Jump to content
tegan

QUILTBAG Thread of Flagrant Homoeroticism

Recommended Posts

On the one hand, I'm super stoked for you guys. On the other, I can't wait to hear about how homophobia is over just like sexism and racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, there will be years of lawsuits over this probably. But it's a big step.

 

To be honest marriage has never been quite as important as issues that are harder to rally behind and make changes to, namely protection against LGBT-focused hate crimes and domestic abuse, and I can't help but feel like it's going to be a lot harder to finally get that stuff taken care of.

 

Sorry for shitting all over this; I really am super stoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's totally okay to be stoked! I'm stoked! But I also know there's so many other protections we need for everyone, especially where it concerns jobs and bodily safety, especially for our trans folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS just voted 5-4 for marriage equality in all 50 states as well as recognizing marriage licenses from other states. Still no housing or employment protections, however. 

 

Wouldn't the Fair Housing Act ruling from yesterday secure protections for LGTBQ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the Fair Housing Act ruling from yesterday secure protections for LGTBQ?

 

My, limited, understanding of that ruling is that it came with enough limitations and was more about lower court guidance that a radical alteration to how housing suits are currently handled.  It also still depends on people being within a protected class, which is not universally true for LGTBQ people (see the recent Kansas state government stripping the protected class protections away from all state employees on the whim of our governor). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree that there is a lot of work to be done, but these victories are valuable precedents in further legislation. a workplace discrimination case has a better chance to succeed when they can cite the supreme court, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest marriage has never been quite as important as issues that are harder to rally behind and make changes to, namely protection against LGBT-focused hate crimes and domestic abuse, and I can't help but feel like it's going to be a lot harder to finally get that stuff taken care of.

Sorry for shitting all over this; I really am super stoked.

I'm super stoked too, but I still have to live in fear of being fired for being gay.

It will absolutely be harder to mobilize for really, really vital things now, but that can't discourage those of us who know the fight has to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm super stoked too, but I still have to live in fear of being fired for being gay.

It will absolutely be harder to mobilize for really, really vital things now, but that can't discourage those of us who know the fight has to continue.

 

Someone on my Facebook feed pointed out that in states where gay marriage unequivocally became law, the funding for gay rights organizations basically evaporated over night.  Which is depressing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on my Facebook feed pointed out that in states where gay marriage unequivocally became law, the funding for gay rights organizations basically evaporated over night. Which is depressing.

This is part of why I hate the nomenclature of marriage equality, or saying that the fight for same sex marriage is a fight for equality. It's true in some respects and for some people, but it also plants the idea that now that we can marry, we're equal. We're absolutely not equal -- even things like HIV, which are a problem for everyone, are seen as a gay issue, not a public health issue, just because of the most visibly affected population, but the idea that we are exists.

Cruising Utopia (I think) had a really well written argument against the marriage equality nomenclature in it, if anyone wants to look that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that also worries me is that this could go the way of abortion, where pro-choice people looked at Roe v Wade as the end of the fight, and the anti-choicers saw it as the beginning of a war, a war they have continued to wage as the rest of America looks away.  Society as a whole has been more accepting of gay couples than it ever has been of abortion, but I expect the rhetoric and legal fights will continue for a long time. 

 

Sorry I'm being a bummer about this.  I'm thrilled, like everyone else is, but some of the best spoken activists I know really put a reality check on a bunch of this this morning.

 

 

Also, once again, the dissent on this is fucking weird as hell and fascinating.  For at least the second time this year, you have a Justice arguing that the Supreme Court literally does not have the power to do its job. 

 

But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

 

Like, that's literally your job.  Courts are facing cases both for and against marriage equality on a yearly basis, and need guidance on the constitutionality of whether same sex marriage is a constitutional right or not.  It's your job to decide that.  You could use that passage as a rebuttal to every single decision the court makes. 

 

Scalia doubled down on disempowering the Court with his part of the dissent, but then also declared that the decision was a violent attempt to overthrow the American government (using the word "putcsch") and represented a threat to American democracy.  Letting gay people marry = overthrowing the government.  FFS.   He also had the audacity to describe the Court as unrepresentative of America.  NO FUCKING SHIT ASSHOLE!  That applies to a lot more cases than this one though. 

 

Thomas rambled about dignity and made comparisons to slavery, internment camps and welfare.  I have no idea what he was trying to say. 

 

Alito presented what I'm calling the Bigot's Lament, worrying that all gay hating people will now have to restrict themselves to saying hateful things about gay people in private, lest they face social repercussions for being hateful bigots.  He also pined for the days when women were property and baby making machines.  He also ignores that lesbians exist. 

 

All their dissents are just complete fucking trainwrecks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

 

Roberts is a piece of shit and I'm more glad every year that this court will be remembered as the Kennedy court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For today's majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental.

 

Wow, really good writing in favor of this vote! Our country sees itself as being founded on the principles of fundamental rights.

 

Wait no it's Justice Alito, a hideous human being who says this should have been voted down because the in-favor vote is going to cause people to hunt down bigots who are still in dissent. How can you write a passage like that and not look at it and say to yourself "I actually meant to vote with the majority."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's totally okay to be stoked! I'm stoked! But I also know there's so many other protections we need for everyone, especially where it concerns jobs and bodily safety, especially for our trans folks. 

 

Yeah. Rami Ismail just said something on twitter that I love - It's not "celebrate, but," it's "celebrate, and." I'm not raining on anyone's parade today. I'm incredibly happy! But I'm also lucky to live in one of 12 states in which I can't be fired for being trans, for example.

 

We've got a lot of work to do! And that excites and galvanizes, rather than discourages me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, once again, the dissent on this is fucking weird as hell and fascinating.  For at least the second time this year, you have a Justice arguing that the Supreme Court literally does not have the power to do its job. 

 

Scalia doubled down on disempowering the Court with his part of the dissent, but then also declared that the decision was a violent attempt to overthrow the American government (using the word "putcsch") and represented a threat to American democracy.  Letting gay people marry = overthrowing the government.  FFS.   He also had the audacity to describe the Court as unrepresentative of America.  NO FUCKING SHIT ASSHOLE!  That applies to a lot more cases than this one though. 

 

I can't get over how ridiculous all the dissents are, and Scalia's just takes the fucking cake.  In his dissent you can almost imagine him sticking his tongue out after certain lines like "Ask the nearest hippie".  It is rife with logical fallacies, if like me you're the kind of person who looks for that kind of stuff, it isn't hard to find.  I think the whole piece is exemplified by this little gem used to describe his colleagues:

 

Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).

 

What a Shit.  It sounds like the Copy for a segment on Fox news, and virtually nothing like a legal opinion.  He goes on to reference Hitler, define Hubris in the most pretentious way possible, and just generally stamp his feet about the whole thing.  This is petty and stupid to have been written by someone in high school.  I don't know of a phrase to describe what it is coming out of a supreme court justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia's dissent was expected, but I just got done reading Thomas' dissent and I have no idea what he was even trying to get across. How does that even get published as an opinion?

Edit: Also, so many people from my past who I would never have expected to have reached out to me today with nothing but unequivocal love and support. I've cried a lot today, and it's given me so much hope and affirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my favourite part of Scalia's dissent is when he reveals that he is in a loveless marriage and assumes that everyone else is too.

 

It is nice that the dissents are, on the whole, several different flavours of trainwreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can some straight folk tell me what it's like to have never been disowned by your parents? It's happened so often to me in the last 14 years for me that I can't even imagine what it's like for it not to have ever happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SEE? YOU LET GAY PEOPLE GET MARRIED, AND NOW SQUIDS ARE MARRYING KIDS. WE'RE ALL DOOMED.

 

post-8476-0-68250500-1435380177_thumb.jpg

post-8476-0-23532300-1435380179_thumb.jpg

post-8476-0-89437200-1435380180_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my favourite part of Scalia's dissent is when he reveals that he is in a loveless marriage and assumes that everyone else is too.

 

It is nice that the dissents are, on the whole, several different flavours of trainwreck.

He's furthering his opinion by making comments to the media about how this decision makes the SCOTUS a threat to the democracy of our country. Meanwhile, corporations are people. Or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×