LawGeek

Arkansas ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

Arkansas ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban.

In the lawsuit filed today, the ACLU argues that Act 1 violates the federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Participating in the case are 29 adults and children from over a dozen different families, including a grandmother who lives with her same-sex partner of nine years and is the only relative able and willing to adopt her grandchild who is now in Arkansas state care, several married heterosexual couples who have relatives or friends disqualified by Act 1 who they want to adopt their children if they die, and a heterosexual woman who wants to be a foster or adoptive parent but can't because she lives with her partner of five years.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eisenbahner/2930445740/
(fear)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nerdcoregirl/2626509835/
(reality)

One day you are in, and the next day you are out

From: Sociological Images

EFF Podcast PSAs available

Are you a Podcaster? Support EFF? If so, we'd love you to consider inserting one of these suckers in your next episode.  Pick from the voices of Brad Templeton, Joe Krauss, Cory Doctorow, John Gilmore, Larry Lessig, or Sarah Deutsch, or feel free to record your own and send it to us!

 

Men's Rights Group completely misses the point of pregnancy prevention

Update: Check out the brilliant response to this ridiculosity by William Saletan over at Slate. (Thanks Anilucia!)

Here's a good example of what gives men such a bad name with feminists:

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.  We already have a tough enough time having fathers contribute to the raising of their children, both financially and emotionally.  The issue here isn't what's best for the woman or the man but for the child.  A woman's right to choose is about control over her body before the child is born.  During that time, the potential father has no obligation to the woman or the fetus. (Although some argue he should).  Once the baby is born, though, the issue is about what's best for the kid and the kid's life. At that point, the mother can't avoid her obligations to the child, so neither should the father.

Seriously guys, if you don't want to pay for the kid, there's a simple answer: Use a condom.

(Thanks Cathy!)

Man opposes "Dykes on Bikes" TM as "hateful to men"

WTF? As if this saga couldn't get any more mired down in repressiveness, The Trademark Blog reports that a California man has now filed an opposition to the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent application to register the mark DYKES ON BIKES because it would "foster hatred of men."

TTB author Marty points out:

because, you know, lesbians hate men. Although not so much hate as in a tracking them down and killing them kind of hate, but more of sort of a not having sex with them hate.

Opposer makes a 'disparagement' argument, not a "'scandalous or immoral' material" argument. That the application was approved signals (but is not determinative) of how the Board would come out on whether the term DYKES is scandalous or immoral.

Arguing that the registration of a mark that merely identifies a group (in contrast to a "I HATE [name of group]" mark), disparages some other group, is somewhat novel.

For groups for whom hatred of another group is an essential organizing principle, the 'scandalous or immoral' clause may be more applicable. For example, an application that contained the term KU KLUX KLAN recently received the following rejection:

"Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(a); TMEP Section 1203.01. According to the attached evidence from the Internet, the proposed mark includes the wording KU KLUX KLAN and is thus scandalous because a majority of the public finds references to the KU KLUX KLAN offensive in light of their beliefs and historical behavior.

It's silly that we even have to have this fight in the first place, but its also a fascinating example of how context is everything in nomenclature.  Even if you equated the exclusivity of the KKK with the idea of Dykes on Bikes focusing exclusively on women, the fact that the KKK advocates torturing and killing people is what makes it offensive.  As much as some men want to believe most lesbians attack men, there's little to no evidence of that and certainly no evidence that DOB are organized around that purpose the way the KKK is.

Man, I hope this opposition is a joke. Either way, it should be treated as one.

Blizzard institutes Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in WoW?

Update: Blizzard has apologized! Nice to see them willing to rethink their policy and make amends.

According to Newsweekly, Blizzard Entertainment is banning explicitly queer-friendly guilds in its mega-popular World of Warcraft online multi-player gaming world:

Andrews' original posting read: "OZ [the name of her guild] is recruiting all levels � We are not 'GLBT only,' but we are 'GLBT friendly'! (guilduniverse.com/oz)" In her follow-up letter to the company, Andrews explained that there was an obvious misunderstanding and that she was not insulting anyone, but merely recruiting for a "GLBT friendly" guild.

The response from Blizzard was, "While we appreciate and understand your point of view, we do feel that the advertisement of a 'GLBT friendly' guild is very likely to result in harassment for players that may not have existed otherwise. If you will look at our policy, you will notice the suggested penalty for violating the Sexual Orientation Harassment Policy is to 'be temporarily suspended from the game.' However, as there was clearly no malicious intent on your part, this penalty was reduced to a warning."

So what, Blizzard now has a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy?

Gamer John Blatzheim, who heard of Andrews' situation, e-mailed Blizzard to express his concern of a double standard that game masters would send her a warning that she could not use "GLBT" as an advertisement to express a safe place for gay gamers after an incident a few months ago where a plague occurred within the game and players yelled in general chat, "Don't get the AIDS!"

"Many people are insulted just at the word 'homosexual' or any other word referring to sexual orientation," Blizzard responded to Blatzheim in an e-mail. "Also to discriminate against other players, such as not allowing any heterosexuals into the guild simply because of their sexual orientation, could cause extreme offense to a large percentage of our players and should be avoided."

Stonewall Champions and The Spreading Taint, two large gay guilds are currently formulating a letter they plan to submit to Blizzard requesting a more detailed explanation as to the intent of this reinterpretation and execution of the sexual harassment rule.

"We have determined that advertising sexual orientation is not appropriate for the high fantasy setting of the World of Warcraft and is therefore not permitted" was another of Blizzard's responses.

Sara Andrews has stated that she will not be renewing her World of Warcraft account due to Blizzards lack of support for a GLBT friendly environment, "It seems to be OK for general chat to be flooded with, 'That's so gay!' and 'I just got ganked! What a fag!' yet advertising for a GLBT friendly environment where we don't have to deal with such language is deemed inappropriate."

Just one more reason why you should be able to build your own server emulator and create your own rules for playing the game you want to play.

FDN: Alito Refuses to acknowledge Roe as "Settled Law"

Feminist Daily News: Alito Refuses to Say Roe is 'Settled Law'.

Alito Refuses to Say Roe is 'Settled Law' In questioning yesterday by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito not only refused to say whether he believed the Constitution protected a woman’s right to choose abortion, he also would not say whether he considered Roe to be 'settled law.' “If settled means that it can’t be reexamined, then that’s one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect ... then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way,” said Alito.

Senator Durbin, speaking with reporters during a break in the hearings yesterday, summarized fears of Alito’s views on women’s reproductive rights, saying, “It really, I’m afraid, leaves open the possibility that we are considering the nomination of a justice who will change 30 years of law in this country, a dramatic change to the American society,” the Washington Post reports.

Alito said he would approach cases involving Roe with an “open mind” -- words that recall Justice Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings. Just months after Thomas’ confirmation to the high court, he joined a dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that made his position clear: “We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases.”

Without drawing too much ire in the pro-choice/abortion debates, I think the honest insight one can draw out here is simply that if confirmed, all bets are off on what Alito would do re: Roe v. Wade.  He might uphold it; he might overturn it; he might modify it.  But there is certainly no guarantee in his statement that it would remain part of a Constitutional right to privacy or that it couldn't be outlawed under his watch.

Sunday in Oakland, CA: Panel on the future of Political Movements

I'm not a huge fan of panels, but this one could be pretty cool:

The Future of Struggle: Movement Veterans Discuss Yesterday's Lessons for Today

A moderated panel discussion featuring movement veterans, Ward Churchill (American Indian Movement), Kathleen Cleaver (Black Panther Party), Bo Brown (George Jackson Brigade), Russell Means (American Indian Movement), Yuri Kochiyama (Civil Rights Activist), Mike James (SDS, Rising Up Angry), Barry Romo (Vietnam Veterans Against the War), and Elizabeth Martinez (Chicana activist & author).

Key figures in various radical movements discuss lessons learned over the last four decades of activism, how these lessons can be applied to work being done today, and discuss, in their view, how we must move forward.

When: Sunday, December 4th – 6:30 pm (doors at 6 pm)
Where: First Unitarian Church of Oakland,685 14th St. Oakland
Cost:    $15 per person

Advance Tickets at City Lights and Modern Times in SF, and in the East Bay at Cody's, Walden Pond and Black Oak Books. Co-sponsored by KPFA and City Lights.

(Thanks Leda!)

Profile of activist Van Jones

The East Bay Express has a nice article on Van Jones, an up-and-coming leader in the progressive movement for social change.

I particularly like how they discuss his approach to movement-building and the importance of being willing to change your own outlook on issues and tactics as you go along:

First, he discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary. "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," he said. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

His new philosophy emphasizes effectiveness, which he believes is inextricably tied to unity. He still considers himself a revolutionary, just a more effective one, who has realized that the progressive left's insistence on remaining a counterculture destroys its potential as a political movement. "One of my big heroes is Malcolm X, not because I agree with Malcolm, but because he wasn't afraid to change in public," he said.

Devising a new strategy for the left went hand-in-hand with finding a new approach in his personal life and relationships. Jones said he arrived at that by harking back to his roots. Although he had spent many childhood summers in "sweaty black churches," and in college had discovered the black liberation theology that reinterprets the Christ story as an anticolonial struggle, he had pulled away from spirituality during his communist days. During his 2000 crisis, he looked for answers in Buddhism, the philosophy known as deep ecology, and at open-minded institutions such as the East Bay Church of Religious Science.

The last step was learning to ignore critics from within the movement who didn't appreciate his new philosophy and allies. "I'm confused half the time about what I'm doing, but none of the things that leftists use to discipline each other into marginality have any power over me anymore," he said. "It's like, 'Oh, you're working with white people.' Or 'Who are you accountable to?' A lot of the things that we say to each other to keep anybody from getting too uppity, too effective, I just don't listen to anymore. I care about the progressive movements as they are, but I mainly care about all of our movements becoming a lot bigger and a lot stronger."

Yay! California Prop 73 headed to defeat

According to SFGate, with 86.2% of precincts reporting, Prop 73, the parental abortion notification law, is headed for defeat:

Yes 2,779,963 48.2%

No 2,984,224 51.8%

Congrats to all those that campaigned against this condescending, dangerous, and restrictive measure.