It comes down to this: I know too many people who would be traumatized by the kind of treatment the TSA has made mandatory. I can think of too many cases where either the backscatter machines or the invasive patdowns would cause lasting damage, the kind no flight is worth:

• My prosthetic breasts are none of your concern. Even if I’m a man.
• No, my child will not remove her cancer wig so you can check it for weapons.
• No, I will not tell my child that sexual assault by a government official is “a game.”

You get the idea. Privacy is important. For some people, it’s vitally important. And it’s relevant, because I have not committed a crime. Getting on an airplane is not probable cause to believe I will.

Yes, I realize that not all these cases apply to me. I also know that my family won’t necessarily be subjected to the backscatter or the patdown. The point—and to me it’s the only important point—is that no one deserves to be treated this way, and I refuse to support a system that does so.

Each time I choose not to fly, I’ll send a letter to the airline I would have used, the airports I would have gone through, and the TSA to let them know why. I hope that eventually they’ll see reason and do away with these crazy searches. Until then, I won’t fly.

For reasons to stay angry, follow the ongoing news on Reddit’s Flying With Dignity group or get a stream of images from The Daily Patdown.

Gay marriage is to be permitted in the US state of Maine after a bill was passed by both houses of the state’s legislature and signed by the governor.

Maine will be the fifth US state to allow gay marriage, after Connecticut, Masschusetes, Iowa and Vermont.

A number of other states, including New Hampshire and New York, are also due to consider proposals to legalise it.

Well done, New Englanders! Um, and Iowa. (Still having a hard time coming to grips with that one.) Oh, and Prop 8? Your days are numbered.

UPDATE: John notes that for those keeping score, there’s a nice map of marriage and civil union status in all US states over at Wikipedia.

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” the Supreme Court wrote in its decision. “The Legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

…and there you go. Well done, Iowa! The future welcomes you.

Marriage = legitimacy.

That is, if LGBT folks can marry, it means that their relationships are legitimate. Socially sanctioned. Official. Recognized. Everything else hangs off of that. Everything.

“Domestic partnership” or “civil union,” regardless of how many rights they confer on the couple, does not carry the same weight that the word “marriage” has in our society or our psyches.

From an article in the L.A. Times last May:

Many gay Californians said that even the state’s broadly worded domestic partnership law provided only a second-class substitute for marriage. The court agreed.

Giving a different name, such as “domestic partnership,” to the “official family relationship” of same-sex couples imposes “appreciable harm” both on the couples and their children, the court said.

The distinction might cast “doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples,” [Chief Justice] George wrote . . .

The ruling cited a 60-year-old precedent that struck down a ban on interracial marriage in California.

Unfortunately, it looks like the CA Supreme Court (after making such a sweeping statement in the marriage cases that allowed LGBT marriage in CA in the first place!) will decide that Prop 8 is NOT a constitutional revision to the CA state constitution. Their argument being, in short, that LGBT folks have all the same rights under the CA domestic partnership, so what’s in a name? (You can see why the lawyers arguing the case were shocked to hear this reasoning after the Court’s decision last May.) It’s only taking away a little bit of the rights of a minority (i.e. suspect) class to let Prop 8 stand. And it’s not really a structural change to the CA constitution and therefore not really a revision. Plus, the “power of the people” is also a right and striking down Prop 8 would infringe on that. Here is a decent summary in the most recent issue of Time and a really good, more in-depth article in the L.A. Times.

Fortunately, the law is pretty clear on retroactive propositions in California: if retroactivity was not specifically stated in the proposition, then said proposition is not retroactive. Prop 8 does not have any language along those lines (regardless of the one weak statement in a rebuttal argument in a voter information pamphlet). This means that the 18,000 LGBT couples who married in California will most likely get to keep their marriages yet no more LGBT folks can get married.

So, I have a few questions for the Court: I wonder what happened to the power of the 48% of the people who voted against Prop 8? And splitting hairs on how much of a right we can take away? Once you open that door, where does it stop?

On a side note, George Takei is 71?!? Criminy! Yet another person I can see storming around when he’s 120, shouting, “I’m one hundred and twenty!”

San Diego County issued a record 230 marriage licenses today and performed 144 wedding ceremonies on the first day gay and lesbian couples were allowed to marry in San Diego.

County officials did not break down the license requests or the ceremonies by whether the couples were same-sex or heterosexual, but many gay couples were seen getting married Tuesday by the media on this landmark day.

Congrats to the happy couples! Know anyone who’s getting married thanks to the new ruling?

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.

“Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody – not just in the state of California, but throughout the country – will have equal treatment under the law,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

Let’s hope so. Even the Governator understands that continuing to fight progress isn’t doing anyone any good:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Indeed. Now, let’s see some weddings!

Gov. Eliot Spitzer proposed legislation on Friday that would make New York the second state in the country to legally sanction same-sex marriage, fulfilling a longtime pledge to supporters of gay rights.

Mr. Spitzer has acknowledged that he does not expect the bill to pass the State Legislature and return to his desk anytime soon. Earlier this week, he said that he would submit the proposal anyway, “because it’s a statement of principle that I believe in, and I want to begin that dynamic.”

See my previous post for more history.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

I can’t wait to see what comes of this.  No matter how it goes, they’ve introduced their ideas into the discussion.  Yay, subversion!