Comments on: Full Equality.

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:59:36 +0000

The silence concerning gender identity and or expression is deafening here…

By “here” do you mean in this post or this blog in general? Because if you mean the blog, then I suspect that you are in fact flying by and have never actually read what we write about.

By: lyssa

lyssa — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:49:19 +0000

Just a quick fly by…

The silence concerning gender identity and or expression is deafening here…

hmmm.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:57:11 +0000

FJ, to be clear, I wrote the title not because I don’t hear or don’t understand the arguments about mainstreaming (though I see how much marriage means to some people I care about and I am ultimately persuaded), and not because I think marriage equality is itself full equality, but rather to highlight that the decision itself had a legal impact for gay lesbian and bi folks that went far beyond just marriage, to the application of strict scrutiny to discrimination based on sexual orientation. It’s not full social equality, which we don’t have for anything, really. But it’s full legal equality insofar as the California Supreme Court can provide it.

By: Feminist Jen

Feminist Jen — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:59:59 +0000

I commend and agree with your celebration, but I’d disagree that it’s full equality. Because legally the queer community can now buy into the system? I mean, I’m not anti-same-sex marriage, but it’s a far cry from equality.

To quote from a queer politics (OUTRAGE) e-mail that was sent to me; author unclear:
Queer politics is against assimilationism. The integrationist strategy of lobbyists for homosexual equality assumes that lesbian and gay freedom is about queers adapting to, and being accepted by, straight society. In other words, it means homosexuals conforming to heterosexual laws and values. That’s not liberation. It’s capitulation!

Sure, it is conformity on an equal basis rather than an unequal one. That’s one step better than inequality. But it is conformity none the less. _We_ comply with _their_ system.

feminist love,
jen

By: Thomas, TSID

Thomas, TSID — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:39:40 +0000

In California state constitutional jurisprudence, there is no “intermediate scrutiny.” In California, race, religion, sex and now sexual orientation get strict scrutiny, while most things get rational basis, there is no in between. In federal constitutional jurisprudence, sex gets intermediate scrutiny.

By: Chel

Chel — Sun, 18 May 2008 15:30:05 +0000

I was so excited to hear about this. Two down, 48 to go! But I wonder how they can pull off having sexual orientation under strict scrutiny when sex is only under quasi. Just a thought.

By: Chel

Chel — Sun, 18 May 2008 15:29:23 +0000

I was so excited to hear about this. Two down, 48 to go! But I wonder how they can pull off having sexual orientation under strict scrutiny when sex is only under quasi. Just a though.

By: Mnemosyne

Mnemosyne — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:41:58 +0000

Would the current inaccuracy of the bolded part of the description be enough to invalidate it and make them get new signatures for a new amendment?

I think they probably will only need to resubmit it to the analyst.

By: The drinks absolve our sins : Exquisite Intent

The drinks absolve our sins : Exquisite Intent — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:27:12 +0000

[...] to be free from religious, gender, or racial discrimination. Period. In re Marriage Cases contains a few sentences that give me hope back for this country, that maybe we’ll remember that we believe in freedom [...]

By: Radfem

Radfem — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:48:35 +0000

Well, they weren’t just gathering signatures for the Marriage Protection Act, they were gathering them for round kazillion of the parental notification act for abortions. I don’t know if they got enough signatures for that bill yet. They were quite busy for the last few months.