Oh for fuck's sake. The haters are cowards, too? Lovely.

No, BoPo, they're not cowards! It's just that if the trial is broadcast, they're afraid they'll face discrimination.

Ugh.

If you want to follow along, there are people at the trial live-twittering the trial, at least.

The Advocate
ACLU-NorCal

I would posit that, at this moment, somewhere in CA, a queer is getting beaten up, for no other reason than someone's impression that they are queer.

Yet the fucking bigots have turned all this on its head with the assertion that if the identities of Prop. 8 supporters were known, they might face some sort of retribution or danger.

This whole issue is driving me blind-rage crazy.

No green star on your belly, no marriage rights.

Won't someone please think of the children?!

Thanks for those twitter feeds Stew.

The fucking procreation argument makes me enraged. It's not even the most obvious idiocy of it: straight couples don't all have kids, duh!

It's more that these fuckers act as if gay people aren't having kids already. The most damaging aspect of giving queers second class marriage status is how it endangers our kids, which we ARE ALREADY HAVING. If you supposedly care so much about The Children, then make sure the parents of The Children are, for example, able to visit The Children if they're in the hospital, etc. Disingenuous motherfuckers!

(As a side note, back when I was a punk rock Queer Nation kid I never, never, never thought I would care a whit about the marriage issue, and I still think it's kind of a weak issue to put so much focus on, but... in the end those SF City Hall wedding photos from 2004 sold me.)

If you absolutely 100 percent think that you are doing God's will and saving society from imminent destruction, then you should have nothing to hide or fear. Maybe their conscience is trying to tell them something.

Seriously. "I want others to suffer for my beliefs, while shielding myself" is not exactly a stance with a lot of integrity.

I read somewhere today that one of the issues they'll address in the trial is that when the one plaintiff couple, who are registered domestic partners in CA, travel to other states, they have to "take extra precautions" in case one of them ends up in the hospital. I'm not sure what the precautions are, unless it's being sure to carry certain documentation. The point being, though, that in some states they wouldn't have visitation or decision-making rights, and I'm really glad that's going to be an issue that gets more attention.

I want to make the argument to the Supreme Court that marriage is a religious institution and that it is therefore unconstitutional for the government to support it in any way.

No, wait. Hear me out: All the assholes who are like, "Marriage is sacred!" would no longer have built-in rights that others don't have. Instead, because of separation of church and state, it would be much easier for the government to only recognize marriage -- or civil unions, or civil marriages, or whatever you want to call them -- for logistical purposes. So anyone who wants to marry anyone else would be able to do so, privately. Then they could go to City Hall and get their civil marriage/union license, which would give them hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, etc.

Err. But I guess none of that has anything to do with this trial. Except that I think it's silly for us to try to convince religious zealots that everyone should have the right to marry. They're never going to agree with that, and they don't have to. Instead, they should be able to recognize the difference between constitutional/civil rights and religious rites.

Of course, no politician is ever going to say any of this out loud. So my argument against marriage as a government-recognized institution is probably moot.

Also, it looks like the Supreme Court still hasn't decided to completely block video coverage of the trial. Just until Wednesday. (At which point they will probably decide to completely block video coverage of the trial.)

occhiblu, I'd favorite that if I could.

This is such bs.
I hope that if the fertility argument stands, someone outlaws infertile hetero couples from marrying (not really, but how could they argue this point through to execution? A mandatory test and then a contract to make sure fertile couples do have children? that seems insane.)

Another family values type getting the jump on ruining her marriage before gay couples can get the chance to.

Maybe this link might useful for background on danf's comment?

Sickening, all of it.

Perhaps off topic -- I was a little sad last night watching a Chris Rock special circa 2008. I've been a huge fan of Chris Rock. He had this bit about gay people. That there are no homeless gay people. And that he likes having gay fans because they can always buy tickets because they don't have kids. (wtf) And also that it's okay to call someone a "faggot" because maybe they're "acting like a faggot."