonderful facet of human nature, but nor is it proof that you were right all along or that everyone who disagrees with you is an illogical maniac with no internal censor. When those people bitchslapped you for being offensive, that was proof that what you said was offensive. Your own words condemned you, and as many of us have taken screenshots of the original entry, they will continue to do so.

The fact that you were mobbed -- "trolled" does not apply to most of the comments, most of which were expressing genuine disgust and displeasure, and were not being made, as they say, for the lulz -- does not free you from the offense you gave. When you say something offensive and are called on it, even if the people you have offended are rude to you, you take responsibility for the harm you caused, you apologize, and then you listen to how you can do better. You turn the other cheek, not so you can show people how smooth and righteous it is, but to show that you are willing to listen, to put the hurt done to you behind you. You swallow your pride and you listen. Which, you know, I would have done, save that there was nothing to learn from your words. It was just more of the same fearmongering fags-as-monsters bullshit.

I'm not under the illusion you were just misunderstood, or your words taken out of context. You clearly hate and fear homosexuality, even if you probably wouldn't say you hate homosexual individuals (we'll leave the stupidity of that alone for now, and the matter of your own hypocrisy re: perversions). Love the sinner, hate the sin, blah blah blah. But you have been complaining about how rude and nasty and profane people have been. You've been using others' entirely justifiable anger to dismiss what they are saying, because you don't like how they say it. The tone argument. They aren't being respectful enough of you while you insult them. Your journal, you don't have to put up with people swearing at you or mobbing you, but it makes you look like an asshole to venomously insult a group of people that includes many of your fans and their loved ones, and then get all butthurt when they let you have both barrels in return. If nothing else, this should serve as a lesson to just how many of us there are, and that we are listening.

After comparing homosexuality to a litany of completely repellent nonconsensual crimes, you have no real grounds on which to complain about what anyone said to you. True, they said it in a great, rage-filled mass, but I will point out that each of those individuals felt personally wounded, personally hurt enough to comment and tell you exactly what they thought of your reprehensible screed. For them, your characterization of homosexuality as akin to bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, was not some abstract thing. You were talking about them, about people they know. Many -- self included -- actually held back or didn't comment at all. You're entitled to your opinion, hate-filled and foolish as it may be. Many might have engaged you in debate except for the fact that it was -- and is -- clear that your mind is tightly made up, the justifications you use for not listening so perfectly constructed as to allow no argument to penetrate.

Would you argue if you saw a published author whose works you own making ridiculous and stupid statements about Catholics? Called you lot baby-eaters, claimed that you engaged in incestuous orgies in secret temples, had congress with animals, and offered up the corpses of virgins for the carnal delights of your depraved priesthood? Would you engage such blatant stupidity in rational debate?

Adults do not answer the petty name-calling of a schoolyard bully with elaborate explanations of why we are not stinky dirty poopy-heads. That would be dignifying it with a response, which it does not deserve. You aren't a child, though. You are in a prominent position, and gay people and their friends pay to read your work, so we can't just ignore what you think of us or let it pass.

Protesting that you didn't mean your offensive words to reach so wide an audience is such foolishness I can't respond beyond pointing out your age. Few people actually mean to make enormous fools of themselves. They figure nobody's paying attention. But you are a published author on the internet, accessible to all of fandom. Your words can never be assumed to reach a small audience, and you aren't talking about abstracts solely to people who agree with you. You are insulting real people who are or who love someone who is gay. To those people, being anti-gay makes you look stupid no matter your reasoning. Defending or advancing that stance with blatant nonsense only means they will be more inclined to tell you to drop dead while throat-fucking a rabid weasel than actually try to educate you (which is not our duty, I might add, but yours) or debate with you.

If you want to argue the point, shore up your logic and start dealing with facts, stop regurgitating the same garbage. It's the internet. It's all computers. The rule of 5150, shit in, shit out, applies here. If you spout ignorant, hateful bullshit, you will get hateful bullshit in return.

I am posting this with comments disabled. This is not cowardice. I have no real desire to invite you to converse here, where such views as yours are not welcome, but I also have no real desire to allow the carnival of wank to continue in comments on my journal. That would simply make more work for me without putting people's scorn in front of you. If people want to register their displeasure with you, they can go to your journal to do it. If they wish to register their displeasure with me, there are many other entries where they can do so. I thought I would let this stand alone, a letter to you, in case you cared to read it.

I'm not holding my breath, but I hope that you will find some people to debate with you and perhaps help educate you. I hope that you will change your views. I personally suspect the damage has been done, and I know I won't ever have anything to do with you or your work again. I regret I ever did.

I am a generous woman, or try to be. I would wish you well, but I find the most I can wish you is wisdom, and a clearer vision. Those are not, as anyone who lives in interesting times will tell you, always pleasant things.

tiny permalink
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Apocalypse!)
He's edited his entry and turned off comments. The edit is probably one of the funnier yet simultaneously sad things I've seen on the internet thus far. You should definitely go read it. I lol-ed. For so many reasons, I lol-ed. ETA: He's deleted the original entry.

He's apparently bent out of shape that we weren't arguing the way he would prefer, or kissing up. We're just a bunch of vulgar morons who would rather swear and make love with our faces than engage in some jolly good intellectual debate, by thunder. For shame, all of you, for upsetting this fine man. For shame.

I was willing to let it go, but he threw out a phrase so delightful that I just cannot resist. You see, apparently we are just a bunch of idolaters, bowing down to, and I quote:

The child-eating Moloch of political correctness!





Please, by all means supply your own child-eating Moloch pics in comments. If you can improve on my two-minute Photoshop mashup, feel free.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
John C. Wright, aka [livejournal.com profile] johncwright.

It is completely up to you if you want to buy books written by this guy after reading what he thinks about homosexuality.

ETA: he deleted the original entry.

On another note not related to the above in any way, I've got several hardcover books I don't want anymore. The books are in good shape, so I'm trying to think of a meaningful application for them. Like cutting them apart and using them to compose stories about gay perverts fucking. Or should I make them into hollow book boxes to hold my rosary of anal beads and my baby Jesus butt-plug? What do you all think?

In the meantime, I really have to make an appointment to assrape a dead goat with a crucifix strap-on in front of some schoolchildren. Like, soon. I have to commit obscene and corrupting acts or my pervert card lapses and I won't be able to get in on all the good cocaine-fueled mule-fucking pedophilia and abortion parties. I hear Hillary Clinton goes to those, and that she's a real cougar. Grrrowl.

Also, whoever has my homosex indoctrination DVDs? Please send them back if you're done with them. I've been asked to speak at the nearby grade school's recruitment assembly on National Convert a Nubile Youth to Homosexuality Day, and you just can't expect kids to learn about the joys of non-procreative pervsex from books or handouts anymore.

Lazy little shits.

(No trolling. Not that I care if you go into someone else's house and crap on their floor, but it would reflect poorly on me if I sent you over there to do it, so I'm not. I'm just letting you know what he thinks of most of you so that you can decide whether or not to reward him for it by paying attention to his writing. That is all.)

Profile

naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Default)
naamah_darling

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
2324 2526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 25th, 2017 08:10 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios