Letter to the President

Mr. President,

Words can't adequately convey how disappointed I am by your decision to have the Justice Department file a brief opposing a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Amendment. Despite your stated opposition to DOMA during the campaign, it seems that you now feel that denying same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples is a legitimate means of "preserving scarce government resources".

In other words, equality is too expensive.

I have been with my partner for over six years. I am fortunate that my employer counts her as a "spousal equivalent" for the purposes of health insurance; however, unlike my straight married co-workers, the IRS considers this to be a taxable "fringe benefit". I also know that should my partner outlive me, she will not be eligible to receive my Social Security benefits; the same benefits that I've worked for all my life, just like any heterosexual person, would be denied to my spouse solely because we are both female.

How is it fair that I should be treated differently from any other taxpaying citizen based on my sexual orientation? How is this anything other than gross discrimination? Why is it acceptable to the U.S. Government to define my relationship as “less-than” because of my gender and my partner’s gender?

I was excited about your election. I honestly never thought that a family that looks like my family would ever be the First Family of the United States. I was also pleased that during the campaign, that you said you would be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT equality. However, since taking office, you have repeatedly and clearly sent the message that I am still a second-class citizen in the country of my birth, this time because of who I love rather than the color of my skin.

Fifty years ago, had either my partner or I of been male, we would still have been denied the right to have our marriage legally recognized in many states because I am black and she is white. Would the Justice Department have filed a similar brief to argue that interracial marriage should not be recognized by the Federal Government? Would you have argued that it’s more important that the government not spend tax money by denying benefits to taxpayers if they happen to fall in love with someone of another race?

If it’s not acceptable to tell me that I can’t marry the person I love because she’s white, why is it not only acceptable but desireable to tell me that I can’t marry the person I love because she’s a woman?

I truly did think better of you, Mr. President. I believed that you meant what you said. How sad to see that your words were empty. It seems that “change” and “hope” are only available for some Americans—not for all.

OH, BARACK OBAMA NO!

"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."

This is from the US Justice Department's filing in a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in California. This paragraph effectively says that it's okay for me to be taxed on Ruth's health benefits when my straight married co-workers spouses' benefits are tax-exempt--because there's only so much money, and the government has to preserve resources. If I die, Ruth doesn't get my Social Security benefits, and oh well, I guess that's the Gay Tax.

I distinctly remember Obama promising to work to repeal DOMA during the campaign. Yeah, only not so much.

Tyranny of the majority

I called it after oral arguments. The CA Supreme Court doesn't have the gonads to actually say flat-out that the people were wrong, and that you can't amend the Constitution to allow the majority to take rights away from a minority. But because of the insanely fucked up ballot initiative process, apparently, you can take away rights from a minority. I want to start a ballot initiative to outlaw the Mormon Church.*

In all seriousness, though, while I Am Not A Lawyer, even I can tell that this ruling has a hole big enough to drive the Narada through. By allowing those of us 18,000 couples who'd already gotten married to stay married, the Court has just created two classes: LGBT people who are legally married, and LBGT people who can't legally marry. This would seem to be a direct violation of the equal protection clauses in the state constitution.

One thing I do know is that if we want a hope in hell of reversing this in 2010, the No on 8 side needs to do a much better job at presenting our case. We simply can't just react to the lies of the other side; we need to be proactive about explaining why banning same-sex marriage is bad policy, and show the actual people who will be hurt by this. Why didn't the "Don't Divorce Us" slideshow get done last August? Why did the No on 8 campaign hardly ever mention the words "gay" or "lesbian" in their ads, and rarely show actual GLBT people? 

Last night before we went to bed, I told Ruth that I didn't give a fuck what the Court said today: as far as I'm concerned, we're married until one of us says we're not. 

* Yes, I am aware that this wouldn't be upheld because it would violate the U.S. Constitution. But I'm feeling bitchy and vindictive and angry--which, again, illustrates why civil rights should never be put to a popular vote.

Amen.

Bishop Gene Robinson gave the invocation at the opening inaugural event today. His selection was supposed to make up for Rick Warren giving the main invocation at the inauguration. For those of you who don't follow the ongoing Anglican Drama, Gene Robinson is a partnered gay man who was elected by the people of his diocese to be their bishop in the Episcopal Church. This was the last straw for some of the conservatives in the Anglican Communion, many of whom still haven't gotten on board with the whole women's ordination thing, which happened back in the early 1970's. Rick Warren reacted to Robinson's consecration (to which he had to wear a bulletproof vest under his vestments) by inviting conservative Episcopalians to come to his church where they wouldn't have to deal with Teh Icky Gay.

Anyway, while HBO showed almost all of the event today, strangely, Bishop Robinson's invocation wasn't part of the broadcast. Pam Spaulding posted the full text on her blog; it's also available at the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire website. It's worth reading, and I'll venture to say that it's more profound than anything the Money-Driven Hypocrite is going to say on Tuesday.

A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Opening Inaugural Event
Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC
January 18, 2009

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God's blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will...

Bless us with tears - for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger - at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort - at the easy, simplistic "answers" we've preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience - and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be "fixed" anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility - open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance - replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity - remembering that every religion's God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln's reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy's ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King's dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters' childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we're asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand - that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

Don't Divorce

In response to the lawsuit filed by Ken "Panty-Sniffer In Chief" Starr and the Yes on 8 contingent to nullify the 18,000+ same-sex marriages that took place in CA between May and November, the Courage Campaign of CA is soliciting photos of couples, families, individuals and pets all spreading the message, "Don't Divorce Us/Our Friends/Our Parents/Our Families/Californians/People Who Love Each Other."

Our contributions:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/3133905828/in/set-72157611501972510/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/3133906458/in/set-72157611501972510/

This. This is why it matters

I was going to do a post about Obama asking Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, and why I'm disappointed. But right now, I can't. I'm too upset.

For everyone who doesn't get why Obama asking Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration is a big deal? This is why:

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

I'm sitting here at my desk in tears, because these fucking assholes can't even let me be happy with having made it in before Prop 8. No, they want to rip up my marriage license--and you know I'm not getting my $171 back!--and make it real clear that I'm just a fucking dyke who doesn't deserve to be happy or treated just like anyone else.

That's what Rick Warren is saying, although he makes it sound nice and not like the hateful bigotry that it is. And Obama is saying that telling me I'm not worthy of being a full citizen is just a "disagreement".

No More Ms. Nice Dyke

"In order to win votes, you have to convince people that they should LIKE you."

So, basically the idea is that we have to swallow our anger and be nice so that people will like us.

As a child, I absorbed the message that nice girls don't get angry, or at least don't let it show when we are. Since I wasn't supposed to show my anger, and it had to come out somehow, I started cutting myself and banging my head into walls. What I finally learned is that when you stuff your anger down over and over and over again, the festering pile starts to grow and stink, until it bursts out, usually in an uncontrolled explosion of toxic rage and resentment.

Right now, I'm fucking pissed off that 52% of the voters in California think that I don't deserve the same consideration as a goddamn chicken. I'm angry about the fact that the Mormons came in from Utah and spent millions of dollars disseminating lies about me and my wife. I'm livid that a couple of chubby disabled geeky dykes and their two cats are considered such a threat that the constitution of my state has to be amended to enhrine us as second-class citizens under the law.

God forbid I should make people who think I'm less than fully human because of who I love uncomfortable.

If there's a single reason the No on 8 campaign failed, it wasn't because we were too confrontational. On the contrary: we were so afraid of confrontation that we listened to the focus groups who said that mentioning our families and even the word "gay" might offend swing voters. Instead, the campaign was all about abstracts. We said Prop 8 was "unfair" and "wrong", but we didn't say, "We're your neighbors and co-workers and classmates and friends. We're the ones you'll be hurting if you vote in favor of this, because you'll be telling us that we're less than you, that we don't deserve to be happy." We let the other side define us because we didn't want to be too aggressive.

Yeah, that worked out real well.

The reason we're at the point where marriage equality is a reachable goal is because almost 40 years ago, a bunch of drag queens, stone butches, hustlers and runaway teenagers (many of whom were people of color, but everyone seems to forget that) at the Stonewall Inn finally said, "Fuck this shit". Instead of waiting for the NYPD to like them, they got up, got angry, and fought back.

Remember when the President of the United States couldn't even say the word AIDS, even when a friend of his was dying from it? Remember those pissed off fags and dykes who took to the streets yelling "We're here; we're queer--get used to it!" They weren't nice, and they weren't well-behaved, but you couldn't ignore them.

In the history of this country, no minority group has ever gained their rights by being nice and non-confrontational and waiting until people liked them. Right now, 52% of the voters in this state--my state, where I live and work and pay taxes--have effectively come into my house and torn up my marriage license. I'm angry about that. I have a right to be. And I refuse to sit around and hope that maybe someday, they'll like me enough to possibly give me back my right to spend my life with the person I love.

Fuck that shit.

My *really* last words on Prop 8

As soon as that poll came out, I knew where this would end up.

I've pointed out that the numbers are based on a single, flawed poll, and been accused of "abusing math" and "denying the obvious".

I've mentioned the ways in which the No on 8 campaign could have done a better job, both at outreach to communities of color, and in general (most ads against 8 never even mentioned the words gay or lesbian, and hardly any showed same-sex couples), and been told that I shouldn't blame the victims.

I've said over and over that pointing fingers is useless, but all some people want to do is complain about how black people are the most homophobic group in the country.

And the result? I decided not to attend the protest at the state capitol today, because I was afraid of what might happen. I no longer feel safe in a large group of my so-called queer brothers and sisters if they're mostly white--this despite the fact that November 5 was my 2-month anniversary, and I have no idea what the legal status of my marriage to the (German/Scottish/English, glow-in-the-dark white) love of my life is.

Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage and friends can keep blaming the brown people if it makes them feel better. This black dyke is through.

Black Voters and Prop 8: My Last Words

First, some links to discussion of the continuing nonsense:

Someone who saw this coming. She was dead-on.

An example of how the No on 8 campaign dropped the ball, especially with regards to people of color.

Stats showing that if black people hadn't voted, 8 still would have passed--and nationally, we'd be talking about President-elect McCain.

More number crunching. Pay special attention to the maps that show where 8 did well. The idea that California is one big hippie paradise is bullshit. California is mostly liberal along the coast and in the urban areas. Go east? Not. So. Much.

A thorough debunking:

...if Black folks were really 10% of the electorate, we would have contributed 1,730,409 registered voters to the pool. This is a number which with 5 minutes of demographic research any of the haters spewing "Black people are the Reason!" would have realized exceeds the entire Black adult population in the state by more than 300,000 people

Pam's original post from Wednesday. I admit that I was surprised by how many regular posters were trying to tell the black dyke siteowner that she didn't know what she was talking about.

Queer racists show their asses.

More commentary on the bullshit from recent protests.

A post on the "Solidarity (when we want something)!" attitude the big, overwhelmingly white LGBT organizations have toward communities of color.

A truly awesome post that pretty much sums it all up. (Thanks for the link).

And my final thoughts:

I've been banging my head against this wall for the three days now, and I'm over it.

Prop 8 didn't pass because of Obama's tepid opposition to it.

Prop 8 didn't pass because of black voters.

Prop 8 was put on the ballot by white evangelicals, and was bankrolled by rich white folks like Howard Amundson and the mother of Erik Prince, who owns Blackwater--and, of course, that organization noted for being so racially diverse, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Prop 8 passed because the Yes on 8 people ran a strong grassroots campaign, and because the No on 8 side was disorganized, timid, reactionary instead of being proactive, and complacent. I'm certainly guilty of the latter; when the early polls showed 8 down by 9 points, I assumed that people had seen through the stupid and realized that the 18,000 of us who'd already gotten married hadn't caused the world to end. Unfortunately, the No on 8 forces also made that assumption, and it wasn't until the Mormon-funded ads started running that people realized it wasn't going to be that easy.

So what was the response? To release ads that never mentioned the words "gay” or "lesbian", and hardly ever featured actual same-sex couples (and of course, everyone in the ads was white). Volunteers were told not to mention our children or our families, because the "protect the children" frame had already been claimed by the other side--even when they were using images of children in their ads without the parents' permission! There was almost no outreach to the Black and Latino communities until the last two weeks before the election; volunteers have said that heavily Mexican neighborhoods were left off the phone lists because there were no Spanish-speaking phone bankers. In California! While everyone worried that the black turnout for Obama would lead to more Yes votes, no one put out advertising quoting Obama saying Prop 8 was "divisive and unnecessary" until after the ones quoting him saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" went out.

There is homophobia in the black community, as with all racial and ethnic communities. Instead of trying to engage, the No on 8 campaign effectively wrote off the black voters of California. The white LGBTs who are wondering why black folks didn't stand in solidarity need to look in the mirror, at their own organizations that rarely have more than a token POC in leadership positions, that perpetuate racism by supporting people like Shirley Q. Liquor (and viciously attacking black LGBTs who point out said racism). Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage need to realize that solidarity is a two-way street, and that if you want black folks to see your invocation of the Civil Rights Movement as anything other than cultural appropriation, you need to engage on issues like immigration, health care, jobs, and housing instead of claiming the legacy of MLK while clinging stubbornly to your white male privilege.

And while you're at it, understand that right now, the people who put 8 on the ballot are laughing their heads off. While we're pointing fingers at each other, they're planning their next move. If we keep going this direction, we'll lose next time too.

Hearts and Minds

Thank you, former Governor Moonbeam: California will still recognize my marriage. Also, the first legal challenge against 8 has been filed, which argues that changes to the underlying principles of the constitution--like an amendment that contradicts the equal protection guarantees of said constitution--must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature before going to voters.

But even if we win in court, there's still another fight. The LBGT community and straight allies need to stop relying exclusively on the legal process to guarantee our rights. The Civil Rights Movement that the mainstream gay community loves to invoke involved a two-pronged strategy of changing the laws, along with coordinated effors on the ground to change people's hearts and minds. That will never happen if we only focus on the courts.

While it's heartening on one level that the vote was close....it never should have been this close in the first place. The opposition to No on 8 was out-organized and out-maneuvered, and that hurt us more than even the massive amounts of money raised by the Yes crowd; has a great post with an example of how No on 8 dropped the ball. There was enormous complacency--and I'm as guilty as anyone else there--after the first set of polls showing the No side with a huge lead. The other side was much better at connecting with voters on an emotional level, to make it all about children being forced to learn about gay marriage in school, or churches being sued for not marrying same-sex couples. We needed to say, "Here we are--your sisters and brothers and daughters and sons and cousins and nieces and aunts and nephews and uncles and co-workers and friends. These are the faces of the people this amendment will hurt. We are the ones you're saying don't deserve to be happy." We didn't say that loudly or often enough.

Blame the Brown People = Recipe for Failure

It seems like the frame for the passage of Prop 8 is going to be "It's because Obama's candidacy caused increased black turnout, and the black community is homophobic."

Never mind that it was voters 65 and over who put Prop 8 over the top, or that one of the whitest institutions in America--the Mormon Church--funnelled millions of dollars from Utah to California to make sure that 8 passed. The parts of the state that went solid for 8 were the inland areas, which are overwhelmingly white.

There's no question that homophobia is a problem in the black community, especially the churchgoing segment of said community. And even though I understand why Obama (and all of the other serious Democratic candidates) weaseled on marriage equality, that doesn't mean I'm not disappointed in him for not taking a strong stand against 8.

At the same time, I'm frustrated and angry by the rush to pin this defeat on African Americans. It wasn't a black group that put Prop 8 on the ballot, and paid the signature-gatherers and bankrolled the ads. Nor is it fair to say that Obama's have-it-both-ways position meant that black voters were going to march sheeplike to the polls and vote as Obama dictated.

Writing off an entire race as hopelessly unenlightened isn't going to help; in fact, a lot of the rhetoric I've seen in the left blogosphere tonight is only going to serve to reinforce the idea that "gay" = "white", and that the gay community only notices people of color when there's a comparison to the Civil Rights Movement to be made. And the Blame the Brown People push leaves those of us who are queer people of color marginalized by both of our communities.

That's not the way to build a coalition, and it's not the way to win.

The fight goes on

I'm disappointed, no question; although it's not quite over yet, it certainly doesn't look good: Prop 8 is leading by 4 percentage points.

But tomorrow...we get up and fight this thing. Allowing a simple majority to take civil rights away from a minority is simply wrong.

I do want to thank all of you who donated, canvassed, phone banked, and voted against this constitutional obscenity.

For everyone who voted for Prop 8?

Karma's a motherfucking bitch, and I'm confident that sooner or later, the hate you spewed will be returned in full measure.

"You're calling the wrong house."

That's what I said to the chipper young woman who called from "Yes on 8", asking to speak to Ruth. I also told her that what she was doing was hurtful and wrong, and that she needed to think about what she was doing. Then I hung up.

I should have said, "I don't want to talk to you, and neither does my wife."

I'd actually thought that if someone called, I'd try to engage them in dialogue. As it turns out, I was just proud of myself for not yelling at her and asking what I'd ever done to her, why her side was lying like a bunch of lying liars that lie, and why she was such a hateful bigot who couldn't mind her own fucking business and keep her nose out of my life.

I didn't say that. But I'm tired of being fucking nice to people who believe that I should be a second-class citizen, so I was sure thinking it. Loudly.

Sam Has Spoken

....and he's telling the motherfucking bigots to get off the motherfucking state constitution:

Our Marriage: Let Us Show You It

If this is kind of disjointed and rambly, it's because I finally failed my "Save vs. Current Cold Virus". I felt like death insufficiently warmed over when I woke up yesterday morning, so I stayed home and slept most of the day. Telesilla made her awesome cold-weather lentil stew and did a load of laundry. I had some stew when I woke up, along with a couple of the cookies we made Sunday night. At some point, I may play some CoX and try to get the Zombie Apocalypse badges for more of my characters, and I may write a bit; Telesilla's still getting over her cold; she's gone to bed already and is asleep with the kitten curled up on the pillow next to her.

It's a pretty typical evening for us, really. Our idea of an exciting night is going out to dinner--if we're really feeling adventurous, we'll go somewhere other than the local tacqueria or the little cafe with the awesome crepes. Once a month, we'll go into the Bay Area to hang out with friends, and once a year for the past three years we've gone up to Sea Ranch in February with friends for a writing weekend.

This is pretty much our glamourous lesbian lifestyle: a couple of chubby middle-aged women in an apartment in Northern California with two cats, driving a 7-year-old Volkswagen Bug with fuzzy d20's hanging from the rearview mirror. This is what's being described as "Armageddon" and "more important than the presidential election" by some on the right. We're the great threat to "traditional marriage". We're the reason the California constitution has to be amended, because otherwise more people like us, might get married.

I've commented on several blogs now, asking for someone to list specific examples of how our marriage has harmed theirs--or affected their lives in any way. Strangely enough, no one's taken the challenge. No one's been able to explain exactly how traditional marriage has become such a fragile entity that it must be defended from a couple of geeky lesbian fangirls, or why 50%+1 of California voters should be allowed to decide whether my marriage is valid when I wake up on November 5.

I feel like I should say something profound, but the truth is that our marriage is made up of a collection of tiny, mundane moments--just like the marriage of everyone else I know. How is telling us that we can't get married because we're both girls any different than telling us we can't get married because I'm black and Telesilla's white? How is this so important that state law has to be changed? How is this--how are we--a threat to anyone?

The answer is simple: it isn't, and we're not. Proposition 8 is unfair, because it will write discrimination into law. Proposition 8 is unnecessary, because marriage doesn't need protecting from us. Proposition 8 is wrong, because it says that we don't deserve to be happy because of who we love.

*sigh*

After weeks of poll numbers indicating that voters in CA were going to reject Prop 8, two new polls are showing it ahead.

Please, please, those of you in CA...get out and vote. I want to stay married.

*incoherent frothing*

I can't...this is...WHAT THE FUCK???

The Sac Bee has a story about a couple who refused to sign the wedding licence in Sacramento because it refers to "Party A" and "Party B" rather than "Bride" and "Groom". They feel that their rights have been violated by the use of the non-traditional language.

I wonder if they refused to fill out their license forms at the County Clerk's office. It's all computerized now, and I'm pretty sure that's not "traditional".

The real kicker, though, is at the end of the article:

For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.

He's 29.

She's 25.

Sounds like I'm not the one whose marriage needs to be "protected".

*flails*

In a little less than 16 hours, Telesilla and I will be married.

I'm only freaking out a little.

The rings came today--the right ones. We'd ordered them off Amazon at the beginning of August, and they arrived promptly, but both in the same size instead of a 6 and an 8. I called, and the woman sent another--size 7. We sent those back, and she sent a size 8, but in the wrong pattern. Today, she sent a 6 and an 8 in the pattern we wanted, so that's right, at least.

We had an appointment this afternoon at 1o go to a local spa and get our faces done. We got there on time, but the place was closed. I called and didn't get anyone, and it was hot, so we came home. About half an hour ago, I fiinally heard from the spa lady. She's been sick, which is fine, but hello? Call and let me know?

Tonight, we went out for sushi, so I'm feeling better, if a bit full. And yeah, still kind of nervous about this whole getting married thing.

Rest in Peace, Del Martin

Pioneering lesbian rights activist Del Martin died yesterday in San Francisco at the age of 87. Two months ago, she and her life partner Phyllis Lyon--together for 55 years--were legally married.

I'm sad that it took so long, glad that it did happen in her lifetime, and above all, I'm grateful. She paved the way for me to marry this weird chick I know (next week!).

Thank you, Del. You and Phyllis will be in both of our thoughts next Friday.

Why I Love Her

I love Telesilla for a lot of reasons, including the fact that she often says things so I don't have to. For example, her post on the latest ass-showing moment in SGA fandom. Or her post on same-sex marriages, including ours.

So, yeah. September 5. It's just going to be us, a couple of our friends as witnesses, and the Sacramento County Clerk. We're saving up to move, so we didn't want to try to do anything extravagant, but we wanted to make it all official before November, just in case the ballot initiative to ban our marriage goes through. Don't worry--we'll give our friends plenty of notice before having the big party. :-)

We're not registering for stuff or really expecting gifts this time, but if you know us and want to do something, we've registered here (give it a couple of days before you try) with Equality California’s Marriage PAC, which is working to defeat the ballot initiative.