more anger as obama proves he really doesn't give a shit about queer folks.

Dear fauxgressives,

Hey, so I know you folks love defending our new president. I got that, hope and change and all that crap. But be aware, telling queer folks we just have to be PATIENT, that Obama has more important things to do than worry about, you know, us not being second-class citizens, is pretty much absolute bullshit.

Yes, I know, it's hard to have his job, he's got so many things to do, LGBT is just one more. But I do seem to recall someone saying not too long ago that a president ought to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Who was that? Oh yes. Obama. And I seem to recall someone claiming to be supportive of LGBT folks during his campaign. Who was that? Oh that's right! It was Obama. And clearly, that was one, huge, bald-faced LIE.

You know what folks? You want to ask LGBT people to wait for our rights? To get in line and wait till there are no wars, no ecconomic troubles, no natural disasters, no elections, no other things to do? Fine, ask away. But then do us a courtesy and don't call yourselves allies. Allies aren't going to ask us to wait and get in line until some benevolent politician decides to hand us our rights. Allies are going to be at our side, fighting and critizising a goverment that clearly despises us, even if we voted that governement in. Got that? So you wanna ask us to wait? Fine. Don't call yourself an ally and make it easier for us to figure out who is actually on our side.

And for those of you who say things like "Well, he had to defend the law" let me say this. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO CALL US PEDOPHILES AND COMPARE GAY MARRIAGE TO INCEST.

"The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void")."

This makes me so ridiculously mad. So I'm posting a link to a site that has a good selection of quotations from the brief and a link to the monstrosity itself. Go read and enjoy or at least, understand, enjoyment isn't really possible.

Just make it clear. You're on our side? Beautiful. You're not? Well don't lie and say you are, specially if it's just so we'll donate to your campaign fund and then hang out long enough for you to stab us in the back.

In conclusion, thanks Obama! I'm glad the first person I ever voted for is more than happy to ditch me and folks like me the moment it becomes convienient.

Hugs and kisses

-Dwyn