Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional!!!!

eerrrrr.... can I buy a vowel?

*isn't american or ....etc*.

WOOHOO!!!!!!

Yes, we've been celebrating since earlier today  ;D

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?topic=81757.new;topicseen#new (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?topic=81757.new;topicseen#new)

Yay!  Now...to go find me a girlfriend... XD

Equality wins in Vaughn Walker's Prop. 8 ruling

San Francisco Chronicle

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/EDAS1EOPDB.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/EDAS1EOPDB.DTL)

Judge Vaughn Walker's 136-page ruling against Proposition 8 amounted to a ringing defense of the institution of marriage. It does enjoy a "culturally superior status" to domestic partnerships, he wrote. It does bond couples - and families - in a meaningful way, the evidence showed. It is a fundamental right, he declared.

Thus, the U.S. district judge found no rational basis for denying this fundamental right to same-sex couples.

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Time to party on Market street!

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.sfgate.com%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2010%2F08%2F04%2Fmn-samesex_0502052627.jpg&hash=7a35ddcc8e4edde5154b452a3982a52a3cd7e0e3)

There really is no rational reason to ban gay marriage other than personal fear and discomfort. People are actually so upset that they are trying to appeal it.

I haven't read the whole ruling myself, but a person I follow on YT and Twitter has been quoting some choice parts of it..
So beautiful to read the simple facts presented as simple facts.

One of the most significant aspects of Prop 8 ruling is that it was advocated by a right-wing lawyer (Olson) and made by a Reagan nominee.

you can read the entire decision (136 pages) here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL#keysvga9mgedaz1bibr18j (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL#keysvga9mgedaz1bibr18j)

And, while other nations may have got to this point first, they did it by a vote, and whatever's been voted in, can be voted out, under US law, this kind of ruling is a much more permanent solution.

After reading the ruling, shortly after watching Maddow, I was shocked at how lame the defense was.  Their only "expert" witness was a man who had almost no credentials outside of being able to surf the net for his information.  It amazes me that these well funded anti-gay organizations couldn't come up with something better.  They had to know their defense was weak at best.

I guess it shows these phobic people are far better at stirring up the emotions than they are at working with the facts.  Maybe their supporters will catch on to the smoke and mirrors tactics they have so effectively used in the past and start thinking for themselves.

Quote from: Julie Marie on August 06, 2010, 11:55:44 AM
After reading the ruling, shortly after watching Maddow, I was shocked at how lame the defense was.  Their only "expert" witness was a man who had almost no credentials outside of being able to surf the net for his information.  It amazes me that these well funded anti-gay organizations couldn't come up with something better.  They had to know their defense was weak at best.

I guess it shows these phobic people are far better at stirring up the emotions than they are at working with the facts.  Maybe their supporters will catch on to the smoke and mirrors tactics they have so effectively used in the past and start thinking for themselves.

Like I said, there is no real reason for gay people to be banned from marriage. While people are entitled to disagree with it for personal reasons, there is no true, substantial reason for banning it. "The bible says so" doesn't work because state and religion are seperate. "It's wrong" is not a valid argument because noone can find a detailed explanation for why its wrong. "To protect the children" Please, how about we protect children from REAL problems, like abusive parents.
"Marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman. It's not fair to redefine this for everyone else". Times have changed. You can believe that marriage is defined that way to you, but that's selfish to ban these rights because you are afraid of change. Unless you are going to be upset about "The definition of marriage being changed" every day for the rest of your life, it really doesn't affect you.