On the flip side, the majority of the state of California voted to WRITE INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION A BAN AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

How can a constitution DENY RIGHTS?

So now, all the tens of thousands of couples who already entered into the marriage contract may be told, “Whoops! It turns out you’re actually NOT citizens! Your marriage is annulled! Sorry! But we can still be neighbors and friends and co-workers, right?”

What. The. Fuck.

You want to talk about change?

How about recognizing ALL citizens as having inalienable rights?

or this one

GET OUT AND VOTE!

Goodbye to the double standard . . .
[...]
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein’s disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?” with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. [...] (All emphasis in original.)

If you’ve got the time, read it in full.

From the beginning, I was in favor of Kucinich. Then I heard Gravel speak and I was torn between the two as they were the only candidates to so closely align with my own politics. Now, Kucinich is out and I’m not so sure about Gravel’s future. Being left with only two choices doesn’t feel like much of a choice.

Indiana’s primary election isn’t until May, but if I’m stuck with either Clinton or Obama, my vote will go to Clinton because when compared, Obama is woefully inexperienced and we’ve got some major fucking problems.

[via Pea]

Of course I’ll be the first to pull the lever for Clinton if it’s Hillary v. Rudy in the general election. Standing on principle is noble, but Giuliani eats power for breakfast and shits crazy in the afternoon. [Defective Yeti]

Just popping in to say, No, I still have not uploaded any of the shots from the drag show two weeks ago. I’ve got about 4GB of hard disk space left, and with Windows selectively choosing not to recognize the DVD burner so I can get more space and get the shots off the camera disk, it takes time. Soon, I promise.

Mike Gravel was his usual self, although toned down for the context. I loved his mentioning of having been reconsidered for the invitation to the forum.

The one that won me over was Dennis Kucinich, even with all his hippie love talk. There are several spots wherein I lose composure and become verklempt.

Out of the six, Gravel and Kucinich are the only two candidates who support full marriage inclusion for queer couples. The other four (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson) have taken a more “we’ll be the first to make separate somehow equal” stance in favor of “civil unions”.

As we have learned (or as some of us apparently haven’t learned), “separate but equal” does not always get played out that way.

I cannot think of a valid reason as to why two consenting adults should be denied equal access to the marriage contract. When we are dealing with state and federal rights and privileges being conferred to some citizens but not others we have a duty to correct the imbalance and reinstate equality under the laws for all. Civil unions are more like a bone being thrown to the crowd to heed them off for a bit than an effective, lasting solution.

In the past seven months I have attended two weddings while another friend is engaged and set to marry at some point this fall. That they decided to pronounce their union to the state and enter into a contract is secondary and was often done for the benefits they would receive; their dedication to and love for one another is the important part and that is why they held a wedding: to share with their family and friends their love.

I am glad the forum was held.